Encouraging immigrants

[Claude Desmoulins]

Despite the interesting points this has raised, it is likely unnecessary to "do" anything. Positions such as the Chancellor and Judges are chosen by [i:1lo2drcm]groups [/i:1lo2drcm]of people familiarity and interaction with the community are certainly things these groups can take into consideration.

My only concern is that the PJSP shouldn't be forced to select a judge with which it might not be comfortable (vis a vis the issues of community interaction we're highlighting) just because the chair has indicated that there ought be x judges and the candidate in question is the only one available.

If there's no one whom the community is comfortable with able and willing to go through the qualification process, that's a distinct issue.

[michelmanen]

[quote:3f70azcn]1. I for one believe we should have alternate paths to citizenship (other than owning land), as I proposed in my CDS constitution. However, having someone with no financial ties to the community other than receiving a salary (which is a pittance anyhow) does not support the ability to punish them for wrongdoing.[/quote:3f70azcn]

I agree. Please see my residency proposal above addressing your point about the inconsistency between the 28-day voting period and immediate ability to stand for office.

Regarding punishment, if a resident commits a really serious infraction whilst a citizen, we have the ultimate punishment tool: deny him/her citizenship and all that entails (in addition, most likely, to losing his/ her position). For minor infractions, salary deductions will proably be enough.

[quote:3f70azcn]2. I disagree that there are skill sets we desperately need which are not already part of our community. We have talked in several threads about what I perceive as over-professionalization (and subsequent marginalization of non-RL-professionals).[/quote:3f70azcn]

This may be seen as an issue in a community of less than 100; as we grow, things will look different. Non-RL professionals have their own in-world activities, whether commercial, artistic, or otherwise. The appointed officials are there to ensure all goes smoothly for them. In a community of 1000 or more, where the percentage of appointed professionals will go down significantly from the current lets say 25 % (I am just guessing) to less than 2%, the issue will be much less important.

[quote:3f70azcn]3. A position of public trust, especially in institutions which have not yet developed public trust (i.e. the judiciary, archivists, and Chief Engineer), can not be had merely by working with others in those institutions. Citizens (who they serve, right?) need to have confidence in them.[/quote:3f70azcn]

I agree. What counts here is not lenth of time, but quality of interactions, which should be part of the inreview process. I do not see how length of time could bring additional benefits, for reasons already stated in posts above.

[quote:3f70azcn]4. I repeat that our requirements for public service work should not in any case be less than our requirements for voting, which is the fundamental form of participation in a democracy.[/quote:3f70azcn]

No, the issues are different. See my post above to Claude.

[quote:3f70azcn]5. The speed at which immigration is possible, plus our desire to avoid illegal ex post facto laws, mean that we must be careful about how new community members are assimilated such that we don't find a wave of newcomers seizing control of the assets of the community through elections.[/quote:3f70azcn]

We have to be careful how we word this so as not to appear like we're tryig to keep people out. I think having a resident category would address most of your issues here.

[michelmanen]

Claude wrote:

[quote:q26ifx9i]My only concern is that the PJSP shouldn't be forced to select a judge with which it might not be comfortable (vis a vis the issues of community interaction we're highlighting) just because the chair has indicated that there ought be x judges and the candidate in question is the only one available. [/quote:q26ifx9i]

How can the PJSP be forced to do so? That's why we have a PJSP made up of community members in the first place. A candidate, even if deemed suitable by the Chieg Judge, can always be rejected by the PJSP if its members feel uncomfortable with him/ her. If only one candidate is available, then the PJSP will have to balance our need for a person with his / her skills and the level of discomfort. But, in the end, the PJSP can always choose either way- it is never forced into a decision.

[Beathan]

Michel Manen wrote [quote:33l19011]This may be seen as an issue in a community of less than 100; as we grow, things will look different. Non-RL professionals have their own in-world activities, whether commercial, artistic, or otherwise. The appointed officials are there to ensure all goes smoothly for them. In a community of 1000 or more, where the percentage of appointed professionals will go down significantly from the current lets say 25 % (I am just guessing) to less than 2%, the issue will be much less important.
[/quote:33l19011]

Michel --

Where is this analysis coming from? First, if professionals are not now required to do the job, why do we need them? Your answer, I think, is because if we get much bigger (which is our goal -- although it is speculative that we will achieve it), amateur judges will not have the right skills. Possibly true, but by then our "amateur" judges would have been doing it a while and would have learned how to do it by doing it. (Assuming, of course, that we have given them a job they can do, rather than saddling them with a Code of Procedure that only a professional can navigate.)

Second, where are your numbers coming from? I don't trust your statistics. I am reminded of a common saying in debate circles, "87% of statistics are made up." If we now have 25% professionals in our population of around 100 (I actually think the number is much higher as long as we don't limit the term "professional" to people like lawyers and doctors, but apply it to people with post-secondary professional training), what reason do we have to believe that this percentage will fall off, let alone fall off so substantially that the real number of professionals we will have at a population of 1000 will be less (20 rather than 25) than the number we will have at 100? This assumes a significant change in immigration patterns, and I see no reason to believe that any such change is likely. Given the nature of our project, I expect that we attract and will continue to attract people who are more educated and "highbrow" than the SL community at large.

I see no major change coming -- unless we scare off professionals other than the favored class of legal elites that will form under the Judiciary Act. However, this is no reason to court professionals as you and Ash propose. This is, rather, a reason to repeal the Judiciary Act.

Further, I don't see how a waiting period for offices creates a group of "second class citizens". Rather, it defines standards for office holding. Citizens are all equal as citizens. All are subject to the same rules and standards. However, some meet those standards, and some don't. This is not unequal in any abstract or legally suspect sense. (I have given my "relevant difference" analysis elsewhere.) Rather, it is a realistic response to realistic concerns. Some offices have a waiting period -- but the right to seek office is still guaranteed to all citizens when abstracted it is from the timeline. (Further, given that every one of our offices has a term of longer than 28 days, I think it is rational for office-seekers to prove, before obtaining office, that they plan to stick around. I also think it is important that office holders come from within the community they serve if possible -- and, if not possible, we should first determine if we can adjust the office to attract inside talent before we turn to outside recruitment.)

The current Judicial system, on the contrary, threatens to create a durable ruling class of legal professionals. This, more than anything else currently of issue in this community, threatens to destroy the essential equality of all citizens. This, more than anything, must be changed.

Beathan

[Ashcroft Burnham]

Michel makes a very good point: the absolute amount of [i:1ta8m9p3]time[/i:1ta8m9p3] is inherently arbitrary: it is what one [i:1ta8m9p3]does[/i:1ta8m9p3] in that time that counts. As Claude points out, the "community" requirement is likely to be fulfilled, not by imposing a minimum time plucked out of the air, but by the election and appointment mechanisms of our various public officials practically requiring those who appoint and elect them to have some confidence in them.

As to Beathan's point about amateur judges, the work that judges have to do is not less difficult merely because there are fewer citizens. If you accept that professional judges will be needed if there are 1,000 of us, then it follows that they are needed if there are just 100 (or even 65) of us. It is the [i:1ta8m9p3]amount[/i:1ta8m9p3], not the complexity, of judicial work that increases in line with the population.

[Claude Desmoulins]

I think it would help here if Michel could clarify what he means by professional. Is it a matter of getting paid, one of belonging to a profession, such as medicine or law, in RL which self regulates, or is it something else?

[Beathan]

Ash, I don't accept that we will need professional judges when the population is 1,000, or 100,000, or 100,000,000. To me, professionalization is entirely a function of two things: 1. how we set up our dispute resolution mechanism (procedural complexity) and 2. how many and how complicated our general law are (substantive complexity). Frankly, I think, given the nature of SL, that we can avoid complexity in both areas for a long, perhaps even an indefinite, time.

I was assuming Michel's point for the sake of argument. That is all. However, even taking his point up, for argument, there is no good reason not to have some enculturation requirement for officeholding.

I do agree, however, with your and his general point that quality of civic participation matters more than quantity (at least in pure temporal terms) of that participation. However, I see any standard of roadmarks and hurdles based on attendance at civic functions, etc. as being overly complicated and easily abused. Although imperfect, temporal residency requirements are less subject to manipulation and abuse and are easier to navigate. Thus, I think a residency requirement is the best available rule.

Beathan

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3e6cv1r8]Michel makes a very good point: the absolute amount of [i:3e6cv1r8]time[/i:3e6cv1r8] is inherently arbitrary: it is what one [i:3e6cv1r8]does[/i:3e6cv1r8] in that time that counts. As Claude points out, the "community" requirement is likely to be fulfilled, not by imposing a minimum time plucked out of the air, but by the election and appointment mechanisms of our various public officials practically requiring those who appoint and elect them to have some confidence in them. [/quote:3e6cv1r8]

You're right. What do you think would be the best system for ensuring this?

[quote:3e6cv1r8]As to Beathan's point about amateur judges, the work that judges have to do is not less difficult merely because there are fewer citizens. If you accept that professional judges will be needed if there are 1,000 of us, then it follows that they are needed if there are just 100 (or even 65) of us. It is the [i:3e6cv1r8]amount[/i:3e6cv1r8], not the complexity, of judicial work that increases in line with the population.[/quote:3e6cv1r8]

Well, as for me, I do NOT accept that "professional" judges will ever be needed in this system, any more than professional architects, teachers, real estate agents, accountants, and so on are needed in SL. At least, not in the way we think of professionals in the real world - having to have some kind of RL degree or certification, which in any case varies from country to country.

Certainly having RL knowledge to bring CAN be helpful, but not having such knowledge should in no case be a barrier to taking up work in SL. In fact, in some cases, having the real world baggage which come along with RL requirements is a liability, as we have seen from forum discussions that go into minutiae about arbitration law and contract law that have little or no bearing whatsoever on the SL experience or our needs as a community.

As a professional educator, I see this with education in SL - some of the best teachers in SL are people who have no RL classroom and no education degree, while RL educators who do have those things often have a hard time reimagining what can be in SL, and putting things into their most usable and useful forms.

The more important qualification in just about any field in SL (and yes, I include fields of finance, law, and education among them) is the ability to learn, imagine, and adapt - not slavishly and unncessarily impose RL constraints on a world and community that doesn't need them.

I also note that no one has yet responded to my question: if RL degrees or certifications do become required for work in the CDS, how will we verify the RL identities of the people who claim to have them? Will such identities be made public so we can check on the RL history and experience of these "professionals"?

[michelmanen]

[quote:3eq8hqvp] First, if professionals are not now required to do the job, why do we need them? [/quote:3eq8hqvp]

By "professionals" I do not necessarily mean RL professionals ; I mean individuals who have specific skills we need in-world (the two may overlap, of course, but not necessarily entirely).

I agree with you that if we define as professionals "people with post-secondary professional training", we will end up with probably a majority of them. Needless to say, I don't think this is the appropriate definition.

You are right about the statistics. I totally made them up according to what I think is the case -for argument purposes. If we need real data, we can do a census in CDS and see where we stand. My point was, that the percentage as professionals (my definition) who ensure CDS runs smoothly will be a much lower percentage of the population as we grow than it is today - exactly because the institutions we set up are solid enough to accomodate for exponential growth.

As for the Code, well, we wil have an ADR process, which I salute, and had proposed to Ashcroft some time ago. Let's test both systems and see the patterns of use and success and satisfaction rates before going back to your "Carthago delenda est" hobyhorse....

[quote:3eq8hqvp] Given the nature of our project, I expect that we attract and will continue to attract people who are more educated and "highbrow" than the SL community at large.[/quote:3eq8hqvp]

Agreed. I rather think this is a positive thing, don't you?

[quote:3eq8hqvp]However, this is no reason to court professionals as you and Ash propose. [/quote:3eq8hqvp]

If, as I propose, we define professionals as individuals with a seet of skills we need in our community, we have every reason to seek to attract them. If we defined them as you seem to propose (people with post-secondary professional training), according to your own analysis above we can do little to stop them from joining.

[quote:3eq8hqvp]Further, I don't see how a waiting period for offices creates a group of "second class citizens". Rather, it defines standards for office holding.[/quote:3eq8hqvp]

I beg do differ. This is not RL. We don't live full-time here and go out of our house and interact at all time with fellow citizens, as iRL. Here, i can be a citizen for one year and talk a grand total of zero times to a fellow citizens, should I choose to do so. Wwhat counts is quality of interactions with other fellow citizens. Any culturation standards we develop should be based on quality of interactions with fellow citizens, not length of residence. Let's try to adapt our iRL experiences to in-world "realities"- don't you think?

[quote:3eq8hqvp]Citizens are all equal as citizens. All are subject to the same rules and standards. However, some meet those standards, and some don't. [/quote:3eq8hqvp]

"All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others?" Sorry, I dont buy this. I lived long enough in a communist regime to make me totally impervious to any such type of discrimination between "categories" of citizens. Either one IS a citizen, or not. There can be no artificial distinction between "categories" of citizens. I will never accept that, whatever you say.

[quote:3eq8hqvp]I think it is rational for office-seekers to prove, before obtaining office, that they plan to stick around. [/quote:3eq8hqvp]

This cannot be proven- in-world or even iRL. There is nothing to stop any individual to leave CDS at any time. Everything else is pure conjecture and guess-work.
[quote:3eq8hqvp]
I also think it is important that office holders come from within the community they serve if possible -- and, if not possible, we should first determine if we can adjust the office to attract inside talent before we turn to outside recruitment.)[/quote:3eq8hqvp]

I have no problem with that - as long as it does not mean lowering the standards of the skill-set we are looking for.

[quote:3eq8hqvp]The current Judicial system, on the contrary, threatens to create a durable ruling class of legal professionals. This, more than anything else currently of issue in this community, threatens to destroy the essential equality of all citizens.
[/quote:3eq8hqvp]

You confuse equality with sameness. We all can have (and do have, thank God!) highly different and diverse skills, and still be citizens (by definition eqaul). Diversity of (private) personal skills and characteristics is fully compatible with the (public) equality of all citizens. From this perspective, your recurring anti-elitist diatribes have no meaning at all.... So let's stay constructive rather than pursue our iRL hobby-horses in here; it doesn't add much to our environment -if anything, it makes it less enjoyable...

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="michelmanen":16stns45]"All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others?" Sorry, I dont buy this. I lived long enough in a communist regime to make me totally impervious to any such type of discrimination between "categories" of citizens. Either one IS a citizen, or not. There can be no artificial distinction between "categories" of citizens. I will never accept that, whatever you say.[/quote:16stns45]

This is how you said you feel about a requirement to hold office that would consider length of residency.

[quote:16stns45]You confuse equality with sameness. We all can have (and do have, thank God!) highly different and diverse skills, and still be citizens (by definition eqaul). Diversity of (private) personal skills and characteristics is fully compatible with the (public) equality of all citizens. From this perspective, your recurring anti-elitist diatribes have no meaning at all.... So let's stay constructive rather than pursue our iRL hobby-horses in here; it doesn't add much to our environment -if anything, it makes it less enjoyable...[/quote:16stns45]

This is how you said you feel about a requirement to hold office that would consider qualification for the job.

How do you reconcile the two?

In the US, we have length-of-residency requirements for President and Congress which are set forth in the US Constitution. This is done to curb people who know nothing of life in the country from making and enforcing the rules of the country. It is also a way to curb radical change - such as electing a popular non-American to become President and handing our country over to an extra-national body.

I find it somewhat odd that in other threads you argue strongly for the preservation of continuity, and against rapid change, but here you support a system that lends itself not only to rapid change in how government is carried out, but also potentially to a tyranny of a self-selecting ruling class.

[michelmanen]

Sorry Gxeremio,

Can you explain to me what you see as inconsistent between my two statements? I am making the points that 1. the public status of citizen does dot suffer gradations and categories; this is reflected in the notion of equality of citizens; and 2. the private diversityt in the skill sets of DCS members is a think to take pride in; this is reflected in the notion of private diversity. The two are not only compatible, but in fact, the two faces of the same coin. "Freedom" requires both at all times.

As I said before, we can't wholesale copy iRL standards in-world. Length of residency, on its own, is irrelevant here; it is the quality of interactions with the community that counts.

Consistency does not mean dogmatic monolythicism (as "W" would say ). The judiciary needs stability and and predictability; our society needs innovation, dynamism an change. One guarantees the other is possbile without diminishing our identity. It's a dyalectical process: thesis - antithesis - synthesis and start at a higher level all over again. I call this "the fluid dynamics of a life worh living" ...

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":j8veb0td]You're right. What do you think would be the best system for ensuring this?[/quote:j8veb0td]

Relying on the good sense of the electorate, or the appointing bodies, as the case may be, is the most practical and [i:j8veb0td]simplest[/i:j8veb0td] way of acheiving this.

[quote:j8veb0td]Well, as for me, I do NOT accept that "professional" judges will ever be needed in this system, any more than professional architects, teachers, real estate agents, accountants, and so on are needed in SL. At least, not in the way we think of professionals in the real world - having to have some kind of RL degree or certification, which in any case varies from country to country. [/quote:j8veb0td]

If that is your definition of professional, then I agree. I have always strongly believed that we should establish our own, CDS-based system of legal education. That will simultaneously ensure that we have candidates of the right calibre, and avoid the problems of verification and cultural differences that you raise.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Beathan":2fy919yi]I do agree, however, with your and his general point that quality of civic participation matters more than quantity (at least in pure temporal terms) of that participation. However, I see any standard of roadmarks and hurdles based on attendance at civic functions, etc. as being overly complicated and easily abused. Although imperfect, temporal residency requirements are less subject to manipulation and abuse and are easier to navigate. Thus, I think a residency requirement is the best available rule.[/quote:2fy919yi]

It was Michel who suggested a complicated pattern of specific attendance requirements. Whilst I agree with the basic aim of this, my view, as stated before, is that the quality of participation is best assessed according to the discretion of those who elect or appoint, as the case may be, the person or people in question to office, such that no formal requirements whatever need be imposed. Now, what could be simpler than that?

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="michelmanen":297oegbi]Can you explain to me what you see as inconsistent between my two statements? [/quote:297oegbi]

Sure. In one equation, you say every citizen should be able to hold office regardless of how long they've been around, which is one type of requirement, because it establishes some variety of second-class citizen in your mind. In another equation, you say that requirements to hold office are appropriate and normal.

I think we agree more than we disagree on this issue, but I think we should admit that requirements for holding office, be they length of residency, passing a test, or meeting approval from a panel, all have validity and none of the methods proposed are inherently Orwellian.

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1euqxbt6]If that is your definition of professional, then I agree. I have always strongly believed that we should establish our own, CDS-based system of legal education. That will simultaneously ensure that we have candidates of the right calibre, and avoid the problems of verification and cultural differences that you raise.[/quote:1euqxbt6]

Intriguing. Could you flesh out your proposed system a bit more? Are you thinking classes? Internships? Tests?