Antiwar and Anti-Bush Rally

From a first read of the N.berg docs it would appear that politics is spoken about as relating to in-world affairs.

Hmm, either way the project doesn't seem to have been pitched with RL politics in mind but now that seems to be the focus of your discussion. You'll just end up losing some people and the project will change. That doesn't seem to bother you, but that's up to you I guess.

PC

The outcry Cristiano, was based on a mixture of RL and SL, and the reasons that many joined this project. And personally I do not think issues in SL are something to make light of. Many joined the project with the belief that it would be strictly about SL and not about RL. The group is having a meeting this evening to discuss how this came to be and how we can handle this "misunderstanding". We as a group will get to the bottom of this and while some may leave the group still (no matter what decision is made), it is at least my hope that the meeting tonight will help clear up this issue and provide a more clear description of what is and is not permitted in regards to this issue.

If you really read the "entire damn thread" then you would have gotten the gist of this. I personally find your very last statement of "That's really progressive " insulting. I don't care how much I luv you, that one just cut to the heart. And simply, you are wrong in your assesment. But this is a case where it is good to be wrong.

For leaders of a political-minded group Ulrika and Kendra (particularly Kendra) are amazingly bad politicians

I imagine they just don't have much RL experience in consensus building within diverse groups.

Well, I find it funny

PC

I also feel you are wrong in your assessment, and you did not answer the one question I asked.

I never claimed to be a politician. I'm an activist. My preferred role in the city is as an artist, I have no designs on holding office, But thankyou for the unwarranted attack.

Even though my pull out was before the droves Cris, I will address my adversity to what happened with you. Firstly my reason; As construction began I realized that the uniformity and communal aspect had no nourishment. There were only two meetings that I can recall and a lack of activity/participation in the group forum. Further activities both within the city and on the forums indidcated to me a few key members were extreme radicals in their political beliefs and not approachable with a differing viewpoint or the alternative of a compromising discussion. I cannot align myself with those whom either a. refuse to respond to you or b. respond with rehetorical or vitriolic vocabulary. Therefore I left.

The issue at hand was addressed by members still in standing as well as myself as presenting an alignment with a certain viewpoint on RL politics, with Neualtenberg. This was not presented to the group beforehand at all even as a cursory what do you think ? It just appeared on the event calendar and in the forum. I have also read and re-read the FAQ and proposal and there is nothing in there about modeling RL politics nor injecting them into the project. This is the issue at hand not the "I'm mad and taking my ball and going home" syndrome.

I won't address the religious question you raised as it doesn't apply here, except to say the church was outlined from the start as Unitarian so I see no issues arising there in the future.

While it does not say "we will talk about RL politics" in the documents, it does also not spell out that you won't talk about them, that it is forbidden. The religious question is very germaine and does definitely apply, as religion, unless you have magically invented a mythology in SL, is very much RL based, as much as politics (and often intertwined).

You asked three actually:



And I answered all with the need of only one answer. The group is meeting this evening to discuss the issue of RL politics (and probably other items) being involved in the Projekt.

I cannot be wrong in my assesment because I was one of the people that in YOUR assement you claimed were just shouting out because "It seems pretty clear cut to me - people do not like the subject matter of an event, so they are pulling their support." Since you cannot seem to understand the words in my posts, and you certainly cannot read my mind, you cannot tell me I am wrong in knowing what *I* was meaning behind my statements.

As fond as I am of you, you do not need to be condescending in your post to me. I am not going to respond to the rest of it, forget it.

I apologize. I felt you were being *very* condescending to me and therefore I responded in kind. I should not have bitten whether you meant it that way or not. I think I was a tad shocked that you would respond to me that way after I told you that I found one of your statements insulting and you did not seem to even give a flip that I felt that way. I should not have responded while angry. I apologize again.

Alright let me try again then Cris. Unitarian to me would mean all faiths or one faith. Probably wrong here, didn't dic.com it. True religion is based on RL however not a regulatory faction of RL per se. (I'm sure that last statement will get rebutted). The point was the membership was not polled on this event that must be obvious to you aligned with a certain way of thinking. Various other posters have made the point that no constitution or charter were in place therefore it is moot. I feel this is incorrect and disrespectful to those still involved and invested.

I feel you are wrong in your assessment that this event violates the charter and spirit of the group. You telling me I am wrong is not condescending, but my telling you I also think you are wrong is?

Would you have pulled out if someone had an event to celebrate Bush's second term?

Thank you for your response Ulrika. I do appreciate that SOMEONE cares enough about this project to answer some basic questions. I will take a look at the links that you provided and I am sure ask some more questions... hehe.

The main question that I had was about mixing RL politics with SL politics and that seems to be the primary discrepancy a few of your members have. I really do not think I have a problem with holding a rally every now and then about whatever, as long as it is clearly sponsored by a political party or something other than Neualtinburg itself but do you envision SL politics and RL politics to be intertwined?

The answer may be in the links you provided but for the sake of ease as well as clarification for others reading this thread would you mind giving us your current view on this subject. Maybe just a one or two paragraph answer to my question #4 would be most helpful. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to answer a few questions. Thank you.

Cris I pulled out over a month ago. Re-read my first response it has my reasoning in there.

I'm sorry Lecktor, I had missed that - thank you for clarifying. After page after page of going back and forth, I had forgotten that.

No Cris. What I found condescending was when you said this:



And the reason I found this condescending is that it is very much NOT why I had an objection to this event. And felt that if you had read my posts you would see that was not where I was coming from. But this is a blanket statement you made against all those opposed to this event. Therefore you lumped me (and others) in there as well. Therefore, you were wrong about what my intentions were, hense why I said your "assesment" of why we were objecting was wrong.

The dispute over whether this event "violates the charter and spirit of the group" is what we will be discussing this evening at our group meeting.

This is actually something we are hoping to clarify even further after tonight's meeting Billy. While you can find answers in the links provided, on this particular issue there seems to have been some confusion. Hopefully after tonights meeting it will be much more clear.

Is this meeting for members only or would a guest, (me... hehe), be welcome to attend just as an interested bystander?

Sorry, I did not mean to lump you in. Honestly, your posts were the only ones I found to at least make sense, though I still do not fully understand why you were so opposed to it, I admit that. After seeing the phrase RL politics over and over again in post after post, along with the word agenda, after awhile it became difficult to discern what the argument actually is about, which is why I asked for clarification, and asked the question about religion.

Regardless of the nature of the event, surely in a group such as N.berg if a section of the polity disagrees with the event and believes that such events should not occur in the town the event should be stopped and the whole thing discussed. Or is the place not a democracy after all?

Kendra, if I were you I'd only take offence if I considered myself a politician of some worth.

I'm not much good at repairing a car, statement of fact. Not an insult. In the same way I don't think political leadership is your field of expertise.

But you do claim to be an activist. That's fine, activists are terrible politicians generally as they don't like compromise. Odd that compromise is exactly what N.berg needs if it's going to work as an inclusive political body.

PC

I have been to the real Rothenburg too by the way, what a beautiful city to use as your model.

It will not be posted on the events calendar, and is supposed to be for current members, but personally I feel that you seem to be already so interested in the group, that as long as no other member objected, I see no reason you could not attend. I will send you an IM in world and if I hear objections I will let you know before the meeting. Though I doubt it will be an issue.

Ditto!

my point was --I never claimed to be a politician. I agree more temperate heads are needed over this .