Setting the Record Straight

[Jon Seattle]

Here is a direct quote from yesterday's debate:

[quote:2b4uqqkd]
Michel Manen: I do not believe in a politics of attacks and peresonal destruction. However,
Michel Manen: I compliment the current RA members for holding an RA meeting hours before the debate, minutes before the polls opened, to introduce bil that almost textually reproduce the innovative, participative , inclusive approach that CARE energised this elections with. I am told imitation is the best form of flattery. THe very fact that the current factions in the RA felt so urgently the need to meet today and introduce such bills goes only to porve that
Michel Manen: CARE?s proactive and dynamic campaign strategy . . .[/quote:2b4uqqkd]

The bill which passed, the "Citizen Involvement Bill" (no new bill was introduced) was proposed by CSDF representative Moon Adamant on 4 December.

[url:2b4uqqkd]http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=601[/url:2b4uqqkd]

Michel posted his first note "CARE Motto and Flag" in the CARE forum on 30 December so Moon's bill predates CARE:

[url:2b4uqqkd]http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=753[/url:2b4uqqkd]

The "Citizen Involvement Bill" was the product of hard work on Moon's part starting in early November. Moon wanted this bill to be in use for the judicial commission and it in fact informed the discussion leading to that commission. Much of our legislative agenda has been bogged down with issues relating to JA.

I have attached references to the RA official transcript that clearly show that the proposal was discussed in general terms from 11 November. Michel owes the RA and especially Moon Adamant an apology.

Jon Seattle

--------

(From the transcript of the RA, 9 December, the top of: [url:2b4uqqkd]http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 006+Page+2[/url:2b4uqqkd] )

Moon Adamant: that corresponds to 9 PM -midnight in GMT, and 10 PM -1 AM for CET
Jon Seattle: I think that this bill is very much in the spirit of Moon's proposal concerning comittees and public participation

(From the transcript of the RA, 18 November:
[url:2b4uqqkd]http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 18%2C+2006[/url:2b4uqqkd] )

Pelanor Eldrich: Did Pat not decide to kill this?
Moon Adamant: actually, on this point and next point
Moon Adamant: we are working on a proposal
Ashcroft Burnham: The process ma be difficult, but the product might be worthwhile
Jon Seattle: yes, Pat requested we kill his proposal.
Moon Adamant: that - though not related to referenda - will enhance the citizens' participation in legislative process
Jon Seattle: Moon's will be more appropriate I think.

. . .

Moon Adamant: uit also will have the advantage of being a simpler proposal - referenda is a complex matter where we don't foresee any conclusion soon
Ashcroft Burnham: A committee would probably be the answer: it'd decide it, and then propose a bill to this assembly to modify the constitution to set the levels.
Moon Adamant: our proposal, Ash
Claude Desmoulins: Moon now that you're back, I have a question related to the Praetor proposal.
Claude Desmoulins: The original CN proposal mentions this position.
Claude Desmoulins: What was the thinking of the proposing group on this?
Moon Adamant: is justly so to regulate the appointment of work committees with consultive powers for legislative discussion

. . .

Ashcroft Burnham: Moon - like standing committees in the House of Commons?
Moon Adamant: first of all, we mut see that the CN project began to be assembled in May
Ashcroft Burnham: So, there'd be, for example, a "Prerator Bill committee"?
Moon Adamant: lol, two issues at same time...
Moon Adamant: to which shall i answer first?
Claude Desmoulins: Let's keep with committees.
Jon Seattle: Claude, are we on to the next item on the agenda?
Claude Desmoulins: Sorry.
Moon Adamant: ok, np
Moon Adamant: and hmmm Ash, not sure exactly what is a'standing committee' for the house of commons
Moon Adamant: but i suppose it may be something similar to what we have in portuguese parliament, so i would say yes
Ashcroft Burnham: It's a committee of MPs constituted temporarily to discuss a particular issue, usually a piece of proposed legislation.
Moon Adamant: but
Moon Adamant: ah yes
Moon Adamant: there is a difference in the CSDF proposal
Moon Adamant: and that is
Ashcroft Burnham: But your proposal allows non MRAs to join it?
Ashcroft Burnham: (The committees).
Moon Adamant: that any citizen can join a committee
Claude Desmoulins: Maybe this all needs to wait until we all see the CSDF proposal.
Moon Adamant: indeed
Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed...

(From the transcript of the RA, 11 November:
[url:2b4uqqkd]http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... 006+Page+2[/url:2b4uqqkd] )

Jon Seattle: Moon is working on a much better proposal I think.
Claude Desmoulins: There we are.
Ashcroft Burnham: So, Jon, you believe that 4/5 members of the RA should have the power to increase their term of office indefinitely?
Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh - what's this proposal?
Justice Soothsayer: hearing no consensus, i move we table this
Claude Desmoulins: second.
Jon Seattle: Moon is not yet ready to present her proposal, but I support what I have heard so far. It is very very well done.
Claude Desmoulins: Any objection.
Claude Desmoulins: Is this the planning festival?
Jon Seattle: No.
Justice Soothsayer waits in suspense for Moon, who usually comes up with good ideas
Claude Desmoulins waits eagerly for whatever will be proposed.

[michelmanen]

The fact that the bill was introduced and discussed before CARE was founded changes nothing to the substance of my argument:

-when the RA violates the customs of this community not to meet during the two-week period preceding any elections not once but twice ( once to destroy this community's judiciary system and a second time to adopt more open and inclusive legislative proceedings);
-when the latter happens after two weeks of intensive campaigning by CARE on a platform of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, openness, participation, accountability and the power of the best argument;
-when the bill is passed minutes before the polls open and hours before the 4-party debate begins for the purely partisan reason of scoring debating points and to purportedy show that this RA, which wasted six months on sterile, useless, destructive debates on the judiciary, actually has some concern for these very issues about which our citizens care deeply;
-then it is perfectly acceptable to point out the purely partisan and self-serving reason for adopting this bill at this time, by individuals more concerned to save their seats than upholding basic rules of democracy and the rule of law.

Whether the RA members actually intended this or not is besides the point; what counts is not just their intentions, but the image and appearance of their actions to the public at large, and their actions' effect on the fairness, stability and integrity of out democratic processes and of the rule of law.

No self-respecting legislature in the civilised world could have acted as this RA did (primarily because such legislatures are always dissolved by the execuutive prior to the start of an election period) without being buried under a mountain of criticism and accusations of partisanship, violation of electoral laws and abuse of power; the fact that I pointed this out in quite a friendly and humorous way, without the slightest hint of personal attack, was fully in line with the positive and forward-looking campaign CARE has been running; and the fact that you felt the urgent need to post the comment above as a last-ditch face-saving attempt at self-justification will in no way detract from the actions of this RA, which are clear for all voters to see.

Had this RA followed its own customs and respected basic principles of democracy and the rule of law, we would have been spared this spectacle; the RA members have no one but themselves to blame for this whole episode blowing up in their faces; and I shall certainly not apologise for pointing it out for all to see and draw their own conclusions.

[Beathan]

Michel -- you are entirely wrong when you claim that "[n]o self-respecting legislature in the civilised world could have acted as this RA did without being buried under a mountain of criticism and accusations of partisanship, violation of electoral laws and abuse of power..." In the United States, which has a self-respecting legislature and which is arguably part of the civilised world, it is routine for lame duck legislatures to meet and pass laws. Often, laws are considered necessary to respond to urgent situations. The repeal of the JA fits this category. Other times, laws are clearly in line with sound public policy, as the citizen involvement bill is.

However, your response fails to meet and address Jon's point. Since founding CARE, you have been taking credit for actions of the other parties that coincide with the general principles CARE purports to hold. Because CARE's platform is composed entirely of platitudes, not policies, it is easy to see overlap between the actions of the other parties and CARE's shallow and vapid "platform."

However, your claims are patently dishonest. In every case, the action for which you claim credit was already part of the plans or platform of the other parties. CARE has had no effect on the other parties except to mystify us why anyone would support a party that has no real platform, which offers nothing new or different (except the restoration of the discredited attempt to create a privileged legal class in the CDS), and which campaigns, contrary to CDS tradition, on personality and soundbites, rather than on substantive policy.

We trust that, despite your personal spending on this election, CARE will discover that elections in the CDS are not for sale.

However, I will again ask the question you failed to answer in the debate:

In closing, Michel Manen indicated that he believes that the CDS has failed to have a stable government or interagency cooperation. This is contrary to what i have seen and what I think the history of the CDS shows. I want to ask Michel for the evidence on which he makes this claim, and Justice and Jon for a rebuttal of the claim that the CDS is dysfunctional and CARE is the cure. Further, Michel promises diversity and inclusiveness and expansion. However, how is what CARE will deliver actually different from what the other parties stand for? Is your party not just advocating that the current 95 page Judiciary Act be re-introduced into our legislation? Does CARE support similar legislation to institutionalize, as an elite class, RL professionals other than lawyers, or it is just a party of lawyer supremacy?

Hopefully you will actually answer this question this time.

A true answer, unlike the one in your debate, will include:

1. a description of real, substantive policies -- including a description of proposed legislation -- that CARE will try to implement on elections.

2. a description of the past failures of the CDS, along with a proof that these failures are a failure of democratic principle.

3. a justification of the need to enshrine RL professionals in privileged places in the CDS government, including a statement of whether this enshrinement will apply only to lawyers, or whether other professions -- say accountants -- will be similarly privileged by the creation of an elitist and exclusive institution including only RL professionals.

4. a description of exactly where CARE's specific and substantive policies, as well as CARE's general principles, actually diverges from those of the other parties -- this should involve an exposition of the principles set forth by the parties, highlighting where CARE offers something different and new.

I note that your previous answer was entirely nonresponsive, focussing entirely on CARE's campaign methods. Campaign methods are not principles and are not policy. Campaign methods tell us nothing about how CARE will govern -- or about what CARE stands for. It tells us only about how much CARE will spend, in time and money, to seduce CDS voters to its elitist cause of restoring the short-lived supremacy of lawyers in the CDS.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

I have no intention to follow you down this road. Our campaign speaks for itself. Let the citizens decide!

[Beathan]

Michel --

Your campaign may well speak for itself. The problem is that it appears to have nothing to say -- so it merely chatters platitudes.

The real question is why CARE does not engage other parties or issues. CARE has refused to answer the questions asked and included in the unofficial voter's guide. At the debate, although the other three parties tried to engage each other, and CARE, in a discussion of the issues, you just repeated your stump speech, which offers nothing of substance except the restoration of an elite class of lawyers.

Again, it is not unreasonable to ask CARE to state what it intends to do if given power in the CDS. It is also not unreasonable to ask CARE how it is really different from the other parties. Why are you avoiding these questions?

Beathan

[michelmanen]

CARE has cleaarly and publicly articulated its vision, mission, ideals, principles and the six major and specific initiatives it will take during the next RA term, if elected.

We do not refuse to engage with other parties - but we have no intention to participate in the kind of agressive, negative campaigning of injurious invectives and personal destruction you seem to pursue by sustaining this line of questioning.

[Beathan]

Michel --

The problem with your claim that CARE has put forward six specific policy initiatives is that it hasn't. You have stated six general priniciples to inform policy judgments -- but these principles are shared with all the other parties.

[quote:qxrahoi7]1. Leadership
1.1 Leadership – forward not back

2. Democracy
2.1 Democracy –the many not the few
2.2 Democracy –openness not secrecy
2.3 Democracy –collaboration not conflict

3. Prosperity
3.1 Prosperity – enabling a creative community
3.2 Prosperity – promoting products and trade
3.3 Prosperity – our sims as tourism hubs

4. Diversity
4.1 Diversity – celebrating difference
4.2 Diversity – working for 2L local governance
4.3 Diversity –opening two new sims

5. Fairness
5.1 Fairness – a just, stable, professional judiciary
5.2 Fairness – publicly-owned information meda

6. Sustainability
6.1 Sustainability –proactive but prudent finances
6.2 Sustainabilty – working with RL organizations
_________________
[/quote:qxrahoi7]

No CDS Party opposes any of these principles.

I see one -- possibly two -- specific goals here. First, a professional judiciary -- which has been discredited as a goal in recent debate. Second, possibly, a request that the forum, wiki, and Anzere infohub be "publicly owned." At present, these are privately owned -- and it is not clear as a matter of RL law that the CDS can appropriate or condemn these private properties for the "public" CDS use. It is also not clear, as a matter of Linden and other hosting sites policies, that this taking of private property will be permitted. Finally, it is unclear that a democracy should even be engaged in such taking of private property for public use -- certainly it should not without payment of fair compensation to the owner being deprived of her property.

Thus, of the two specific policies articulated by CARE -- both seem undemocratic and unfair. (Yet both are articulated under the principle, certainly shared by all parties, of "Fairness.")

I see no specific policy initiatives in any of the other five policy statements. This vacuity concerns me, and other informed observers. We have requested that you spell out your plans so that we can understand and assess them. Again, I ask, why are you avoiding the questions?

I also ask why you think it is "negative campaigning" to ask such questions? Positive campaigning certainly involves questions about what a party will do if elected and how the party is different from its opposition. Negative campaigning involves challenges to the other party -- statements that the other party will cause some harm if elected. So far no one has said this about CARE -- because we can't determine what CARE plans to do or what CARE really stands for. We can't engage in negative campaigning unless we have something to campaign against -- and CARE has too little substance to give us that.

Further, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. Positive campaigning says what a party will do for the voters. Negative campaiging says what an opposing party will do to harm the voters. Both are critical and fair pieces of information for voters to make rational decisions when voting.

The bad kind of campaigning, if there is such a thing, is the personal attacks of mud-slinging campaigns. Fortunately, by having a tradition of running elections on policies, not persons, the CDS has entirely avoided this kind of campaign -- and is still doing so.

(Edit -- at least I thought that the CDS was avoiding improper personal mudslinging campagins -- until I read Michel's claim of victory in the debate in the "successes" tab on the CARE website. There, for the first time in this campaign, I found numerous pointed personal attacks against the individual candidates for the RA, rather than a substantive discussion of policy. Given CARE's record, I didn't expect to find much substance, but given Michel's proclamations, I didn't expect to find mudslinging either.)

Beathan

[michelmanen]

During the debate, CARE articulated six specific policies it will pursue if elected - one for each of the major heads of our political platform. We shall upload today the text of these proposals on our website. Until then, please feel free to re-read the debate transcript for my specific policy comments.

[michelmanen]

Beathan wrote:

[quote:2e0h4yiu]Further, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. [/quote:2e0h4yiu]

That pretty much sums up the key difference between your personal approach to the political process and CARE's, and why we refuse to go down this road at your increasingly insistent behest.

Be assured we shall stay on the high road of proactive, inclusive, open, acountable and positive campaigning which is our hallmark irrespective of how many times you will repeat your attempts to force us to deviate from our chosen path.

(I see you deleted the e-mail in which you made the statement my e-mail replied to. Feeling slightly self-conscious, perhaps? )

[Jon Seattle]

Michel, the fact of the matter is that your accusation at the public debate was just untrue. The claim that the bill we passed “textually reproduces” or in any other way a proposal by CARE was not tenable given the documented sequence of events. Either you did not actually check that history or you deliberately misled.

The fact is that if this bill reproduces a proposal by CARE, and Moon drafted her bill before CARE’s proposal it would seem far more plausible that CARE borrowed their proposal from Moon without attribution.

And no, I did not find your accusation about Moon or the Representative Assembly at all humorous.

[Beathan]

Michel --

I take it that you mean the following passage in the Debate:

[quote:230wuv4d]We will present six specific policies during this term:
Michel Manen: Leadership ? forward not back: We will propose a Bill setting up a new Legislative Advisory Body, made up of all heads of the CDS branches of government, to discuss Bill introduced by Representatives or citizens and to ensure that the final text will be professional, precise, and acceptable to all
Michel Manen: Democracy ?the many not the few: we will introduce a Bill setting up citizens? study groups to actively involve as many of our citizens as possible in the legislative process, and not just once every six months, during elections.
Michel Manen: Prosperity ? we will introduce a Bill to establish strategic marketing and advertising ?Emassies such as the Anzeri Info point in strategic sims in 2L to imake the CDS a hub of trade, tourism and commerce
Michel Manen: Diversity ? celebrating difference : enabling a creative community: we will introduce a Bill to enable th CDS to acquire and run its own radio station, open its waves to all our linguistic and cultural communities (Esperanto and French come to mind here), and raise funds by selling on-air advertisements
Michel Manen: Fairness ? a just, stable, professional judiciary and a publicly-owned information meda One of the major questions for the next RA will be how to resolve The Judiciary Question. This will require negotiation and compromise. The eventual outcome is likely to depend a great deal on the outcome of the election, as will the route taken to get there.
Michel Manen: During this process CARE will seek to give effect to the following principles: 1. A primary duty of any government is to protect the rights, including the Human Rights, of its citizens. 2. This includes a duty to ensure that the citizens' rights can be enforced, both against individuals and the government. Rights that cannot be enforced are useless to our citizens. 3. Enforcement requires a judicial system that is accessible, fair and independent.
Michel Manen: 4. This is best given effect through a dedicated branch of government to hear and resolve disputes. However, this branch should not be able to overrule laws that have been created by the democratic process. 5. Fair hearings need detailed procedural rules, so that all parties know how their case will proceed and litigation can be conducted efficiently. To keep justice accessible, these should be supplemented by F.A.Q. and other advice.
Michel Manen: 6. Although many things in Second Life are different, our justice system should apply lessons learned from the First Life where appropriate. 7. Since we do not have the resources to develop a full Code of Laws, a Common Law system is the better solution. It will also offer greater flexibility.
Michel Manen: Sustsainability ? we will introduce a bill requiring that our new sim be designed specifically to attract creative, knowledge workers and creatives and give them the space, incentives and time to con tribute the the development our community in 2L
[/quote:230wuv4d]

As I see it, for "Leadership" you propose an unnecessary new bureaucracy, placing additional time burdens on CDS public officials other than members of the RA. This is a specific and new policy proposal, but how is it helpful? I think that this idea is not shared by the other parties because it is a bad one.

For "Democracy" you offer nothing new. Your proposal was already in play, from the beginning of the CDS, through the RA's ability to form ad hoc citizen committees. It has now been formalized as you appear to propose through Moon's Citizen Involvement bill -- a bill for which you claim credit, improperly, as observed at the start of this thread.

For "Prosperity" your proposal lacks substance. You propose to offer a bill to create "embassies" -- but don't describe what you mean by "embassy" or how they would work. Your proposal appears to be a bare-bones call for advertising the existence and project of the CDS. In this, CARE is not unique -- all the other parties have proposed something similar. CARE is different only in its lack of detail.

In "Diversity" you propose to open a CDS radio station. This idea has promise -- but you don't tell us how it would work or where it would broadcast or what it would cost us or how we would pay for it. Further, this proposal relates to diversity only in your proposal to broadcast in French and Esperanto as well as English. This seems like a token bow to the diversity of the CDS -- a principle that is actually belied by CARE's commitment to legal elitism.

This commitment is restated in your policy for "Fairness". However, you have failed to answer a question I have been asking for months-- "what's so special about lawyers?" I am a lawyer. I deal with lawyers every day. Lawyers do not have a monopoly on fairness or commonsense or good problem solving or dispute resolution skills. In fact, I think that the current SC, with its current members, would more fairly resolve most disputes than any institution composed solely of the lawyers currently in the CDS.

In "Sustainability" -- you propose that "our new sim be designed specifically to attract creative, knowledge workers and creatives and give them the space, incentives and time to con tribute the the development our community in 2L." This is not a substantive proposal -- nor is it at all unique. As with your proposal on diversity, CARE's proposal differs from those of the other parties only in its lack of detail.

So -- again -- other an two new bureaucracies (a judicial bureaucracy and an omnibus advisory bureaucracy) and the enshrinement of lawyers as a privileged class in the CDS, what does CARE offer the voters?

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Jon,

Your reply in no way addresses the issues I raised i n my e-mail replying to your first -which focus on the timing and propriety of the RA's actions rather than the substantive content of the Bill.

CARE has focused its entire campaign on issues of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, open, accuntable and participative processes of governance. Other parties have scrambled to adapt their platforms to fall in line with our positions, after seeing our Manifesto published. And the RA met minutes before the polls opened and hours before the debate to give the impression it actualy has a track-record on these fundamental issues about which our citizens deeply care - in clear violation of long-standing and unbroken CDS custom and practice.

So, if it were true (which clearly it is not -) that political parties have a monopoly on their policy platform, CARE would now be oweed hefty royalty fees by its three opponents.

[michelmanen]

Beathan,

The fact that you disagree with or dislike CARE's specific policies does not come as news or as a shock to me. We are not seeking your personal approval. We'll let the citizens decide.

[Beathan]

[quote="michelmanen":23uxnw6g]Beathan wrote:

[quote:23uxnw6g]Further, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. [/quote:23uxnw6g]

That pretty much sums up the key difference between your personal approach to the political process and CARE's, and why we refuse to go down this road at your increasingly insistent behest.

Be assured we shall stay on the high road of proactive, inclusive, open, acountable and positive campaigning which is our hallmark irrespective of how many times you will repeat your attempts to force us to deviate from our chosen path.

(I see you deleted the e-mail in which you made the statement my e-mail replied to. Feeling slightly self-conscious, perhaps? )[/quote:23uxnw6g]

Michel --

If you are going to quote me, please quote me completely and honestly. I wrote

[quote:23uxnw6g]Negative campaigning involves challenges to the other party -- statements that the other party will cause some harm if elected. So far no one has said this about CARE -- because we can't determine what CARE plans to do or what CARE really stands for. We can't engage in negative campaigning unless we have something to campaign against -- and CARE has too little substance to give us that.

Further, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. Positive campaigning says what a party will do for the voters. Negative campaiging says what an opposing party will do to harm the voters. Both are critical and fair pieces of information for voters to make rational decisions when voting.
[/quote:23uxnw6g]

On this definition, there is nothing wrong with negative campaigning. Negative campaigning just tells voters how a party is different from the other parties. What is wrong with that.

I did not modify my post because I was self-conscious in the way you imply. I modified it because, after posting, I recognized that I failed to distinguish between negative campaigning and mud-slinging -- as I described them in my final post. This is a critical distinction. Negative campaigning -- that is campaigning against the policies of the other parties -- is necessary and reasonable. The voters deserve to know how the parties are different from each other. Mud-slinging is wrong, except in rare cases in which there is really something very wrong with an individual candidate. Fortunately, we have no mudslinging here. Rather, we have CARE refusing to answer questions about what it is about and what it will do if elected.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Then be more careful next time, before you actually make a post...