Neualtenburg Constitution

ROFLMAO....

The Costume Party has already achieved its first objective. Requiring the powers that be to reevaluate their commitment to openness and inclusion.

Did the SDF members forget to take their ex-Lax last night?

- Ace

How can there be a true experiment if even those people who are against it aren't allowed in...Who will question the government? Who will give the government pause to consider other views. Should we only let those in that wish to play nice and start a utopia?

Politics can be ugly unfortunately. There have been fist fights in every government since the first was created. Look at campaign ads and tell me they are all playing footsy.

I believe everyone should be welcome to participate but that you need to obtain "citizenship" to join the group. Once you have citizenship you are free to participate in elections.

Requirements on citizenship should be handled by the Philisophical Branch and should at least require a citizen to take an oath agreeing to the goals of the project.

And just to point out, I'm not the powers that be, a founding member, or the SDF.

I didn't say they shouldn't. If you actually read my posts --you'ld see I'm FOR it.
However --it raises questions --should we allow outside agitators in just to stir up the shit as they have proclaimed?

As for giving the Government pause --I thought that was what YOU came on board to do?
Ace set himself up by asking to come in --and calling everyone constipated and "bunch of -----". He drew a line in the sand and now demands we accept that level of hostility?

I'm sorry --I must have missed the memo that said I should just lube up and bend over.

The provisional leader of the R.A. has sent this memo numerous times already.

I did read it and I noted that you are for it but you brought up another point...continued at next quote



Absolutely...how else can we have honest discourse... I'd rather have them as a part of the experiment then on the outside starting shit not even knowing what we are about or doing.



I came in as a voice thats all...one of many diverse voices that all have differing opinions but are coming together and working together .

As for Ace I can't speak for him but he did apologize and he seems like he would ask very serious questions of the government. By denying anyone admittance to the project we would be drawing a line in the sand as well....all these lines...I thought we were trying experimental government not playing tic tac toe.



I thought better of sending the memo...we should concentrate on government and keep our personal lives out of it....besides what would people think if they knew about us

Have a point Satch? Funny how some see me as making demands and getting my way when the exact opposite is true...seems some decisions have already been made.

Oh my goodness... I'm getting a boner here.

- Ace

I agree. It's a true test of what we're made of here. I don't think Ace made the best entrance in the world, on another thread I compare his entrance to running into a chinashop with a sledgehammer and asking where the most fragile goods are kept.

I made the only entrance to the dialogue that would have made a difference.

- Ace

Thats just silly...anyone running into a china shop with a sledgehammer already knows what he's doing and won't stop to ask questions.

If the china shop owner was prepared though the sledgehammer weilding person would have been met with a shotgun. Both parties would then see the futility of the exersize and then start talking instead.

Sorry Talen, nothing personal. I actually think you have brought up some great points and good ideas... I'm just being "silly"... I guess it's contaigous.

Which is precisely what is happening right now.

as long as your not pulling out lube and bending over its fine....wouldn't want Kendra to think I'm cheating on her

I'm too much woman for ya --and too much man as well

No such thing as too much woman....the man part does scare me though...but what the hell we're experimentin right

I have seen two concurences and no objections to this proposed article.

How are such things decided?

- Ace

I am dissenting from such a motion. To quote myself

Kewlios... tolerated objections within N-berg.

My original question still stands... How are such questions of the constitution to be decided?

- Ace

The constitution is still being formed Ace...this thread is to bring ideas into it....

You have done as much as can be done at this point, Ace.
Your request is now to be considered for inclusion along with the many other things we have discussed.

When we actually hold a constitutional convention further action can be taken.
I would add that while in principal I agree with your stance -- the population of the City will require some sort of cap as space demands. How would you suggest the inevitable closing of borders due to space constraints?

What made you think, that because we asked you not to act like an asshat we wouldn't tolerate dissent?

*blows Satchmo a big, fat, hairy kiss*

- Ace

Sorry that I'm entering this conversation so late and with a series of random observations and thoughts on much of what has gone before. So let me just leap in to these, in no particular order:

1) Voting System for Senate. I share the concern -- voiced by Ulrika, I think -- that d'Hondt tends to favor bigger parties. I'd also like to propose that we consider a single-transferable vote (STV) system. That is to say, rather than voting for a single party, voters would rank the parties in order of preference. I believe that this can be combined with party lists. There are a number of ways to count STVotes, but rather than engage in that conversation, I just want to throw the idea out in general and see what folks think. The advantage of any STV system is that it records people's preferences in much deeper ways.

2) The "internal checks" outlined for the artisanal and philosophical branch seem to me to be the opposite of checks. Most systems of internal checks are designed to protect minority rights. In this case, supermajorities are given the power to literally kick out small minorities. That's not a check, but rather an invitation to majority tyranny. I think there are good arguments for creating some checks on the ability of the self-perpetuating, undemocratic branches from getting too in-grown. But the ability to remove members of these branches should probably be housed in the other branches in some way.

3) I appreciate the concern about folks getting up and leaving, but the left-libertarian in me is suspicious of schemes to solve this which make it impossible to leave. Perhaps we can find a middle ground.

4) Am I right that there's an emerging consensus that people should not serve in more than one branch? At any rate, I feel pretty strongly that they should not. But beyond serving, should guild members have a vote for the Senate if they also own property? I can see the arguments both ways on this one.

5) I'm still a bit murky about how one judges the merit of those who serve in the philosophical/judicial branch. Here's my concern. Artisans make things (or plan events). One can get a good sense from life around the city who's doing a good job of this (through sales, quality of work, etc.). Once we work out a voting system, who belongs in the Senate will be similarly clear. But how can one demonstrate philosophic/judicial sophistication outside the academy itself? One needs to go through a lot of educational and professional steps to be able to serve in universities or judiciaries in RL. What kind of process is in place to mimic (or substitute for) that kind of thing in Neualtenburg?

6) I feel very strongly that no branch of government should have say over who can form a party or what that parties principles are. I think we need to keep the democratic branch democratic. That means not letting other branches determine who can serve in it or what they stand for.

7) One last thought about the philosophical branch: I'm not sure that requiring that members not be in a faction entirely makes sense. There's a certain tension in this scheme between divisions or responsibilities (as in a modern governmental system) and something more caste-like (the medieval side of it). And I suppose that the question is, how much does one want to create three entirely separate pools of people to staff each of these branches? My own feeling is that academicians who have artisinal (or Senatorial) experience prior to their joining the academy would add much to the mix. So I suppose my preference would be to allow a certain amount of mobility between the bodies, while preventing people from serving on more than one at a time.


Sorry that this is so scattershot, and hope that these concerns aren't way off the mark...

-- Phin

I support an STV system fully. More can be found out about it here.

Great point. Right now some branches do have a mechanism to remove members from the other branches. I'm worried about majorities abusing minorities in the branches now. Can you make some suggestions that might help with this?

I want to bind groups to the city permanently not individuals. It would be catastrophic if the entire Artisanal branch left the city with all their goods. By binding groups to the city, the individuals can leave but the group and goods remain in the city. Further by having individuals agree to this, it will allow us to call for Linden support in resolving issues of theft.

I also would like to put a two-week buffer in place for leaving and discharging members. The city would guarantee a hearing and a two-week grace period for a citizen before discharging them. In return citizens (especially land-tier contributors) would give us a two-week courtesy notice. It's similar to employee discharge agreements in Europe. It's the standard government trade, one gives up a little freedom in order to receive a little protection.

I think we all agreed that there should be no overlap between the Representative branch and the Philosophic branch. The problem is, is that many productive citizens will be in the Artisanal branch. For instance, I'm responsible for about 49% of city sales (Kendra has 51%) and I'm in the Philosophic branch. A possible solution might be to cut the Artisanal branch into two halves, one which can belong to a decision-making hierarchy and one which cannot. If you have ideas, feel free to toss them out.

It's easy. We simply select those who demonstrate philosophic and judicial sophistication in the forum and hand-select them for the branch. After they are known by the group and trusted they'll pass the vote of confidence. If you're interested, keep making great posts like this and you're a shoo in.

That's possible but we have a nasty problem we need to contend with first.

The government can be undone by an influx of individuals who are determined to destroy it. For instance, Ace Cassidy (a new "member" of the city) is forming the "Costume Party". It's a faction dedicated to the wearing of clown hats and antigovernment shirts. One of his few serious party platforms is, he wants open enrollment for the city. Imagine an influx of 100 new players who all join and vote for the "Costume Party" the day before an election. If we had a majority-rule Representative branch, it would be the end of the city. If we had a hybrid majority/party-rule Representative branch, it would cripple the government for months.

We have ensure that frivolous or malevolent groups don't subvert the Representative branch.

I agree totally. We should allow movement between the branches but limit simultaneous decision-making roles.

Great stuff Phineas! Thank you.

~Ulrika~