Neualtenburg Constitution

For those of us that are politically challenged, any chance of a one page simple explaination of how this is all going to work? At the moment, we have to fight our way through a lot of long posts to find any information.

Yes. A wiki is right around the corner. We will continue these threads but add changes to the wiki as they develop.

~Ulrika~

A few posts ago Talen Morgan proposed that citizenship should be granted to anyone requesting it. Now this sounds pretty "normal", assuming our ideas about freedom of speech.

On the other hand, there isn't a government, organization, company, association, club or any sort of entity (not even a church!) where this works like that - except for the anarchistic Internet (which everybody can join).

All other organizations need a formal or informal "admittance". Being granted a citizenship in Neualtenburg is not simpy "yet another cool group to join". People have duties and rights, and a new member has to be, in a way, "sworn in". Being a citizen grants you "economical advantages" - you get a share of dwell and of the transactions, for instance. It also grants you the right of getting elected and vote in the elections.

Now this doesn't mean that we should be a closed, elitist, uphill snobby group! Rather the contrary, if you remember the discussions about the "SL Government", I still hope to see, one day, that the "Neualtenburg group" covers a very large part of SL (leaving just a "frontier" with no rules and no organisation outside of it). Between the two extremes is a long way to go!

In any case, I'm fully against "giving the citizenship for free" as if it isn't worth anything. It is worth a lot. This does not mean that I think you should pay for it LOL - no, what I mean is, there should be a formality involved. People should be able to request their admittance, have other 2 citizens vouch for the new citizen (ie. they are the "patrons", get the new citizen to agree that he/she will abide by the Neualtenburger Constitution and Body of Laws, and then - and only then - be granted citizenship. Which can be revoked, also formally, at any time (this would also ensure that the patrons would be sanctioned in some way, to encourage bening "picky" about the people you recommend. Again, this reminds me of Ulrika's post about ways of attributing responsabilities).

Formally, this should also take place in one of the branches - I would think the Philosophical branch, but the Representative branch would be a good choice as well.

Perhaps this is also what you meant, Talen - everybody in SL should have the right of becoming a citizen of Neualtenburg, but we should make sure that he/she really means it!

Everyone should have the right to become a citizen without formality. What criteria do we place on them for involvement? It's been stated that if the flood gates are open we will be subject to all kinds of nonsense...I personally don't think that will happen. What of people who genuinly would like to become a part of the project and have nothing to offer?

We see if they take it seriously by the actions they take as a citizen...if they abuse that right then they will be dealt with swiftly.

Innocent until proven guilty is a good way to look at it. Having fears that many will join only to harass us is unfounded until they actually do. Permitting people on a case by case basis makes us look elitist and snobby....be accepting of all and we will reap the rewards.

The more reason we give those that wish to see us fail ammunition the more they will use it against us.

I still ask --what do we do when we run out of room? If the population grew over 150 individuals --where would they all live? There will need to be a cap placed on population --what then of this notion of citizenship for all?

Certainly some sort of procedure needs to be put in place, or some manner of preventing an outside agitor from swelling the population just prior to an election simply to collapse the experiment.

Actually, it is me who has proposed the constitutional article "Citizenship shall be open to all", although Talen supports it.

Its really quite simple... If citizenship is not open to all, then this all loses any semblance of an open, plurastic society, and becomes nothing more than a private club for those that want to play parlor games and call it an exercise in self-government. That would not be government, any more than a "club" is goverened.

If that's what you want, then go for it... But don't pretend that you're creating some Brave New World order within digital realms.

- Ace

Whereas I understand your points...not everyone will want to live in the city...also people can rotate living in the city. A good friend of mine is a citizen of Great Britain yet he doesnt live there. You have to have faith in the people before they will have faith in you.

We could place a waiting period on joining a party to give people time to get to know their parties and make an informed decision...but I really don't like that Idea myself

I think the fear of overloading an election is putting the cart before the horse...I'd rather give the people the chance to show themselves before branding them as undesireables

Well said Gwyneth, I believe the same. There is no such thing as Open Citizenship not in Neualtenburg or any where else.

Just because you claim it is simple --does not mean that it is, Ace.
In order to be able to accomodate such a policy there are real concerns that need to be addressed.

How would you deal with over-population, for example?
How would you deal with a sudden influx of temporary citizens whose sole purpose is to grief the experiment into collapse?
What about alts?

There are many different problems that can occur because of the nature of a cyber government in a digital realm that are very different by nature than those in RW.

I won't support a simple rush towards "citizenship for all" based on your assertion that you and only you are correct. In short -- I don't accept your premise.

The system proposed by Gwyn, seems to me to be a far more practical method, and I would support it.

1) Oh? How does one enforce that? I'm sorry --but you need to move out so Jimmy can have his turn? Talk about big government.

2) One doesn't need to join a party to vote --that's one. Two --I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a requirement of time spent as a citizen before one could vote or form a party. You don't like that idea --and that's fine. How would you address the problem however?

3) I think, given the nature of SL, it's actually a huge concern. I would rather prevent such an obvious griefer attack in advance then wait for it's inevitable occurence.

At least your consistent with your overall cluelessness of the project. Allow me to direct you to the official Neualtenburg Proposal here: http://www.ulrikasheim.org/neualtenburg/proposal.html

Infact, regarding the gov, I direct you to these two quotes (only mention of gov in proposal)

"Elected council to handle user and artisan conflicts"

"After construction of the city, authority will be turned over to an elected governing council comprised of residents and artisans."

No Brave New World Order suggested. We are trying to create a self organizing government in SL for one Sim, to resolve artisan and resident disputes. An experiment in Virtual Reality Governement in no way implies "New World Order".

Some of us think it's a good idea cause we disagree with the lack of a binding contract in SL, the way SL resolves disputes or because we are interested in various governing structures. While others think we need to maintain some project rules, that everyone needs to live by if we are to create a detailed Themed Sim.

Ace, have you built a Themed Sim alone? It takes a team, and we are trying to organize the best way work in a team of people all dedicated to making this work, while allowing people dedicated to building a themed sim voice there concerns.

Do some people think we are laying the groundwork for VR Governements? Yes! Do these same people think it's the ONLY way to run a VR Governement? Decidedly no. Infact we've talked about using proceeds from this project to form a completely different type of ruling system.

So if your here for the "mental masturbation" please go home and come back when your 49, maybe then you'll start acting 16 instead of 14. And this is my formal apology for calling you 14, so I can remain a citizen.

NOTE: This is not an official stance from anyone else in Neualtenburg... I like many, am interested in helping out a prestigous Themed Build. I involve myself in the forums because I have a good idea on how to get that done, and it doesn't include allowing all griefers to ruin the project. I think it's important to try and keep everyone in check and not to lose site on the bigger picture. I'm actually quite suprised this project has gotten so much attention. There are tons of things you can do in SL, and if you don't find something you like, create your own.

In order asked...

Have a party
You're gonna have to come up with a way to handle griefers anyway... deal with it
I have more than one personality in Second Life, I should have more than one voice

- Ace

So:

Whats your criteria for citizenship?

How is the criteria determined?

Who administers this criteria?

What constitutes a citizen?

If a person applies for citizenship what recourse do they have if denied? and will they be allowed to apply again?

This is a very real problem, but we need to be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease.

A couple thoughts about the problem...and about possible solutions.

First, frivolous is not the same thing as malevolent. Even in real world politics, frivolous groups -- groups whose purpose is to make fun of the political process itself -- often play a role. We don't see this much in the US outside of the fringes (e.g. the Yippies); everyone involved in our political life must take themselves and the process VERY seriously (perhaps because so much of what is going on is actually absurd ). But in other countries, frivolous parties are more common, such as Britain's Monster Raving Loony Party (http://www.omrlp.com/) The MRLP runs real candidates in real elections, usually in constituencies featuring prominent MPs. In the UK, all the candidates stand before the cameras at one location in each constituency to hear the official results. Thus, standing next to the famous leader of one of the normal parties will be the MRLP candidate, who's usually dressed in a ridiculous costume and has a ridiculous name (there was one guy named Lord Buckethead...you can imagine his costume). For Monty Python fans out there, it's like the Silly Party, but in real life.

I think parties like this can have a very positive, leavening effect (and in a way they're particularly appropriate for Neualtenburg as they invoke the carnivalesque, an important medieval topos). And they're not around for amusement alone. Parties like the MRLP have a serious point to make: they think that the entire political system is absurd. It is, in my opinion, a valid point of view. And the fact that it is present _yet rejected by the vast majority of voters_ is a kind of broad vote of confidence in the political system itself. On the other hand, if the MLRP were to actually win, it would be a clear statement that citizens had no faith in the system. And such a message deserves listening to if folks feel so frustrated that they want to elect the Lord Bucketheads of the world.

Now it's worth noting that the MLRP, though essentially opposed to the system, nonetheless accept the system. When they lose, they go home. They don't storm Parliament. To me this is the line between opposition and extra-systemic malevolence. And absent such extra-systemic malevolence (e.g. actual criminal activity by an existing faction), I am very uncomfortable with banning any proposed faction. Let me note that assuming such malevolence on the basis of a party's program (or even its personnel) is a kind of prior restraint that runs counter to my common law commitments. And though I understand concerns about open citizenship (I'll be putting together another post on the issue of citizenship), I think it's a competely reasonable and valid political position for a party to take.

There's also a slippery slope here. Within the realm of politics, people can disagree quite radically about what the common good consists of. For instance, just to drag the RL into this for a second, I think the program of the current Republican Party is terribly damaging to this country and the world. But I don't think it's malevolent, that is, I believe those supporting the GOP by and large believe that they are doing what's best for the country and the world, and that I and people like me would cause profound harm to this country and the world. I am very happy that it is essentially impossible for either side of the political divide to outlaw the other side. And -- as a third party supporter myself -- I am continually disturbed by both major parties' commitments to making the organization of third parties extremely difficult in the US. If you empower the philosophical branch to decide what is or is not a valid party, you create enormous opportunities for the abuse of that power, even if we might identify a circumstance in which such a power would be convenient.

OK. So how do we deal with the real problem Ulrika has identified: i.e. that there's every reason in the world to believe that someone might essentially form the Troll Party -- to use web terminology -- whose sole purpose is to destroy the project. Let me suggest some other mechanisms to prevent this from happening.

First, the system of checks and balances already is a huge bulwark against this. Since two of the branches of government are entirely separate from factional politics, the absolute worst case scenario is that the Troll Party captures a majority in the Senate. Even with the Senate they might be restrained by the dual-voting system that's been proposed. But let's say that DOESN'T work. And they pass endless malicious legislation. If that legislation violates the Constitution, the Academy can simply junk it, if I understand correctly. So, as I see it, the absolute worst case scenario is two months of stasis, and even then primarily on the building end of things. This is obviously not a good thing, but it also needn't threaten the project's existence. (It's also worth noting that this would happen only if the Troll Party scored a huge win in the elections. And that could only come about through massive dissatisfaction among the citizenry with both the other parties and the direction of the project itself. Given such massive dissatisfaction, I think, suppressing it is an even worse option than letting it play itself out. And absent such massive dissatisfaction, the Troll Party is a minor distraction whose continued electoral losses actual reinforce the legitimacy of the project. Banning the Troll Party, on the other hand, would suggest we had something to fear.)

Secondly, being careful about who does and doesn't become a citizen also gives us the power to prevent this. Or to put it another way, address the "influx of individuals" problem, rather than disparaging citizens' rights to free association. But restrictions on citizenship is another topic, that I want to write a separate post about, so I'll end this one here.

We're already having one.
I'm asking how YOU would deal with it. I already know how I would deal with it.
I'm not talking about personalities --and I hope your other one isn't a snert.

Excellent post, Phineas!


While certainly there are ways to limit d'Hondt in order to favour minority parties instead, I fully agree on STV.


It's hard to combine "non-democratic" (in our case, meritocratic) and "democratic" entities in the same government. Actually, I see the Guild more like representing a supermajority (most of us will have to belong to the Guild, in order to be able to sell items and host events) and the Academy to represent a minority (there will be a limited number of people at the Academy...). So in one case you have a supermajority tyranny, and on the other, a minority tyranny. We can only hope that the Representative branch will be the "middle ground" where things even out

I don't think there is any reasonable way to "check" either the Academy or the Guild. It doesn't make any sense having the "outside world" vote to expell members of the Guild. In RL terms, this would mean that the Government would have the right to expell union members from the union just because they dislike them. So there can't be any type of "checking" on those two branches, in terms of member composition. You can "check" only upon their decisions, not their memberships.


Strong doubts here as well. This reminds me of the Rome Republic. If you wanted to get an office at the Senate, you could not work for the whole mandate, to reduce "external influences". This would mean that only the filthy rich aristocrats were nominated. Of course, the Rome Republic had no pretension of being a democracy - it was a plutocracy, and that was ok as well - it also meant that it was really heard to bribe someone in office, since that someone had the means to support himself for the whole year without needing to work

I expect that plutocrats at the Guild will certainly "shrug off" their sales during the mandate they serve in the Representative branch. This would mean that, to have "direct control" in the Assembly, the Guild will have to encourage some of their members to forfeit sales for a few months, in order that the whole group benefit from being able to pass laws directly. That could be interesting, and I'm quite certain that the Guild will have some way to "reward" the volunteers, say, by arranging a "weekly stipend" to cover for the months they won't get any income I like that!


Pure meritocracy


See the problem addressed by Ulrika, to minimize impact of parties created by the sole purpose of undermining the system. Most countries have a similar system in place (ie. not allowing communists, or not allowing neo-nazis, etc.)

I.e., in theory, you're right (and I feel the same), in practice, we have to have a system with the least loopholes that we can get...


I'm all for that! Say, a simple rule stating that members of either Branch cannot hold office in any other branch should suffice. Note that "membership" is different from "office". This would mean that someone selling items, technically a member of the Guild, but working at the Academy as well, will either hold an office internally at the Academy or the Guild - but not at both. And can be elected for the Assembly, but in that case, cannot participate in any decision process of either of the other two branches.


No, it was definitely a great post!!!

How did you determine its a real problem? Its theory at best right now. What if someone forms a troll party? They still have to follow the constitution and will be held to the same standards and laws as the other parties. If they don't then whatever the law determines needs to be done is done. Stop jousting windmills that don't exist... have faith in the law to handle it.




Being careful or careful choosin?..very fine line there. Whya re we adressing what has yet to happen. Look at how many citizens we have now...at best by election time we might triple this number....but I doubt it.

This:



pretty simple to me, and solves a multitude of potential problems.

Me too.
-Satchmo-

Sorry dear you didn't answer the important questions...and if thats the case then I think Ace and myself could vouch for a few hundred people.

Answer the real questions


After the citizen has been vouched for and agrees to the laws who says yay or nay?

What criteria will be in place to make the decision of yay or nay?

and the previous questions I asked are still pertinent.

Enrollment should not be open. Right now this is a project and the best way to ruin a project is to inject chaos and problem individuals into it. Instead we should pick interested citizens up until we hit 150 and then spawn a new city. Then repeat. Each new city can be more lax with its admission policies. We are also free to vary the government from city to city. Once that happens then we can stitch them together with a larger council.


I also wanted to direct your attention to a must-read article that I found posted in the DarkWood Officers' Guild forum. Zero Grace posted, that the Vancouver Citizen's Committee has an interesting article about "Grassroots Rot" which contains an analysis of "how citizens' groups destroy themselves."

~Ulrika~

If the citizen has been vouched for and they say yay or nay, in my OPINION they should become citizens, honey bunny.

My apologies, actually it seems I hadn't read your post proposing that. Sorry for the lack of credit

Open, pluralistic societies certainly exist elsewhere, but they all have some forms and requirements to be able to participate in them. Say, like you have to be 18 to be able to vote and get elected. In my case, I think you have to be over 31 to be able to run for President, and prove that you have voted on all elections in your life, to show that you're a very conscious politically-minded citizen. Other countries restrict your elegibility if you have served time in prison. All of those "artificial restrictions" on the right of exercizing your citizenship have been put in place by "open, pluralistic" societies in order to limit extreme radical positions.

Still, I don't see any "pretense" of Neualtenburg to be a Libertarian Utopia or something like that. There is no "brave new world here" - looking from outside, I would think that we have here the nastiest gang of SL double-crossing politicians Heh! If it weren't like that, we'd not have so much FUN But in any case, just take a look at the three branches... one is "democratically elected", but the other two branches are "elitist cliques" which don't even pretend to be "democratic or open" in their inner proceedings. And that is just as well.

And BTW, yes, citizenship should be open for all - meaning that anybody can apply for citizenship. If this citizenship gets granted or not, ah well, that's an entirely different question!

If that's a motion --I second it.

intersting individuals? Why the s=assumption that open enrolement =chaos and problem individuals? I think there is real concern but not for open enrolement.
As for Darkwood...that is a doomed failure and has been since inception....I would read anything written there with a grain of salt. They were never set up to be anything but trouble.