Moderator: SC Moderators
I'm curious, and merely asking a question...
What is the [i:335z5toi]purpose[/i:335z5toi] of said expansion?
It seems that in pure form, peacefully spreading democracy on the grid would cost... nothing? Merely setting a good example might suffice.
If the expansion has other purposes, i.e. greater revenue or control (Empiah!) well, that's another thing entirely.
I'll make a few blanket declarations and then get into the history of this.
1. [b:kyhacars]The CDS Estate Owner is intended to own the Mainland franchulate parcel(s). Franchulate land is CDS territory. Full stop.[/b:kyhacars]
My view is that the Estate Owner, as well as the Marshalls of the Peace fall under the jursidiction of the Executive.
2. In the case a group owned land, the CDS Estate Owner is expected to have founded the group and to hold at least 50% +1m2 of the franchulate land. This is not in the bill because the group owned land legislation passed around the same time. I submit that this was my intent.
3. The local adminstrator of the franchulate (franchulate owner) is obligated to pay the treasurer the global CDS franchulate rate decided by the RA on the 21st of the month.
4. The local administrator of the franchulate is obligated to also uphold the CDS code and constitution and to aid in enforcing it on franchulate when called upon by the SC and Exec.
5. There is currently no mechanism for having a franchulate declare independence from the CDS. I had hoped it could be defined either as an amendment or as part of the negotiated deal on a franch by franch basis subject to RA approval. A separation clause in 5-4 was politically controversial and so was never drafted as legislation.
[u:kyhacars]Goals:[/u:kyhacars]
-[b:kyhacars]Price breaks[/b:kyhacars] where possible,
-The ability for a local adminstrator (through franch charter) to define local democratic customs for choosing the LA, immigration, taxes, bylaws and zoning/covenant. In other words some [b:kyhacars]local autonomy[/b:kyhacars].
-The ability of the franchulate to take advantage of membership in the CDS: judicial system, SPC, CDS Traders, political representation and the other [b:kyhacars]advantages that CDS citizenship provides[/b:kyhacars].
-The ability to [b:kyhacars]retain existing parcels and builds[/b:kyhacars] and have them become CDS territory.
-A [b:kyhacars]Mainland presence[/b:kyhacars] for the CDS
-In addition to promoting other democratic resident run gov't projects on the Mainland, this is an [b:kyhacars]expansion of the [i:kyhacars]CDS[/i:kyhacars] to the Mainland[/b:kyhacars]
-I don't believe "empiah" was a stated goal. It would be hard for me to imagine that CDS franchulates would ever occupy more than 50% of the mainland. If we get close to that somehow, we could then take another look at it.
[u:kyhacars]History: [/u:kyhacars] Initially this was my Snow Crashed inspired way to allow Mainland business to take advantage of our judicial system. A better way to do that would be to resurrect my commercial license bill. As it evolved I only saw option #1, estate owners owning 100% of franch parcel. Unlike a Snow Crash franchulate, each CDS franch might be different one from another (no clones of mini-Neufreistadt). At this point I felt we should change the title of 5-4 to Mainland Territorial Expansion Act, or something that didn't use the misnomer "franchulate", but the name stuck. The final iteration was the CDSF additions and modification that took into account group owned land. At this point, the concept was quite a bit different than my first try, but we all felt it was workable and useful. We spent 9 months to get it passed. It also fulfilled a DPU platform plank in the last 2 campaigns.
I can only comment on my understanding of the franchulate bill when it was passed and Pel is certainly the expert. Remember that this was proposed while the group tools were not as flexible as they are now, so I believe Sudane is correct, the idea was the FEO would own the land outright, The franchulate owner would sell the parcel to the FEO at price of L$0 in exchange for possibly lower tier. (I assume the FEO would also promise to return the parcel if it were un-franchulated.) Of course the lower tier depends on FEO owning more than the single parcel.
I think many of us in the RA imagined a future where there might be little democratic colonies on the mainland. An inspiration was the Esperanto group - the idea that we might expand by allowing existing democratic organizations with mainland holdings to become part of our community. There might or might not be a financial advantage to the joiners, but Pel designed the scheme so that it would not cost the CDS a cent except for the cost of managing the relationship. Diderot, it might take our energy, but it would not take any of our financial resources.
Do I think it will work? Not very likely. Few people will take the risk of just handing over their land to us to run.
Some similar arrangement involving CDS citizenship for people on private islands might work if we could figure out how a land baron could make a profit selling lots in democratic communities. It would be great if we could harness the profit motive in a way that would spread democratic institutions in Second Life.
The big problem is that we would have to figure out how to balance the rights of the estate owner with that of the citizens and make the citizen’s claims against the estate owner stick. And that is the difficult issue that no one has yet been able to solve. Until we do solve it the best way for us to expand is to buy and run more island regions.
Thanks for you taking the time to clarify these issues guys (Top, Pelanor, Jon). However, I'm afraid for me at least there are still some unresolved questions. For example, one says that it will not cost any money for the CDS to acquire the land but another says there is no way a franchulate can "secede" from the CDS umbrella. If the latter is the case then surely, they will need compensation to cede their land?
Also, if the CDS is ever going to hold 50% of the mainland in franchulate then I envision that our Estate Owner will be insanely busy running around the mainland to update the ban lists of every little enfranchulated parcel to reflect the one in force in the CDS sims' Estate tools. Even if only one little 512 sqm parcel is enfranchulated it will still increase by 33% the workload of our Estate Owner in maintaining and updating ban lists. Or if this is not intended then how exactly is enforcement of CDS jurisdiction enabled on mainland parcels?
Top, certainly democracy is worth paying a price for. But I am not sure that the "Wiedervereinigung" of BRD and DDR is the proper analogy by which to assess the justification of the cost of CDS territorial involvement in promoting democracy on the mainland. After all the BRD and DDR were bound together by a common history of a hundred and fifty years as a nation state and much longer as a cohesive sphere of common culture and language. Furthermore, the costs involved for both individuals and the society of West Germany to have a massive number of former East Germans immigrate to the west rather than to 'just' unify territorially would be disproportionally larger in a world governed by RL circumstances (i.e. no arbitrary purchases of an additional sim to expand capacity, no ability to bring your inventory of 5,000 items with you in your pocket, no ability to TP immediately to see your friends in that remote village). And finally the BRD was a somewhat richer entity than our CDS.
I have to say I concur with Desmond's observation that we could do more to spread democracy on the mainland by empowering territorially-based communites with an aspiration for democratic self-governance with access to our knowledge, tools, advocacy, financial support and ears as opposed to involving ourselves in a complex and uncertain arrangement for the luxury of being able to bring your land with you when you want to join the CDS.
I notice it has been stated that the franchulates bill was discussed over a period of 9 months but the only discussion I can find of it (easily) on the wiki is the [url=http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... s:2o5q6q7r]here[/url:2o5q6q7r], where it was passed with a narrow majority of 3 votes against 2. Is there an easy way to get to the remainder of the conversation?
On an unrelated note perhaps it is time to start thinking about organising our transcripts of RA discussions around individual items of proposed legislation rather than around 'meetings and the dates on which they were held.'
BTW: My apologies if anyone feels I'm 'politically hijacking' a thread with the pragmatic aim of clarifying the workings of the act to an extent where it is operationally workable. It is probably true that such discussion is better confined to a 'legislative discussion' thread about the merits of the Simplicity Party's [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 1:2o5q6q7r]"Kill Bill"[/url:2o5q6q7r].
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3slakgt8]Also, if the CDS is ever going to hold 50% of the mainland in franchulate then I envision that our Estate Owner will be insanely busy running around the mainland to update the ban lists of every little enfranchulated parcel to reflect the one in force in the CDS sims' Estate tools. Or if this is not intended then how exactly is enforcement of CDS jurisprudence enabled on mainland parcels?[/quote:3slakgt8]
This is fun to think about, but a bit of a red herring? I cannot see people (except for dedicated democrats like Top) lining up to hand us their land. Especially true if there is no well defined exit strategy. My guess is that the bill may [does] reflect a lot of wishful thinking on our part but is not especially harmful.
People should understand that there is no 'right' to a franchulate. The bill was drafted so 1. to be a franchulate owner you must already been a citizen of the CDS; 2. you have to get executive approval; and 3. the RA can veto any franchulate for any reason it pleases. Its a tool that can be used or not as we feel like it. I can see situations, like an existing large mainland land holder who wants to establish a democratic colony, where we might want to have this tool available. It won't happen often.
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3slakgt8]I notice it has been stated that the franchulates bill was discussed over a period of 9 months but the only discussion I can find of it (easily) on the wiki is the one at (I was going to find the link, but today is one of those days where I do not have access to the wiki it seems <- will add link later). Is there an easy way to get to the remainder of the conversation?[/quote:3slakgt8]I can remember more than one RA meeting where we quickly sent the bill back to Pel to be re-drafted to answer various questions.
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":3slakgt8]On an unrelated note perhaps it is time to start thinking about organising our transcripts of RA discussions around individual items of proposed legislation rather than around 'meetings and the dates on which they were held.'[/quote:3slakgt8]This would be difficult in practice. For example, at the last RA meeting we started discussing a proposal to start developing new sims, this morphed into a discussion on how to do the necessary regional planning, and several sentences were thrown in about organization and the New Guild. Those things were discussed under a single heading because they [u:3slakgt8]are[/u:3slakgt8] related. As a volunteer organization, the only approach that would work would be to have some poor soul cross-reference every discussion under every bill that was touched upon. Diderot, did I hear you volunteering?
A simpler approach would be to put all the transcripts into conveniently downloadable archives so that people could search efficiently. The wiki is also a bit of a problem. We very much need a better online record keeping system. As Moon Adamant often says, it is a long-standing tradition in the CDS to volunteer others, so I am very glad Diderot will be working hard to help the chancellor find a better way of organizing our online records. I, for one, will very much appreciate his efforts.
Hehe Jon, thanks for giving me the opportunity to compensate a bit for my guilty conscience over being constantly critical of new initiatives in the CDS. Improving our archival functions is a very interesting challenge, which I'd be happy to take a closer look at in so far as I can set aside the time relative to my other 'functions'. I'll create a new thread with some ideas first of all and proceed to take a closer look at the task probably in the weekend.
[quote="Jon":1s4nj010]The franchulate owner would sell the parcel to the FEO at price of L$0 in exchange for (...)[/quote:1s4nj010]Jon, as much as I appreciate (!) your comments: How crazy do you think people are? How crazy do you think I am? Handing it over could never have been the intent except for cases where there's nothing to gain for the CDS. I don't see 0 L$ in the law, nor do I see it in Pel's comments. Then what do I propose instead of handing it over? Negociating a price ofcourse 
Unless ofcourse exit strategy arrangements are made, of which I give an example below (= "get u'r money back when you leave")
[quote="Diderot":1s4nj010]For example, one says that it will not cost any money for the CDS to acquire the land but another says there is no way a franchulate can "secede" from the CDS umbrella. If the latter is the case then surely, they will need compensation to cede their land?[/quote:1s4nj010]Ofcourse applicants including me will demand compensation, that's part of the negotiation or do we expect everyone to give away their dollars for free? (Unless: We go for a "you can sell the parcel under the CDS umbrella"-model, see below.)
[quote="Jon":1s4nj010]I cannot see people lining up to hand us their land. Especially true if there is no well defined exit strategy.[/quote:1s4nj010](1)
An example exit strategy acceptable for me but perhaps not for outsiders would be:
Being allowed to sell the parcel like we can do in on the CDS islands. [color=blue:1s4nj010]This *could* be combined with initially selling the parcel for L$ 0.[/color:1s4nj010] If the franchulate owner decides to get out, one solution could be that he puts it up for sale at a pre-defined price like on the CDS islands, it gets sold, he gets his money, and the parcel stays within the CDS.
(2)
An alternative exit strategy, more acceptable to outsiders, could be: (and I'm thinking aloud here so if I make mistakes please correct me) Franch. owner gets paid when parcel is franchulated (CDS approved amount), when he wants out INCLUDING his old parcel, he has to buy it back from the CDS for that same amount (unless in a legal way prices have changed in the meantime) topped off with some small or medium administrative fee for the CDS.
Strategies like these can be put in an extra clause that both parties agree on, not necessarily in the law itself but in an additional official document that get's agreed on. Ofcourse all amounts of money can be dicided by goverment, who has it's own opinion about how desireable or not mainland expansion is at a given time.
[color=blue:1s4nj010]I would really like to hear from Pelanor and our new lawmakers what their preferred exit strategy would be.[/color:1s4nj010]
[quote="Diderot":1s4nj010]Even if only one little 512 sqm parcel is enfranchulated it will still increase by 33% the workload of our Estate Owner in maintaining and updating ban lists. Or if this is not intended then how exactly is enforcement of CDS jurisdiction enabled on mainland parcels?[/quote:1s4nj010]That's emphasising the negatives again. If the CDS wants the franchulate owner to do the ban lists they should simply put in an extra clause, it's peanuts for the franch. owner. As you can read in the franch. act, it requires the franch. holder to uphold all CDS law, but it can be brought under the chancellor as well, for obvious practical reasons.
[quote="Jon":1s4nj010]People should understand that there is no 'right' to a franchulate. (...) Its a tool that can be used or not as we feel like it.[/quote:1s4nj010]Jon is exactly right here, CDS has the final say, can negotiate, put in an extra clause etcetera.
[quote="Diderot":1s4nj010]"German unification not a good analogy, because of .."[/quote:1s4nj010]Then I'll simply respond to the original remark instead of using an analogy:
Only sticking to the most L$-efficient ways of expansion is a bit one sided and perhaps even conservative, let's give franchulates a chance!
[quote="Diderot":1s4nj010]I have to say I concur with Desmond's observation that we could do more to spread democracy on the mainland by empowering (...) as opposed to involving ourselves in a complex and uncertain arrangement for the luxury of being able to bring your land with you when you want to join the CDS.[/quote:1s4nj010]My application would be a good test case to iron things out and get the things we need on paper, so there's no need to resist it Diderot! I don't agree that it's complex, the amount of text that aspiring CDS citizens have to read is many times more complex. (<-- No need for political views on that 
)
/me grudgingly acknowledges the merit of the above arguments.
Accepting the 512 sqm enfranchulation as a learning by doing pilot project I would like to list a few items, which I think should be clarified as part of this process (most of them have probably been listed already by other, more informed contributors):
1) Franchulee should get money for his land to make the possibility attractive. The price should be comparable to what it would cost the CDS to expand on a sim-by-sim basis for an equivalent piece of land or be maybe a bit higher.
2) Franchulee should be able to leave the CDS with an X month notice by paying back the sum given to him for joining.
3) In the case where the franchulee citizen forfeits his CDS assets as a result of a government sanction that is not overturned on judicial appeal the franchulee will similarly lose his right to buy the mainland back.
4) A group/role taxonomy should be established that allows franchulee citizens the same rights to modify land access/permissions/attributes as sim parcel owners but does not extend this power to encompass other enfranchulated parcels.
5) A method should be found whereby mainland franchulate ban lists are maintained to uphold CDS-wide banishments as issued by the government and upheld by the courts without imposing undue burdens on the executive and without relying on franchulee citizens for the maintenance so long as they do not have a clear incentive to comply.
6) There should exist a clear and explicit, comprehensive written framework that specifies what degree of sovereignty a franchulate-governing citizen can exercise over his own parcel (setting covenant provisions, taxation, law and similar)
7) The same framework should specify the possibility of and status of any other residents on the franchulated parcel relative to who gets to decide on eligibility for residence, citizenship status and who gets any land fees paid. The framework should further specify the status of any other tenants' claim to citizenship when the franchulate owner decides he wants his franchulate to leave the CDS.
I'm taking the liberty to post the entire set of Group "Abilities", which can be combined in any combination to create the roles which we might need to implement franchulettes. An adequate arrangement of these abilities into the various roles seems to me to be the only viable way to establish this system.
Suggestions are hereby invited for a configuration that would work. TOP and I will use his land as a test case, to see if this can be made to work.
[b:14y60rse]Membership[/b:14y60rse]
Invite People to this Group using the 'Invite New Person...' button in the Members & Roles tab > Members sub-tab.
Eject Members from this Group using the 'Eject From Group' button in the Members & Roles tab > Members sub-tab. An Owner can eject anyone except another Owner. If you're not an Owner, a Member can be ejected from a group if, and only if, they're only in the Everyone Role, and NO other Roles. To remove Members from Roles, you need to have the 'Remove Members from Roles' Ability.
Toggle 'Open Enrollment' to let new Members join without an invitation, and change 'Signup Fee' in the Group Preferences section of the General tab.
[b:14y60rse]Roles[/b:14y60rse]
Create new Roles in the Members & Roles tab > Roles sub-tab.
Delete Roles in the Members & Roles tab > Roles sub-tab.
Change Role names, titles, and descriptions at the bottom of the the Members & Roles tab > Roles sub-tab after selecting a Role.
Assign Members to Roles in the Assigned Roles section of the Members & Roles tab > Members sub-tab. A member with this power can only add members to a role the assigner is already in.
Assign Members to Any Role in the Assigned Roles section of the Members & Roles tab > Members sub-tab. *WARNING* Any Member in a Role with this Ability can assign themselves--and any other non-Owner Member--to Roles that have more powers than they currently have, potentially elevating themselves to near-Owner power. Be sure you know what you're doing before assigning this Ability.
Remove Members from Roles in the Assigned Roles section of the Members & Roles tab > Members sub-tab. Owners can't be removed.
Assign and Remove Abilities in Roles in the Allowed Abilities section of the Members & Roles tab > Roles sub-tab. *WARNING* Any Member in a Role with this Ability can assign themselves--and any other non-Owner Member--all Abilities, potentially elevating themselves to near-Owner power. Be sure you know what you're doing before assigning this Ability.
[b:14y60rse]Group Identity[/b:14y60rse]
Change Charter, Insignia, 'Publish on the Web', and which members are publicly visible in Group Information. This is done in the General tab.
[b:14y60rse]Parcel Management[/b:14y60rse]
Deed land and buy land for group. This is done in About Land > General tab.
Abandon land to Governor Linden. *WARNING* Any Member in a Role with this Ability can abandon group-owned land in About Land > General tab, reverting it to Linden ownership without a sale! Be sure you know what you're doing before assigning this Ability.
Set land for sale info. *WARNING* Any Member in a Role with this Ability can sell group-owned land in About Land > General tab as they wish! Be sure you know what you're doing before assigning this Ability.
Subdivide and join parcels. This is done by right-clicking the ground, 'Edit Terrain', and dragging your mouse on the land to make a selection. To subdivide, select what you want to split and click 'Subdivide...'. To join, select two or more contiguous parcels and click 'Join...'.
[b:14y60rse]Parcel identity[/b:14y60rse]
Toggle 'Show in Find Places' and setting a parcel's category in About Land > Options tab.
Change parcel name, description, and 'Publish on the Web' settings. This is done in About Land > Options tab.
Set landing point and teleport routing. On a group-owned parcel, Members in a Role with this Ability can set a landing point to specify where incoming teleports arrive, and also set teleport routing for further control. This is done in About Land > Options tab.
[b:14y60rse]Parcel settings[/b:14y60rse]
Change streaming music and movie settings in About Land > Media tab.
Toggle 'Edit Terrain'. *WARNING* About Land > Options tab > Edit Terrain allows anyone to terraform your land's shape, and place and move Linden plants. Be sure you know what you're doing before assigning this Ability. Editing terrain is toggled in About Land > Options tab.
Toggle various "About Land>Options" settings.
Toggle 'Safe (no damage)', 'Fly', and allow other Residents to: 'Create Objects', 'Edit Terrain', 'Create Landmarks', and 'Run Scripts' on group-owned land in About Land > Options tab.
[b:14y60rse]Parcel Powers[/b:14y60rse]
Always allow "Edit Terrain". Members in a Role with this Ability can edit terrain on a group-owned parcel, even if it's turned off in About Land > Options tab.
Always allow "Fly". Members in a Role with this Ability can fly on a group-owned parcel, even if it's turned off in About Land > Options tab.
Always allow "Create objects". Members in a Role with this Ability can create objects on a group-owned parcel, even if it's turned off in About Land > Options tab.
Always allow "Create landmark". Members in a Role with this Ability can landmark a group-owned parcel, even if it's turned off in About Land > Options tab.
Allow "Set Home to here" on Group land. Members in a Role with this Ability can use World menu > Set Home to Here on a group parcel (either land set or deeded to this group).
[b:14y60rse]Parcel Access[/b:14y60rse]
Manage parcel Access lists in About Land > Access tab.
Manage parcel Ban lists in About Land > Ban tab.
Change parcel 'Sell passes...' settings in About Land > Access tab.
Eject and freeze residents on parcel. Members in a Role with this Ability can handle an unwelcome Resident on a group-owned parcel by right-clicking them, More >, and selecting 'Eject...' or 'Freeze...'.
[b:14y60rse]Parcel Content[/b:14y60rse]
Return objects on group-owned parcels that are owned by the group in About Land > Objects tab.
Return objects on group-owned parcels that are set to the group in About Land > Objects tab.
Return objects on group-owned parcels that are non-group in About Land > Objects tab.
Landscaping ability to place and move Linden trees, plants, and grasses. These items can be found in your inventory's Library > Objects folder or they can be created via the Build button.
[b:14y60rse]
Object Management[/b:14y60rse]
Deed objects to group in the Edit Tools > General Tab.
Manipulate (move, copy, modify) group-owned objects in the Edit Tools > General Tab.
Set group-owned objects for sale in the Edit Tools > General tab.
[b:14y60rse]Accounting[/b:14y60rse]
Members in a Role with this Ability will automatically pay group liabilities and receive group dividends. This means they will receive a portion of group-owned land sales which are distributed daily, as well as contribute towards things like parcel listing fees.
[b:14y60rse]Notices[/b:14y60rse]
Send notices. Members in a Role with this Ability can send Notices in Group Information > Notices tab.
Receive notices and receive past notices. Members in a Role with this Ability can receive Notices and view past Notices in Group Information > Notices tab.
[b:14y60rse]Proposals[/b:14y60rse]
Create proposals. Members in a Role with this Ability can create proposals to be voted on in Group Information > Proposals tab.
Vote on proposals. Members in a Role with this Ability can vote on proposals in Group Information > Proposals tab.
My last thoughts, I am not for this concept. I know it was proposed by my faction t will not just accept something so silly.
I was against this concept last year, today and will be against it tommorow.
I do not see the benifit of this and there is no way someone will sign over their sim! the people of the mainland do not wish to do it either.
It is pointless to discuss this until you get someone to take the plunge. Can tell you Okinawa would freeze over before I would sign over a 1.7k sim to the CDS. What makes you thing anyone will?
Oh this is being written on Interstate 90 near Rockford IL driving down the road.
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":33x5yxsg]/me grudgingly acknowledges the merit of the above arguments.
Accepting the 512 sqm enfranchulation as a learning by doing pilot project I would like to list a few items, which I think should be clarified as part of this process (most of them have probably been listed already by other, more informed contributors):
1) Franchulee should get money for his land to make the possibility attractive. The price should be comparable to what it would cost the CDS to expand on a sim-by-sim basis for an equivalent piece of land or be maybe a bit higher. I think 5-4 D.17 implies this.
2) Franchulee should be able to leave the CDS with an X month notice by paying back the sum given to him for joining.
3) In the case where the franchulee citizen forfeits his CDS assets as a result of a government sanction that is not overturned on judicial appeal the franchulee will similarly lose his right to buy the mainland back.
4) A group/role taxonomy should be established that allows franchulee citizens the same rights to modify land access/permissions/attributes as sim parcel owners but does not extend this power to encompass other enfranchulated parcels.
5) A method should be found whereby mainland franchulate ban lists are maintained to uphold CDS-wide banishments as issued by the government and upheld by the courts without imposing undue burdens on the executive and without relying on franchulee citizens for the maintenance so long as they do not have a clear incentive to comply.
6) There should exist a clear and explicit, comprehensive written framework that specifies what degree of sovereignty a franchulate-governing citizen can exercise over his own parcel (setting covenant provisions, taxation, law and similar)
7) The same framework should specify the possibility of and status of any other residents on the franchulated parcel relative to who gets to decide on eligibility for residence, citizenship status and who gets any land fees paid. The framework should further specify the status of any other tenants' claim to citizenship when the franchulate owner decides he wants his franchulate to leave the CDS.[/quote:33x5yxsg]
Here's my take:
1)There should be an option for the CDS to purchase the parcel from the applicant according to fair market value or whatever the Chancellor and the applicant agree on. This "asking price" could be part of the application.
2)I would be very pleased if we could amend 5-4 to spell out the rules of separation. Barring that, it could be negociated in advance as part of the franchulate charter on a franch by franch basis. I'd be very comfortable with Diderot's suggestion. I'm not sure how TOP feels though.
3)Is tricky. If the franchulate is not group owned *and* the parcel comprises the area of land forfeit by a SC judgement then the holder is likely disenfranchised and can reapply. On the other hand if the franchise owner is permanently (not summarily) banished from the CDS by SC judgement, I believe the franchulate is forfeit. If the franchulate is group owned, and the franchise owner is banned from the CDS, that banished person's group contribution is forfeit, the remaining group members will have to "pick up the slack". This is my opinion. These are debatable points, and really point to a penal code and how SC judgements would be implemented in practice. If I had to forfeit, say, 512m2, I'd personally prefer to forfeit island land rather than my Mainland franch (given the choice).
4)Yes, a franchise holder does not administer other franchulates any more than a McDonalds restarurant manager in Paris should have the power to run a McDonalds restaurant in London. Each franchulate is either indivdually or group owned and has a single local administrator.
5)Yes, where practicable the local admin should uphold CDS law and maintain the franchulate banlist.
6)Yes, the franchulate instrument is flexible and so the desired local autonomy must (within 5-4 prescribed limits) be present in the charter. Ashcroft posted about this at length and we used the Esperantist group as a hypothetical franchulate desiring maximum local autonomy.
7)Yes, we could have CDS group owned land available as well as Beathan's "workfare" guild program for "refugees". I may even open a refugee camp franchulate/CDS infohub next to Ravenglass Rentals.
-To make Sudane's and Ali's life easier, we might want to put together a little "implementation guide" to smooth this out a bit.
OK, this post combines the efforts of a 'critic', the 'visionary' and and an applicant, hopefully the new RA can base their opinions on it:
[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2o1vgf1c][quote="Diderot Mirabeau":2o1vgf1c]Accepting the 512 sqm enfranchulation as a learning by doing pilot project I would like to list a few items, which I think should be clarified as part of this process (most of them have probably been listed already by other, more informed contributors):
1) Franchulee should get money for his land to make the possibility attractive. The price should be comparable to what it would cost the CDS to expand on a sim-by-sim basis for an equivalent piece of land or be maybe a bit higher. I think 5-4 D.17 implies this.
2) Franchulee should be able to leave the CDS with an X month notice by paying back the sum given to him for joining.
3) In the case where the franchulee citizen forfeits his CDS assets as a result of a government sanction that is not overturned on judicial appeal the franchulee will similarly lose his right to buy the mainland back.
4) A group/role taxonomy should be established that allows franchulee citizens the same rights to modify land access/permissions/attributes as sim parcel owners but does not extend this power to encompass other enfranchulated parcels.
5) A method should be found whereby mainland franchulate ban lists are maintained to uphold CDS-wide banishments as issued by the government and upheld by the courts without imposing undue burdens on the executive and without relying on franchulee citizens for the maintenance so long as they do not have a clear incentive to comply.
6) There should exist a clear and explicit, comprehensive written framework that specifies what degree of sovereignty a franchulate-governing citizen can exercise over his own parcel (setting covenant provisions, taxation, law and similar)
7) The same framework should specify the possibility of and status of any other residents on the franchulated parcel relative to who gets to decide on eligibility for residence, citizenship status and who gets any land fees paid. The framework should further specify the status of any other tenants' claim to citizenship when the franchulate owner decides he wants his franchulate to leave the CDS.[/quote:2o1vgf1c]
Here's my take:
1)There should be an option for the CDS to purchase the parcel from the applicant according to fair market value or whatever the Chancellor and the applicant agree on. This "asking price" could be part of the application.
2)I would be very pleased if we could amend 5-4 to spell out the rules of separation. Barring that, it could be negociated in advance as part of the franchulate charter on a franch by franch basis. I'd be very comfortable with Diderot's suggestion. I'm not sure how TOP feels though.
3)Is tricky. If the franchulate is not group owned *and* the parcel comprises the area of land forfeit by a SC judgement then the holder is likely disenfranchised and can reapply. On the other hand if the franchise owner is permanently (not summarily) banished from the CDS by SC judgement, I believe the franchulate is forfeit. If the franchulate is group owned, and the franchise owner is banned from the CDS, that banished person's group contribution is forfeit, the remaining group members will have to "pick up the slack". This is my opinion. These are debatable points, and really point to a penal code and how SC judgements would be implemented in practice. If I had to forfeit, say, 512m2, I'd personally prefer to forfeit island land rather than my Mainland franch (given the choice).
4)Yes, a franchise holder does not administer other franchulates any more than a McDonalds restarurant manager in Paris should have the power to run a McDonalds restaurant in London. Each franchulate is either indivdually or group owned and has a single local administrator.
5)Yes, where practicable the local admin should uphold CDS law and maintain the franchulate banlist.
6)Yes, the franchulate instrument is flexible and so the desired local autonomy must (within 5-4 prescribed limits) be present in the charter. Ashcroft posted about this at length and we used the Esperantist group as a hypothetical franchulate desiring maximum local autonomy.
7)Yes, we could have CDS group owned land available as well as Beathan's "workfare" guild program for "refugees". I may even open a refugee camp franchulate/CDS infohub next to Ravenglass Rentals.
-To make Sudane's and Ali's life easier, we might want to put together a little "implementation guide" to smooth this out a bit.[/quote:2o1vgf1c]
[size=84:2o1vgf1c][color=green:2o1vgf1c]Green = Agreed[/color:2o1vgf1c] .. [color=orange:2o1vgf1c]Orange = Some differences[/color:2o1vgf1c] .. [color=red:2o1vgf1c]Red = Needs more attention[/color:2o1vgf1c][/size:2o1vgf1c]
- - - - - - And here's my opinion again (the applicant) :
[color=green:2o1vgf1c]1) Agree w/ Pel, Diderot's wishes are possible within Pel's 'implementation'.[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=orange:2o1vgf1c]2) Put in franch. charter = preferrable for test case.[/color:2o1vgf1c][color=green:2o1vgf1c] Other than that: amendment (=agree with Diderot and Pel).[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=red:2o1vgf1c]3) "These are debatable points, and really point to a penal code and how SC judgements would be implemented in practice." --> So, what necessary actions should be taken?[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=green:2o1vgf1c]4) Agree w/ both, Sudane & me working on setting up and testing a group.[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=green:2o1vgf1c]5) Agree w/ Pel, and probably with Diderot too, but not 100% but see no problems because upholding the law is my intent & will specify in charter.[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=green:2o1vgf1c]6) Agree w/ Pel's mentioning of flexibility, I *will* describe desired autonomy in charter,[/color:2o1vgf1c][color=orange:2o1vgf1c] but I hope Diderot doesn't want to limit autonomy.[/color:2o1vgf1c]
[color=orange:2o1vgf1c]7) Careful .. Act allows citizens/inhabitants, but I see this as 'advanced' or '2nd step' .. Needs nuanced group set up.
I would go for a 1-man franch first. If Pel thinks 'multiplayer' franchs are possible right away, I'd be very interested to see how that works![/color:2o1vgf1c]
Ranma may be right that nobody who has gone to the trouble to acquire an entire sim will want to franchulate. I also respect her desire not to do it. However, I don't know if either of those circumstances constitutes grounds to not have the mechanism in place for those (like TOPGenosse) who want to go that route.