Neualtenburg Constitution

I'm inclined to agree with you. We should try to eliminate all barriers to participation in this branch, since the others will have barriers. If there's no one left who wants to keep the land requirement in, we can toss it out now.

After some consideration, I think the right to "absolvo" (pass a defeated senate vote) should be removed, leaving only a veto on constitutional grounds, after a hearing with members of the Philosophic branch. The Artisanal branch should have a veto as well on fiscal or social grounds (needs more definition).

In the Philosophic branch, parties should be without meaning and should be excluded from the group completely -- just like the supreme court. I'm planning on having this group be comprised of those who have demonstrated excellence in different branches of philosophy. What we could do is select candidates internally and then the Artisanal and Representative branches would either vote "confidence" or "no confidence". The "confidence" vote would say that they are familiar with this avatar's work and have confidence in them as good people to uphold the constitution without political bias. We'd then have them take an oath to uphold the constitution and perform arbitration in an unbiased fashion. For instance who wouldn't give Merwan Marker a vote of confidence, if he pledged to be neutral?

It's important that each branch be free of internal interference from the other branches. They should be left to their own process and interact only through clearly defined avenues, such as a veto or a vote of "confidence". We'll keep the Representative branch a democracy (government by the people), the Artisanal branch an ergatocracy (government by the worker), and the Philosophic branch a meritocracy (government by the meritorious).

~Ulrika~

Today I discussed details of the government with several people individually who hadn't played SL before. In general they were fascinated not only with the proposed government but the society of SL in itself. I told each of them my concerns with balancing the three branches and described how we are assigning different service roles to each branch. In the end I received a lot of helpful advice as well as some astute observations. Here are some of the better ones.

People in general were truly fascinated (some awed) by the idea of creating a single formal union and giving it a branch of the government. I think that may have something to do with pro-union attitudes out here on the West Coast. Almost everyone felt like this branch would have way to much power but at the same time they admitted that of the three it is the most likely to be exploited.

Someone mentioned that the Minbari from Babylon 5 (hey, not everyone is as cool as you) had a government that reminded him of ours with three branches (workers, warriors, priests) that gave five seats to the workers and two seats each to the warriors and priests in a council. The reason I mention this is that we should have the top people from each of the three branches meet regularly to talk. Perhaps a biweekly meeting.

One person caught on immediately that the philosophic branch should be modeled after a university, given its merit-based admission. They agreed that the other branches should ratify a member based on skill before allowing admission. Once a person was in, they would have limited term positions with the possibility of promotion up several tiers. The final tier would be a "tenure" tier which would give that person a position for life in the branch. Thus there would be internal pressure to weed out disingenuous members. The lower tiers would be responsible for monitoring events, the middle tiers for settling disputes, and the higher tier for working with the constitution.

The internal structure of the Artisanal branch was tough for people define. Most people weren't sure whether a hierarchy should be established or if all workers should be equal in the branch. They asked if service-oriented jobs qualify for this branch. They also focused a lot on how to limit what they perceived as the overwhelming power of this branch. Given that the workers could strike or control the flow of money, one person said that there must be consequences for members of the Artisanal branch, if they do so. One suggestion was halting the flow of money from sales to the branch from the vendors by shutting everything down. That way everyone suffered together.

Lastly a couple of people were very interested in the fact that we are mixing democracy, meritocracy, and ergatocracy. One person sent me this link, which has the following information:

BASE forms of government are:

1. Acracy..............rule by none
2. Autocracy..........rule by one
3. Minocracy..........rule by minority
4. Pleocracy...........rule by majority
5. Isocracy............rule by all (equal political power)

some examples of DERIVED forms of government

................................................
FORMS of ACRACY:
................................................
Absolute Anarchy (total lawlessness)
Anarcho-capitalism
Positive Radicalism
Negative Radicalism

................................................
FORMS of AUTOCRACY
................................................
Absolute Dictatorship
Fascist Totalitarianism (ala Mussolini)
National Socialism (Nazi Totalitarianism)
Absolute Monarchy
Autocratic Theocracy (ex. the Vatican State)
Totalitarian Communism
Constitutional Autocracy
Cybernocracy (rule by computer)

................................................
FORMS of MINOCRACY
.................................................
Oligarchy - rule by very few
Technocracy - rule by scientists
Plutocracy - rule by the wealthy
Aristocracy - rule by nobility
Aristarchy - rule by the best
Krytocracy - rule by judges
Theocracy - rule by the church
Communism - rule by workers unions
Stratocracy - rule by the military
Kleptocracy - rule by thieves
Kakistocracy - rule by idiots
Federal Bureaucracy
Corporate Capitalist Plutocracy (US Government)

....................................................
FORMS of PLEOCRACY
....................................................
Ergatocracy - rule by workers
Direct Democracy - rule by popular vote

....................................................
FORMS of ISOCRACY
....................................................
Constitutional Isocracy
Autonomous Collective

He mentioned that we are mixing a minocracy (Philosophic), a pleocracy (Artisanal), and a hybrid minocracy-pleocracy (Representative), and then pointed out that only minocracies and pleocracies can be joined in multibranch governments. He then went on to say that SL's current government is a minocracy.

~Ulrika~

very interesting reading.

You caught me --The Artisinal Branch is currently very very strong -- certainly one way for the city to keep it in check is it's power to raise the Guild's payment to the city should it fall short of expectations, and of course the possibility that the City could choose to employ a different Guild altogether, providing it could find another Guild that could serve it's needs.

In answer to the structure of the Guild --My proposal is that there will be a Senior Guildmeister --chosen amongst the other meisters of the Guild based on quarterly sales. The Senior Guildmeister's duties are to represent the Guild, organize city events and wherever possible bring members together for collaborative efforts.

The heirarchy in The Guild is essentially flat amongst the various meisters --each declaring one or more specialties. Meisters may elect to train two disciples of the grade of Journeyman (able to set up a shop of there own) and an Apprentice. Until one attains Meister status -- approval given by one's teacher --The Journeyman and The Apprentice must collaborate with either their teacher --or another teacher for a saleable good. Only a Guild member of meister class is permitted to sell goods without a collaborator --although a meister who only sells non collaborative items will quickly lose friends and allys amongst other guild members and a Senior Guildmeister with no friends would be able to get very little done as guild members are not obliged to follow orders.

Feel free to poke holes in this, as it's only a sketch.

Ulrika,
The veto still holds a lot of power and giving it to the Artisinal branch as well could cause roadblocks in the senate.

The fact that the senate is the only elected body worries me. The other two branches can load their houses with like minded individuals or party members and effectively rule the senate with the veto. When both houses are given the veto power it becomes even more muddy. As it stands now with the provisional government yourself and Kendra both hold leading positions in 2 of the 3 arms of the government...you both also represent the SDF.

Party factions will suredly play a role in how the 3 houses interact. The veto in and of itself doesn't bother me. The fact that it could be used to block a specific party could be a problem though. I think there needs to be a way to implement the veto that assures that it can't be abused. Perhaps the Veto is shared by the Artisinal and Philisophical branches and a clear majority of both houses is needed for the veto to come into play...this still doesn't cover the problem of these two houses choosing their own members though.

Uhm --No. I represent the Workers Party.

yes...and you are still a member of the SDF or have you left that group/party?

I'm saying that there will be like minded people in both of these houses if they are allowed to elect their own participants which means that the house representing the people might come under undue influence by these two houses with their Veto ability.

as soon as I have enough qualifying members --yes --I'll be leaving the SDF. In point of fact the Workers Party has a much in common with your Anarchist Party as Ulrika's SDF.

Think about it this way. In the U.S. system, the Executive branch can veto a bill at will and the Judicial branch can overturn a law based on constitutional grounds. Both branches are able to block bills from becoming a law. It's the only real method of checking the power of the Legislative branch in the U.S. and seems appropriate here -- with limits (discussed below).

Yes. You're right. It could be a disaster. I've been discussing it with a few people and here are some proposed solutions to prevent the two branches from taking all the power.

Since the Philosophic branch is a meritocracy it is crucial that the individuals in that branch are selected for their willingness to leave all party affiliations behind and to protect and interpret the constitution solely. They must disavow all affiliation with parties. This is ensured by having the other two branches ratify new members and then moving new members up slowly through the system. If there is ever a judgment which is unconstitutional, members of the Philosophic branch can vote to expel a member with a 75% majority vote. This provides initial confirmation and then continuous monitoring.

The key to keeping the Artisanal branch balanced is to go the other way. There should be no criteria required to join the group except that members are willing to collaboratively create goods, respect the copyright of other artisans, and agree that all works remain property of the city. Position within the group is set by seniority (time since first sale) and productivity (number of sales) both easily measured with the vendor. Thus it's impossible to bias this group given that artisans are judged on individual talent not political affiliation.

I think each veto should exist separately but have rules on when it's allowed to be used. The Philosophic branch is easy. It can only veto laws that are unconstitutional -- period. The Artisanal branch is more complicated. I haven't yet figured out on what grounds they can veto a bill. My first thought was to make it on fiscal grounds since they're in charge of the treasury. Now I'm not sure. Do you have any ideas? Technically, their veto power should correspond to their role in the government as opposed to their service role.

There's also the option that they cannot veto bills at all and instead must rely on a work stoppage. Hmm.

~Ulrika~

I agree with Talen. It disturbs me that 2/3 of the government will not be elected. This will make it much much easier for corruption and dominance by one party or two of like interest. I also am not for using the University system's way of promotion in the Philosophical Branch. In my opinion, Tenure is one of the dumbest things out there and creates an environment of superiority, which cannot be challenged. Again, it is my opinion that all 3 branches of government would best be served by being elected in some way.

I also am not on board with the 3 branches and their rolls yet. It still seems to me that the workers and artists are factions, not branches of government. The division of responsibility is fine but as far as governing how do they do that? Seems to me that you are focusing more on the fiscal running the day to day operations of the city than actually governing. I.E. creating, passing, vetoing laws that the citizens will live by.

Maybe I missed something Ulrika but in your thread you said that there is now a provisional government? I know I am new to the group but I did not know of any meeting to initiate this or appoint people in various positions. I thought we were still deciding upon what kind of government to have here. Furthermore it seems to me that you should have a constitution first, then initiate a government. Who is in this government, who appointed its members and how it is set up?

Lastly, I also think we need to give more thought to communication with the general public, I.E. threads and posts on the other forums. I know you mean well Ulrika but maybe we as a group need to review threads that are started as to attempt to refine them somewhat and attempt to avoid confrontations. We want to attract new members and will not do this by creating controversy and confrontation. Please do not take this as an attack on you personally. Official threads should probably be started by someone that is less controversial. I would say that threads created by you, Kendra and myself will naturally find resistance whether they have merit or not because of the polar nature of our forum history. Just something to think about.

Your statement that having only one third of a government elected will make it easier for corruption and dominance by one party is not factual. There are many institutions where all of the representatives are democratically elected and there is still dominance by one or two parties. A perfect example is the U.S. Executive and Legislative branches. One party holds a majority in both branches (three if you count the House and Senate separately) and 99% of the two branches are under the control of two parties. Worse still is the Executive branch that, even though it won by a slim 51% of the vote, holds 100% of the power in that branch.

Further there are examples of institutions where there is no democratically elected representative that are quite benevolent. A perfect example is the U.S. Supreme Court. I would even argue that it is the most respected branch in our Government. Are they not "tenured" for life?


This isn't real tenure rather it's a title in a hierarchy. I discussed in a post above that a tenured member can be removed with 75% majority vote from inside the branch.


After the October Revolution in 1917, the soviet councils (councils of workers) became the main form of government at all levels: enterprise, village, city, region, up to the Supreme Soviet which governed all of the USSR. To say workers and artisans can not be a branch in the government is to ignore one of the largest modern governments on Earth.

Also, giving service roles to governmental branches prevents them from becoming parasitic bureaucracies. A government of SL must exist to literally serve the people of SL. To serve them, we must schedule events, create new content, and police ourselves so the Lindens don't have to. Every day that goes by where the Representative branch doesn't discuss the next great event is an opportunity lost. Every day that the Artisanal branch isn't working on its next great item is an opportunity lost. Every day that the Philosophic branch fails to monitor an event or settle a land dispute is an opportunity lost. The government must seize and capitalize on these opportunities not just for our citizens but for all the people of SL.

Right now Kendra and I shoulder most of this burden. We are the only two who have sold an item in the city (although Chandra's getting close). We are the only two who have ever scheduled an event in the city (although Gwyneth's getting close). We are the only two perform conflict resolution (mostly between ourselves). What the government is meant to do is to act as a substitute Kendra and Ulrika and let us move on to our next projects.


Kendra and I as project leads created the provisional government and hand selected people to fill the positions. As project leads we felt it was the best way to begin pulling our citizens into the process as we approach the elections. More will be added shortly. It is important for you and everyone to remember that this is not your city yet. This is a Linden-sponsored project with a concrete deliverable and schedule that must be met. Ultimately, we have sole discretion in determining the direction of architecture, government, and goods to ensure success. That's why you invested in us.


Giving me advice on how to conduct myself in this game in a public constitution thread is unacceptable. I've had a lifetime of men telling me to "behave" or "relax" and very few things make me angrier. I'll pretend you didn't post this part.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika,
I like the idea of only the Philisophical branch only having the veto. Being that the constitution is the primary concern of this branch it would seem fitting. I also thingk the artisinal branch holds power in work stoppages and strikes.


As long as the Philisophical branch stays true to your intentions that party affiliations will be shed for the greater good of the constitution then I have no quams with how the three branches now stand.

Being as the senate is the only elected position I thing we need to nail down how the senate will be structured. Will partys be equally represented ...will we be more like a democracy in that the people choose and the majority party leads? How many seats will be available? questions we need to clarify before elections can be held.

Talen is doing an incredible job of bringing up the same issues I would have questioned. He is doing so in words better than I could though. So at this point I have no questions other than the ones stated, save for a couple. These may have been answered elsewhere and I missed them or have not seen them yet. So please forgive me and point me to the right thread if need be.

I am not quite clear how one joins or starts a faction? In reference to:




And, is it possible for someone to belong to two branches? For instance, I personally am interested in the Representative Branch, but would love to also contribute items that I create for sale (for the whole of the projekt, not individual profit), but I see that is something that is done by the Artisanal Branch. Or, could I contribute items created for sale without being a part of the Artisanal Branch? If so, would it confuse my role to community residents?

And again, my other questions Talen has already presented.

Theoretically a person could probably belong to all three branches.
As far as the Artisinal Branch goes -- any creator involved in producing goods that provide benefit for Neualtenburg may become a member of The Guild.

One could, I suppose, offer an item for sale without the Guild's approval if they made seperate arrangements with the Neualtenburg Government to render appropriate taxes to the City Treasury. What they would not be able to do, however, is have use of Guild built structures such as the vendor system or existing City builds.

I imagine one could pitch a tent in an alley way, however, to hawk one's wares on the Black Market, provided one obtained some sort of merchant's liscence. Since such a liscence would require a 2 out of three branch vote from the City Government -- one would have to get the necessary votes from the Senate and Academy. The Guild would most likely not give their consent to an "outside" merchant.

All in all it does raise an interesting question. The mechanics for a competing merchant/artist class does exist, and could serve as a check on the Artisinal Branch's power.

I think there can be overlap between the Artisanal and Representative; the Artisanal and the Philosophic; but not the Representative and Philosophic to prevent corruption. We should keep the philosophic branch as far from politics as possible (just like we don't want the Lindens joining in flame wars in the forums).

~Ulrika~

It should be as simple as announcing it in the forums. We should start a faction thread when we get closer to election. Also, once the town hall is built, I'd like for all parties to have an in-world presence with information booths and lists of external URLs. We also have to construct a senate in the castle on the hill still. *whew* Two months to go.

~Ulrika~

It does sound like a good compromise. The question I have is what would make the branch strike and how would the other branches address it?


I think we're getting there. Once we're done we should iterate over it one more time to look for loopholes and to try and make things as simple as possible.


Well, I think the best way to approach this branch is to do it the way most modern democracies do with a slight twist to give minority voices more say. We should have a senate with n seats plus m minority party seats. The n senate seats will be divided up among the parties according to who received the most votes (people vote for parties and their platforms). The m minority seats will will be given to parties which earned less than one full seat. There can never be more minority seats than majority seats in the senate (m > n). This will prevent us from having people spawn dozens of little parties to try and control the "party vote" (more on that below). Also the number of seats in the senate shouldn't be greater than 10% of the population (although it could be in the beginning)

There should be two types of votes, a "representative vote" and a "party vote". The representative vote is "one seat, one vote". The party vote is "one party, one vote". In order for a bill to pass, it must pass both votes. This is essentially a combination of the House and the Senate in the U.S. Congress. The party vote is meant to give minority parties a stronger pull in our senate.

Here's an example of an election. Say we have 50 people in our group with five parties, the Workers' Party, the Anarchists' Party, the SDF, the RSVP, and the Brian Setzer Faction for Equal Representation of Swing Dancers (BSFERSD). According to the 10% rule that gives 5 seats for the senate (m = 5) and a maximum of 4 seats for minority parites (n = 4). If the popular vote comes in like this: Anarchists 39%, Workers 36%, SDF 16%, RSVP 5%, and BSFERSD 5%, this is how the senate will look:

Party        Percent   Frac    Majority   Minority
Name         Vote      Seat    Seats      Seats
--------------------------------------------------
Anarchists   39%       1.95    2          0
Workers      36%       1.80    2          0
SDF          16%       0.80    1          0
RSVP          5%       0.25    0          1
BSFERSD       5%       0.25    0          1

Here's an example of a vote on a bill. Say it's a bill to create a giant statue of Haney. The Anarchists and SDF are for it but no one else is.

Party        Reprsnt. Vote   Party Vote
Name         Yes   No        Yes   No
--------------------------------------------------
Anarchists     2    0          1    0
Workers        0    2          0    1
SDF            1    0          1    0
RSVP           -    -          0    1
BSFERSD        -    -          0    1
--------------------------------------------------
Total          3    2          2    3

The bill would not pass as it was blocked by the party vote.


Here's another example. Say the Anarchists sweep the election ...

Party        Percent   Frac    Majority   Minority
Name         Vote      Seat    Seats      Seats
--------------------------------------------------
Anarchists   90%       4.50    5          0
Workers       5%       0.25    0          1
SDF           3%       0.15    0          1
RSVP          1%       0.05    0          1
BSFERSD       1%       0.05    0          1

... and everyone votes the same way again for the Haney statue.

Party        Reprsnt. Vote   Party Vote
Name         Yes   No        Yes   No
--------------------------------------------------
Anarchists     5    0          1    0
Workers        -    -          0    1
SDF            -    -          1    0
RSVP           -    -          0    1
BSFERSD        -    -          0    1
--------------------------------------------------
Total          5    0          2    3

The vote still does not pass! The Anarchists and SDF must seek compromise and concession with the minority parties to get their bill passed.


It's just a thought. What do you think?

~Ulrika~

I like the Senate strucutre that Ullrika described above, but I'm looking for clarification. In your example every minority party holds a seat in the senate. What if there were more minority factions than there were minority seats? Or will every minorty faction recieve a seat, and the majority faction always get (minority faction + 1) seat?


On a seperate note.... Is this thread a replacement for the Consitutional Convnetion?

I don't necessarily agree with this goal, and I really don't think it should be in the constituition. The city should first achieve fiscal independence before thinking about funding new cities. When the time comes that the legislature decides there is a logical and scientifical need for a new project, we can pass laws to save money for future projects. If this project is successful, I'm sure there will be a number of avenues to fund new projects. I'm investing my time and land in this project, not a "spin-off city".

I'm very interested in seeing the city achieve financial independence and am considering forming a faction around that goal. Let me know if there is interest in a faction whose primary goal is financial independence for the city. That means no land or money required by the citizens for the long term plans of the city.

If there are more minority parties than seats, then some of the minority parties won't get a seat. We'll put them in by number of votes. If there's a tie, we'll flip a coin.

Yes. It's our own constitutional convention.

Thank you for mentioning this. I've been meaning to post links to an informative and easy-to-read website I discovered. If you all have some time, here are a few links that are worth skimming over.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

You'll find the last one especially interesting.

~Ulrika~

This is brilliant! I won't put it in the constitution for exactly the reasons you said. We'll let the factions in the Representative branch wrestle with this.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, there is no need to be defensive about my suggestion. I lumped myself in with you so no disrespect was intended. All I am saying is that when representing the group there will be less resistance if the originator was someone less controversial. It is not a slap in the face or an insult.

I have a great amount of respect for you and your willingness to stand up for what you believe in as well as Kendra. I do understand that it is Y'all's baby but what is important here is that it succeeds, not who originates the threads. Please just give it some thought and do not be angry. I am just trying to give some suggestions.

If the Artisanal branch is the Treasury does that mean it handles the city budget? I'm ok with the Artisanal branch approving a budget, but I think the Representative Branch should be responsible for drafting the budget.

The Artisans are our life-line and they should spend more time being creative than being deeply involved with the city workings. In contrast the Representative Branch is responsible for the cities infrastructe and day to day operations. In that role, they may better understand the requirements of the city budget.

If the city is successful the budget will become complex. Perhaps a complex budget would be better managed by the elected officials.

Any thoughts?

I have been giving this quite a bit of thought. Ulrika, congrats on such a well thought out plan. I think we have the base for something that will work here. Well done!

Ok, I will support the 3 branches as you have outlined. Here are some thoughts:

1. I agree with the Representational branch being elected by the people. I like your plan as far as how and who gets the seats. Very nice.

2. The Artisanal Branch is still somewhat of a concern. If I understand you correctly you want anyone who is an artist to automatically be in this branch. How about having a set number of seats and having the artists elect their own representatives? Seems a little more clean and you will probably get a few people who are very interested in meeting and stuff as opposed to allot of people who are marginally interested. This will work kind of like a Union.

3. I can be on board with this being based on merit much as you outlined with maybe some massaging. I have read so much I don’t remember exactly what has been said… lol. Will each of the Philosophical branch members have to be confirmed by the other two branches? If not, I suggest we do that. Then once in, they can decide among themselves who heads it etc… based on merit.

4. I am not for anyone being in more than 1 branch. It is up to them to chose which one they want to be in if appointed to more than 1. It would give 1 person too much power.

5. Veto power – This is a new thought I know but give it a little time to sink in. Only the representational branch makes laws and the Artisanal and Philosophical branches both have the power of veto. The Philosophical branch can use their veto for constitutional reasons and the Artisanal branch can use theirs on the grounds of fiscal responsibility.

This will keep the power in check. Artisanal and Philosophical branches need to convince the Representational branch to pass laws they want passed and the Representational branch will have to convince the others not to veto the laws that they want. This spreads the power evenly and assures that all 3 branches will have to compromise with each other to get their respective agendas passed.

6. Maybe there should be meetings with all 3 branches to discuss ideas for laws to help spread the realm of ideas. Then the Rep branch has it’s own meeting to propose specific laws and vote on them. Then the other 2 branches take the laws passed and vote to use the veto or not. They could outright veto it killing the bill or change it and send it back for approval from the Representational branch in that form starting the process all over again.

7. Lastly there should be some kind of filibuster that can be used requiring 2/3 majority to pass a specific vote. There need to be some criteria for using this as well as limits on its frequency. This also spreads the power and keeps things in check.

8. Oh, and the Philosophical branch votes on ammendments of the constitution. Maybe give the other 2 branches have the veto power over that too but probably not. It is worth discussing.

That’s it for now. I will be very interested in hearing what Y’all think.

I agree with both of these posts.

Good idea... I like it.