Another Proposed Bill: New Home for Neualtenburg

Again, I felt a new thread would make it easier to discuss the merits of the proposal.


Proposed Bill……………………..
New Home for Neualtenburg

1) Neualtenburg must be located on its own land by May 22, 2005. The following steps are proposed to make this happen.

2) That Ulrika Zugswang be coerced to take some limited time from her pre-maternity absence in order to propose a design for the land, and a further design for the basic layout of the city of Neualtenburg, to occupy a private sim island.

3) That because of the fact that the “owner”, as defined by Linden Lab, of the new island will be the avatar holding the main bank account,

AND, because Linden Lab charges a fee of US$100 to transfer ownership from one owner to another,

AND, because the holder of each of the Neualtenburg bank accounts will change frequently (reference “Responsible Neualtenburg Money Management”)

THEREFORE, it is proposed that a Neualtenburg resident familiar with any of the Lindens discuss with them an arrangement for a streamlined and “lower fee” ownership transfer procedure.


4) That upon an approval of the Ulrika land and city layout designs, and the conclusion of a satisfactory ownership transfer arrangement with the Lindens, the RA be authorized to order from Linden Labs a new private island. From the wiki:

“How Do I Place An Order? “
Before placing your order, email the following information to [email]islands@lindenlab.com[/email]:
1. Your Second Life Name : Name of the Avatar holding the main bank account.
2. Island Type: Custom or Standard # (viewable here) : Determined by Ulrika’s plan.
3. Rating, "PG"or "M" : “M”
4. Island Name : Neualtenburg
5. Visible on Map "Yes" or "No"? : “Yes”

5) That since the main bank account is unlikely to be funded sufficiently before May 22 from city revenues (casino, rentals, sales, etc), a request be made to those who are able to fund the main bank account to the extent needed to buy the island (US$980, hopefully) and pay the first month’s fee (US$195). It is desired that as many as possible small contributions be made, rather than fewer larger ones.

6) That a list be carefully kept of those placing money into the main bank account, and that, as soon as monthly revenues get larger than monthly expenses, half of all surplus be used to pay back all those who have contributed, until they are all paid back. The issue of interest should be discussed.

7) That upon delivery of the new island to us, the members of the Guild be requested to gather all helpers that it can and move the city to the new location, as quickly as it can.

That acting Guildmeister Catfart Grayson be authorized to work with Eugene Pomeray, and others, to promote and publicize the new Neualtenburg. That the project of promoting Neualtenburg be considered the most important project facing the city at this time, and that all members of the group be urged to contribute their time to this effort. And that expenditures that Catfart should find necessary to incur be proposed by him and approved by the RA with the highest priority.

I'm not an N-burger...

But as a tip: 1.6 will allow group deeding of private islands. Which would save the whole multiple transfer thing.

When Neaultenburg acquires it's own sim, what would the other half of the sim be used for?

Some ideas of mine:
- City Continuation
- Bavarian Countryside - farms, windmills, etc.
- Park
- Ski Area complete with Ski Lift and Ski Lodges.

If you have any more ideas put it in this thread!

Just wondering: when Neualtenberg moves, will we need, or want, to insist on a uniform Bavarian motif?

While I think there should be some requirement for high standards through out the sim, do we need to make it all the SAME standard?

Architecure in SL has always been a balance between art and purpose, for me. I love a beautiful house that echos the best architectural acheivments of Real Life. But I can't stand putting toilets in a house in SL. Even beds irritate me

So isn't it better to allow Neualtenburg building style to have enough room to evolve as it's own regional style into the future?

I'm in complete agreement with this. I feel that the most important value is that new creations be of a high quality, and also have some relationship to the existing community.

Ulrika's orginal idea had this element in it, hence the modern museum. I feel that Talen's casino is a really beautiful example of a building which is certainly not Bavarian, but which still has a compatible, kind of classical, quality to it that works. And, it's design sense is really very beautiful.

Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My opinion will differ from another's. The conversation is a really excellent one to start now.

Sudane

Where we should go with the theme and layout of the next generation of the city is a very important question. For the current build I had several fundamental goals:

1. I wanted a unique and dense build that only occupied a fraction of the available land. This was chosen as a contrast to the sparse sprawl that fills most of SL.
   
2. I wanted an organic curvilinear city layout. Much of SL is parceled out in tiles. I wanted "quarters" that each had their own shape within the confines of the city wall.
   
3. I wanted some structures which were curvilinear. This was to be in contrast to the square boxes that fill SL.
   
4. I didn't want a single theme rather I wanted two complimentary yet contrasting themes -- in this case postmodern and medieval Bavarian. They each share the qualities described above yet provide contrast, adding to the artistic merit of the build. This was motivated by the slew of themed builds (ghettos) that already exist in SL.
   

I tried to achieve these goals by first creating the city layout and then by populating the city with buildings and structures which matched the theme. I think we were very successful in laying out the city (and it was a joy to do). Populating the city was a little more difficult -- there are so few skilled builders.

I agree that it would be nice to move beyond the Bavarian theme, although I'm fond of retaining the philosophy of doing something that goes beyond the pedestrian SL layout and build.


I've have a few ideas (some are mutually exclusive):

1. Deemphasize (but keep) the name "Neualtenburg" and rename the project "The City". We would keep the government and several of the best structures.
   
2. Create quarters that each have a different theme, much like "towns" (Chinatown, Japantown, Little Italy) in large cities, yet link them using a common element.
   
3. Keep Neualtenburg or a reduced-footprint Neualtenburg as a walled enclave in the center of the city and let the streets to the rest of the city radiate outward from it at an angle.
   
4. Design the city in temporal rings. Zone the city in several themes and unite them by defining concentric rings that represent a given time period and its architecture. There could be a postmodern ring, an art-deco ring, a medieval ring, and so on in chronological order.
   
5. Divide and conquer. After the layout of the city is complete, give each quarter to a different player to administer. They would responsible for building and maintaining the area and they would receive a cut of all money made in that quarter (rent, sales, or events).
   

I think a little creativity on the front end will help us make something that's special and not just another McTheme park like An_she's (misspelled so she can't find this when she searches for her name) new stuff.

What ideas do you have?

~Ulrika~

One last thing that I should mention, since we're talking about the new city. It is really important to define precisely what kinds of structures you want to see in the city. If you are vague, people will give you garbage.

As an example, of the dozen builders we had, only Urusula, BladeDancer, Kendra, Talen, and myself managed to build a structure in theme that met the detailed specifications that I have posted on my website. It never failed that when I asked someone to check their (questionable) build against the specs on my website, they always left the group -- usually in a huff. No one ever finished a build which didn't make the first cut (which in a way is good).

My point is that you should not allow too much freedom in what you allow people to build. Invariably they will build crap (too big, too many prims, in the wrong place, ugly) and you will need a well-defined metric to justify your position. Even with my detailed requirements I'd be trapped in 30-minute-long arguments, oftentimes enduring insults and the beauty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder argument.

~Ulrika~

Of course this is just another opinion among several others, but I'm not in favour of changing the theme of the buildings, once we move on the new sim.

Ulrika pointed out the biggest argument against it: lack of consistency. For me this means that a "new theme" needs to have at least the size and complexity of the proposal that Ulrika submitted for Neualtenburg - including photos of real places/architecture, a texture pack, plans with topographic measurements, urban planning, and a description of what each and every item in the "new quarter" of the city is there for.

I mean, even Neualtenburg, with all the planning, has its shortfalls! On the other hand, it's much easier to discuss things like "which places should be used for renting?" or "what are we going to do with the Museum?" because the overall city layout provided for these spaces, even if it was in a "rough" sense.

So, if people really, really want to do a different style of city on Neualtenburg's future sim, they'll need to work way hard - I shall be a tough nut to crack at the RA when voting upon the proposals On the other hand, if the effort put on a proposal is good enough, I will fully endorse it.

The second issue is mostly size and lag. After all, Neualtenburg is pretty dense (like it should) and is quite heavy on textures - you have all noticed how the sim lags a lot when you teleport there, and it's only after a few minutes that things go back to usual (and we almost don't have any active scripts - it's just the many, many transparent textures).
Now imagine a sim crowded full with a city three times that size! I know that the Anzere sim is not the fastest in the grid, but even so...

To the best of my knowledge, not even Chinatown occupies the whole sim (but it could be just me not having fully explored it) for the same reason. And yes, some areas there I have not more than 2 or 3 fps, but on others I manage to get 15 or so. The trick seems to be to find a balance between how big one wants the city to be, and how dense you want it. Big & dense is unpractical in SL!

Thirdly, I'm not such a very organised person myself, but I think that "expansion" is a distant second to the major priority: getting the new sim, which also means, getting the financial thingies working So far, we have had hiccups and glitches (see the other threads). No matter our efforts, it seems that we are always stumbling upon road blocks. It's no wonder. Neualtenburg is so different from other types of things done in SL, that we're discovering lots of shortcomings - most of them come from the platform, and not from ourselves.

Shortly put, I'd suggest, for starters, going with either of these Ulrika's plans:

1. Keep Neualtenburg or a reduced-footprint Neualtenburg as a walled enclave in the center of the city and let the streets to the rest of the city radiate outward from it at an angle.
   
2. Design the city in temporal rings. Zone the city in several themes and unite them by defining concentric rings that represent a given time period and its architecture. There could be a postmodern ring, an art-deco ring, a medieval ring, and so on in chronological order.

Both suggestions look "natural" to me, this is how cities are supposed to grow

Eugene's suggestions also makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, a modern (or post-modern) ski resort would look wonderful, and I have nothing to say against a "Bavarian countryside", with a less dense network of small cottages, farm implements, and the occasional windmill.

And I'd let other themes to be picked up by other groups of people, on other sims. The reason for that is just having "Neualtenburg" connected to something DIFFERENT. There is no other "medieval Bavarian village" in Second Life. But there are castles, palaces, 20th-century suburban areas, London in 1900, California-style resorts, Egyptian and Babylonian cities, Elven cities, SF cyberpunk areas, contemporary urban sprawl, etc. and so on. Actually, the only thing I haven't seen (yet) in SL is a Roman city - which is a pity, because it would fit like a glove for another "political sim" (just imagine "playing" the transition from the Republic times to the Empire!). When I'm filthy rich again, I'll sponsor that one And watch out for the armies of legionnaires stamping over the barbaric neighbourhood sims <cackles evilly>

My point is, I don't really like the idea of having "yet another city" in Neualtenburg's sim. If you really don't like the medieval German look, aim for something completely new and as yet not done in SL.

A few things to consider.

LL will not change the transfer fee period so don't bother.

You can already make a private sim group enabled but you must ask for this to happen when ordering the sim and this does not change the fact that only 1 person can own the sim. Meaning that the the whole sim will be group enabled but there always has to be 1 billable person.

After purchasing the sim the first months payment of $195 isn't due until 30 days after we have taken ownership of the sim

I suppose my deepest pondering was over the whole idea of trying to mimic a Real World style at all.

I think we need to declare some basic assumptions about Neualtenburg II. If the new City’s purpose is, in part, to emulate a Bavarian city, then I can certainly get behind a “state approved” architectural standard. If that is more a purpose of the old city, and not so much a purpose of the new city, then I would like to propose that a DIFFERENT or AUGMENTED or MODIFIED “state approved” standard be considered.

One of my misgivings about the current city plan is about the density. I think it tends to make the city feel more crowded and inhospitable than it could be – especially with the lines and trims that go along with basic Bavarian all pushed together in close proximity. This makes sense in the current space, and given the purposes of the first experiment, but I wonder if there will be room to spread out a bit on the new sim. Just having wider streets would help a lot. Some extra space between houses would be even better.

I’m not a big fan – inside SL – of modeling the real world for the sake of modeling. I would love to see our plan evolve a bit to require that building be built to accommodate AVATARS, who fly, need room to turn around, don’t use the toilet, and don’t sleep or eat.

Circles sound good, but I’m not sure about temporal circles. If I understand this idea, it means that we would have rings of different RL architectural emulations. If we decided to have these different rings, I would like to see us consider and debate competitive plans for each section, keeping in mind how the overall city – and the lives of residents (are we planning to have residents?) would be affected by each plan.

I would like to see a good portion of land left without city coverage. It would be very good to have a forest, for instance. And a park. Maybe even a beach.

I agree that it’s important for a city to grow naturally. I’m not convinced that Neualtenburg should grow naturally the same way a Real Life city grows naturally.

I appreciate Ulrika’s hard work with the original plans. Excellent and stalwart work. But with a new sim, and probably a new purpose, I wonder if we can find it in us to think it through again with all that’s been learned so far.

Kathy, what I meant with the other post was, let's not concentrate too much on the architectural issues, but on the finantial & political issues for the moment

As soon as we have a working model for the finantial part - we still haven't got one operational! - we can rethink the whole city structure from scratch, if a majority wants that. It'll be the next challenge for Neualtenburg.

However, it's too early to discuss that. We need:

1) To have a working Finance Comittee
2) To have a working Government in certain areas (eg. liaisoning between the three branches of Government)
3) To make Neualtenburg finantially solid
4) To get a new sim
5) To attract more people to work with us

These are my own priorities right now. All the rest will follow (probably on the next term, and with a different RA). Of course, as soon as we can get all those 5 points implemented, we can think of changing the whole sim, make it a Martian landscape, a Courboisier Garden City, a replica of Manhattan, or whatever fancies the citizens may have Right now, it's what we've got, and that's what we're going to work with, at least until May, 22nd.

Sure. I agree. Just trying to loosen up the dirt for later planting.

As for the money problem, can someone tell me why the Lindens won't accept some sort of arrangement where we simply change the owner of the account? Or at least the particular credit card being used for a period? Or maybe direct pay from a bank account? Or PayPal?

And what would happen if a corporation were to take an account? They certainly can't deny a corporation the same rights as any other citizen. Corporations have every right to engage in such contracts. Perhaps we should simply incorporate? I think that'll add another couple hundred to the total cost, but it'll save us any transfer fees in the future. We may actually save money over the long run. Plus, it prevents any particular member from exposing themselves to potential personal loss.

Just a thought.

Kathy, I talked briefly with Jeska Linden (apparently substituing Haney Linden for these and other issues) yesterday, and while I hope to give out a "fuller" report, I think I can answer some of your questions...

Why the Lindens won't accept some sort of arrangement where we simply change the owner of the account?

Changing ownership of a private island (ie. transferring it to another alt) costs US $100.

Changing ownership of an account (ie. letting other people use the login/password) is technically a violation of ToS.

Or at least the particular credit card being used for a period?

You can change the credit card as often as you wish (I certainly do that for my own account!) However, this would mean that citizens would be able to know each other's real data. Some are not comfortable with this issue. And we must think about the future as well - a future where there is a completely different group of people in Neualtenburg's Government, who may really want their credit card info to be private.

Or maybe direct pay from a bank account? Or PayPal?

Bank transfers are technically not possible, that would need LL to add lots of coding, and I'm sure they haven't felt the pressure of a large group of users to do payments that way. There would be also the problem of dealing with some international accounts. PayPal has certainly been promised for a long while but still not implemented (but you would just transfer the problem of privacy from SL to PayPal, anyway).

And what would happen if a corporation were to take an account? They certainly can't deny a corporation the same rights as any other citizen. Corporations have every right to engage in such contracts. Perhaps we should simply incorporate?

That was the topic of an informal discussion yesterday between some Neualtenburgers who happened to online and awake You're quite right.

What we would need is:

- a simple, quick, inexpensive way to incorporate - and remember, it needs to be an international structure!
- a way to deal with anonimity of the "partners"
- a way to deal with distance
- a corporate bank account with homebanking (most of them have that) and with the "name on the card" issued being the company's name (some countries restrict this)
- limited liability
- low paperwork and ease of handling of it through proxies - I'm probably living over 10,000 miles from your place, Kathy, imagine if the company needs a signature for something in a rush
- low running costs - after all, we're talking about a company without profit which needs to pay US $200 every month to LL. How much are we willing to spend every month for that "privilege"?

However, we have given very serious thoughts about these issues and we will be asking (external) advisors about them. Most of us are either in the US or the UK, so those countries would be the best choices for setting this up (I can afford no help here - living in Portugal I can tell you beforehand that the required paperwork & bureaucracy & time to setup & running costs would be totally overwhelming even for such a small project, and outsourcing it would simply cost too much. Fortunately, there are many countries as alternatives!). We have some volunteers to make a few inquiries on that, anyway

I'm really not sure if all that overhead is necessary for a non-profit organisation which will represent the will of a handful of people (the Finance Committee has just 5 members) due to limitations in LL's "account" interface and ToS. However, since it could mean the only option we will have, we're certainly not discarding it...

"Neualtenburg Inc." Hmm.

Wow. It was so much simpler in my own experience creating a publisher firm here in the States. Of course, we weren't in business long - it proved impossible to create a commercial enterprise that exchanged money on the internet in those days - but the actual creation of the corporation basically took one visit to a lawyer for the papers, and a fee to the state of Iowa. One of us became President, one Vice President, and one became Chief Financial Officer.

Only one of us was needed to transact any money business, and when that person left the company, it took a trip to the bank, if I remember, to authorize a new person to handle the money.

Anyway, I'm no lawyer, and certainly wasn't the money-handler in our corporation, so it may have been more complex than I remember. I think it was about 12 years ago by now.

All I can really say to your deeper analysis is that I do notice one thing: the problems with identity and access to accounts and information under corporation - even as you outline the difficulties - at least seems to move us from problems with Linden Lab to issues between ourselves. I'm not sure we can work around the difficulties - or even if we have the energy to do so - but we'd at least be free of the limitations of the LL system.

I also wonder how much complexity can be avoided if we form a structure that does nothing more than handle the account that pays money to Linden Lab. I'm not sure what the minimum structural requirements are for a corporation to exist, but if we stick to the minimum and keep those within one country, is it possible to make all the other connections - especially the transfer of money and communication across international lines, to and from the actual account holders - informal? We may run some risks, but I'm not sure we would ever be in a position to lose a large amount. How much do we really have to spend to protect what we could lose at any given time?

Well, I felt I should give it a try and ask the questions. I'm a little embarrassed about how little I know about all this, but I did want to voice my intuition. I just felt we were more likely to succeed outside the Linden structures than within.

Thanks again, Sandra. You impress me with your openness and intellect.

Great discussion! Let me toss in my two cents.

For simplicity (at least in the beginning) I think we should designate a single broker to collect payments from members via PayPal and to make payments to LL from a debit card.

Before going into detail, let me give a quick overview of how PayPal works from a broker's perspective. With PayPal the broker can associate several email addresses (including SL emails which preserve anonymity) with a debit card for payments and a bank account for deposits. I found it very convenient myself to set it up such that the debit card that PayPal draws from is the same bank account that PayPal deposits to. The broker would have to collect monthly payments from members, transfer those funds into their bank account, and LL would bill them automatically.

Members would then pay the broker every month using PayPal's recurring payment feature. Once a month the money would be paid automatically just as it is with LL. No hassles!


Member 1
Member 2 ---> Broker ---> LL
...
Member n


Because the broker is committing themselves financially to LL, the members must provide a reciprocal financial commitment to the broker. For example, if I were the broker, I'd want several commitments from members:

1. Members would have to provide one month's rent in advance as a deposit to eliminate the change of an overdraft in the broker's account. This money would remain in the PayPal account and would not be deposited into the broker's bank account.
   
2. Members would have to sign up for recurring payments through PayPal.
   
3. Members would have to give a one month notice before removing their financial support.
   
4. Members would have to pay PayPal transaction fees.
   

To see a schedule of PayPal fees that for a Premiere Account (required for subscriptions) follow this link. In short with a Premier Account a fee for deposit (2.9% plus US$0.30) is required. All PayPal accounts have a currency conversion (2.5%) fee as well.

As an example, let's say we have four members (including the broker) sharing the $200 per month fee equally (I rounded up). The broker lives in the U.S., and the other three members live in England, Australia, and Japan. The cost for each member would be:

1. Broker: US$50 (no fees)
   
2. English member: $50 + (2.9% + GBP 0.20) + 2.5% =~ US$53
   
3. Australian member: $50 + (2.9% + AUD 0.40) + 2.5% =~ US$53
   
4. Japanese member: $50 + (2.9% + JPY 40) + 2.5% =~ US$53
   

The key to making this work is to remember that we'll all get the benefit of being at full tier, maximizing our bang for the buck. For instance, right now I pay US$40 per month for 8192 m^2 of land, half of which I donate to Neualtenburg. At full tier that same $40 per month would allow me to own 13,443 m^2 of land! Right now I need to reduce my monthly payments to LL due to impending life changes (baby and a new home). I would like to reduce my payments to $25 per month and give it all to Neualtenburg. If I paid that $25 per month to our broker, I would actually be supporting 8402 m^2 of land instead of my current 4096 m^2 (neglecting group bonus)! Most of us could all save about 50% by doing this.


For me to make this transition as a member, I would need one final benefit. I would need a piece of land (a fraction of the 8402 m^2 I'd be contributing) for my own use. It could be anywhere in the city and be either a themed structure or my own build. I'd like this so I could still have my own "ego" area for creating and selling my personal (not Neualtenburg) wares (animations), since I'll be giving up my old home. To do this, we'd have to relax the restrictions on goods that aren't themed to match Neualtenburg.

What do you think?

~Ulrika~

To give folks an idea on my level of financial commitment (we'll all have to discuss this eventually), I have the following assets which I can contribute to the next phase of the project. I have approximately L$30k in my account and have a chunk of land worth about US$100. I'd be willing to convert all of that to US$ for a total contribution of about US$200 (depending on the sales price of the land). I'd also be in for $25 per month.

Additionally, provided I get a commitment from members matching the requirement above, I'd be happy to serve as the broker initially.

~Ulrika~

Whew! And we thought we'd be exploring some simple social and political concepts!

For the sake of those reading this thread who long ago got utterly lost and confused (and I must say that I'm hovering in that zone), I'll try to center around the basic problem(s) as I see them that we're trying to address regarding finances and the future of Neualtenburg.

Feelings at the meetings after the lease ended in January inclined toward the idea that Neualtenburg would be best served by owning its own "private sim". This entire thread pre-supposes that next step. If we take a different route to the post lease establishment of Neualt, all these considerations change.

Occupying a private sim means having a single "agent" as owner. As far as I can understand it, groups are not recognized as related to private sims except in the area of permissions. The monthly payment to the Lindens must always come from the credit card of a single agent, as US$195.

Now, having a single person as "owner" of the sim, as the sole person month in and month out responsible for the payment of that US$195, is contrary to the entire principle of Neualtenburg. For the financial system of Neualtenburg to work, a way must be found to mesh the Linden requirement of "one person/one payment" with the Neualtenburg requirement of "group obligation" for the payment.

That's the "Expense" side of the Neualtenburg Financial Problem (the NFP ). (The primary burden of the expense side, at least). Then there's the "Income" side.

Neualtenburg is a "social political experiment", and, since it is that, it is also a economic entity. A group organized around the economic self interest of each participant. Other than utopias, totalitarian regimes, and religious communities; that's what social-political organizations are. Each participant in the organization is interested in their personal gain. They come together in such an organization because they perceive that the benefits overcome the obligations of taxes, committees, etc. They work hard and sacrifice time and effort for the betterment of their own lives.

So, the Neualtenburg "Income" structure is based on the concept of individual entrepeneurs running businesses in the city, and paying taxes so that the city has revenues sufficient to cover its "Expenses". And, the city as an entity responsibly paying out those "Expenses" so that the entity keeps running.

So, ideally, the income all comes from that portion of individuals' income which they pay to the city in exchange for the benefits of the city. In other threads, it has been shown that at least at the outset, income like this may not be sufficient to add up to the amount needed to pay the expenses. Therefore, it was proposed that the city itself engage in a business, preferably a lucrative one, so as to ensure that those basic survival expenses can be met.

Hence, the casino, and the concept of all city land being city-owned and rented to those interested in living and selling in the city.

I hope its clear that even in this extremely simplistic concept of Neualtenburg finances, there is not a valid place for "donations"; or the regular monthly payments of a certain number of persons who wish to support the "social political experiment". Income can come in from taxes, from city-operated businesses; it can come from "bonds" (proposed by Gwyn earlier). But, there must be a self-interest attached to each flow of funds.

Now, taking these thoughts around again back to the problem of the city's obligations to the Lindens in the form of "Expenses", the group of members of the city is faced with the problem of spending those "expenses" to the Lindens through the mechanism of the single credit card.

Since the burden of the US$195/month is not to be borne by one individual, one of two choices are possible. Either, the individual responsible for the payment and their credit card changes on a regular cycle (leading to the "transfer of ownership" problem), or, the avatar (agent in Linden terms) stays the same and the underlying "owner" of that agent rotates among group members on a regular cycle, a strategy which may have other problems.

In the RL world financial system, there is a fundamental obligation attached to a credit card guarantee. This common and fundamental system underlies the Linden revenue stream; it ensures that come what may, their fees are collected (of course, there are systems by which a payment is nulled, but then the Lindens will sever the service). There is no mechanism that I am aware of (and in RL I am engaged in commerce in New York) by which that individual obligation can be diluted, with the possible exception of credit cards held by very large companies, where the credit-worthiness of the company, as determined by the credit card company, exceeds the credit-worthiness of the employee whose name is on the card. That case helps us not at all.

Any defined obligation/commitment whatever among members of the city carries no weight whatever as compared to the fundamental fact that come the 10th of the month, the card holders card is charged. Everyone must understand that the moment the finance system fails to maintain its agreed structure, Neualtenburg ends. Wealthy individuals stepping in to "bail out" the enterprise will fatally compromise the whole point of Neualtenburg.

Now, I in no way mean to diminish the extraordinary generosity of those who have maintained the tier for month after month in the current Neualtenburg infancy. A child needs to be supported as it grows into an adult. But, as an adult, it must function in a manner consistent with its purpose, or it should die.

The proposals.

My original bill proposed the somewhat simplistic idea that city residents serving on the Finance Committee elect three (3 at this time) of their own to actually hold accounts through which money could go in and out. One of those 3 accounts would pay the monthly Linden fee. The others would serve to keep the inflow of revenue organized in a way that the committe could report on it.

The members of the committee would change whenever the RA was re-elected, and the funds of each agent holding the old account would be transferred to the agent holding the new account. All members would share all the passwords of the accounts, so there would be transparency. The most fundamental problem with this plan is that the Lindens charge a US$100 transfer fee each time the "owner" of a private sim is changed, and this change would have to happen each time the membership of the Finance Committee changed. The other problem with this plan is that with all members of the committee holding all the passwords, the privacy of the actual account holders may be compromised. This detail is what is being discussed. Also, the ToS is violated (in my opinion, a minor matter).

A related idea has been proposed, mostly in order to avoid the transfer fee. With this plan, the avatar/agent remains the same after the committee membership change, only the actual RL owner of that agent changes. A variety of innovative versions of this plan have been suggested, in order to get around the privacy problem. Again, the ToS is violated with this plan.

An entirely different concept has been suggested by Jeska Linden, from which Gwyn, and now Ulrika, have proposed divergent plans. Jeska has suggested that we solve this SL problem by using RL solutions. Hence, the discussions regarding corporations and brokered Paypal accounts.

While achieving an RL solution to an SL problem is intriguing, I feel it is killed by a fundamental flaw. That is, the one-person/one credit card limitation which the Linden payment system imposes on us. A multi-national corporation formed for the purpose of managing Neualtenburg is probably doable. But it does not effectively spread the burden of the payment to anyone other than the person whose name is on the credit card; regardless of whether or not it is a "corporate" credit card. The credit card companies simply will not issue a card to a corporation based simply on the credit-worthiness of the corporation (with the possible exception I've noted above).

And the Paypal brokered account does not address this problem either. While the international funds transfer systems are interesting, the "broker" still holds the burden of the obligation to the Lindens. Any number of in-world agreements do not dilute that fact. In addition, as I've pointed out above, the "Income" which will feed this finance system must come from in-world transactions. Having multiple people obligating themselves to a broker turns a blind eye to the fact that the basic funds will accumulate in Linden$$ and require conversion into US$$ into the credit card account from which the monthly fee payment is made.

I don't know if this babbling on has drawn the issues any clearer. It was my intention to do so. The sheer volume of verbiage on this subject so far seems to suggest that we've hit on the fundamental issue for Neualtenburg in the future. May a solution be found!

Sudane

*blushes* well, if you must know, Sandra Fatale is actually my alt, lol. I was figuring something the other day (how to change the credit card data) and, when posting, forgot to clear the cookies of my browser

Rest assured, there was nobody up listening to private communications, and speaking in the name of Neualtenburg to the Lindens, but just silly Gwyn making obvious mistakes...

Back to the point, I'd be glad to have Ulrika as "broker" and yes, I'll be glad to "offer" my share of US$200 as well. On the other hand, as long as I hold the current office as the RA's President, I'll be just an "observer" of the Finance Committee - either as a group member, or something else, depending on what we do IRL. That way, we shouldn't worry the citizens and the "outside world", by having separated powers. It's in the spirit of our Constitution, after all.

We'll have a discussion at the RA's usual meeting at Sunday, 10 AM PST, about Ulrika's proposal. I like the idea, of course - we have been discussing how we should set up a PayPal account, but we erroneously assumed that PayPal was just as "personal" as SL. Apparently it isn't. I have been toying around with the PayPal account I had, and am now trying to understand how the so-called "Multi-User Access" works. It seems interesting and perhaps solves our problem! The transfer of "responsability/commitment" (something that worries Sudane a lot) towards a "binding agreement" as Ulrika proposed is something that would work, I think. It's worth a try, at the very least.

Kathy, thanks for your explanation of the easy way for setting up a "legal entity". Speaking strictly for myself, I'd prefer an alternative to that. However, I fully agree that we should try to solve all issues among ourselves instead of relying upon the Lindens to "help us". As my alt Sandra put it so well , Jeska gave us some ideas, but I felt that she really needed to discuss stuff with Robin Linden first. This means delay and a highly probable "no" to any help requests.

(note that the "we" above is mostly the informal grouping of some RA & Guild members who happen to be online at the same time No decisions are done those times, rest assured - we mostly brainstorm and toss ideas around, complement them with forum postings, and do the "decision part" on the next RA meeting)

- Gwyn (this time having logged in with the proper account )

I don't think having a single person who is responsible for the LL payment is contrary to the principle of the city. It's just a simple solution for collecting in-world income and paying LL in RL for services. As a matter of fact I think having a simple single-player treasury and broker is simpler and more secure than allowing many people access or rotating accounts.

I worry that giving several people access to the city treasury (alt) is just asking for theft. It was just a few months ago that Paris Parks conned several sim owners into giving her permission to terraform their land. In a single night she destroyed multiple private sims, sinking at least one completely under water. Until that moment she was considered a friend by many.

I also like the simplicity of having a single unchanging avatar as treasurer and broker, as people always know exactly where their money is going. For instance with Uma Bauhaus, one can simply check our online vendor statistics and you know precisely the balance in our treasury (L$4443 or US$16). It's completely transparent without the danger of risking our assets -- all US$16 worth. (Hey, I voted for a 25% tax but only a 10% rate passed.)

I completely disagree that there is no place for donations. This is not a corporation. In fact it was created as an antithesis to a corporation -- a nonprofit which creates a shared infrastructure, in order to bring individuals together to build as a collaborative and allow them to direct themselves with a government. I feel whether one wants to donate or not is a private choice. Remember, it's about people not money.

For instance, in addition to short-circuiting a very profitable animation business to start this project I've donated hundreds of hours of time making vendors, houses, bridges, a constitution, a partial museum, voting systems, and web-based vendor systems for the project. I never expect to see a return on that investment. It's my choice, because I believe that there is more to this project than making money.

With that said, that doesn't mean that I don't want to be self sufficient. I do want to make enough income from sales in the city to cover my land-tier fee. This is why I'm so excited about going to a private island. I'll be able to reduce my cost per square meter which will halve my overhead bringing me quite close to self sufficiency. For instance I've made about L$12k or US$50 on sales in 5 months at a cost of US$100 in tier fees. By moving to the new land, I'll be halving my monthly payment for the same amount of tier bring me close to the break even point. Add in rentals, a casino, and future online sales of our goods (still waiting for an ethical online sales portal) and we'll be set.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel the single RL individual holding the credit card which underpins the bank account avatar is unfair to that RL individual and totally against the democratic spirit of Neualtenburg. Make absolutely no mistake. The credit card from which LL draws the monthly fee represents an actual liability to that RL individual. No matter what friendly arrangements are made in SL, that credit card represents the financial obligation of the city to the Lindens. That responsibility must be shared. Just like the responsibility for government, for making decisions which affect everyone, is shared. I simply feel this is central.

From my position I feel it leads rather simply to the point about donations. Yes, of course, the city is intended to be a non-for-profit entity existing for the benefit of its citizens. And in that role, it may be appropriate from time to time for individuals to donate out of generosity to the other citizens. But, donations must be strictly defined; certified that such donations are given free and clear of any expectation in return. Frankly, they should be the exception in a healthy city organization. Donations rigidify the class differences between those with funds and those without. They contort the principle of one person, one vote.

Rather, the revenues of the city must come from the innate commercial productivity of the city itself. Citizens pursuing their self-interest, generating revenues within the structure of a city which provides for them benefits of life style and business success.

I think that the ancient Greek democracy as developed by the Athenians would not have gotten very far in its influence on future generations if its funds were held by a benevolent rich individual and its revenues depended on gifts from the upper classes.

Sudane

I guess I thought we would have a bank account opened by the corporation, and then have a DEBIT card on that account. Then, the corporation would be the entity responsible for the account. The point (ONLY point, from my perspective) for creating a corporation is to protect individuals from personal exposure. Given that corporations (in the US) have most of the rights and responsibilities of citizens, the corporation should be able to open an account with the Lindens, give the debit card as the card to be billed, and that would be that.

That was my understanding, at least.

To take your argument to the extreme, I could say, that in a true democracy all members of the city should have equal access to the treasury or the SL account that would pay our monthly tier but I think we all recognize that would be an invitation to disaster.

In regards to SL transactions and the city alt, I feel that limiting access to a very few, provided that all transactions are visible in real time is the best way to run the treasury. For instance, by going to our vendor webpage, one can instantly see how much money we have, how sales on items vary with time, and who has earned what selling what to whom.

I feel that we shouldn't force ourselves into a situation that is overly complicated, risks our assets, risks our privacy, and doesn't provide instant accountability at all times. The system as it is now is a large group's dream -- it's simple, instantaneous, and transparent. We should seek the transparency we all want through technology not bureaucracy.

In regards to paying LL, we don't really have much of a choice. They only accept a single credit card for payment, so one of us (a broker) will have to give out a card, while others or the city pays that broker.

The only way we can get around this is if we do what Kathy suggested and incorporate internationally. Perhaps we could do it in Germany and be called "Neualtenburg GmbH". That sounds cool!

I still don't understand your discussions concerning donations, equality, and greek society. I'm beginning to think that you're saying (without actually saying it) that land-tier contributions are donations and you want people to be reimbursed for them with interest. If that's the case, then we should work up a bill and try and figure out how much land has been donated by whom for how long, roll into man hours on infrastructure and come up with a payment schedule once we're self sufficient. That would be an excellent task for the RA and something that I would support.

~Ulrika~

I have studied the statistics you are collecting on the webpage in rather some detail, and I and others are certainly appreciative that you have set up this structure, and made the transactions detail accessible.

That said, with my personal eye towrd preparing a financial report of the city as it stands now, I found the data extremely hard to assemble into a coherent report. Only by going to the detail, transaction by transaction, could I add up item by item and assemble sub-totals for a month based report. And this with only a single very limited line of vender items feeding the data. The prospect of multiple revenue generating lines, summing them manually by month, boggled the mind. At that point it became clear to me that the vender equipment itself generated only this sort of raw data, and that some system of accumulating the data into something resembling a monthly financial report of the various revenue areas really had to be devised. Hence, the various alts targeted to receive the different revenues from venders and rentals, and from the casino. Which, once recorded, could feed into the main alt/account, from which the monthly fee was paid.

Forgive me, but the data on the web page is not a financial report in itself, but rather data from which a report might be created. The report itself must be a monthly summing of revenue totals, separated into revenue areas, and expenses, likewise separated. Then the revenues and expenses must be summed into the "balance sheet" of the city, which, simply put, is the sum of everything the city owns (financially speaking) and everything the city owes (likewise). This truly shows the financial health of the city.

I am certainly open for alternate and more practical means by which this need is met. But, if we are to talk about real transparency of financial affairs, the design of this system must provide this information. It is not. I couldn't agree more.

Unfortunately, this won't work. While a corporation is formed chiefly for the purpose of limiting the liability of the owners for the actions of the group, credit card companies have seen through this. Any person carrying the credit card of a corporation is required on the application form to provide their personal identity number (here in the US, their social security number). They assume personal liability for the charges on that card, despite it being a "company" card. I myself have a bag full of credit cards with the name of our company embossed on them. A quick check of the credit reporting agencies shows that every one of those cards appears on my personal credit record. And our company is a "larger" small business, as defined in the US, with very healthy and conservative relations with our banks.

This is exactly what I'm saying! But I'm saying it vaguely because if you put a strict construction on it like that, you immediately bog down a hardly-born system with a bureaucratic overhead that it cannot handle. Tallying up those past donations of time and money would be a huge job. Better let us transition into the principle of restricting donations, while recognizing the generous donations that have been made. That's why in the actual proposals I have repeatedly emphsized recognizing the principle of the matter, rather than an immediate implementation.

Gwyn has proposed a system of issuing city bonds which exactly addresses this problem in a very practical way. The only thing undetermined at this time is whether interest will be paid, and if so, how much. Perhaps this is another topic which can be transitioned into.

Sudane

Thank you. The webpage took at least two hundred person-hours to complete and still needs a rewrite. I feel it is the cornerstone to an open and shared financial system.

Doh! I knew a caveat was coming.

If you would like the data in a different form, all that is necessary is a detailed description of what you'd like for your report. That's my role as a member of the Artisanal Collective (AC): to implement the will of the electorate and elected through productive work. It will take me as much time to code a report as it will for a person to assemble a report for a single date.

The financial-reporting system is not a dream? Tsk. I don't think you understand exactly how much effort went into coding that system nor how rare it is to have such a feature available to an entire group without a charge (nor how much your dismissal upsets me).

Is this how you motivate partners in RL? You devalue their contributions?

"Bog down a hardly-born system with a bureaucratic overhead"? Nonsense!

If you want to be reimbursed for your contributions, then just say it. Don't waste our time with obtuse linguistic gyrations. However, with that said, as someone who has invested months of her time in this project (including creating the original proposal, assembling the initial team, laying out the city, creating many of the prominent city structures, creating the group forum, writing the city constitution, coding up a vendor system, and creating SL's first hybrid voting system) don't think I'll let people discount that investment in favor of their own recent personal investments.

If we are going to hold future income earners in this city liable for costs incurred, while kick starting the city, it's going to go all the way back to the beginning to encompass the original founder's contributions not just far enough back in time to cover yours.

I'll say it again. If one person is asking for a payback, we all get a payback, all the way from the beginning. If you don't like this, let me know and I'll up my tier to cover your share.

The desirability of the bonds are a function of our perceived ability to create a return on investment. Right now we are a healthy bureaucracy (nothing wrong with that) with a relatively stagnant productive capacity. We have a small income from artisans (Chicken Hats and Steins) and I expect things to pick up when the casino and rental properties start up. I also have high hopes for online sales as soon as an ethical on-line sales portal starts up (Cristiano are you done yet?). Is that enough to sell bonds for our city? Is their an alternate method for generating income for the city?

I think so! I'll propose that in another thread.

~Ulrika~

*sigh*

Ulrika, I'm sorry if my comments have created offense. They were surely not intended to do so, nor in any way to devalue your contributions. I am certainly a newbie at Neualtenburg, and as such, I am deeply appreciative of the opportunity that we in the group have been provided: bringing the ideals and ideas of RL civilization to the affairs of people in a very new frontier. This opportunity has been created by yourself and those who have worked with you, and by the huge amounts of time, effort and money which you have invested in this "noble experiment". We would surely not be so passionately engaged in such matters were it not about something so significant.

As I mentioned earlier on, I feel we will just have to agree to disagree, and present our differing points of view as clearly and persuasively as we can to those groups who will make the final decisions.

I have already conceded that the money bill that I drafted and which was passed by the RA appears to violate the constitution, and therefore must be re-written. At the same time, I feel there are interests which all citizens of Neualtenburg, not just those of the Artisanal group, may have regarding the management of the money of the city, and that the expression of those interests should be contained in a bill which the RA should approve.

I do not mean to dismiss the accomplishment of the city organization so far. Maybe you can forgive me. I am a RL New Yorker of 40 years, having gone through conflicts political, religious, in the arts and in business. For better or worse, especially when matters are significant to me, I speak directly. The manner of respectful speech will sometimes escape me. But I do not mean disrespect.

The issues being discussed here are important ones, and I truly hope that many in the group will read the posts and consider them. And I feel very much that if enough individuals can be motivated to join the discussion and contribute their ideas and arrive at a consensus, only a stronger organization will result.

Sudane