話｜はなし｜hanashi

A Tribute to Kendra Bancroft

2011-07-08T17:11:00.004+01:00

Kendra Bancroft, also known as Maddie Blaustein in real life, passed away at the end of 2008. I wrote the following blog post shortly afterwards but didn't post it. Reading it again a couple of years later, it brings back to me the loss we all felt when we heard the news of her passing. In the meantime, I have also been working on a video tribute. The video focusses on Kendra's beloved Neufreistadt in Second Life and features many of the buildings she designed which illustrate the visual style she developed for the City. Like many who knew Kendra/Maddie, I still miss her.

------------------------------------------

I was shocked to discover via a CDS group IM on 17 December 2008 that Kendra Bancroft had passed away. The news floored me and I felt very odd being upset and tearful about someone who I had never met 'in the flesh', hadn't really spoken to in years but who I liked and cared about.

In the weeks since news of Kendra (AKA Maddie Blaustein)'s passing came out we've learned so much more about her and what she meant to others.

I first met Kendra in early 2006 shortly after I arrived in Neualtenburg as it then was. Kendra promptly recruited me to the Social Democratic Faction and gave me her take on the City's dispute with Ulrika Zugzwang who, along with Kendra and others, had been the founders of this experiment in democracy and self-governance in virtual worlds which is now one of Second Life's longest running projects.

Others have spoken of Kendra's loyalty to her friends; she was, indeed, loyal to a fault. She was also highly principled and stood her ground come what may. When the dispute between Ulrika and the City escalated Kendra resigned her RA seat and left Neualtenburg. I decided to stay in what would later become the CDS and, although there was no dispute between us, Kendra and I rarely spoke after that.

Kendra had built much of Neualtenburg and, to her credit, she helped to repair the damage that Ulrika caused when she deleted a a number of people's homes and city infrastructure. Kendra established her own community in Port Neualtenburg and nurtured and mentored creative people who I'm sure learned a lot from her.

After the parting of the ways there was a degree of bitterness in relations for a time. Kendra was defensive about the use of the name 'Altenburg' for the quarter where she had created her wondrous shops and the Neualtenburg Cabaret. But relations slowly improved. Kendra helped with our joint Oktoberfest celebrations and with repairs to the city infrastructure. But now she's gone and she's left an enormous hole in all our lives. The old Altenburg/Altenstadt area of Neufrestadt was undeveloped for years after Kendra's departure. It was very fitting to hold her memorial there and very symbolic of our loss.

Kendra/Maddie's passing was felt in a number of other communities too. I think I knew that Kendra was transgendered in RL, it certainly came as no surprise to me. It was no surprise either to learn she was an activist. I knew she had worked in comics and animation but not that she was an accomplished voice actress - the voice of 'Meowth' in Pokemon! Christmas 2008 will, for me, always be about Maddie singing 'Santa Baby' as Meowth!

End of Merger with Al Andalus

2010-09-11T17:39:00.001+01:00

The merger between the CDS and Al Andalus is no more. At a community meeting on 21 July, the Al Andalus Estate Owner recommended that the merger be dissolved and, with some disagreement from a few, it would seem most were happy to go along with the recommendation. You can read the full transcript here.

Should we rejoice? Tear our clothes and gnash our teeth? I must confess to a mixture of feelings. They are, variously, disappointment, anger and relief. But the point is to think and not only to feel and I hope that we can learn some lessons from this experience.

I'm disappointed because I thought the merger was potentially good for both communities. I thought the CDS was getting more citizens and would benefit from an infusion of new blood. Al Andalus had got beyond being Michel Manen's vanity project (and jettisoned him in the process). Sure, some of their pet projects seemed to be achingly politically correct - 'Understanding Islam', promoting the 'Convivencia' as a golden era of enlightened Muslim rule - but so what? What would be the problem with having a few more lefties and liberals in the CDS even if some are the woolly-headed sort? None, from my perspective! I thought that Al Andalus would benefit too. They had examined how to establish their own governance arrangements and come up with similar proposals to our own representative democracy. Here is the CDS with a set of tried-and-tested institutions in place. Why not just adopt them and integrate the two electorates? I thought that the Al Andalucians would be interested in learning about how we did things in the CDS, joining factions, establishing new ones and participating in our politics. But, I was wrong both about the motives for the merger and what Al Andalus, or at least its leaders, wanted from it. That brings me to anger…

I'm angry because the CDS was sold a pup. We were told by the architects of the merger not to behave like conquering Conquistadores (i.e. ask any questions) but, in fact, the plan was for AA to conquer the CDS. AA did not join the CDS accepting the representative democracy we have or the institutions we have built up and refined over the years but in order to overturn them.

The AA leading clique and several of its representatives on the CDS Representative Assembly, aided and abetted by some CDS citizens with a foot in both camps, attacked everything they did not like about the CDS from day one. Most of the attack was rather incoherent. We were continually told that AA 'did things better' but not how. We were told that the CDS needed to be 'more like AA' but there were no proposals for actual change. In the end, "factions" were demonised as the problem, so the CDS changed its electoral laws to allow any citizen to stand for election to the Representative Assembly without needing a faction label. But, the AA clique were still not satisfied and threatened that, unless we changed, they might invoke the clause in the merger agreement that allowed them to dissolve it at the one year point.

The final straw, presented as the reason for dissolving the merger, was that the CDS side 'failed to deliver on its side of the agreement'. Critics pointed to the failure to establish a non-profit corporation for AA to transfer ownership of the AA sims to. This aspect of the merger agreement would have benefitted from greater inspection (and would have got it if the architects of the merger had not been so neuralgic about any questioning of their plans). Did it really make sense for the CDS to invest time and effort in establishing a non-profit when there was a perfectly good one already owning the sims? Did it make any sense to invest time and effort in doing this when AA could walk away from the agreement after a year (and continually threatened to do so and, in the end, did!)

I'm really angry because the architects of this aborted merger have wasted eighteen months of everyone's time, in both communities, with this crap. This merger has absorbed time and effort which could have been spent on other things such as bringing in new people, planning more interesting events, sim redevelopment, even expansion. Instead we have had a year-long dysfunctional relationship which has benefitted no one.

I am also relieved. The past year has been horrendous but the CDS is still here and fundamentally sound. Our institutions of government and the Constitution survived. Our finances remain solid. The prospect of replacing 'representative democracy' with 'collaborative democracy' or 'participatory democracy' or some other thing that means 'not democracy' has receded… but not entirely. Al Andalus is no longer part of the CDS and the people who resided solely in AA are gone but there were always a fair number of dual citizens and some of the more rabid attackers of the CDS are still around - many of them are current, or former prominent government members. So the fight is not over yet.

As for Al Andalus, well… the reasons that prompted the merger in the first place are still present - over-reliance on one person to pay all the bills and do all the work. It's questionable whether AA really pays its way or not. I predict it will continue, for now, but it is unlikely to survive another change in leadership.

Here are some lessons I hope we can learn from this experience:

1. We should welcome questions not stifle them.
When the CDS is facing a big decision - the Judiciary Act; merger with Al Andalus - we need to listen to people who disagree with, or who question, the proposal. If you don't, you miss out on potentially valuable insight and you store up problems for the future. It's never a good idea to make people feel they have not been listened to.

2. We need more direct talk between citizens and fewer people claiming to speak for others.
Part of the problem here is that we could never find out what AA people wanted because they never spoke for themselves! Views were always presented to us second hand by a spokesperson. This made it difficult to assess what people really think (as opposed to the spin put on it by others) and it meant views could not be discussed properly; you can't ask 'why do you think that?' through an intermediary. When we tried to find out if the AA people actually *wanted* the merger by holding a referendum, the AA leadership clique tried to stop it, prevented us from finding out what each community thought and then advised AA people to abstain from the referendum "because it's a trap"!

3. Small steps are better than grand gestures.
We had lots of options before the merger was settled on. We could have just colocated the sims; we could have just established joint groups and attended each others events; we could have discussed federation rather than union. But all of these small step options were put to one side and dismissed out of hand in favour of the maximalist option. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see this was not such a good idea.

4. Beware 'a man with a plan'.
The Judiciary Act, CARE, the merger. These were all big plans with a very forceful avatar behind them. We need to be firmer in subjecting 'big plans' to scrutiny and saying 'no' when we need to. We could have saved ourselves a hell of a lot of sturm und drang in the past few years if we simply learned to say 'no' firmly when 'a man with a plan' breezes into town and tells us why we are doing everything wrong. Better to point them in the direction of Caledon and export our problems!

Transcript of Al Andalus Town Halls 21 July 2010

2010-09-11T17:37:00.000+01:00

Below are thre transcripts from two Al Andalus town hall meetings held on Wednesday, July 21, to discuss the state of the merger between AA and CDS.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

11:00 a.m. Meeting in the Palace Hall

[2010/07/21 11:05] Micael Khandr: Thanks for coming to this town hall meeting--I will be starting a transcript of the meeting now.

[2010/07/21 11:05] Rose Springvale: Micael, can you tell everyone why?

[2010/07/21 11:05] Rose Springvale: because we have never transcripted meetings in AA

[2010/07/21 11:05] Micael Khandr: As you all know, this meeting is for us as AA residents and citizens to discuss the status of the AA/CDS merger.

[2010/07/21 11:05] Rose Springvale: hey Kami

[2010/07/21 11:06] Delia Lake: hi Kami

[2010/07/21 11:06] Kaseido Quandry: Kamilah!

[2010/07/21 11:06] Kamilah Hauptmann haz tea, only 25 natives fell to our muskets to secure it.

[2010/07/21 11:06] Micael Khandr: Rose, Delia and I are members of the non-profit board of Virtual Democracy, Inc., which is the "owner" of the AA sims.

[2010/07/21 11:06] Lilith Ivory: Hi Kamilah

[2010/07/21 11:06] Kamilah Hauptmann: *mew*

[2010/07/21 11:06] Rose Springvale: smiles at tea

[2010/07/21 11:06] Kamilah Hauptmann: :)

[2010/07/21 11:06] Micael Khandr: We met last week to discuss the state of the merger, and want to share our thoughts with you, and

[2010/07/21 11:07] Micael Khandr: receive your thoughts

[2010/07/21 11:08] Micael Khandr: Our board felt that the conditions of the merger have not been met, and so for that reason we don't erecommend continuing the merger

[2010/07/21 11:08] Delia Lake: --btw there is a copy of the merger agreement in the box on the floor

[2010/07/21 11:08] Micael Khandr: but we want to hear from you as well.

[2010/07/21 11:08] Micael Khandr: Rose, if you don't mind, could you summarize the issues of the conditions not being met?

[2010/07/21 11:08] Rose Springvale: sure...

[2010/07/21 11:09] Rose Springvale: i did a draft last week, but let me just do the readers digest version

[2010/07/21 11:09] Rose Springvale: first, AA is a non profit, educational project

[2010/07/21 11:09] Delia Lake: hi Jamie

[2010/07/21 11:09] Lilith Ivory: hi Jamie

[2010/07/21 11:09] Kaseido Quandry: hey Jamie

[2010/07/21 11:09] Alaya Kumaki is Online

[2010/07/21 11:09] Jamie Palisades nods politely, listens

[2010/07/21 11:09] Rose Springvale: the agreement said that CDS would form a non profit, to receive the transfer. Since we already had to form one, we've offered that to cds, under an operating agreement

[2010/07/21 11:10] Rose Springvale: to date, there is no such agreement

[2010/07/21 11:10] Rose Springvale: i approached sonja a few weeks ago, in hopes of facillitating this

[2010/07/21 11:10] Rose Springvale: and she agreed that it was her responsibility, yet none of us have heard anything

[2010/07/21 11:10] Rose Springvale: second

[2010/07/21 11:11] Rose Springvale: theres been no effort to administer the sims, since, nods in recognition, Jamie left office

[2010/07/21 11:11] Rose Springvale: need to get my list to see what else, unless you or delia have it Micael?

[2010/07/21 11:12] Micael Khandr: I don't have the list, Rose--but that might be a good point to allow others to react

[2010/07/21 11:12] Rose Springvale: okay

[2010/07/21 11:12] Delia Lake: i do have a couple of points, but would also like to hear others speak first

[2010/07/21 11:13] Micael Khandr: Sorry, Delia--will come back to you :)

[2010/07/21 11:13] Micael Khandr: Anyone?

[2010/07/21 11:13] Jamie Palisades raises his hand for a question, when it's time, but is not in a rush.

[2010/07/21 11:13] Micael Khandr: Sure Jamie--go ahead.

[2010/07/21 11:13] Delia Lake: what are your feelings about this merger. you have a say in this as citizens of AA

[2010/07/21 11:14] Kaseido Quandry: well, if nobody else is going to take that one...

[2010/07/21 11:14] Micael Khandr: Go for it!

[2010/07/21 11:14] Jamie Palisades: Thanks. Rose, Delia, you are among other thing the heads of two of the three branches of government in CDS right now. What wqould have bene required from CDS, and is it really only Sonja alone who can do it?

[2010/07/21 11:15] Jamie Palisades: sorry, forgive the typos, I am not getting better with that :)

[2010/07/21 11:15] Rose Springvale: go ahead delia, i need to get some information

[2010/07/21 11:16] Rose Springvale: Jamie

[2010/07/21 11:16] Jamie Palisades: mm hmm?

[2010/07/21 11:16] Delia Lake: the first thing that is missing for me is any interest from the people who are 5 original sim only citizens in what AA is about, what the purpose and activities of these sims are

[2010/07/21 11:17] Rose Springvale: who else could do it? the board met with the full RA and tried to answer questions. I met with sonja privately on june 23

[2010/07/21 11:17] Delia Lake: most of what i hear is how people can change AA, not understand AA

[2010/07/21 11:17] Rose Springvale: she reported to the RA last meeting, and didn't even mention AA

[2010/07/21 11:18] Delia Lake: there has certainly been discussion on the forum and some in the RA about what to do with AA

[2010/07/21 11:18] Jamie Palisades: Delia, I suppose any merger would create change. The question is what AA's owners are willing to do. Rose, is Sonja's silence is the sole criterion then? She seems like a very sleepy, inactive chancellor .. but historically, most of them have been :)

[2010/07/21 11:19] Wasp Thor: no kidding

[2010/07/21 11:19] Wasp Thor: hahahaha

[2010/07/21 11:19] Jamie Palisades: I gather that Michael, Delia and Rose really own AA, so perhaps you should tell us what if anything you have already decided?

[2010/07/21 11:19] Rose Springvale: no, the treasurer has also not worked with us.

[2010/07/21 11:19] Delia Lake: but not about how AA as an historical set of builds with a community rooted in tolerance, education and culture and with a different but i believe complementary form of democracy could contribute to the richness of the CDS

[2010/07/21 11:19] Rose Springvale: That's not the case jamie.

[2010/07/21 11:19] Jamie Palisades: (own in the sense of VDI Board, of course)

[2010/07/21 11:20] Delia Lake: and that goes beyond the functions or lack thereof of admin

[2010/07/21 11:20] Delia Lake: the treasurer has not worked with us that i know of, and neither has the chancellor

[2010/07/21 11:20] Rose Springvale: are you saying as a citizen of AA that you want to keep working on this Jamie?

[2010/07/21 11:20] Rose Springvale: because this meeting is about what AA wants to do going forward

[2010/07/21 11:20] Rose Springvale: not what cds did or didn't do

[2010/07/21 11:21] Kaseido Quandry: I agree with Delia, and then some. The only will with respect to AA shown by anyone in the CDS administration is hostility towards the merger and to the most active people in AA, and a desire to ensure that no actual blending of the communities takes place

[2010/07/21 11:21] Carolyn Saarinen: Sorry I'm late folks

[2010/07/21 11:21] Rose Springvale: hi caro

[2010/07/21 11:21] Kaseido Quandry: hi Caro

[2010/07/21 11:22] Lilith Ivory: Hi Caro :)

[2010/07/21 11:22] Jamie Palisades: Hm. So, the treasurer's failure to do her job has been rbbrought to the attention of the SC and RA? Or is it just your feeling that it;s too much hassle to bother? I gather than your presentations are intended to inform peolpe her about your impresison of whather it;s a good ideal to kill the merger, and perhaps share your own views. I f CDS seems to you (even though Delia and Rose run some of it) to be hostile, well, then, that's a judgment you ought to take into account. I am sinmply wondering how much of it in s institutional, and how much personal.

[2010/07/21 11:23] Kaseido Quandry: Institutional in what sense, Jamie?

[2010/07/21 11:23] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I have got the feeling that they think the only way to break the agrement is to scare AA away so we say no

[2010/07/21 11:23] Delia Lake: i also worry from the perspective of a chartered nonprofit that we could lose that status if the CDS administration would want and do nothing more than divide all the AA sims into smaller plots for the sole purpose of gaining profit--which is essentially what has been stated by some in power

[2010/07/21 11:23] Jamie Palisades: The preot from VDI board members seems to be that they find CDS (or the chancellor and treasurer) impossible to deal with. Fair summary?

[2010/07/21 11:23] Jamie Palisades: *report

[2010/07/21 11:23] Kaseido Quandry: muhammad, yeah, I agree with you

[2010/07/21 11:23] Wasp Thor: Actually everything we do is personal

[2010/07/21 11:23] Rose Springvale: not impossible, unwilling

[2010/07/21 11:23] Jamie Palisades: I agree muhammad :)

[2010/07/21 11:24] Kaseido Quandry: unwilling to actively hostile

[2010/07/21 11:24] Jamie Palisades: a few old people in power there - who shar epower now with delia and rose - want you to go awya, but they can;t make you, bexcaue you have rights :) so they hope you will leave, and do what they can;t.

[2010/07/21 11:24] Micael Khandr: I agree wioth Delia, regardless of the lack of CDS action in fulfilling the merger agreement, it seems to me that the culture of AA and the culture of CDS are not "merging"Actually, Jamie--I also question whether the culture of AA will survive the opposition to the way we approach decisions and such.

[2010/07/21 11:24] Alessitaah Eiren: Buenas Tardes

[2010/07/21 11:24] Alessitaah Eiren: Good Afternoon

[2010/07/21 11:24] Kaseido Quandry: I don't believe the personalities in the CDS want us, but more importantly, I think that AA gets no benefit, and a lot of damage, from the association - and that's been a very hard conclusion for me to reach.

[2010/07/21 11:25] Carolyn Saarinen: I agree

[2010/07/21 11:25] Jamie Palisades: Micael, might we have erred in assessing that as possible last year? Sort of "now that we thought about it we do not really want a democracy"?

[2010/07/21 11:25] Wasp Thor: We tried to look at the merger last year with an open mind and so far I see nothing in favor of the merger

[2010/07/21 11:25] Delia Lake: Jamie, on a personal preference level, i have been for this merger since the beginning, and until about 3 weeks ago--when i was on vacation and got to thinking about things without any access to a computer

[2010/07/21 11:25] Jamie Palisades: I'd lik ethat better as a reason than peronsal spats :)

[2010/07/21 11:26] Kaseido Quandry: Jamie, I absoltely reject their branding, that the only way to have a democracy is to have a faction-ridden bureaucracy with the occasional election

[2010/07/21 11:26] Micael Khandr: I think we can do more to experiment with democracy by separating AA and trying out models that emphasis culture and dialogue, rather than conflict and beuracracy

[2010/07/21 11:26] Kaseido Quandry cheers Micael

[2010/07/21 11:26] Wasp Thor: I agree

[2010/07/21 11:26] Jamie Palisades chuckles - you know what i think there Kas

[2010/07/21 11:27] Kaseido Quandry: I do, Jamie - there's a good honest range of opinion there

[2010/07/21 11:27] Delia Lake: it 's not about not wanting a democracy. but for me at least it is some about not wanting a rigid, controlled and controlling structure that is called democracy but in many ways does not listen to the voices of the non government citizens

[2010/07/21 11:27] Kaseido Quandry: oh yes - and even shouts them down

[2010/07/21 11:28] Carolyn Saarinen: I am especially tired of that myself

[2010/07/21 11:28] Micael Khandr: Personally, I am much more interested in the so-called "WASP" clause--named after our good friend here--which allows us to stop the merger process if we feel it is not in the best interests of AA--and, btw, it seems that the citizens of CDS feel the same way!!

[2010/07/21 11:28] Rose Springvale: hi tui

[2010/07/21 11:28] Rose Springvale: stui

[2010/07/21 11:28] Rose Springvale: for the record

[2010/07/21 11:29] Lilith Ivory: Hi Stui

[2010/07/21 11:29] Rose Springvale: i think that the majority of CDS citizens do not feel that way. and really want to keep AA

[2010/07/21 11:29] Rose Springvale: its only the vocal ones who are negative

[2010/07/21 11:29] StuiChicanne Darkstone: Evening Ladies and Gentlemen and Stui's

[2010/07/21 11:29] Rose Springvale: some are distraught over it

[2010/07/21 11:29] Micael Khandr: Yes, I agree Rose--the opposition is the ones who post on the forums

[2010/07/21 11:29] Carolyn Saarinen: this hypothetical 'silent majority' has blown it then!

[2010/07/21 11:30] Carolyn Saarinen: They could have helped and have done nothing

[2010/07/21 11:30] StuiChicanne Darkstone: well the Merger is not really wholeheartedly benefiting AA

[2010/07/21 11:30] Kaseido Quandry: Yes, because it's unfortunately the loud opposition who gets in the way of *AA* being an effective and pleasant community

[2010/07/21 11:30] Delia Lake: the original documents of Neualtenberg, the ones on which our CDS system is founded calls for experiments with forms of democracy--FORMS-- and EXPERIMENTS. not saying that we've done it this way for a while so we have all the answers and this one narrow form of democracy is the only right one. and that is the comment type i have gotten back for months when trying to explore how we might use sl and this combined community to explore and experiment with flavors of democracy that might offer even better than what we have so far in rl

[2010/07/21 11:30] Jamie Palisades smiles. You are always a gentleman, Stui

[2010/07/21 11:30] Delia Lake: hi Stui

[2010/07/21 11:31] Kaseido Quandry: Yes, Delia, the current system is an article of religous faith, of "my country right or wrong." Gwyn today came out on the forums and said she's opposed to all experimetns, even ones she'd agree were better. I think that seals it.

[2010/07/21 11:31] StuiChicanne Darkstone: you can spend more time arguing the case at RA level for anything AA related and be defeated by people who don't invest the time to know the wider world than their own pet projekts

[2010/07/21 11:31] Carolyn Saarinen: So we have a cDS divided into the apathetic and the actively hostile where AA is concerned. What do we gain from that?

[2010/07/21 11:32] Micael Khandr: My recommendation for "de-merging" is to give AA an opportunity to dream about alternate models of democratic community.

[2010/07/21 11:32] Carolyn Saarinen: CDS is irretrevably stuck in it's rut.

[2010/07/21 11:32] muhammedyussif Wikinger: did we not work on that some years ago with no result :-(

[2010/07/21 11:32] Carolyn Saarinen: I see no benefit in sharing it with them.

[2010/07/21 11:32] Wasp Thor: That's for sure

[2010/07/21 11:32] Rose Springvale: micael, does that mean you don't believe in representative democracy?

[2010/07/21 11:32] Carolyn Saarinen: Let them have their miserable little clique

[2010/07/21 11:33] Rose Springvale: lets also try to remember that many of "them" are "us"

[2010/07/21 11:33] Micael Khandr: I believe in personal autonomy and the demands of the common good. And representative democracy, as long as both are protected

[2010/07/21 11:33] StuiChicanne Darkstone: the thing could be that now we are just too big as a whole to achieve that which must be done to serve people specifically for trying to create a universal policy for specific problems

[2010/07/21 11:33] Carolyn Saarinen whispers: Huh. Pip did ask why he's now banned from my land!

[2010/07/21 11:34] Delia Lake: i believe very much in democracy, and in representative democracy

[2010/07/21 11:34] Delia Lake: but what is often missing to me in the CDS is the representative part

[2010/07/21 11:34] Wasp Thor: AA is and has always been a very happy place, I don't want to change any of that

[2010/07/21 11:34] Wasp Thor: we come here to have fun and make nice friends

[2010/07/21 11:35] StuiChicanne Darkstone: Wasp it'll be ok :)

[2010/07/21 11:35] muhammedyussif Wikinger: and hope somone else pays the bills?

[2010/07/21 11:35] StuiChicanne Darkstone: I'll keep smiling and throwing water on the wicked people

[2010/07/21 11:35] Wasp Thor: why not hahahaha

[2010/07/21 11:35] Kaseido Quandry grins at Stui

[2010/07/21 11:35] Micael Khandr: I think there is a way for individuals within a community to know that their voice has power, and that they are collaborators in decision making--but the current CDS structure doesn't seem to make that happen.

[2010/07/21 11:35] Delia Lake: when the merger was proposed i was very much for it

[2010/07/21 11:35] Carolyn Saarinen: Yeah 'Pat's money'!

[2010/07/21 11:36] StuiChicanne Darkstone: pat's pocket money

[2010/07/21 11:36] Carolyn Saarinen: He's so good to us

[2010/07/21 11:36] Rose Springvale: lets not do this... lets keep to the idea ?

[2010/07/21 11:36] Micael Khandr: Thank you, Rose--please let us focus on issues, not personalities

[2010/07/21 11:36] StuiChicanne Darkstone: I like your shoes Kas

[2010/07/21 11:36] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think the idea of democrasy was good - how will it be without the merger?

[2010/07/21 11:37] StuiChicanne Darkstone: hey my personality's all I got

[2010/07/21 11:37] Delia Lake: i really thought it could be a marvelous laboratory for virtual democracy. so many viewpoints and ideas and rl experiences with democracy coming together. but that is not what has happened

[2010/07/21 11:37] StuiChicanne Darkstone: and a tail :)

[2010/07/21 11:37] Carolyn Saarinen: we had democracy before the merger

[2010/07/21 11:37] Kaseido Quandry: thanks Stui :)

[2010/07/21 11:37] Carolyn Saarinen: we've gone backwards since

[2010/07/21 11:38] Rose Springvale: so it sounds like muhammed feels differently?

[2010/07/21 11:38] Delia Lake: and add to that that the conditions specified in the merger have been all but ignored since you left office, Jamie, i find that i no longer believe it is such a good idea. not for now anyway

[2010/07/21 11:38] Carolyn Saarinen: or off on a side-track anyway

[2010/07/21 11:38] muhammedyussif Wikinger: yes - I like the merger to continue

[2010/07/21 11:38] Rose Springvale: why?

[2010/07/21 11:38] Micael Khandr: In my role as facilitator, I'm going to ask that we make sure everyone has had a chance to say where he or she is regarding the merger before Noon, SLTime.

[2010/07/21 11:38] muhammedyussif Wikinger: the dtructure is good and the ecoomu too

[2010/07/21 11:39] muhammedyussif Wikinger: economy

[2010/07/21 11:39] muhammedyussif Wikinger: structure

[2010/07/21 11:39] Delia Lake: say more muhammed if you would please

[2010/07/21 11:39] Carolyn Saarinen: 'structure'?

[2010/07/21 11:39] Micael Khandr: Given what some of us have said, MY, why do you see the structure as 'good'?

[2010/07/21 11:40] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think the institutions (structure) works well and then we can do other things besides that

[2010/07/21 11:40] Rose Springvale: you mean, RA, Chancellor, and SC?

[2010/07/21 11:40] Delia Lake: other things like what that we can do?

[2010/07/21 11:40] muhammedyussif Wikinger: When I compare it with RL structures I find it well functioning

[2010/07/21 11:40] muhammedyussif Wikinger: if we have patiance

[2010/07/21 11:41] muhammedyussif Wikinger: patience

[2010/07/21 11:41] Carolyn Saarinen is all out of that

[2010/07/21 11:41] muhammedyussif Wikinger: when we all are in the same boat we will coopewrate

[2010/07/21 11:41] Micael Khandr: OK, ty MY, can I hear from some of the othersas well?

[2010/07/21 11:41] muhammedyussif Wikinger: cooperate

[2010/07/21 11:42] Micael Khandr: Frances, Wasp, Lilith--any thoughts?

[2010/07/21 11:42] Kamilah Hauptmann: The trouble with the 'same boat' in SL s the lifespan, portability, and replacibility of an avatar and land. Don't ike it, take your boat and leave, and people will.

[2010/07/21 11:43] Wasp Thor: we have given this a year and we are not happy, I vote no merger

[2010/07/21 11:43] Carolyn Saarinen: I can throw in my two penn'orth

[2010/07/21 11:43] Micael Khandr: Please do

[2010/07/21 11:43] StuiChicanne Darkstone: Patience gives away most of the rights we have now, action retains the rights and gives us the freedom to do what we should have had from CDS before now

[2010/07/21 11:43] Carolyn Saarinen: Ok, as Wasp says we've given this a year.

[2010/07/21 11:43] Carolyn Saarinen: Cds is no better now than a year ago.

[2010/07/21 11:44] Carolyn Saarinen: No better than the place I left to come to AA over two years ago.

[2010/07/21 11:44] muhammedyussif Wikinger: money comes and money goes and the surplus is growing

[2010/07/21 11:44] StuiChicanne Darkstone: it's not accepted as fact that CDS has delivered upon it's requirements towards AA

[2010/07/21 11:44] Micael Khandr: Jamie and Kas--jump in!

[2010/07/21 11:44] Kaseido Quandry: yes, they overcharge, underspend, and sit on a vast fortune of residents' real money - that is *not* a plus

[2010/07/21 11:45] StuiChicanne Darkstone: and there has been more than evident passive aggression in the relationship

[2010/07/21 11:45] Carolyn Saarinen: It's a beurocratic mess, dominated by a handful of truely malicious people who will do anything to oppose those who they dislike.

[2010/07/21 11:45] muhammedyussif Wikinger: but it is useful

[2010/07/21 11:45] StuiChicanne Darkstone: mostly aimed at AA

[2010/07/21 11:45] Carolyn Saarinen: We would have to fight every day just to stand still.

[2010/07/21 11:45] StuiChicanne Darkstone: I have sat on RA since AA merged

[2010/07/21 11:45] Kaseido Quandry: In short, I think the past six months - which is all I can speak to - have drained energy and optimism from AA. The CDS is more resistant to accomodating us, or engaging in dialog and mutual change, with each passing week. Let's be done with it.

[2010/07/21 11:46] Rose Springvale: can you think of terms to an agreement that would satisfy those concerns?

[2010/07/21 11:46] StuiChicanne Darkstone: it hasn't been an altogether enjoyable experience

[2010/07/21 11:46] Carolyn Saarinen: CDS has been attracting and then driving out new residence for years for just that reason. that's why it does not grow.

[2010/07/21 11:46] Micael Khandr: Not to put MY on the spot, but my read at the moment is that he is in the minority here wanting to maintain the merger--are there others who are in favor of the merger as is?

[2010/07/21 11:46] Rose Springvale: is Jamie right? are we not exercising our rights as citizens in CDS?

[2010/07/21 11:46] Jamie Palisades: Hm, didn;t say that, though I do think AA sort of gave up after the last election

[2010/07/21 11:46] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think the storm will stop when the merger is final

[2010/07/21 11:47] muhammedyussif Wikinger: they have not interest to go on then

[2010/07/21 11:47] StuiChicanne Darkstone: as the Queen put it (though altered) it's been a year upon which I will not look back with undiluted pleasure

[2010/07/21 11:47] Delia Lake: muhammed, how has the structure been useful to AA in your opinion. i do believe we need to look seriously at what has worked during the past year as well

[2010/07/21 11:48] Lilith Ivory: I would like AA to stay also but I¬¥m worried CDS might destroy everything that makes AA a ggod place to live

[2010/07/21 11:48] Carolyn Saarinen: MY it's their reason for being!

[2010/07/21 11:48] Kaseido Quandry: I think it would just get worse -there's absolutely no reason for it not to, as the old guard finds us more and more of a threat to the old ways with every week we actually do things and speak for ourselves

[2010/07/21 11:48] muhammedyussif Wikinger: AA need the incomes to keep high procentage of common soace

[2010/07/21 11:48] Carolyn Saarinen: the politacl animals of CDS have been behaving like this for years!

[2010/07/21 11:48] muhammedyussif Wikinger: space

[2010/07/21 11:48] Rose Springvale: no, muhammmed, AA covers its costs

[2010/07/21 11:48] Rose Springvale: we dont need CDS money

[2010/07/21 11:48] Kaseido Quandry: nor the unending accusations that we do

[2010/07/21 11:48] StuiChicanne Darkstone: CDS benefits reluctantly from our community

[2010/07/21 11:49] Carolyn Saarinen: don't fall for the propaganda

[2010/07/21 11:49] StuiChicanne Darkstone: but hands back little appreciation of it

[2010/07/21 11:49] Rose Springvale: don't know how many spreadsheets i have to draft to show that

[2010/07/21 11:49] muhammedyussif Wikinger: Is it not because of your generosity Rose?

[2010/07/21 11:49] Delia Lake: the money issues raised mostly on the forum are a misreading of the accounting. even Sudane says so

[2010/07/21 11:49] Rose Springvale: nope. look at the spreadsheets

[2010/07/21 11:49] Micael Khandr: I think we can be better alone--and I think perhaps CDS can be better alone.

[2010/07/21 11:49] Kaseido Quandry: I agree

[2010/07/21 11:49] StuiChicanne Darkstone: thorns in the side of bears should be pulled out

[2010/07/21 11:49] Jamie Palisades: Michael, I have been involved in AA long enough to voice this much of an opinion. Whoever dcides for AA, they should act in the best interests of AA, which means that your belief about whether it's possible to coexist peacefully is important. If it is the group's view that the current CDS people cannot be worked with well, and that you genuinely tried, there's no shame in leaving. (However, I do think you ought to ask WHAT the continuing financial arrangements should be for AA, if you de-merge.)

[2010/07/21 11:49] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I have tried to look but it is not easy to understand

[2010/07/21 11:49] StuiChicanne Darkstone: or else they get rowdy

[2010/07/21 11:49] Kaseido Quandry: they're very clear on what they want - they should have it.

[2010/07/21 11:50] Carolyn Saarinen: and rabid dogs should be quaratined

[2010/07/21 11:50] Wasp Thor: Thay are not a happy bunch, so why hangout with them

[2010/07/21 11:50] Kaseido Quandry: hear hear, wasp

[2010/07/21 11:50] StuiChicanne Darkstone: I don't personally believe that CDS stands for my personal vision of AA

[2010/07/21 11:50] Carolyn Saarinen applauds

[2010/07/21 11:50] StuiChicanne Darkstone: it's not a very inclusive environment

[2010/07/21 11:51] StuiChicanne Darkstone: and to me that is not AA

[2010/07/21 11:51] Micael Khandr: Jamie--talk a bit more about the continuing financial arrangments

[2010/07/21 11:51] Micael Khandr: please

[2010/07/21 11:51] StuiChicanne Darkstone: AA is about inclusion

[2010/07/21 11:51] Jamie Palisades: It's sort of interesting to my ear to hear two officers of the CDS governmetn and thre former CDS RA members say "them" about CDS, and "us" a lot. The one-year clause might just have invited you all, and the other CDS people as well, to just wait yoru year and never really fully go for it.

[2010/07/21 11:51] StuiChicanne Darkstone: a bit like a family :)

[2010/07/21 11:51] Jamie Palisades: There has ion two years of talking about this seemed to be NOT "us"-ifying on EITHER side

[2010/07/21 11:51] Jamie Palisades: yes - one where you are talking about divorce, stui :)

[2010/07/21 11:52] Jamie Palisades: Michel: on money issues

[2010/07/21 11:52] Jamie Palisades: 3 things

[2010/07/21 11:52] Micael Khandr: Or, the one-year could have given us a chance to "fall in love" with each other :)

[2010/07/21 11:52] Jamie Palisades: 1. CDS was and is flush. We had hoped this would ghive some stability to A, which rides on a tighters margin

[2010/07/21 11:52] Delia Lake: another question here, if we were to continue merged, what people who are citizens just ot the old CDS and are active in the community would be our partners in this venture? one of the other accusations that has been hurled publicly is that the AA is out to take over the CDS so that is what has prompted this question from me

[2010/07/21 11:52] Carolyn Saarinen: Arranged marriage is one thing, forced marriage is another

[2010/07/21 11:52] Wasp Thor: I honesty think we tried

[2010/07/21 11:52] Jamie Palisades: 3. CDS is financially responsble for A now, assuming that the EO here lets it be :)

[2010/07/21 11:52] Wasp Thor: it has not worked

[2010/07/21 11:52] Jamie Palisades: oops that was 2

[2010/07/21 11:53] Jamie Palisades: and 3

[2010/07/21 11:53] Jamie Palisades: if AA leaves CDS, I do not anticipate any real "dividison" of money problems, but i WOULD ask what will be the continuing basis for AA solvency?

[2010/07/21 11:53] Jamie Palisades: after all

[2010/07/21 11:53] Jamie Palisades: someone;s credit card ALWAYS backed up SL sims

[2010/07/21 11:53] Jamie Palisades: always always

[2010/07/21 11:54] Jamie Palisades: iso, what's the fiscal future here without CDS? (done)

[2010/07/21 11:54] Micael Khandr: TY

[2010/07/21 11:54] Delia Lake: as the Dean of the SC my duties are more reactive than proactive, very unlike the RA in that respect

[2010/07/21 11:55] Micael Khandr: We have about 10 minutes left--has everyone who wanted to speak, spoken?

[2010/07/21 11:55] Delia Lake: and i have to say that i have been a citizen of the CDS for almost 4 yrs now and intend to remain a citizen of the CDS no matter what the decision on the merger

[2010/07/21 11:56] Delia Lake: Frances, is there something you would like to say, or did you and i missed it? it is of course ok if you do not want to speak

[2010/07/21 11:56] Rose Springvale: is there any interest in extending the merger agreement for a period of time to work out the legal details? last time we met, the RA decided they needed an attorney,

[2010/07/21 11:56] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think AA will gain continuing the merger

[2010/07/21 11:57] Frances Ying: i'm still getting to grips with things, but plz be assured i'm listening

[2010/07/21 11:57] Carolyn Saarinen: Wow Cleo got that passed?;)

[2010/07/21 11:57] Micael Khandr: What is the potential problem(s) just de-merging now, Rose?

[2010/07/21 11:57] Kaseido Quandry: No. This isn't about process, or documentation, or agreements. It's about a fundamental incompatibility between the two communities.

[2010/07/21 11:57] Rose Springvale: it wasn't legislation

[2010/07/21 11:57] Carolyn Saarinen: Rose if Cleo's opinions hold sway, the case for de-merger is made!

[2010/07/21 11:57] Rose Springvale: the reality is that the people in both projects basically believe in the same things.

[2010/07/21 11:58] Rose Springvale: i gave many of you the note i wrote this morning, and want you to know that this is not easy for me

[2010/07/21 11:58] Kaseido Quandry: but CDS believes it's their way or the highway. I choose highway.

[2010/07/21 11:58] Rose Springvale: i feel i led AA to CDS as a solution to things we didn't want to address

[2010/07/21 11:58] Micael Khandr: Like . . . ?

[2010/07/21 11:58] Rose Springvale: it wasn't about money, it wasn't about structure, it was about freeing the people here to do the things they care about. Albaycin, convivencia, AiC, et

[2010/07/21 11:59] Rose Springvale: And it felt to me that CDS coudl use some of the vitality of our people

[2010/07/21 11:59] Carolyn Saarinen: Like vampires

[2010/07/21 11:59] Rose Springvale: the merger agreement had a lot of support

[2010/07/21 11:59] Rose Springvale: and i think the people still support it

[2010/07/21 11:59] Jamie Palisades: Hm. But?

[2010/07/21 12:00] Rose Springvale: but without effort from anyone to make the deal work, i don't know how to proceed

[2010/07/21 12:00] Rose Springvale: i am tired

[2010/07/21 12:00] Kaseido Quandry: In theory, definitely. And the more so the farther people are from dealing with the CDS old guard

[2010/07/21 12:00] Rose Springvale: i don't want to log on every day to hear one side or the other tell me the latest greatest sin

[2010/07/21 12:00] Wasp Thor: I know precious

[2010/07/21 12:00] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I'm willing to work on that

[2010/07/21 12:00] Jamie Palisades: Which is what moved us to try it in the first place, really - get some help for Rose as AA EO.

[2010/07/21 12:00] Micael Khandr: We are at Noon--let me summarize what I heard.

[2010/07/21 12:01] Lilith Ivory: but this has not happened as it seems :(

[2010/07/21 12:01] Micael Khandr: The majority of this group of citizens favors de-merger, some with hesitancy, others with great desire.

[2010/07/21 12:02] Micael Khandr: issues that need to be address have to do with finances, and responsibilities, if AA is back on its own

[2010/07/21 12:02] Micael Khandr: There now is the VDI, which can take more responsibility for the EO functions of AA

[2010/07/21 12:03] StuiChicanne Darkstone: I have the youtube for today it's sorta ironic

[2010/07/21 12:03] Micael Khandr: any amendments to my hearing?

[2010/07/21 12:03] StuiChicanne Darkstone: Micael it needs a song

[2010/07/21 12:03] Kaseido Quandry: I think that's a good summary, Micael

[2010/07/21 12:03] StuiChicanne Darkstone: musical accompaniment

[2010/07/21 12:03] StuiChicanne Darkstone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzisSAoU5U

[2010/07/21 12:04] Micael Khandr: OK--I will end the official transcript now--there is one more town hall this evening at 7 p.m.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

19:03] Micael Khandr: Let's begin--Delia is almost here.

[19:04] Rose Springvale: Hi Delia

[19:04] Mick Stenvaag is Online

[19:04] Tor Karlsvalt: hi Delia

[19:04] Soro Dagostino: Hello Delia

[19:04] Delia Lake: hi everyone. sorry to be late

[19:04] muhammedyussif Wikinger: Hi

[19:04] Ranma Tardis: you need a day like mine

[19:04] Madeleine Fitzgerald is Offline

[19:04] Micael Khandr: As you know, Rose, Delia and I are the board of a non-profit called Virtual Democracy, Inc. and we met last week to discuss the state of the merger.

[19:05] Micael Khandr: We wanted to share our thoughts with you, and to have you share your thoughts with all of us as well.

[19:05] Micael Khandr: We feel that the conditions of the merger have not been carried through, and so we feel that to continue it would not be in the best interests of AA

[19:06] Ranma Tardis: the merger has become toxic, best to let it go

[19:06] Soro Dagostino: So the whiners win?

[19:06] Micael Khandr: We also feel that a separation of AA from CDS would allow both AA and CDS to develop their own ciltures accordingly

[19:06] Ranma Tardis: win what?

[19:06] Rose Springvale: we are here to listen to your opinions soro

[19:06] Soro Dagostino: The toxic contest.

[19:06] Ranma Tardis: next year there will be a new spilt in the cds

[19:06] Carolyn Saarinen: yep Soro they are the most toxic ;)

[19:07] Ranma Tardis: am here on a trip of discovery

[19:07] Micael Khandr: Rose and Delia--would you like to add anything to my rather succinct statement before we open it up to discussion by everyone?

[19:07] Tor Karlsvalt: The whiners loose but just don't know it.

[19:07] Soro Dagostino: that was implied.

[19:07] Rose Springvale: i am happy to answer specific technical questions Micael, but i think you have covered the basics and would rather hear what others have to say

[19:08] Rose Springvale: i'm rather the technician of the group, you and delia are more the idea people

[19:08] Tor Karlsvalt: rose, will AA move it's sims?

[19:08] Micael Khandr: Hard to think sometimes, though . . .

[19:08] Rose Springvale: smile, let delia take that one tor

[19:08] Delia Lake: i would like to hear what everyone feels about the merger and what you all think we should do

[19:09] Tor Karlsvalt: I wish AA could stay.

[19:09] Soro Dagostino: /Raise hand

[19:09] Micael Khandr: Soro?

[19:09] Delia Lake: re moving the sims, it is my request that we do not move them at this time

[19:09] Rose Springvale: they should know why delia

[19:09] Tor Karlsvalt: but I am worried too. There could be support for dismantaling AA in some way.

[19:09] Micael Khandr: How so, Tor?

[19:09] Soro Dagostino: I believe it would be good for AA and CDS to be joined.

[19:10] Delia Lake: i have 2 reasons for requesting that the sims stay where they are right now

[19:10] Tor Karlsvalt: not sure, but Arria's recent post aluded to changes in AA

[19:10] Tor Karlsvalt: that might be necessary

[19:10] Ranma Tardis: why?

[19:11] Tor Karlsvalt: donno Ranma

[19:11] Delia Lake: 1 is that if we were to move the AA sims somewhere else i would want to do a careful exploration of what might be a compatible neighborhood

[19:11] Tor Karlsvalt: But it sounded threatening

[19:11] Carolyn Saarinen: Pfft

[19:11] Micael Khandr: Lots on the forums sound threatening :)

[19:11] Ranma Tardis: Rose owns the sims as far as ll is concerned

[19:11] Delia Lake: and secondly it is my belief that this merger under current conditions cannot be successful. but that does not mean that things might not change in the future.

[19:11] Rose Springvale: not true

[19:12] Rose Springvale: VDI owns them Ranma

[19:12] Rose Springvale: hi jamie

[19:12] Ranma Tardis: not the cds

[19:12] Delia Lake: hi Jamie

[19:12] Micael Khandr: Yes, the VDI non-profit is the owner

[19:12] Jamie Palisades waves, nods

[19:12] Soro Dagostino: Well! Mr Palisades, I believe?

[19:12] Delia Lake: rose does not own the AA sims, VDI does

[19:13] Ranma Tardis: though ll has rose as the owner

[19:13] Soro Dagostino: Stayed under cover and nary a peep!

[19:13] Delia Lake: no, Ranma, that is not how LL handles nonprofits

[19:13] Rose Springvale: no ranma, but we can explain that in detail later

[19:13] Micael Khandr: So, could we hear from each of you your own thoughts/feelings about the merger and the idea of de-merging?

[19:13] Ranma Tardis: not Sudane

[19:14] Ranma Tardis: well the CDS is not the Neualtenberg Project and is very different from the beginning group

[19:14] Callipygian Christensen: I believe it's time to insist on an audit of te financials for the year, to establish the financial actions necessary for a demerger

[19:15] Carolyn Saarinen: The rest of CDS is not a non-profit, it does have a single EO

[19:15] Ranma Tardis: the cds has lots of money on the books but does it really?

[19:15] Rose Springvale: Calli, i've got the figures. They have ignored the reports readily available on the hippo site.

[19:15] Tor Karlsvalt: Calli I agree, but see that as a huge proplem

[19:15] Tor Karlsvalt: problem

[19:15] Ranma Tardis: insulted you too

[19:15] Rose Springvale: i don't think money is an issue if we demerge

[19:16] Rose Springvale: we are within a hundred dollars of prepaid tier on both sides

[19:16] Callipygian Christensen: Rose, I dont doubt that..but if the Virgin Mary herself stood up and said they were correct, there would be claims you had bribed her

[19:16] Rose Springvale: hi Seb

[19:16] Ranma Tardis: nods

[19:16] Carolyn Saarinen: LOL

[19:16] Rose Springvale: again, not worried about the money issues. its never been about money

[19:16] Sebastian Glitterbuck: o/

[19:16] Ranma Tardis: such small amounts too

[19:17] Callipygian Christensen: SO, since one of the points all along is that VDI is a RL org, I think it has an olbligation to request this so any demerger leaves AA in the financial situation it should be

[19:17] Soro Dagostino: It hasn't . . . its been control.

[19:17] Delia Lake: hi Sebastian

[19:17] Micael Khandr: I think for me, it is about AA's ability to develop its own way of doing representative democracy that may be different in tone and procedure from CDS

[19:17] Soro Dagostino: Exenophobic control.

[19:17] Rose Springvale: that's kind of the next step, what we need to do is figure out if that's what we want as a community

[19:18] Ranma Tardis: I want to learn more about Islaum (cant spell)

[19:18] Soro Dagostino: Nor can I! LOL

[19:18] Micael Khandr: We had a town hall meeting this morning here, and the majority of those there favored a 'de-merger', some hesitantly and some with great desire.

[19:18] Ranma Tardis: things in Iraq were strange

[19:18] Tor Karlsvalt: me neither

[19:18] Ranma Tardis: not what you see on tv

[19:19] Delia Lake: and 1 or 2 wanting to keep the merger as well

[19:19] Micael Khandr: Yes

[19:19] Tor Karlsvalt: i really am not a citizen of AA, so I don't count.

[19:19] Ranma Tardis: if I want petty politics, I would run for mayor of Claremore OK

[19:19] Micael Khandr: Ouch

[19:19] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I was one who thinks AA would gain on the merger

[19:20] Tor Karlsvalt: Really CDS will gain.

[19:20] Callipygian Christensen: oK, I'll dive in - I want to have a place to spend time, work on art, enjoy good company in an atmosphere of honesty and trust

[19:20] Tor Karlsvalt: look around

[19:20] Micael Khandr: Do you want to repeat some of your thoughts from this morning MY?

[19:20] Ranma Tardis: me too with my friends

[19:20] muhammedyussif Wikinger: yes...

[19:20] Tor Karlsvalt: these are some of othe most active members of CDS here

[19:20] Rose Springvale: calli, finish the thought?

[19:20] Rose Springvale: do you feel that is with AA in CDS?

[19:20] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think the agressions will calm after this summer

[19:21] Callipygian Christensen: I don't feel that about CDS at this point in time

[19:21] muhammedyussif Wikinger: The agressions is the only way to demerge- to scare AA away

[19:21] Ranma Tardis: sorry my friend, this is a low point

[19:21] Callipygian Christensen: Today i read a post that totally contradicted everything the poster has said to e in conversation - if I want this much drama I can go to RL and turn on my TV

[19:21] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think AA needs the structure of CDS and it is also good for the economy

[19:22] muhammedyussif Wikinger: done

[19:22] Micael Khandr: TY MY

[19:22] Soro Dagostino: Hmmm, should have read the postings . .

[19:22] Delia Lake: what structure do you think is important to AA, muhammed?

[19:23] muhammedyussif Wikinger: the RA and the SC and the rules

[19:23] muhammedyussif Wikinger: and Chansellor

[19:23] Delia Lake: ok. ty

[19:23] Tor Karlsvalt: I think AA could eventually influence CDS demeanor but I can't ask everyoen to continue suffering.

[19:23] Tor Karlsvalt: it would take some more sufferig before a change really occured.

[19:23] Sebastian Glitterbuck: aggression? what have i been missing...

[19:24] Jamie Palisades smiles. I see thre kindsw of suffering. One is,I feel sure, real -- Rose has not been able to lay off much of the AA EO duty that she hoped to transfer to CDS.

[19:24] Soro Dagostino: Not reading the forum.

[19:24] Ranma Tardis: the people in the cds serve the government not the government serve the people of the cds

[19:24] Jamie Palisades: *three kinds

[19:24] Bromo Ivory is Online

[19:24] muhammedyussif Wikinger: If the merger continue their will be no reason to continue fighting

[19:24] Jamie Palisades: The secodn is aggro politics between a few of you and a few of the CDS people.

[19:24] Ranma Tardis: it would get worse

[19:24] Jamie Palisades: Frankly, not the majority - in either land

[19:24] Annie Obscure is Online

[19:24] Jamie Palisades: but the fighters are damant on both sides, and clerly the opinion leaders

[19:24] Jamie Palisades: *clearly

[19:25] Jamie Palisades: and finally, I have heard oen or two people voice a real, undervalued ohilopshic question

[19:25] Callipygian Christensen: In reading the various posts it seeems there was a fudnamental difference in how those who are vocal, and on EA, in CDS saw the vision of the merger, and how those in AA saw it..I dont see how that will change or improve in the current climate

[19:25] Soro Dagostino: Adamant?

[19:25] Jamie Palisades: Micael particularly, though he;s being neutral moderatopr today

[19:25] Micael Khandr: I said this morning that I thought the year of merger was a chance for CDS and AA to fall in love with each other . . .

[19:25] Micael Khandr: But I don't see that happening

[19:25] Delia Lake: i wish i could believe that the nastiness and name calling and continual repeating of misinformation would stop if the merger were to remain but i don't see that happening unfortunately

[19:26] Jamie Palisades: that being - is the basic structure of CDS government really debatring and thus really antihetical to AA's desired tone?

[19:26] Jamie Palisades: Deliua, name calling existed in CDS .. and AA .. before anyone asked for a merger

[19:26] Carolyn Saarinen: It's not debating it's rowing, there's a difference

[19:26] Jamie Palisades chuckles. Both orgs got started by driving out their founders, no?

[19:26] Carolyn Saarinen: No Michel left

[19:27] Sebastian Glitterbuck: yup

[19:27] Carolyn Saarinen: No one drove him

[19:27] Jamie Palisades cants his head to the side a little. No comment.

[19:27] Delia Lake: i know, Jamie.

[19:27] Ranma Tardis: Kendra was driven pot

[19:27] Ranma Tardis: out *blushes*

[19:27] Jamie Palisades: But - still - is the LEVEL of fractiousness in CDS just too much , as a baseline, for the community you want her?

[19:27] Carolyn Saarinen whispers: I mean no one drove him out of AA specifically, so far as i know, there were people who were glad to see him leave SL

[19:28] Jamie Palisades: certainly there is more there than here.

[19:28] Tor Karlsvalt: CDS old gurard are scared of any strong willed person.

[19:28] Callipygian Christensen: Delia, I believe at least two of those wanting the demege have made it very clear they will never give up defending keeping CDS as it is..and it's one of the few things I believe them to be totally honest about.

[19:28] Micael Khandr: We are about halfway through our meeting time--I will push to have everyone share the thoughts about the merger before we end at 8 p.m.

[19:28] Jamie Palisades chuckles. Tell me about it, Tor

[19:28] Tor Karlsvalt: so much of this is about personal trust or distrust.

[19:28] Jamie Palisades: Micael, i'd still like to heard from VDI what they thnk the fiscal feasbility of AA is on its own

[19:28] Ranma Tardis: my thoughts are to end it and focus on our community

[19:28] Jamie Palisades: (Yes, Tor, I believe so, unfortunately)

[19:28] Soro Dagostino: There is clearly not a sense of camaraderie

[19:29] Rose Springvale: jamie, AA breaks even at about 80% occupancy

[19:29] Jamie Palisades: is continued separate survival feaisble? A few years ago that was a real quetsion here.

[19:29] Rose Springvale: we are at about 95%

[19:29] Sebastian Glitterbuck: \o/

[19:29] Ranma Tardis: I could help in a pinch

[19:29] Micael Khandr: I think a de-merger might allow both CDS and AA to develop better on their own . . . and perhaps with some more growth and maturity, there can be a reconciliation in the future (I'm sounding like a marriage couselor . . .)

[19:29] Delia Lake: at this tims so far as we can see the numbers work

[19:29] Tor Karlsvalt: haha

[19:30] Delia Lake: that's my thought also Micael

[19:30] Rose Springvale: and there are several people who want to do some grant searching, so there is room for that too

[19:30] Tor Karlsvalt: maybe we should have begun with compline

[19:30] Jamie Palisades: so VDI expects it to continue fairly well. WHat about the 6-month pay-all-at-once cash flow issue?

[19:30] Ranma Tardis: spend more money on domestic help than owing a sim

[19:30] Micael Khandr: :)

[19:30] Jamie Palisades: sort of implies a cash resserve to float aagainst, right?

[19:30] Laraa Short is Online

[19:30] Jamie Palisades: or continued leaning on someone;s credit cards

[19:30] Delia Lake: yes, Rose, i was going to add the possibility of applying for grants

[19:30] Jamie Palisades: (just like Caledon ultimately goes up & down with Des)

[19:31] Ranma Tardis: money is so stupid, I could make up any difference

[19:31] Rose Springvale: lots of options Jamie. I believe CDS began by floating bonds

[19:31] Namav Abramovic: Hello, I run a shop in the al andalus Souk, so I am always concerned about al andalus... I rise or fall based on al andalus rising and falling

[19:31] Ranma Tardis: yes

[19:31] Jamie Palisades: soo .. short answer - no foreseen feaisbility probs?

[19:31] Jamie Palisades: *feasibility

[19:31] Rose Springvale: hi namav, welcome :)

[19:31] Tor Karlsvalt: There could be one

[19:31] Micael Khandr: Yes?

[19:31] Tor Karlsvalt: getting AA tier from CDS

[19:32] Delia Lake: there are always forseeable problems, Jamie

[19:32] Soro Dagostino: never thought that AA couldn't survive on its own.

[19:32] Jamie Palisades: well, let's say "no showstopers" then :)

[19:32] Jamie Palisades: Soro, at the time I heard different :)

[19:32] Rose Springvale: as i said before Tor, they owe us about what we would owe them. because the sims are on different tier dates

[19:32] Jamie Palisades: but that was then

[19:32] Jamie Palisades: and this is now

[19:32] Delia Lake: the sl participation does depend somewhat on the state of rl economies over which we have no control whatsoever

[19:32] Ranma Tardis: what do we owe them?

[19:32] Soro Dagostino: I see that.

[19:33] Rose Springvale: the've prepaid tier on the four outlying sims to september

[19:33] Micael Khandr: Sunrise in AA!

[19:33] Ranma Tardis: about 1k?

[19:33] Soro Dagostino: Not on the left coast of the US.

[19:33] Nisha Aie is Offline

[19:34] Rose Springvale: when i figured it last week it was less, about 600 usd

[19:34] Delia Lake: lol, one might posit that the US has 2 left coasts :))

[19:34] Soro Dagostino: AA has adopted the methodology to survice. The use of the Non-profit.

[19:34] Soro Dagostino: survive*

[19:35] Ranma Tardis: everything in the cds is about money

[19:35] Soro Dagostino: The Xenophobics in CDS will never see why.

[19:35] Micael Khandr: And we should be a non-profit, because as Calli says most of us are interested in educational and artistic concerns

[19:36] Soro Dagostino: Sorry Pip, but there is a lot of that in Timo and Arrias statements.

[19:36] Tor Karlsvalt: Oahu is a non-profit btw

[19:36] Micael Khandr: And, having been in AA before the merger, I see that our two cultures are very, very different.

[19:36] Rose Springvale: one of the issues that has come up lately is that we don't want representative democracy. how do you feel about that?

[19:36] Tor Karlsvalt: not too educational

[19:36] Delia Lake: our neighbor sim, Tor?

[19:36] Tor Karlsvalt: yes

[19:37] Pip Torok: who is "we", Rose?

[19:37] Rose Springvale: the people of al andalus

[19:37] Namav Abramovic: sounding like an ill-conceived merger of opposites, to my newbie ears......

[19:37] Ranma Tardis: tyranny of the majority? no safeguards in place for the minority

[19:37] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I think representative democracy has been intruiging

[19:37] Pip Torok: Does the meeting feel Rose is right?

[19:38] Rose Springvale: i asked a question, nothing to be "right" about

[19:38] Carolyn Saarinen: It's an accusation that's been thrown

[19:38] Micael Khandr: I think it is possible to have representative democracy and not have it be the CDS model, and that is what I am interested in experimenting with, and why I think we should do that as AA.

[19:38] Carolyn Saarinen: we had our informal democracy before, we can refine it.

[19:38] Sebastian Glitterbuck: direct democracy always worked well for AA in the past

[19:38] Delia Lake: i am most interested in and very much for democracy. some of the early documents of Neualtenberg talk about "forms" of democracy, not a single form

[19:38] Carolyn Saarinen: the CDS way is -thankfully - not the only way

[19:38] Micael Khandr: I don't understand your question, Pip?

[19:39] Soro Dagostino: The "New England" town meeting.

[19:39] Ranma Tardis: yes and the 3 groups balanced each other out

[19:39] Tor Karlsvalt: really in a small group direct democracy probably works best

[19:39] Jamie Palisades: There is, by the way, no reason that the VDI board could not mke itself as much subject to democratic power here as the CDS officers are expected to in CDS.

[19:39] Carolyn Saarinen: yes not all the CDS beaurocracy

[19:39] Ranma Tardis: the RA in the CDS has all of the power

[19:39] Micael Khandr: True, Jamie

[19:39] Jamie Palisades: Of ourse, (grin at Micael), you;d have to wokr our exactly HOW the citizens have influence over the board

[19:40] Micael Khandr: And that can be a part of our alternative model

[19:40] muhammedyussif Wikinger: I joined CDS because the muslim ideas did not get attention here

[19:40] Soro Dagostino: The RA in CDS is a bunch of squaking chickens in the morning.

[19:40] Jamie Palisades: SPeaking at their former leader, SOro

[19:40] Pip Torok: I asked whether those at this meeting agree whether "the people of AA" are or are not in favour of representational Democracy, Micael

[19:40] Callipygian Christensen: Pip, that is something that has been said in more than one furm post iirc, by resdients of CDS who are RA mewmbers, so yes, I think it is an accurate statement.

[19:40] Jamie Palisades: :) of which we have 3 in the room

[19:40] Soro Dagostino: INdeed

[19:40] Micael Khandr: But that can be done, especially if we know it is us doing it for us

[19:40] Micael Khandr: I don';t agree

[19:41] Jamie Palisades: :/ but pip's asking what THIS group wants. Fair question

[19:41] Callipygian Christensen: and that is lagged and replies to way back when you questioned Rose

[19:41] Callipygian Christensen sighs

[19:41] Micael Khandr: I don't agree that "we" think that, Pip--"we" just want some alternatives to how it is accomplished

[19:42] Pip Torok: thank you, Micael

[19:42] Micael Khandr: YW

[19:42] Rose Springvale: wait, what do you not agree that we think?

[19:42] Micael Khandr: We have a bit more than 15 minutes eft--let's make sure all have had an opportunity to share who want to

[19:43] Jamie Palisades: Let me just mention - to say i don;t like the RA system is not to abandon democracy. :) representative democracy does not have to follow the strong-squabbling-legislature faction model

[19:43] Carolyn Saarinen: I think it's been generally agreed Rose that AA does not consisto f some anti-democratic conspiracy created to wreck CDS!

[19:43] Soro Dagostino: I am troubled by the "we" vs "us" aspect of this discussion.

[19:43] Micael Khandr: Yes, that's my point, Jamie

[19:43] Rose Springvale: thanks

[19:43] Jamie Palisades: Been that way all year, Soro, smile, shrug

[19:43] Ranma Tardis: they are parinoid

[19:44] Rose Springvale: sighs

[19:44] Ranma Tardis: paronoid

[19:44] Jamie Palisades: which they? heh heh

[19:44] Soro Dagostino: the effort could be resolved with courtesy and acknowledgement of the other opinions.

[19:44] Ranma Tardis: the movers in the cds

[19:44] Delia Lake: i think that many times representative democracy not only works well but is the best model. representative democracy is not the only form of democracy that works well though

[19:44] Micael Khandr: Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't after you . . . :)

[19:44] Ranma Tardis: they once a year make a foe and drive them out

[19:44] Carolyn Saarinen: Yep Ranma

[19:44] Soro Dagostino: Movers?!

[19:44] Rose Springvale: we do it

[19:44] Ranma Tardis: it happens every year

[19:44] Tor Karlsvalt: true, some swiss town still use direct democracy i think

[19:44] Rose Springvale: because some of us are them

[19:45] Sebastian Glitterbuck is getting confused. who's on first?

[19:45] Rose Springvale: smiles

[19:45] Jamie Palisades whispers - no, Who is the Estate Onwer

[19:45] Ranma Tardis: the leaders of the first coup are in charge of the cds

[19:45] Delia Lake splits herself down the middle with 1 side AA and the other side CDS

[19:45] Soro Dagostino: Scream of conciousness . . .

[19:45] Jamie Palisades: What's the chancellor.

[19:45] Soro Dagostino: :))

[19:46] Rose Springvale: poor seb

[19:46] Delia Lake: love that Soro :))

[19:46] Rose Springvale: don't worry, its still less complicated than Austin :)

[19:46] Ranma Tardis: you should try the federal government

[19:46] Soro Dagostino: Need to make some sense of this entire debacle.

[19:46] Micael Khandr: OK--ten minutes all--anyone who hasn't ahred how they feel about the merger/de-merger?

[19:46] Sebastian Glitterbuck: oh in Austin its simple, environmentalists are good and developers are evil

[19:47] Namav Abramovic: I would vote against anything that could lead to US Congress-style paralysis. Sims must be able to rapidly adapt and change, or they stagnate and perish. I've seen it happen all too often

[19:47] Soro Dagostino: Same in Sacramento.

[19:47] Sebastian Glitterbuck: and cap metro is corrupt

[19:47] Rose Springvale: (until you get to the state house Sebastian1)

[19:47] Carolyn Saarinen: Focus please

[19:47] Micael Khandr: Thank you Caro :)

[19:47] Soro Dagostino: Vote?

[19:47] Ranma Tardis: AA needs to find its own path

[19:47] Soro Dagostino: AA should stayl.

[19:47] Soro Dagostino: stay*

[19:47] Carolyn Saarinen: stay where?

[19:48] Micael Khandr: No vote--sharing of opinions, and we'll all get a sense of the majority view

[19:48] Soro Dagostino: With the confederation.

[19:48] Pip Torok agrees with Ranma

[19:48] Rose Springvale: soro, muhammed has shared why he thinks that, why do you?

[19:48] Delia Lake: there is another issue that bothers me with the merger in the current state of affairs

[19:49] Delia Lake: and i'll say after Soro speaks

[19:49] Soro Dagostino: Because its the best thing to do.

[19:49] Rose Springvale: for AA?

[19:49] Soro Dagostino: For both.

[19:49] Ranma Tardis: it would allow us to concentrate on the mission instead of petty politics

[19:49] Tor Karlsvalt: True, without AA, CDS will likely recede into a backwater.

[19:50] Delia Lake: what do you see as the benefits, Soro?

[19:50] Micael Khandr: Ranma--are you in favor of merger or de-merger by your comment?

[19:50] Carolyn Saarinen: They'd like it there!

[19:50] Rose Springvale: (are we transcripting?)

[19:50] Ranma Tardis: that people of different faiths and groups can get along

[19:50] Micael Khandr: Maybe :)

[19:50] Soro Dagostino: We could show the world.

[19:51] Tor Karlsvalt: umm there is a cutlural difference

[19:51] Delia Lake: if it wasn't asked in the beginning, is it ok if we transcript this meeting, people?

[19:51] Tor Karlsvalt: CDS seems rather anti-religion

[19:51] Ranma Tardis: sure

[19:51] Soro Dagostino: Not as bad as in Iraq.

[19:51] Micael Khandr: It wasn't asked in the beginning--sorry :(

[19:51] Ranma Tardis: been there done that

[19:51] Rose Springvale: Tor, one of the foundations of AA is the respect for religion, or no religion.

[19:51] Sebastian Glitterbuck: ok with me

[19:51] Soro Dagostino: Consent

[19:51] Carolyn Saarinen: They ha\ve their own irrational faith

[19:51] Ranma Tardis: got hurt in Iraq from an IED

[19:51] Tor Karlsvalt: consent

[19:51] Lilith Ivory: okwith me

[19:52] Soro Dagostino: I am here, and I am a follower of George.

[19:52] Micael Khandr: George?

[19:52] Tor Karlsvalt: true rose, but CDS seem anti

[19:52] Soro Dagostino: Carlin

[19:52] Ranma Tardis: am not mad at anyone, it is counterproductive

[19:52] Delia Lake: that's what i was hoping, Soro, that together the citizens of these sims would be a rich and vibrant participatory democracy where many ideas and projects could flourish

[19:52] Rose Springvale: some people in CDS may, but they don't really speak for the whole.

[19:52] Soro Dagostino: I think we can do that.

[19:53] Lilith Ivory: I´m concerned some in the CDS might try to destroy AA as it is now :(

[19:53] Delia Lake: we still may be able to do that, but i don't see it happening right now

[19:53] Soro Dagostino: How?

[19:53] Ranma Tardis: they only can if we let them

[19:53] Delia Lake: i am concerned about that also, Lilith

[19:53] Namav Abramovic: "different groups getting along" that can only work with a willing partner. The question is if we have that

[19:53] Tor Karlsvalt: Read Arria's last post

[19:54] Soro Dagostino: Damn it, the majority is not in the complaning parties.

[19:54] Tor Karlsvalt: she has plans.

[19:54] Jamie Palisades: huh. i agree, i don't see how.

[19:54] Soro Dagostino: Especially Arra

[19:54] Micael Khandr: So I am going to go out on a limb here and say what I think I'm hearing :) The majority want to 'de-merge', some strongly and some with some regret. A few individuals want to stay in the merger.

[19:54] Micael Khandr: Is that correct?

[19:54] Namav Abramovic: yes

[19:54] Lilith Ivory: loosing non profit status, reparceling without thinking and so on

[19:54] muhammedyussif Wikinger: yes

[19:54] Ranma Tardis: am sad at the thought but we tried

[19:54] Tor Karlsvalt: Right lil

[19:55] Rose Springvale: one point being made should be noted, and it was made earlier as well

[19:55] Delia Lake: AA is set up as a nonprofit. to insist on turning AA into functioning like a for profit would jeopardize the whole of AA

[19:55] Carolyn Saarinen: Certainly some colours have been nailed to masts on the forums

[19:55] Rose Springvale: people friendly to AA are currently in majority in the CDS

[19:55] Soro Dagostino: Indeed, that's my count

[19:55] Rose Springvale: there are methods in the government of CDS, if used and recognizd, to push through.

[19:55] Lilith Ivory: right

[19:55] Rose Springvale: the question is do we want to push

[19:55] Ranma Tardis: their petty fights will destroy us

[19:55] Carolyn Saarinen: well Rose, they keep very quiet

[19:55] Micael Khandr: there is always dual citizenship . . . :)

[19:56] Rose Springvale: smile

[19:56] Soro Dagostino: Stand up and be counted.

[19:56] Soro Dagostino: Your giving away the show.

[19:56] Namav Abramovic: SL isn't letting me stand up

[19:56] Soro Dagostino: Hehehe

[19:56] Rose Springvale: my biggest problem is lack of cooperation from the exec office. and i've done all the fence mending i know how to do to accomplish it

[19:57] Rose Springvale: i hate to contemplate impeachment

[19:57] Namav Abramovic: my avatar is frozen, seriously

[19:57] Soro Dagostino: No need.

[19:57] Rose Springvale: as i still feel strongly about both communities

[19:57] Ranma Tardis: you can stay in the cds

[19:57] Delia Lake: me too, Rose

[19:57] Soro Dagostino: The term will soon be over.

[19:57] Tor Karlsvalt: I have to say that I look at this group. You are all some of the most active members of CDS. If AA splits many of you will probalby spend all or most of your energy here in AA.

[19:57] Micael Khandr: OK--I think I hear an affirmation of what I heard, stated earlier. If it alright with all, I'm suggesting we close the formal part of the meeting and end transcripting.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Arguing Country

2010-03-06T15:16:00.008Z

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.

---------------

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!

Connections

2009-07-23T08:07:00.003+01:00

"... and He has enumerated everything in numbers." Qur'an (LXXII:28)

Today we celebrate the merger between the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) and Al Andalus in Second Life. The two communities have a lot in common, and many differences. Both are communities in the best sense - representing diverse interests and people. The CDS was formed almost five years ago (with one sim then called 'Neualteburg') to experiment with forms of self-governance in virtual worlds and bring a unique architectural style into SL. Al Andalus was formed out of the CDS two years ago (at one point it was a contender in the contest for our third sim) and has forged its own unique path to explore issues of faith, tolerance and inclusivity. Both communities stand to be reinvigorated by this merger. I have no doubt that this is the single biggest event in the history of both of these virtual communities and that both stand to benefit greatly from this union.

I've recently been reading a book called 'Lost History' which covers the enduring legacy of Muslim thinkers, artists, scientists and mathematicians. It's fascinating to read of figures that I half knew about and learn more about the preservation, development and transmission of art, culture, science and philosophy from the West to the Islamic world and back again over the centuries. Along with the merger of CDS and AA, the latest addition to the CDS is a dedicated sim for the Monastery. Both the Monastery in the CDS and the House of Wisdom and the Convivencia Institute in AA promote knowledge and culture and help to counter the loss of history. On this occasion of the merger between the CDS and AA, I want to highlight and celebrate the contribution of one man to our common scientific heritage. For me this is symbolic of the reality of the links that unite both the Muslim world and the West and of the fact that both can learn from the other.

My first career (in RL) was as a mathematics teacher. When students used to ask (as they always do) what the point was of learning algebra, geometry or calculus when it did not appear to be of use to their daily lives my stock answer was "Because it's beautiful!" I'm afraid I do think that mathematics is beautiful but I recognise that this is not a universally-shared perspective! The quotation from the Qur'an at the start of this blog post also reflects something about the beauty of mathematics and the search for the divine in numbers. The beauty I see in the language of mathematics is that of the reflection of nature and of its abstraction into mathematical representation. There is a beauty in regularity and order and, also, in the mathematics of chaos. We would not be able to see much of this beauty if it were not for the work of Mohamed al-Khwarizmi.

Born in around 780 C.E. in Persia, al-Khwarizmi was recruited to the House of Wisdom in Baghdad by the Caliph al-Mamun to assist in the translation of Greek mathematical (and other) texts. But al-Khwarizmi went further than the Greeks and sought ancient Hindu texts, reputed to have been written by the mathematician Brahmagupta centuries before. The archivists of the House of Wisdom managed to find a 200 year old book called Brahma Sphuta Siddhanta or Opening of the Universe. Both the Hindu original and the Arabic translation commissioned by al-Khwarizmi are lost to us now but a Latin translation of the work made several centuries later survives.

From the translation of the pages came forward the notion of nothingness, represented as a dot. The dot, when developed as a concept, became the numeral we recognise today as zero. It is difficult to express quite how revolutionary this concept was as it is now so fundamental to our understanding of the world but without it, it is difficult to do any higher mathematics. Zero, combined with the place value system of units, tens, hundreds etc. allowed an explosion of mathematical discovery. The Hindu-Arabic numerals that form our familiar number system enabled modern technology and civilisation to rise. Without them - no computers, no virtual worlds and no Second Lives!

In the subsequent years, al-Khwarizmi and his fellow mathematician-translators, brought Muslim mathematics up to the level of the Greeks, Byzantines and Indians and surpassed them. He gave his name to the algorithm and is best remembered for his work on algebra - the name for the concept comes from his "Al-Jabr wa al-Muqabala" translated as "The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing".

Algebra unlocks the potential to construct the fabulous buildings within which we live and work, the space probes and telescopes which examine the wonder of the heavens, model chemical reactions within the body and nuclear reactions in a power plant. For all of that we are, in part, in debt to al-Khwarizmi.

Four Years of Virtual Democracy

2008-10-24T17:59:00.004+01:00

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) recently celebrated its fourth birthday. This makes the CDS Second Life's longest-running democratic, self-governing community. It is also one of the most long-lived of any Second Life projects, most of which do not survive a change of leadership. The founders of the CDS (or Neualtenburg as it was then known) were right in one of their reasons for choosing to use democratic structures of self-governance - it allows for continuity and persistence of the project. As one group of activists tire or move on, others are able to take their place, re-energise the project and bring in new ideas so that things don't get stale. Democracy isn't pretty but it is resilient.

I could have said that the CDS is Second Life's *only* democratic, self-governing community and that would have been true for most of its history. But the CDS has been joined by one or two more groups that have decided to run themselves along democratic lines in recent months. Cedar Island is a small SL community focussed on research and creative work. It's a beautiful place, designed by Jon Seattle with help from Moon Adamant inspired by communities of the US Pacific Northwest. Cedar Island is run by its residents using consensus decision-making. I was part of the community for a short time but didn't get to any of the monthly resident meetings where membership and community policy are decided. Cedar has been joined by a related project called Port Spinoza, also designed largely by Jon Seattle, focussed on individual and group learning in SL. Its inspiration comes from the Netherlands in the Age of Enlightenment and also uses consensus decision-making.

Other communities, also mentioned previously on this blog, have the potential to head in the direction of being democratic communities but are not there yet.

So, how is the CDS? Six months ago I was comparing it to Zimbabwe, how is it faring now? Well, things are certainly quieter than they were six months ago! The last set of elections, held in July, returned three representatives each from the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction (CSDF) and the Democratic Pragmatists' Union (DPU) and one from NuCARE to the Representative Assembly (RA) - our legislature. The RA has met approximately fortnightly since then but I think it would be fair to say that attention has shifted elsewhere; the RA is no longer 'the only game in town'. For most of the CDS's history, if you wanted to get something done you went to the RA. This was partly due to the nervousness around executive power and the unwillingness to grant any kind of power to an executive branch which could potentially be abused. The CDS didn't even have an executive branch for much of the time with executive-type powers being shared between the RA and the (old) Guild (a quasi-corporatist structure with powers over building and finance). The establishment of the Chancelry as the institution with executive power, and in particular the active stance taken by the current Chancellor, has shifted attention away from the RA. It's no longer the RA that 'gets things done' but the Chancellor and his very capable team. This has been a positive development so far. It allows those who are interested in events organisation, for example, to work with a team that can get things done and who have the legitimate authority to do so. This is not to denigrate the work of previous Chancellors who have also made their contribution, it's just clear that the institution is really showing its promise now that we have had time to get used to it.

Civil society is reasonably healthy too. The Virtus NGO which owns and operates the Monastery in Alpine Meadow sim has put forward an ambitious plan which, if successful, could lead to the purchase of our first void sim (and our fifth sim in total). There is still plenty of arguing to be done over the terms of this move (it wouldn't be the CDS if we didn't argue a lot!) but it is a sign of the health of the community that people are inspired to put time and energy into such a project. By contrast, the Sturm und Drang over the establishment of a Chamber of Commerce had not yet lead to anything actually being put in place. But that is probably because (sssh, don't tell anyone) we don't really need one! I've also heard rumours that an NGO may be forming to make more use of the Neufreistadt Church on a more regular basis. Gwyneth Llewelyn has restarted her Sunday discussion groups at the Church which is another welcome addition to the range of activities in the CDS.

So, Zimbabwe no more :) Perhaps the CDS is more like a country recovering from a period of temporary insanity? Like France after the excesses of the Revolution, the Terror and the guillotine? Or Britain after the industrial strife, power cuts and three-day working week of the 1970s? Or the Venezuelans when they wake up from the disaster of Chavez's Presidency?

This 'quiet' period is perhaps a time in which we can address some of the issues which have frustrated us in the past. Passions are cooler, tempers are less frayed and (as far as I'm aware) no one is issuing death threats against any other citizens. This is a rare occurrence; we should make the most of it. So, what are the sins crying out to heaven for vengeance? What should be top of the list?

Electoral Reform. The CDS has the most bizarre electoral system I have ever encountered and one which massively over-represents minority factions with little support at the expense of factions which are supported by as much as half the population. More detail on what's wrong with it and what to do with it here and here.
Citizenship. It used to be so simple. You owned land, you were a citizen. Each plot had one owner and that was that. Our poor Treasurer's life was immeasurably easier and we knew who was and who was not a citizen. Then, for the best of reasons, we enacted the Group Land Ownership Act to enable couples and groups to own land collectively and the huge headache began. The solutions proposed previously, such as opening up CDS citizenship to anyone prepared to pay a monthly fee, have not adequately dealt with risks such as packing the electoral rolls with alts and the lack of a 'stake' in the community that landless citizens would hold. I'm sure we can find a solution though which would be simple to administer and still secure.
Faction Size Rule. The RA in the previous session passed a very silly law which said that factions needed to have a membership made up of at least 10% of the citizens of the CDS in order to stand for election. This was a knee-jerk reaction to a rumour being spread that the CSDF was planning to split into two or three factions to maximise the number of seats it would win in the election. (This potential for manipulation of the voting system is one of the arguments for electoral reform). Once we have reformed the electoral system we should abolish this silly rule. It discriminates unfairly against smaller parties and is a completely arbitrary rule (why not 20% or 5%?)
Head of State/RL Incorporation/Non-Profit Status. There are a whole slew of issues all tangled up with each other here which we could usefully address in 'peacetime'. These would include deciding who among our elected officials represents the CDS abroad i.e. to other SL communities, to Linden Labs and even to the outside world. We have discussed this before in the context of the need for a RL Board of Directors if we were to take the step of incorporating as a non-profit organisation under a RL jurisdiction thereby getting the tier and island purchase discounts such groups are granted by the Lindens. We have always got some way along the road before deciding the issues involved are in the 'too difficult' box. Perhaps we could make better headway right now?

Four years on the CDS is in a fairly healthy state but, as ever in a democracy, there is stuff still to do. There are unravelled threads, incomplete projects and outstanding issues. It is messy, ragged and never complete - just like in RL.

Virtual Zimbabwe

2008-04-04T11:36:00.003+01:00

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CDS is slowly but surely undermining its own democratic traditions. It is now a marginal democracy where election-rigging is permitted. The CDS has fallen so far from its democratic origins that some of the people elected to the Representative Assembly do not believe that the majority have the right to make decisions; they don't believe in democracy itself. It is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'; elections take place but they are rigged in advance to support the incumbents. The opposition (who won the election) are routinely abused, personally attacked and hounded from office. Sound familiar? (This is, of course, nothing compared to the punishment meted out to the opposition in Zimbabwe. I'm drawing an analogy here, I'm saying the CDS is like a 'virtual Zimbabwe' to make a point.)

How does a virtual democracy end up taking this road? Well it begins with RA members who do not believe in democracy. At the RA meeting on 16 March 2008, representatives Beathan Vale (Simplicity Party), ThePrincess Parisi and MT Lundquist (NuCARE) indicated that they did not accept that majorities should take decisions. By a contorted twisting of logic they took the position that it is right for minorities to take decisions in defiance of majority opinion! These are people untethered from any sense of democratic politics, whose instincts are undemocratic and authoritarian. The only thing that matters to them is that they have a majority in the RA and that's all the justification they need to pass any laws they please. They have proposed and passed a number of changes to our election laws and Constitution in the run up to the by-elections due to be fought from 5-19 April which are designed to block any challenge to their domination.

There will be a by-election with voting from 19-26 April to fill two vacant seats left when Leon Ash and I resigned as members of the RA. I'm not going to rehash the reasons for our resignation and the CSDF decision not to fill the vacancies and force a by-election. Suffice it to say that after several weeks of personal attacks from ThePrincess Parisi and regular disruption of RA meetings by NuCARE and their ally Beathan Vale, I had had enough.

In the past few weeks members of the RA have either proposed or passed the following:

1. The RA has changed the election rules so that voters cannot eliminate factions they don't approve of. This means the by-election will be fought under different rules from the January election. We do not know who of the incumbent factions will be running in the by-election. We know that the DPU intend to stand and that Simplicity and NuCARE have said they won't. We shall see. The point is that the incumbents have changed the rules and this could benefit them should they choose to stand in the by-election. Sadly, the Scientific Council, the defenders of the Constitution and citizens' human rights, have chosen to allow this to happen.

2. The RA has raised the minimum faction size from 3 to 10% of the population which means the bar has been raised so that the minimum faction size is now 7. (I can't find a link to this on the CDS Forums page so this may have been decided by the RA without any public debate at all.) There's been a ridiculous smoke screen raised around this one. The change has allegedly been made to prevent the CSDF from splitting into two or three 'micro-factions' and gaming the electoral system which favours smaller parties. There is no CSDF plan to do this; it's an invented rumour to build support for this anti-democratic change. What it does though is prevent any new factions from forming on the same basis as the ones that fought the election in January. The incumbent factions only needed three members then, so why should the bar be raised now? There were, apparently, rumours that other people were going to start up a new faction to run in the by-election hence the need to raise the bar and prevent them from being able to stand; the Beathan/NuCARE coalition currently running the RA will brook no opposition. Again, the SC has failed to prevent this and has consequently failed in its duty to protect the Constitution and the founding documents and the human rights of CDS citizens. This is clearly an abuse of the powers of the RA. By sanctioning this change the SC has given carte blanche to the RA to rig this by-election and future elections. Now that they've been given their head I shudder to think what oppressive laws this Unrepresentative Assembly will come up with.

3. The RA seriously considered changing the Constitution to eliminate the two vacant seats the CSDF won in the January election 'for the time being' to pretend that there were 5 and not 7 seats. This would have made it easier for the Rump Assembly to achieve a quorum at meetings and pass further constitutional amendments. This would have completely ignored the January election result and disenfranchised the voters who chose the CSDF in the January elections. Fortunately the RA did not pass this outrageous proposal (I've christened it the 'Zimbabwe proposal') but it indicates the complete lack of democratic temperament in some members of the RA.

4. At the RA meeting on 24 March, ThePrincess Parisi proposed that the CSDF be prevented from participating in the by-elections. The argument is that, if the CSDF has candidates, they should take up the vacant seats and not force a by-election by refusing to sit in the RA. If the CSDF does not have candidates, they can't stand in the by-election. What this position fails to appreciate is that boycotting a parliament, on principle, is a perfectly legitimate political tactic. It is for the citizens to pass judgement on the CSDFs electoral tactic, not our opponents in the RA. This was the most outrageous proposal of all. Fortunately, most members of the RA can see that this is totally out of order and the proposal did not find support.

This Unrepresentative Assembly is out of control. They are passing legislation on a whim and most of it never appeared in their election manifestos. They claim to 'fear the CSDF' despite the fact that we resigned our seats and gave up any power we had. They have moved to rig the by-elections in such a way that the CSDF, and any other opposition, will be disadvantaged. The Scientific Council has, inexplicably, allowed this to happen. In the face of legislative tyranny we have a toothless judiciary incapable of defending the citizens' rights.

The only hope now is that the by-elections will return two representatives who will oppose the tyranny of the minorities and resist the undermining of our democracy. It's vital that all CDS citizens turn out to vote between 19 and 26 April and deliver a firm message in Defence of Democracy.

The Extropians' Delayed Democracy

2008-03-18T21:08:00.007Z

The Extropians are one of Second Life's newer communities and have been one of the fastest growing. They launched with their first sim, Extropia Core, in November 2007 and have since expanded to six with more in the pipeline. The Extropians are united by a belief in a positive future and excited by transhumanist concepts such as the Singularity and the potential for technology to extend and enhance our lives. Prokofy Neva, droll as ever, has labelled them "the brain-uploaders". Extropia launched with an Avatar Bill of Rights, a Covenant and the promise of elections and a 'limited constitutional democracy'. It hasn't gone quite like that though and I don't think we can say that the Extropians have joined the community of democratic virtual micronations, at least not yet. But the reasons why they have not taken this path are fascinating in themselves and present questions that the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) and others need to consider.

I'll confess I have a soft spot for the Extropians. I like their positive attitude towards the future and the possibilities that it holds. It's refreshing to meet people who think that things will actually be better in the future and who reject the dystopian projections of much sci-fi. They're also a refreshing antidote to the apocalyptic environmentalists who tell us that the planet is going to burn if we don't all adopt a hair-shirt lifestyle, right now! I've recently read Michio Kaku's "Parallel Worlds" on the back of his BBC 4 programme "Visions of the Future" and I find his enthusiasm for technology and the potential benefits to humans to be very infectious. So, I was intrigued to see that the Extropians would be forming themselves along democratic lines. This was especially interesting to me, as a citizen of the CDS, because it appeared that the Extropians had never heard of us! I'd always imagined that other democratic communities would come out of splits within the CDS; to find a new one emerging with no knowledge of our past was pretty exciting.

Their original plan was that each sim would elect a 'Node' who would primarily have dispute-resolution powers. I was never entirely clear what else the nodes would do or what their relationship to the Board of Directors would be but, it seemed like a start and the beginnings of a form of government that could evolve in a more democratic and participatory direction. But the Extropians have not taken this path, the nodes won't be elected any time soon and 'benign dictatorship' - the dominant model of government in Second Life - seems to be the result that the community has asked for.

I spoke to Sophrosyne Stenvaag, creator of Extropia Core, Director of Marketing & External Relations/ Acting Director of Citizen Relations who told me that the fact that there were problems with their planned model emerged at their first Town Hall meeting. The vast majority of residents wanted the unelected Board to get on with making decisions and expanding the sims and did not want to put time and energy into elections etc. One or two residents disagreed and wanted there to be a formal, legalistic democratic structure; they ended up leaving the project, the only departures so far.

I think it's fascinating that democracy ended up detracting from the Extropians' mission and was ultimately rejected by the community, at least for the time being. The majority felt that a political process, and the consequent division into factions and an adversarial format for decision-making, would be fatal at this early stage in their development. The Extropians have understood, perhaps subconsciously, that they need to consolidate their 'civil society' institutions first and truly build a community before they entertain the trappings of a formal political process which will necessarily involve division and some disagreement.

Extropian civil society is certainly quite well-developed. Sophrosyne's Saturday Salons have attracted a number of stimulating speakers and a substantial audience. Last Sunday's lecture on Religion, Spirituality and the Avatar with guest speaker Robert Geraci/Soren Ferlinghetti managed to be both self-referential in the way that many SL events are while also connecting to a real life 'big picture' issue - religion - and intelligently examined the potential for cultural exchange in both directions. A science fiction book club is about to get off the ground. Civil rights are protected to some extent by the Charter of Civil Rights (which acknowledges its debt to Desmond Shang's Caledon).

I think this raises some interesting questions for those of us who are committed to democratic self-government in virtual worlds. Is democracy invariably 'a good thing' or is it possible that it is more appropriate at a later stage in community development rather than at the very start? If so, how does one make the transition from benign dictatorship to genuine democracy? Do communities need democratic self-government to fulfill their purpose or does it sometimes get in the way? Is it important to develop a thriving civil society first and then make the transition to democracy? I can see why this latter approach would make sense. A community that has learned to work together and play together without the disputes involved in 'politics' is one which is more likely to have high levels of trust among the participants. Trust is vital if people are to work together and yet it is such a fragile commodity in a virtual world where pseudonymous avatars meet on the internet - you may well not be who you say you are and 'you' may be several people who all pretend to be different.

It also confirms for me that, within the context of Second Life, there's a question mark over democracy as the ends rather than the means. In the CDS we have tended to see democracy as our purpose rather than as a means for making decisions and resolving conflicts. That has meant that we have occasionally been 'Democracy Sim' - a special type of role-play sim where (some) residents play at being legislators and debate the ideal Constitution. Over two years of active participation in the CDS political process I have observed far more energy being put into this kind of discussion than into expanding the CDS territory or taking the community forward in other ways.

Other communities have adopted a different path with democracy clearly identified as the process rather than the goal. In future articles I want to explore their experiences and draw lessons from them. In particular I want to consider the Cedar Island community, which has used a form of consensus decision-making to guide its development, and the academic and government entrants to Second Life such as SciLands, which use a democratic board structure to govern themselves.

I also wish the Extropians well. It would be great to see them evolve democratic institutions when they feel ready for them and to see what a future-focussed, ultra-modern democratic process could look like. It could be an opportunity to rethink the democratic process using the tools available to the 21st century rather than the 18th century and innovate in ways not considered before.

An Evolutionary Experiment

2008-03-13T21:07:00.002Z

My summer reading last year was Eric Beinhocker's 'The Origin of Wealth'. It's probably the best non-fiction book I've read in several years. I was really struck by his description of Microsoft's strategy in the OS wars of 1987 and wondered how that same approach could be adapted to the formation of democratic, self-governing communities in virtual worlds such as 'Second Life'.

Beinhocker takes us back to a time when Microsoft's continued dominance of the PC operating system market was far from assured. In 1987 MS-DOS was coming to the end of its useful life and Microsoft faced competition from other operating systems and the potential to fail if it's preferred solution - Windows - did not find traction in the marketplace. IBM was developing its own multi-tasking operating system OS/2, AT&T was leading a consortium including Sun Microsystems and Xerox to develop Unix, Apple was also a threat and maintaining a reputation for innovation. What Microsoft did was to invest in six possible futures simultaneously. Firstly, they continued to develop MS-DOS; with a large installed customer base and the potential to make incremental improvements it was possible that users might prefer to stick with the operating system they knew and were most familiar with. Secondly, they worked with IBM in a joint venture to develop OS/2 - 'if you can't beat them, join them'. Third, they held discussions with the various companies developing Unix to consider joint working. Fourth, they bought a major stake in Santa Cruz Systems, the major seller of Unix systems on the PC. Fifth, they built themselves a major Macintosh application development division outstripping Apple as the major developer of software for the Macintosh. Sixth, Microsoft made a major investment in the development of Windows.

Beinhocker sees the economy as a 'complex adaptive system' akin to the brain, the internet or an ecosystem. In such a system evolution is the driving force for adaptation and change. If we think of the operating system marketplace as just such an evolutionary system, we can see that Microsoft was experimenting with a number of designs to prepare for what would be the best fit in the marketplace. This feedback from the system informed the process of selection so that projects could be upgraded, wound down or ended. Once it became clear that the Windows strategy had the lead, Microsoft could divert investment to the successful project. Having a portfolio of strategies operating at once meant that they could quickly switch horses depending on which outcome was working best.

One problem we have had in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (CDS) is that, for most of our history, we have been the only democratic, self-governing community in Second Life. As a result we tend to attract all or most of the people who would be interested in developing systems of democratic self-government. There are many different ways we could organise ourselves and so this leads to endless debates as the parliamentarians argue their case against the presidentials; the strict separation of powers crowd battle with those who favour cabinet-style government; the direct democrats argue for referenda against those who support representative democracy; the federalists battle the republicans. The Constitution we have ended up with is a bit of mish-mash - the result of many compromises between these different camps. The history of constitutional development in the CDS has largely been driven by compromises between competing visions of what democracy in virtual worlds should look like. But perhaps there is another way, an evolutionary way to test these ideas?

What if a rich benefactor set out to test competing ideas by establishing six new democratic, self-governing communities in Second Life? Each one could adopt a different democratic model as its template. We could have a "direct democracy" sim where all decisions are taken by weekly vote at a meeting where all citizens may participate and make proposals. There could be a "presidential" sim where a strong executive and strict separation of powers prevails. We could try out a "constitutional monarchy" with a figurehead monarch and decision-making politicians. Another sim might have an elected "tribal council" which exercises all legislative, executive and judicial functions. We could vary the executive configurations to try a three-person "triumvir" instead of a single-person presidency. We could try small legislatures v. larger ones. I'm sure there are many more than six possible variations but six would be a reasonable number to test a variety of quite different systems. Once established, the six communities would be set running and the business of elections and running the governments set in train.

How would we measure success though? One way would be to permit the communities to expand and bring in new citizens. The most successful model would be the community that expanded the most. Or we could permit the citizens in these six communities to 'vote with their feet' by allowing them to move from one community to another at intervals; the successful models would thrive and the unsuccessful ones decline.

But is expansion or contraction by itself a sufficient metric? Perhaps success could be measured by assessing citizens' quality of life according to a number of measures? We could use a version of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development Index adapted for our virtual world. A successful community, by this measure, would be one in which citizens' satisfaction, government approval and involvement and activism rates were high.

Clearly any such experiment would not be entirely free of bias or ethical objections. Each community would have to have different people involved (and that could be a difficult rule to keep given the ease with which alts are created). It might be that one community just gelled better and got on better than another because of the interaction between the different personalities. The islands may have different natural resources due to geography, location and public infrastructure (unless they were all clones of each other and co-located to remove those variables). One could also object to the experiment on ethical grounds - is it really acceptable to treat Second Life residents like lab rats and devise an interesting cage for them to run around in? On the other hand, if SL residents are willing to participate is there really a problem? The opportunity to live in a self-governing democracy is arguably one that many would take given the option.

I hope and anticipate that further democratic communities will emerge on the grid in a more organic fashion in the future so perhaps my artificially-constructed social experiment will not be necessary. I should have thought though that Second Life would provide exactly the kind of space in which to conduct such social experiments at minimal cost providing ethical standards were maintained. If there are any political studies departments out there willing to sponsor, I'm prepared to take a year's sabbatical from my paid job to get this off the ground! :) (But I won't hold my breath waiting to hear from someone).

What's wrong with democracy?

2008-03-08T10:49:00.007Z

I started this blog about two years ago with the intention of reporting on Neualtenburg (since renamed Neufreistadt as part of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators or CDS), Second Life's only democratic, self-governing community at the time. Since then I've been more of a participant than a participant observer, helping to found the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction and serving as a member of the government first on the Scientific Council and latterly as an elected member of the Representative Assembly and more recently Leader of the RA. But I have been observing all the time I've been active in the CDS and wondering 'Why has no one else followed our lead? Why are there no other democratic communities in Second Life?'

There are a couple in the pipeline- both the Al-Andalus Project and the Metaverse Republic are designing elaborate constitutional edifices to support democratic communities. We will see how they fare; I think it must be good to have more than one democratic experiment to observe so, from an academic perspective if no other, these are welcome developments. The Extropians have also founded their own democratic community which has expanded rapidly over the past six months.

But what can we learn from the CDS? I think there are four main reasons why people look at the CDS experiment and think 'not for me'.

1) It all takes too much time. If I were to calculate the hours spent running the CDS machinery of government well, it would come to a grand total exceeding the net worth of our property if it were represented by billable hours! I've been using 'toggl' to record how much time I spend on CDS business each week; it averages ten hours/week. I'm not complaining, when I took on the role as LRA I expected it would involve a time commitment and I cut back on WoW and my other games to compensate. But even if we assume that the other RA members, SC members and Chancellor have far less onerous commitments (and that's a big assumption) then we're still left with 50 or more working hours a week just to run the government. I doubt whether the overhead in other sims run along 'normal' SL lines is quite so high.

2) Recycling old debates. This is the 'CDS disease'. Every new set of citizens wants to remodel the Constitution according to their preferences/prejudices (and there's nothing wrong with that) but it means that debates over separation of powers, parliamentary v. presidential systems etc are continually returned to with different cast members involved. The 'oldbies' i.e. anyone who's been in the CDS longer than six months, will be familiar with this phenomenon; we've all nodded sagely from time to time and said 'Aah yes, I remember when we discussed this last year. Here's the forum thread, we're treading the same ground again.' This tends to infuriate the newer members raising the issue because for them it is a new discussion! This is one of the many potential fractures between newer and older members of the community.

This iterative approach is not necessarily a problem provided we learn from previous debates and don't spend too much time restating old positions. In a democracy we should be able to return to issues when the citizens want to see them addressed and we should be free to change our collective mind as a community and reverse a chosen course or embark on one that had previously been rejected. But it gives the impression that the CDS goes round in circles and lacks a clear sense of direction. Indeed, despite several attempts to get people to think about the issue, the CDS has never decided what it is for, beyond being an experiment in democracy.

3) It gets nasty. When people are compared to Mao, Stalin and Ceacescu over a dispute in a virtual world we have left the realms of rational debate. Now, we are all guilty of hyperbole from time to time but Mao? Really, there has to be a limit. There are different appetites for 'robust' debate and different conceptions (possibly with a cultural basis) of what is 'rude' when having a disagreement. So it's inevitable that people will fall out from time to time. In addition, the anonymity that an online environment provides allows people to be much more cutting than they might be face to face in the real world. I've noticed a change over time though as people become more invested in their avatar and their reputation; people (well, *some* people) take more care in expressing disagreement and don't see every political dispute as a fight to the death. A more stable environment, same people, fewer newcomers would probably lead to more civility.. but at the expense of innovation and new blood. I think there's also the question of the type of people a democratic community attracts. For the most part the CDS attracts people who are committed to making democracy work but it has weak defences against borderline personalities who can create a great deal of disruption and are difficult to challenge effectively. This is a subject I'll return to at greater length another time - the CDS has a number of 'exiles' who, at one time or other, attempted to impose their vision on an unwilling community.

4) Democracy becomes the end and not the means. The most active members of the community will tend to be the ones staffing the institutions needed to run a democratic, self-governing community in a virtual world. The CDS is occasionally accused of 'role playing' democracy by outsiders, and we sometimes worry that these criticisms may have some truth to them. It's not hard to see why given the enormous amount of effort put into running the machinery of government compared to, for example, building and maintaining our environment and working together on collaborative projects. I've previously argued that what we need is an 'enabling' RA which sets out to provide the necessary support so that our citizens can launch such creative projects. I think we are often too focussed on the RA as a community when really it ought to take second place to a thriving civil society where the real life of the community, the fun stuff, happens.

So where does that leave the CDS? In the words of the saying, "I wouldn't start from here if I were you!" Ideally, the CDS would reform itself to reduce the democratic overhead and enable civil society to flourish; cast some decisions in tablets of stone (if only to declare that referenda, or a directly-elected presidential Chancellor for example, are never going to be enacted so we can stop wasting energy arguing for/against them); find ways to minimise the disruptive potential of borderline personalities and obsessive monomaniacs; and decide what it is for, apart from just being a democratic, self-governing community. I'm not hopeful about the chances though. The recent discussion over how to recognise the contribution of volunteers to the CDS project has revealed the diversity of opinion that exists within the CDS over a relatively uncontroversial aspect of community life. The opinions expressed include those at one extreme who believe "virtue is it's own reward" or "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" versus those who would erect statues in honour of the CDS 'great and the good'. The chances of much more substantial reforms, along the lines sketched out at the start of this paragraph, are frankly nil in my opinion.

But I do believe that the CDS will persist, and grow, and continue to evolve. It will do so as it has done so previously - slowly, with a great deal of noisy debate, some lobbing of verbal hand grenades and some spectacular departures of prominent citizens (which will continue to be quickly forgotten).

I hope that more democratic communities will be founded in Second Life and begin to offer a real choice; people will be able to vote with their feet and choose which kind(s) of democratic community they wish to live in. At some point, the CDS could split with a disgruntled minority setting out to found a new community. All of these developments will probably be positive for the CDS as a whole - friendly competition will drive innovation and challenge the accepted norms. The CDS has recovered from splits and acrimony in the past. It has a long future of further squabbling to look forward to!

A Return to Blogging

2008-03-07T21:27:00.006Z

This blog has taken a bit of a back seat in recent years. I found the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (then named Neualtenburg), Second Life's oldest democracy and, without really intending to, got thoroughly involved in the politics of the community. Now that I've resigned as Leader of the Representative Assembly (the CDS legislature) after two years serving on one or other of the CDS' organs of government, I have a little more time on my hands to put some of my thoughts into better order and present them here. I think that the CDS experiment tells us a lot about the issues thrown up by virtual democracy and I hope to record my observations, based on two years of participant-observation, here.

One point to note in this short return to blogging is that the CDS is no longer the only democracy in Second Life. In recent months new democratic communities have emerged. The Extropians only opened their first sim in November 2007 but have recently expanded to six. Al-andalus is opening as a democratic community 'based on authentic Islamic principles' this weekend (8 March 2008). The Metaverse Republic project has yet to launch its system for inworld courts backed up by a parliamentary democracy but, when it gets off the ground, may be another one to add to the mix. All of these projects deserve greater description and scrutiny. There are disagreements, for example, over how democratic they really are and their claims need to independently assessed. I'll add my take on these projects and hope to add to the discussion.

Virtual worlds and sustainable development

2006-09-16T18:39:00.000+01:00

Do Virtual Worlds such as ‘Second Life’ have a contribution to make to sustainable development? I found myself asking this question when I came across a report on Sustainable Consumption and Production from the Sustainable Development Roundtable recently. The report is based around the need for a ‘one planet economy’. Putting it in its simplest terms, if everyone on the planet were to consume at the same level as we do in the developed West, we would need three planets’ worth of resources. Since we don’t have three planets, so the theory goes, we need to adjust our activities so that we live within our environmental means. Leaving aside the question of whether this analysis is accurate or not, it has captured the imagination of some politicians and could well form part of the political agenda for the future. What kind of lives would we be leading? And what would be the role of virtual worlds within them?

If Sustainable Consumption and Production ideas take hold we can say goodbye to cheap air travel and look forward to spending more of our holiday time taking local sustainable holidays. We’ll be eating more locally sourced and seasonal food and cutting back on imports of staple produce and exotics. We’ll be encouraged to reuse and recycle clothing and make do and mend rather than throwing away clothes because last year’s fashions no longer suit. It remains to be seen whether large numbers of consumers in the affluent West can be persuaded to buy into this kind of hair-shirt lifestyle given that consumerism has been the mantra for the latter half of the twentieth century. But, assuming that this is what the future looks like, is it possible that Virtual Worlds will provide some kind of escape?

I think we have to take it as a given that broadband takeup will continue and that a home computer and persistent internet connection will be the norm, even under the scenario outlined above. It will be possible for us to lead quite simple and restrained real lives, respecting the limits of the environment to sustain us, while leading rich, involved lives online. Clothing requires design, resources and people and places to sell the product in the real world; exotic creations can be produced in Photoshop, uploaded to Second Life and onto your avatar with no consumption of resources beyond the power consumption of the machines involved. One of my early ‘Wow!’ moments in Second Life came when I ran out of money. I realised that I could create a virtual home filled with all manner of entertainments for the price of few cups of coffee. I shelled out real money for Linden dollars and have never looked back. It’s clear that those of us who inhabit virtual worlds make large investments in our time there. We pay money for goods and services, we invest emotions in the relationships we develop with other players, and we invest time in crafting and customising our avatars and carving out a niche for ourselves. It is clear that these investments are worth a lot to many of us, mostly in small ways such as the L$1000 outfit you just have to have or your collection of classic cars, but also in the headline-grabbing examples such as the space station sold on Eve online for a significant sum, the level 20 WoW characters sold on eBay or the price of a private island in Second Life.

This conspicuous consumption is still sustainable because no real world resources are needed to produce and replicate millions of copies of the items we desire. Payment is the reward for the intellectual effort that has gone into producing these items and the time spent developing and refining the product. The price is simply what people are prepared to pay. And, as I’ve learned myself with my furniture business, once something has been designed and put up for sale it can go on being bought by residents for as long as there’s interest in the product. Pricing becomes quite interesting when you can look forward to months (or even years!) of regular micro-payments all of which add up over the long term.

But is it possible to live a simple and sustainable real life while living out fantasies that would make Donald Trump seem frugal in our Second Lives? Does the fantasy we indulge in reinforce consumerism (ooh, must have more new shiny!) or allow us to express it in a more sustainable fashion? My guess is that it is possible to live a rich and involved virtual life and enjoy it without feeling that similar material riches need to be had in real life.

One further interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that this emerging virtual world economy is one the developing world will be able to access on a level playing field once the technology is cheaper and more widespread. Now, before I get accused of being too pie-in-the-sky, let me say that ensuring people have safe water to drink is a much more pressing goal for the world than wiring up the Sahara with broadband and getting solar-powered laptops out there. But China is already well along this road and other developing nations are sure to follow. This means that designing goods for virtual worlds is a potential occupation for imaginative designers in developing countries, and a lucrative one at that. We are already seeing the outsourcing of content creation to developing nations such as China, an example would be Anshe Chung Studios. Virtual worlds provide a new avenue for wealth creation in developing countries, one not available to the countries which took the lead in industrialising in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Given the concern that industrialisation in the newly industrialising countries will be a messy and polluting affair, blowing any agreement to control carbon emissions out of the water, a pathway along the road to economic development that does not consume real world resources has to be one worth taking.

Second Life content creators need to be on their toes; Chinese and Indian competitors might just be about to do everything better and more cheaply than you!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Portrait

2006-05-14T12:29:00.000+01:00

Posting portrait

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Does Second Life need a government?

2006-05-14T10:10:00.000+01:00

The question of government in virtual worlds is a controversial one. The Second Life forums have occasionally burned brightly with the flame wars initiated by discussion of player-run democracy. Why do some people living and working in Second Life feel the need for a government? What would it do? And who should it govern?

I was struck by one potential need for government (in the real world and in virtual worlds) the other day. On my way to an appointment I noticed that the traffic lights at a busy intersection were down. Crossing this road is tricky at the best of times but very scary with no traffic signals to say when pedestrians are safe to cross the road. Luckily I wasn’t in a hurry so I could take my time and observe what was taking place. Pedestrians didn’t get stand much of a chance! Cars, lorries and buses pushed ahead trying to keep the flow of their lane going and preventing the cross stream from cutting in. There wasn’t a great deal of turn-taking or polite behaviour in evidence, just a Hobbesian war of ‘all against all’.

It occurred to me that this form of regulation is one of the legitimate functions of government. Most motorists and pedestrians accept that traffic lights are useful to them. They allow traffic to flow safely, prevent accidents and they balance the power of the strong (lorries, cars) against the rights of more vulnerable parties (cyclists, pedestrians). That, for me, is one of the indispensable functions that government could fulfil in a virtual world too; acting as ringleader between competing interests, providing necessary regulation to allow avatars to fulfil their ambitions and balancing the power of the stronger (wealthy land barons, established residents) against the rights of those with less power in the Second Life economy and society (newbies, basic members, consumers).

In the real world government fulfils a number of other functions as well as regulating the flow of traffic. Core functions, common to all states are defence of the nation and policing to guard public safety. In addition, most wealthy modern democracies have some form of welfare state which provides a safety net for citizens in times of unemployment or ill health. Many democracies, especially in Europe, have systems of socialised healthcare in addition to the private provision of health services. In these democracies the state provides a minimum standard of publicly-funded education and access to higher education. Slightly more controversially, many states see their role as sponsoring certain industries. Even more controversially, and extending into potential ‘nanny state’ territory, many also argue that government also has a role as ‘choice editor’, saving us from our worst instincts in the face of environmental pressures, failure to save for our old age and the pervasive availability of junk food. Government in this view sets the ‘default’ options in favour of positive outcomes for individuals and for public policy.

In Second Life there is a strong bias against player-run government. There are a number of reasons for this, one of the most obvious factors being the type, and nationality, of people who have been attracted to Second Life. The vast majority, 80% or so, of SL citizens are from the United States and the US has a strong intellectual tradition that is mistrustful of government. The establishment of a democratic republic in response to monarchist tyranny and abuse of power is the generally accepted founding story that America likes to relate to itself. The notion that government can be a force for good and play a positive role in society gains much less favour in America compared to Europe for example. In addition Second Life’s demographic to date has been heavily weighted towards internet early adopters and content creators with a liberal (and libertarian) outlook. The dispute over the need for government in a virtual world is but one of many battles that have taken place over, for example, the role of commercial activity in Second Life and whether it is a game, a platform, a country, the metaverse or something else entirely.

Bias apart, many would argue that there really is no need for a government in a virtual world like Second Life. Our avatars do not require food, shelter or water, there is no need for defence against enemy nations (except where people are role-playing war games) and if you transact business without bearing in mind the maxim “Buyer beware” you only have yourself to blame, right? In Second Life there is no intrinsic need for the goods available; one can survive perfectly well without land, prims, currency, employment, new clothes or hoochie hair. If someone is harassing you through IM or stalking you using scanning and spying tools Linden Lab will step in and discipline them, right? Well that’s all true but only up to a point. For starters Linden Lab could be described as ‘the government of Second Life’ but only in the sense that a benign dictatorship exercises some of the responsibilities of government in a fairly capricious fashion. And, unlike a democratically-elected government, you can’t get rid of them except by defecting to another virtual world with the consequent loss of any virtual goods, commercial reputation or other forms of intangible capital that may have been accumulated.

This brings me to Neualtenburg, an experiment in representative democracy and collective decision-making. The Neualtenburg Projekt has been running for almost two years. Neualtenburg has a territory (the Neualtenburg sim), an elected legislature (the Representative Assembly) as well as a judiciary (the Scientific Council) and an artisan’s guild. Neualtenburg has its own Constitution and set of laws. Its citizens have opted to take collective decisions about zoning the sim into residential, commercial, mixed use and public spaces. By doing so they have agreed to abide by certain rules to preserve the unique character and appearance of the City. As the theme is largely modelled on a medieval Bavarian town there is, for example, no scope for building a floating spaceship in the residential quarter inside the city walls!

What is really interesting about Neualtenburg’s recent developments is that the City is beginning to offer goods and services that only a ‘government’ can provide including the registration and incorporation of companies and banking regulation. I think this makes Neualtenburg a potential model for others to follow, if they can get beyond an antipathy to ‘other players having power over me’ and the drama that occasionally flares up on Neualtenburg’s forums. The first barrier will be weakened by the influx of more people with more varied attitudes towards the role of government. The anarcho-libertarian hegemony in Second Life is likely to be diluted as more people, with more varied opinions and experiences, join. The drama of the forums is more of a double-edged sword. It certainly puts off a lot of people who would otherwise be attracted to Neualtenburg. My initial evaluation was that I couldn’t face spending hours in virtual meetings debating dry points of constitutional law or getting dragged into the inevitable flame wars. On the other hand it also draws in new people. I signed up after getting drawn into an interesting constitutional debate that covered the separation of powers, checks and balances between branches of government and how to balance minority rights with the democratic will of the majority. I am reliably informed that each of these forum spats has led to an increase in citizenship as people are drawn to the drama!

But most people, looking at Neualtenburg from outside, could be forgiven for concluding that the project has failed to live up to its promise. Two years on it is restricted to one sim while Anshe’s dominion covers a whole continent and even a recent land baron such as Desmond Shang can claim four sims. (Expansion to a second sim is imminent though and should be completed by the end of 2006). I think it would be a mistake to underestimate Neualtenburg’s potential though. In the real world, democracy is the most stable government formation human societies have developed so far, and is highly correlated with economic growth. If Neualtenburg’s political structures are strong enough, they should be able to outlast not only the current members of the government, but also the original founders of the project. Neualtenburg is going through a testing time at the moment after the departure of one of its founders, Ulrika Zugzwang, in January and her recent return to settle a number of disputes unresolved at the time of her departure. There are lessons to be learned here for other SL communities who want to explore democratic forms of sim management or who are engaged in collaborative work if they can see the issues underlying the drama. I am confident that Neualtenburg can get beyond its current difficulties and will emerge the stronger for it. I’ll be writing more about Neualtenburg, and the socio-political aspects of Second Life in the future.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Finally, a reason to blog...

2006-05-14T10:09:00.000+01:00

I’ve been a resident of Second Life, an online virtual world, for about seven months now. Second Life is unlike a number of other massively multiplayer online games in that it’s not really a game - at least not for many of us!

Second Life has no levels, there’s no goal and it’s pretty much what you make of it. You can create, chat with friends, customise your avatar, design works of art or useful items for the world, whatever turns you on.

It’s taken me this long to work out what my niche might be within this world. I think I’ve finally found where I fit in - the city of Neualtenburg, a democratic city-state owned and run by its citizens.

I’ll be writing more about Neualtenburg in future. It’s a fascinating place to be sure.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.