Howard Fineman's book "The Thirteen American Arguments" puts forward the view that the United States of America is 'The Arguing Country' - born in, and born to, debate. How much truer is this of the CDS - Second Life's oldest democracy born in, and born to, endless argument! Fineman considers this to be America's greatest strength. I agree, and I think our tendency to argue is one of the CDS's greatest strengths too. I have identified "Six CDS Arguments" which I have seen in my years in this community.
Fineman identifies thirteen core arguments which have been raging in the US since the Declaration of Independence (and sometimes from even earlier). "Who is a person?", "Who is an American?", "What is the role of faith?" - these are all arguments that can never be said to be completely settled. Each generation needs to retread old ground and take into account new information and new attitudes as it considers these fundamental questions for itself. It seems obvious to us now in the twenty-first century that women and men deserve equal rights, that slavery is abhorrent and that race is a social, not a biological construct which does not justify unequal treatment. But, as history shows, these debates had to be had in order to take American society from a place in which African Americans were treated as property and women denied the vote to one in which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could compete for the Presidency. Fineman goes on to question whether our understanding of personhood might be extended to include the unborn or enemy combatants held in Guantanamo. We might also consider whether artificial life-forms might one day be considered to be persons too. (This is a rich theme in science fiction from the recent 'Battlestar Galactica' remake to 'I, Robot' and beyond).
The equivalent CDS arguments are a little different - we have not spent a great deal of time discussing the role of faith in our virtual lives for example (though perhaps Al Andalus residents have?) But there are a set of core CDS arguments which we return to from time to time. Here are some I have identified from the past four years living in the CDS sims.
1. Who is a citizen?
We generally agree that one citizen = one avatar = one RL human being but the CDS is pretty open to abuse of alts. Anyone could, in theory, hold two or more avatars and have two or more votes in the CDS. We have often debated how we might fix this problem and reduce the potential for abuse but, so far, have not been able to come up with any solutions which do not have significant drawbacks in terms of privacy. We operate on the 'honour system'. To further complicate matters, some have argued that alts should each get a vote!
We are a property-owning democracy - the general rule is that you need to own land in the CDS sims to be a citizen. Again, this has been challenged previously and some have suggested cutting that connection between land ownership and citizenship.
The waters were muddied by the Group Land Ownership Act which allowed people who had owned land individually in the CDS to own land in common and derive citizenship through paying a portion of the monthly tier. This was so that people in relationships could own one plot in common (rather than having to each have separate homes in the CDS). It was also intended to cater for larger group projects, e.g. religious groups or language communities like the Esperantists, who could own a plot in common and each derive their citizenship through contributing to the tier on the land. This was passed with the best of intentions but it has certainly made the census much more difficult to implement.
2. What are the limits to free speech?
The CDS has a pretty strong tradition of free speech but this has taken a beating in recent years. Free speech is guaranteed by the CDS Constitution and its incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but free speech is muted by social pressure. For example, during the debate over merger with Al Andalus anyone who raised a question about the merger in the CDS was shouted down and told they were being 'offensive'. People were told to shut up or risk nixing the merger. There has also been a muting of free speech in the interests of 'civility' and to avoid putting off new citizens with open expressions of passionate disagreement. This was used for a time by those in power previously to inhibit criticism and avoid being held accountable.
The move towards greater civility has had its positive side though. We rarely take quite the same kind of chunks out of each other in RA meetings as we used to during the CARE/NuCARE years. This is a perennial debate and an inevitable one given the disparate political cultures we come from in RL.
3. Local v. national authority
Considering how small the CDS is in terms of population (currently about 120 citizens and double what it was before last year's merger with Al Andalus) we have had discussions about more local government since the time when we only had one sim! There have been several complicated proposals for turning the CDS into a federal state. (By the way, the 'Confederation' in the title has no real meaning; it was the least worst of the several awful names we considered when some of the founders left 'Neulatenburg', as it then was, and wanted to take the name with them). At one point we even considered a 'virtual United Nations' which other micronations such as Caledon could be invited to join.
I think this has the potential to be a more interesting discussion now we have almost reached Dunbar's number for the total population of the CDS. It is becoming more difficult to say you really know everyone in the CDS and there is a definite AA/former CDS split. It may be time to consider how we build on the recent local government initiatives in terms of event scheduling so that different CDS communities can run more of their own affairs.
4. Role of the Executive
The original founders were very worried about executive powers, in fact there was no true executive in the early years at all. I think there was a worry that if an individual was given executive powers it would be very likely they would be abused and that the monarchical dictatorship model so common in the rest of the grid would be the outcome. Executive powers were spread out between the Representative Assembly (legislature), the Scientific Council (quasi-judiciary) and the Guild (artisanal collective). It took a number of years to develop proposals for the Chancellorship and for a long time 'getting things done' meant putting ideas forward at an RA meeting. The wheels sure ground slowly in those years.
The Chancelry has changed a lot over the intervening years largely in keeping with the personality of whoever holds the position. We have had fairly inactive Chancellors who have kept a low profile; we have had ones who were more active in some areas than others. The person who has set his stamp on it more than anyone else though is the recent three-time incumbent Jamie Palisades. During Jamie's time in office the Executive was very active, dominating RA meetings and driving forward the Al Andalus merger. It will be interesting to see what direction this goes in with a new Chancellor, Sonja Strom, having recently taken office.
5. What is the CDS for?
We have never been able to agree on this one! We have never even been able to agree whether we should decide what the CDS is for in the first place! There have been attempts over the years to craft a 'mission statement', something equivalent to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that would cover what the CDS is here for. But we have never been able to agree. Some think that such attempts are counterproductive in any case because, by selecting one set of options, we automatically close of others. In practice, the CDS appears to be here for as long as a group of people want it to be and to be for whatever the current group of citizens want it to be for. Long may that continue! With or without a mission statement.
6. What are the limits to individual freedom?
We had an interesting debate when someone put up red 'ban lines' around their property in Neufreistadt. There is no rule against it in our (lengthy, detailed, largely unenforced) covenants but it is kind of a social rule, a shared understanding, that we do not put up ban lines around our property in the CDS. It is not like the mainland and people do so usually without any strong intention to. Well, some people were outraged! They wanted to force people to take down ban lines, amend the covenants retrospectively and so on. (The sensible thing to do in these situations, as always, is to talk to your neighbours and ask them politely to take them down explaining why they are not needed. People are sensible for the most part and respond well to being treated like adults). We had a great discussion about it and were reminded that, within the limits of the ridiculous, arbitrary, nonsensical and unenforced covenants we have all signed up to, we do what the hell we want with our property and the government has no right to start making up new rules to limit our freedom.
Now, I am being cruel about our covenants. They could be improved to fit in with the wishes of current citizens and current practice but they do serve a useful purpose - they keep the sims largely pretty and largely within them. We are not blighted by the 'fuck you' hedonism of the mainland with spinning, flashing signs, monstrously ugly builds and Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong. Neither are we limited to what is provided on an overly themed private estate or a Linden 'burb. The great thing about democracy is that we get to decide just how pernickety we want to be about these things.
We generally agree that one citizen = one avatar = one RL human being but the CDS is pretty open to abuse of alts. Anyone could, in theory, hold two or more avatars and have two or more votes in the CDS. We have often debated how we might fix this problem and reduce the potential for abuse but, so far, have not been able to come up with any solutions which do not have significant drawbacks in terms of privacy. We operate on the 'honour system'. To further complicate matters, some have argued that alts should each get a vote!
We are a property-owning democracy - the general rule is that you need to own land in the CDS sims to be a citizen. Again, this has been challenged previously and some have suggested cutting that connection between land ownership and citizenship.
The waters were muddied by the Group Land Ownership Act which allowed people who had owned land individually in the CDS to own land in common and derive citizenship through paying a portion of the monthly tier. This was so that people in relationships could own one plot in common (rather than having to each have separate homes in the CDS). It was also intended to cater for larger group projects, e.g. religious groups or language communities like the Esperantists, who could own a plot in common and each derive their citizenship through contributing to the tier on the land. This was passed with the best of intentions but it has certainly made the census much more difficult to implement.
2. What are the limits to free speech?
The CDS has a pretty strong tradition of free speech but this has taken a beating in recent years. Free speech is guaranteed by the CDS Constitution and its incorporation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but free speech is muted by social pressure. For example, during the debate over merger with Al Andalus anyone who raised a question about the merger in the CDS was shouted down and told they were being 'offensive'. People were told to shut up or risk nixing the merger. There has also been a muting of free speech in the interests of 'civility' and to avoid putting off new citizens with open expressions of passionate disagreement. This was used for a time by those in power previously to inhibit criticism and avoid being held accountable.
The move towards greater civility has had its positive side though. We rarely take quite the same kind of chunks out of each other in RA meetings as we used to during the CARE/NuCARE years. This is a perennial debate and an inevitable one given the disparate political cultures we come from in RL.
3. Local v. national authority
Considering how small the CDS is in terms of population (currently about 120 citizens and double what it was before last year's merger with Al Andalus) we have had discussions about more local government since the time when we only had one sim! There have been several complicated proposals for turning the CDS into a federal state. (By the way, the 'Confederation' in the title has no real meaning; it was the least worst of the several awful names we considered when some of the founders left 'Neulatenburg', as it then was, and wanted to take the name with them). At one point we even considered a 'virtual United Nations' which other micronations such as Caledon could be invited to join.
I think this has the potential to be a more interesting discussion now we have almost reached Dunbar's number for the total population of the CDS. It is becoming more difficult to say you really know everyone in the CDS and there is a definite AA/former CDS split. It may be time to consider how we build on the recent local government initiatives in terms of event scheduling so that different CDS communities can run more of their own affairs.
4. Role of the Executive
The original founders were very worried about executive powers, in fact there was no true executive in the early years at all. I think there was a worry that if an individual was given executive powers it would be very likely they would be abused and that the monarchical dictatorship model so common in the rest of the grid would be the outcome. Executive powers were spread out between the Representative Assembly (legislature), the Scientific Council (quasi-judiciary) and the Guild (artisanal collective). It took a number of years to develop proposals for the Chancellorship and for a long time 'getting things done' meant putting ideas forward at an RA meeting. The wheels sure ground slowly in those years.
The Chancelry has changed a lot over the intervening years largely in keeping with the personality of whoever holds the position. We have had fairly inactive Chancellors who have kept a low profile; we have had ones who were more active in some areas than others. The person who has set his stamp on it more than anyone else though is the recent three-time incumbent Jamie Palisades. During Jamie's time in office the Executive was very active, dominating RA meetings and driving forward the Al Andalus merger. It will be interesting to see what direction this goes in with a new Chancellor, Sonja Strom, having recently taken office.
5. What is the CDS for?
We have never been able to agree on this one! We have never even been able to agree whether we should decide what the CDS is for in the first place! There have been attempts over the years to craft a 'mission statement', something equivalent to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' that would cover what the CDS is here for. But we have never been able to agree. Some think that such attempts are counterproductive in any case because, by selecting one set of options, we automatically close of others. In practice, the CDS appears to be here for as long as a group of people want it to be and to be for whatever the current group of citizens want it to be for. Long may that continue! With or without a mission statement.
6. What are the limits to individual freedom?
We had an interesting debate when someone put up red 'ban lines' around their property in Neufreistadt. There is no rule against it in our (lengthy, detailed, largely unenforced) covenants but it is kind of a social rule, a shared understanding, that we do not put up ban lines around our property in the CDS. It is not like the mainland and people do so usually without any strong intention to. Well, some people were outraged! They wanted to force people to take down ban lines, amend the covenants retrospectively and so on. (The sensible thing to do in these situations, as always, is to talk to your neighbours and ask them politely to take them down explaining why they are not needed. People are sensible for the most part and respond well to being treated like adults). We had a great discussion about it and were reminded that, within the limits of the ridiculous, arbitrary, nonsensical and unenforced covenants we have all signed up to, we do what the hell we want with our property and the government has no right to start making up new rules to limit our freedom.
Now, I am being cruel about our covenants. They could be improved to fit in with the wishes of current citizens and current practice but they do serve a useful purpose - they keep the sims largely pretty and largely within them. We are not blighted by the 'fuck you' hedonism of the mainland with spinning, flashing signs, monstrously ugly builds and Mr Lee's Greater Hong Kong. Neither are we limited to what is provided on an overly themed private estate or a Linden 'burb. The great thing about democracy is that we get to decide just how pernickety we want to be about these things.
---------------
Some will say that my list of six is somewhat arbitrary and be able to identify a number of others that repeat pretty regularly. Please feel free to add to and criticise my list in the comments!
8 comments:
Ugh. You guys merged with Al Andalus?! that's AWFUL! and you suppressed free speech about this? And you call yourselves a democracy?! This is like a caricature of what happens in Europe when politically-correct politesse trumps hard criticism of harsh Islamic realities.
Al Andalus, whatever its hype, pretention and outright lies, is a group devoted to restoring the Caliphate. The Caliphate would suppress all sovereignty and freedom in Europe and elsewhere under one theocratic state leadership. Hell, no.
Honestly, you guys are nuts. And a sad ending to the long experiment in democracy in SL -- the revolution not only ate its children, it ate its parents, too.
Hi Prokofy. Thanks for looking at my blog and posting a comment.
If Al Andalus were a group devoted to restoring the Caliphate you would be right :) But, it isn't and the CDS would not have merged with it if it were.
Al Andalus today is completely different from the project which Michel Manen initiated (he fled the scene a long time ago). They are much more about exploring issues of religious and cultural tolerance in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
I think there are valid criticisms that can be made of the political culture in Al Andalus but devotion to an Islamic Caliphate is no longer one of them!
We just held our first elections as a merged entity and the results were a mix of former CDS, former AA and former residents of both communities. The elections were held under the same system the CDS has used for over five years now. It is more like Turkey joining the EU than the Moors conquering Spain :)
Insightful post, Patroklus. I like your summary of core issues that keep getting debated in new ways in each new Representative Assembly. The thorniest question may be "what is CDS for." For me CDS is primarily an experiment in online democracy, but I recognize that this is like saying that the community exists for the principles, rather than the other way round.
Prokofy, I think Al Andalus is supposed to promote a moderate, tolerant Islam, as an alternative to extremist theocracy. Their impact is probably low, since there may be few real Moslems among the membership. But the intent seems laudable.
An interesting take!
I only see 3 of the 6 issues (1, 4 and 5) as being explored in any detail by CDS. #1 (citizenship) and #5 (purpose) are perennial grist for debate and even legislative proposals. Your choice of blog title takes a fairly clear position on #5. Personally, as I might have said last year, I'd rather live in an Open Cultural Country than an Arguing Factions County.
On #4 I may be biased. Over the years we've have strong RAs and weak executives, and vice versa. Not sure either is "better": but the tripartite system seems to help assure continuity either way. Likewise, we have had close-hovering SCs and no-pulse-detected SCs; and done just fine on balance. So by my analysis, the design generally works.
Your view that free speech in CDS (#2) is endangered deserves its own post :) so I will save it. Suffice to say, no such oppression even is alleged other than in RA meetings. Seems to me that free speech is a fairly universal value in CDS, and not in question or in danger.
Ditto #6 (zoning and limits). Here, I think we shine. As a practical matter, discarding a few outlier whiners not allowed to erect giant neon signs in a historical Roman colony, I don't think CDS has experienced much real disagreement or trouble here. I enforced those covenants for a few years; I found it fairly easy, and the community very responsive to good will. We all find it comforting in CDS that, if the enforcer acts wrongly and outside the rules, some judicial or legislative body could stop it. This stands in strong distinction to Linden Labs (where the Orwellian police simply "disappear" and delete anyone who disobeys, in their view, which is opaque and accountable to none) ... and to most SL private estates (where the owner rules as despot, just like Linden Labs). The "mayor" selection in one estate, a while ago, featured long debates about whether one sim boss had been estate-banning ex-girlfriends out of spite. This reminded me that CDS stands as a much better, fairer model.
Your #3 issue (local control) is an interesting one, yet to come. Some have complained that our increase in legislature size from 5 to 7 to 11 is unworkable. How much more so a "United Nations" model? Certainly, a bigger heterogenous community is governed differently than a small group of long-time friends. And that transition has been ... challenging to CDS. Still, it seems to be working. Personally, I see no problem with a senate of 11 or 31 ... if we used fair rules to limit real-time meeting time-consumption by legislators who love infeasibly long speeches.
Regards JP
Prokofy's searing insight reveals that their secret evil plan is to "restore the Caliphate," eh? Going to be tough, when Al-Andalus launched a religious tolerance program, and then subjected themselves to all CDS laws and the Univ. Decl. of Human Rights. Does Ravenglass Rentals have an anti-hate-speech rule? Does it include Arab-haters?
Lol, Prokofy. I'm so glad we're still here for you to be able to announce the end of us yet again! :) You declared our end in early 2006 when we banned Ulrika, and now, 4 years later, you have the pleasure of announcing our end yet again!
And I'm certainly glad that this "announcement of demise" is prompted by your observation that the community fails to capitulate to yet another persistent stereotype of world culture, that somehow *all* of Muslim culture is engaged in a vast conspiracy to impose its theocratic vision on human affairs.
Interesting that this admittedly chaotic but thoroughly democratic community should end up being the real fostering place of bridge-building between the cultures, and ultimate debunker of narrow-minded and distinctly "old world" conspiracy theories. It occurs to me that both you and I, in RL, live in an equivalent chaotic but also culture-connecting environment, undoubtedly by choice. New York City.
Sudane..............
Oh, I loved to read this article :) It's written in an excellent format and summarises quite well some of the more "unsettled" questions in the CDS, which will keep us busy in the next decades (and hopefully we'll have the pleasure of having Prokofy popping up every other year or so to tell us how we are "doomed to fail").
Of course, I'd add a few more questions hehe — but in general I agree with your assessment of what the most important are.
Personally, one of the things that excited me most about the Al Andalus merger was the new level of challenges it brought, most of them yet unsettled. It's by overcoming obstacles that we learn a lot about ourselves; and that makes us stronger. As you so well noticed, we're pretty close to the Dunbar number, and it shows how difficult it starts to manage a community where citizens simply have too different, opposing views.
That is where democracy is supposed to shine. So far, we have struggled along to try to deal with all those opposing views. It'll be a true test to the ever-enduring continuation of the CDS if we can, indeed, through democratic procedures, overcome all the issues together. I think we will, but I'm sure that we won't be able to please everyone.
But in fact that's precisely what happens in RL: democracies, at best, only please a majority of citizens. So long as the rest are fully entitled to all rights (namely, the right to become a majority again!), that works well iRL, and I'm sure it'll work even better in SL.
Oh dear. I've been distracted for too long. How *are* you all getting on over there?
* * * * *
Interestingly enough, I offered to very slightly democratise parts of the Caledon covenant ~ honestly, I'm good with majority opinions on rules about fences, minor disputes, stuff like that ~ and nearly *everyone* talked me out of it. Quite surprising. I may gently try again someday; the whole idea was to make everyone collectively a bit happier.
Post a Comment