I, too, Protest.

I have never cared for the melodrama of the forums, so I'll try to be a brief as I can, while covering all points.

Back... nearly a year ago, now, an eternity in SL time... I was looking for a place to build a certain project I had in mind; a tribute museum to the Dark Tower fantasy series, by Stephen King. This was to be my first land purchase besides my actual First Land, which I had since sold. I happened to learn of Neualtenburg's reincarnation as a private sim; at the time the tagline was, as I recall, something along the lines of "Work. Play. Govern!", emphasising that Neualtenburg was an attempt to fairly share the scarce resources of a sim in the same way they are in the real world; a "government", and that government was democratic in form. The price seemed fair and the experiment interesting, and so I became the first citizen to join the city in the post-mainland days, and my build was the first aside from those that had been transplanted from Anzere.

As time progressed, I grew concerned. I have tried to back Ulrika, as the history of the forum and in-world transcripts will so, even though we have vastly different outlooks. She believes good can be done by a government, this being the core of socialist belief. I believe, at best, they can fail to do evil; their only redeeming feature is the prevention of greater evils. Nonetheless, it is also my belief that widely differing opinions are needed in any society; despite disagreeing with much of what she has ever said, I felt her presence was necessary.

Despite all of this, Ulrika left the project for her own reasons. So be it. However, in combination with her threats to tear down all of her contributions if she didn't get her way, the recent vandalism of Sudane Erato's post in the Neualtenburg Project forum clearly shows what little regard she has for her own political experiment. Therefore, as an authorized manager of the sim, I instituted a suspension - the ban was never intended as permanent - until the SC could review the case as a precautionary measure, since a non-citizen silencing a citizen through a loophole in the forum software was surely serious business.

Clearly, there has been much disagreement, and the following shitstorm is truly Ulrika's natural element; she has always spent more time stirring excitement in the forums than spending time in-world since I have joined the project. To this day, I think I have only seen her avatar "face to face" once, at the Neualtenburg Expo. I have said some hasty, angry things, this is true; I have been playing Ulrika's game. I shall do so no longer.

Effective immediately, I have removed Ulrika's ban. I resign my post on the Scientific Council. I resign my mastership in the Artisan Guild. I resign my seat on the Representative Assembly. I ask Sudane to remove my "sim manager" status. From this date, I refuse to acknowledge the government of Neualtenburg, and will only respect it as an entity to the extent that the sim owner - namely, Sudane Erato's alt, Rudeen Edo - does so. I do not leave the project at this time; if you want to be rid of me, you'll have to kick me out the door, friends.... but I am through with lies and role-play. Either Neualtenburg is a bold new experiment in group collaboration and self-government... or it's no different than ElvenGlen, Caledon, or innumberable other sims that have a "government" that exists at the whim of the sim owner.

And the symbol of my hopes for Neualtenburg, the Tower, has fallen, O Discordia... not that anyone who isn't me or a Steven King fan cares. I may build something else on the land, should my residency in the sim survive the month; I may abandon all but my little event stage and return to the fun-loving builder, instructor, and Primtionary host I used to be. The Tower itself may even return elsewhere, but it will not be in Neualtenburg.

Thank you for your attention. I have resolved to make no further comment on these forums on this matter.

Well this satifies my requirements. Now I won't have to leave Neualtenburg.

Whether or not Neualtenburg will still want me for my support of Ulrika Zugzwang remains to be seen.
__________________

I wish only to apologise for the time in setting up the hearing; you know I can be slow when writing those things up (too slow, as many have repeatedly accused me, when swiftness is demanded). But sadly I'm a slow thinker, specifically when things get nasty, and there is irremediable damage already done — and the purpose is to learn from the past experiences and avoid the same pitfalls in the future.

Like Aliasi, I'm tired of role-playing, and worse than that, I'm tired of people using concepts like Neualtenburg to have some fun in the forums. I will respect the decions of those who do so, because it's their way of having fun. But not only I side with Aliasi on her expectations of Neualtenburg, but I also side with people like Claude or Sudane who at this point are actually doing RL presentations on the concept of Neualtenburg and giving it as an extraordinary example of how things can be done inside Second Life. I do the same, often presenting it as a type of educative tutorial for democratic processes. I wish to continue doing that. Some people are taking this seriously enough to ask us for advice and to know about the experience we have had with Neualtenburg, positive and negative; to the utter horror of some, even RL politicians have been looking at Neualtenburg and asking how a setup like ours might help them rethink the way they address their constituency. This is very encouraging for me, although, in all seriousness, I'm not a follower of "RL-politising" something like Neualtenburg. I view it much more as a project where we learn about civic behaviour, delegation of powers, respect and compromise, even administrative and financial issues, while at the same time building an environment which is unique in Second Life — and I might add, perhaps unique across different virtual worlds.

This should not mean we all have to walk around in business suits and a serious, frowning face, and talk in a high-brow fashion — we can still have fun, act silly, and enjoy a round of humourous and witty events in Neualtenburg. But it means that "having fun" inside Neualtenburg is not "having fun" by playing the part of the spoiled brat. Echoing Aliasi, I'm tired of dealing with that.

This means that at this point, and until there are new elections for the Dean, I will start to change slightly the current interpretation of the Constitution. In a sense, the notion that anyone is "entitled" to grab the project and drag it into the mud, only for personal pleasure, entertainment of an audience, and for visions of grandeur and self-accomplishment, will over the time be deemed irresponsible behaviour as a citizen. This is something which will take time to "fit in" the current system and I will certainly have to think a lot on it; what I certainly wish to avoid is a post just like Aliasi's, justly accusing that we have much better employment of our time than to play mock governments (and anyone wishing to role-play governments, can always join the government-MMORPG-inside-SL called Miranda).

Aliasi, I'm now going to be brutally unfair to you. As Dean of the SC, I do not accept your resignation, at least until the hearing is over (or at very least, the resignation will only be effective at that time). There is good reason for it. After a great deal of thought, I've narrowed down the single issue that the hearing is going to be about: dealing with two allegations of abuse of power. All else is forum drama, and I'm not willing to discuss forum drama in any formal meeting of the SC, except to condone it utterly.

I would thus kindly request that your decision of leaving both the SC and the refusal of acknowledgement of the Government to be effective only after the hearing is held; I can only apologise for not being swifter in trying to set it up. I'll take responsability for the slowness of response, and the consequences of being so slow will be my burden to bear. I'm truly sorry for that; I think that if I had acted more swiftly, we wouldn't have come to this point.

Also, during the ongoing forum drama, people have been offended, some of them unjustly accused, others simply went head over heels with their ridicule claims. Again, if the unjustly accused wish to speak up, and are willing to engage Alternative Dispute Resolution as per Art III, Section 7 of the Constitution, they should file any claims to any member of the SC.

At the time of writing this, no such claims have been formally presented to the SC, to the best of my knowledge with a single exception, the use of improper language by Keltrien Baker on a thread. He was given a public warning, and I'll let it stay at that. If he persists, he'll be fined

But to all citizens (and non-citizens) of Neualtenburg, the offer of filing a request for Alternative Dispute Resolution is still open. In any case, the ongoing forum drama will not be discussed at the hearing. If anyone wishes for specific hearings, or file complaints of public defamation, or anything similar to that, they will all be dealt on a case-by-case basis — separately.

Kendra, your right to support Ulrika Zugzwang (or anybody else, for that matter) should not, in any circunstances, be used by any member of the Government as an "excuse" for the City not wishing your participation. I will watch this very closely! The right to free association is still embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which our Constitution respects, and unless that gets amended (it won't under my term as Dean ), you shall not be discriminated, in any form, because of your opinions, comments, or shows of support. This is for me personally something very crucial and I definitely feel the need to publicly reinforce it. There will not be any "witch-hunting" in Neualtenburg as long as I'm Dean of the SC.

Gwyn,

Your series of posts today have been very insightful and I will take them to heart. I just wish to assure everyone that I did not mean to position my leaving as an ultimatum, though I recognize the fact that my meaning does not change the fact that it was in fact an ultimatum.

I'm prepared for any censures or whatever to be taken on me accordingly.

It sounds to me that you're thinking of reinterpreting the Constitution (although I think you might mean the Bill of Rights) such that it is possible to punish individuals engaging in speech that you find "irresponsible" in the sense that it damages the reputation of the city. Here's my theory on why an intellectual and free thinker in the government might take such a right-wing stand.

From your text it appears that your primary form of satisfaction derived from the city comes from the notoriety that public presentations and tutorials on the subject of government provide you. Negative press in the form of forum drama threatens this notoriety by delegitimizing the project. To protect this source of satisfaction you have now alluded to future restrictions in allowable speech. In short you have decided to stop "role playing" (acting as a public servant in a government) and to start acting as (possibly) someone protecting their self interests (like an executive in a board room). Is that correct?

I hope not, as you weren't chosen for the SC such that it could function as a vehicle to further your own notoriety. Instead you were chosen because it was believed you could provide a public service, using your skills to interpret founding documents and laws to protect citizens. If you choose to step away from your role as a servant, who protects the ideals of the founding documents, and instead choose to embrace the role as an individual, who serves themselves and the "best interests" of the city, then is the government not truly a mask on the face of an oligarchy?

It is your job to preserve and promote dissent.

~Ulrika~

Thanks for sharing your interpretation of the role of the SC. I agree that it's a possible interpretation of the role of the SC, but I find it very hard to protect citizens by preserving and promoting dissent among them. I much more prefer to promote tolerance, encourage compromise, and provide balance, moderation and arbitration whenever it is necessary. I can perfectly understand that others might disagree with that role of the SC, and would prefer an SC that actively opposes other branches of Government to adapt themselves to the wishes of the citizens. While that is certainly a possible, and valid, interpretation, I definitely prefer to place the emphasis on positive and constructive aspects when dealing with constitutional issues.

What I will also emphasise is constant skeptical questioning regarding any aspects of Neualtenburg — either by members of the SC themselves, or by citizens, and even non-citizens. Not surprisingly (at least for me), it has been from the ranks of residents of SL that constructive questioning of Neualtenburg's ways that new members have come to join the project. They started with enough skepticism to show their keen minds in proposing new models and see what others thought about them; they appeared at RA meetings to hear what was going on in Neualtenburg and how we dealt with issues; they found our procedures interesting enough to warrant their commitment, by joining as citizens; and later, a few even became members either of Government or of other institutions of Neualtenburg.

Encouraging that kind of participation has been the enrichening factor in Neualtenburg — not preserving and promoting dissent. Unless, of course, by "preserving and promoting dissent" you mean that people should be encouraged to provide constructive criticism of Neualtenburg's ways — in that case, I might only disagree with your own choice of words.

As to my bold statements, they refer simply to a matter of what I can only classify as national pride. I'm proud of Neualtenburg's citizens and their accomplishments; I honour their untiring efforts to keep it going on despite the adversities; I bow to what they are now doing well beyond a "little enclave" against anarchic and libertarian SL. Neualtenburg, and the projects that will follow on its steps, can truly lead an "alternative way" of doing things — one that is not tied to either utopian idealisms or to mere individualistic egos, both of which are actually the major driving forces in most projects in SL. What Neualtenburg has to offer mostly is pragmatism through a realistic approach to dealing with daily issues that hinder the growth of the project; but it grows now towards completely different purposes. It's not "preserving the snow sim" anymore; it's not just building nice houses (and if they're still being built anyway, it's because we also proudly offer what's best in terms of building in SL) which have been left empty for so long. Neualtenburg is now about function and purpose; it's about establishing frameworks. There are now new goals and objectives for the current batch of citizens of Neualtenburg; if you wish, yes, I'm very proud about what others have accomplished, and I also still think it was a wise choice to be around to help those accomplishments in any way that I can — not by "hindering" their growth, not by stubbornly clinging to a past that does not exist any more (although I'm certainly still viewed as one of the most conservative voices in N'burg...), but by rethinking the ways that will allow the current most active citizens to fullfil their own goals. This is, for me, truly the whole point of having a self-governed sim — not role-playing democracy, but the establishment of boundaries, rulings, and frameworks to allow other personal projects to succeed.

This, of course, is something that I believe to be impossible either without a huge amount of resources (money and people), or, as an alternative, with self-government.

You can rightfully accuse me of pride in Neualtenburg and its citizens, and that I definitely keep doing my best to promote Neualtenburg and what it means as a concept either in-world, or, as it has been the case with other citizens, iRL as well. From the "enclave of lunatic believers in self-government" we have reached the status of being taken seriously by people iRL (like the old saying goes, no one listens to a prophet in his home town...) as a "curiousity". From "curiousity" towards "a role model" are still quite a lot of steps to be made; but at least, right now, the concept of Neualtenburg starts to "make sense" to many — even if they disagree with particular details.

Once more, I don't care for "preserving and promoting dissent". My job will be to promote and encourage the growth of Neualtenburg by providing advice, suggestions, and dealing with any issues that always come up when things start to grow by suggesting moderation, making compromises, and deal with arbitration issues if necessary.

Neualtenburg has relatively recently started to think about the required PR issues on this next step of its growth and expansion (notice that when I say "growth and expansion" it doesn't necessarily mean becoming a new "Dreamland" with hundreds of sims; rather, it might mean hundreds of interesting projects rooted in Neualtenburg, as a provider of infrastructure and frameworks). A Chamber of Commerce, under the Guild, has been set up, and Kendra Bancroft appointed as its head. One of the very difficult tasks of the Head of the CoC will be to deal with marketing Neualtenburg, its advantages to run projects, and attracting potential new residents, new projects, new content, and co-promoting (or even co-sponsoring) other projects and content, through diplomatic interchanges ("embassies" and all sorts of trade agreements. Once more we rely upon the unbounded and unlimited imagination of some of our citizens to promote its ways and its style ("the Neualtenburg way" well beyond our borders and jurisdiction; it's a fascinating step to take.

To be able to successfully project a positive, encouraging, and attractive image of Neualtenburg, the CoC has to start by presenting the good reputation of Neualtenburg and the high standing of its citizens, their virtues and honourable conduct. It's not surprising that we keep attracting a certain type of personality — hard-working citizens, their heads crammed full with interesting projects, their ability to provide their labour, know-how, and spare time to commit to long-term goals — because they fully know that in Neualtenburg they don't have just a "voice", but they can be active participants in the construction of this society. Their ideas don't become "opinions"; instead, they become "law". The difference is clear for the ones choosing to start in Neualtenburg as opposed to doing things by themselves. We are the ultimate sandbox — the one where the participants are able to redefine how many grains of sand you are allowed to use from the available pool.

This is not news to either of us; that's the way Neualtenburg has started, and that's the way it has grown to the current point.

However, Neualtenburg's weakest link is, in my opinion, its immersion inside the chaos of SL-at-large. This "chaos" has one particular feature which is very typical of almost all online communities on the Internet: while everyone knows articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by heart (freedom of expression and freedom of association), nobody cares about article 30 — that no one is allowed to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

In particular, the freedom of expression is never absolute. It does not entitle anyone to speak in a form that violates simple articles like Article 12, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." And this is reinforced again under Art. 29 (2): "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society"

Disruptive behaviour that violates either articles 12 or 29 (2), even when claiming the protection of article 19 (freedom of expression), will not be tolerated. I hope that I've been quite clear on this — it's never a question of content, but always one of form. For the benefit of those that are confused: you're fully entitled to display constructive criticism, skeptical questioning, presenting all sorts of contrary opinions, and generally contradict or criticise anyone in Neualtenburg, the Government of Neualtenburg, or Neualtenburg itself. What you are not entitled to is to word your opinion in a way that it interferes with others' privacy, home, honour, or reputation. The SC will strive to protect both your freedom of expression and the reputation of the others you're attacking, by introducing appropriate measures. Both universal rights are equally important.

And I might disagree with you that striving for a balance between articles 12/29(2) and 19/20 is "right-wing"; restriction and abuse of freedom of speech are present on "left-wing" tactics as well. On the other hand, having been labeled so long by Prokofy & Friends as a totalitarian communist, I'm almost happy to take that comment as a compliment Homework: what do you call someone that is labeled as right-wing by left-wingers, and at the same time a left-winger by right-wingers? Why, a moderate centre, of course In centrum virtutis est

I think I wasn't clear. What I am trying to say is that every citizen (and visitor) possesses inalienable rights that are described in the founding documents. It is the SC's function to interpret and protect these rights. Given that popular speech never requires protection, I was specifically focusing on unpopular speech or dissent. Given that unpopular speech and dissent is an inalienable right (provided it does not simultaneously slander or incite violence), then by definition the SC must protect it. The SC should never act in a fashion that seeks to stifle dissent. In fact, since dissent is always under attack, it should actively protect it.

So, it doesn't matter if you personally prefer to be positive rather than negative, as a member of the SC you have to protect an unpopular dissenting minority from the majority when its rights are threatened.

N'burg has always been obsessed with PR to the point of being near Stepford citizens. I know, as I was a big part of it once. Now that I've had time to step away, I can see that the city and more specifically the SC should be protecting the right of others to criticize the government publicly. It's the difference between being part of a government or just being part of a corporation.

Think how refreshing it would be if instead of swarming to defend the project like locusts, N'burgers met a dissenting story with a shrug and statement that dissent is permitted in the city provided the speech is not libelous or incite others to violence. That's the sign of a successful governmental project.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, one thing is being critical and skeptical. That is what I classify as "positive criticism" and that should be encouraged as much as possible; if people don't point out our faults and mistakes, how can we endeavour to change them for the better?

The other thing is inciting hate speech, promoting dissent, griefing, forum trolling, flame wars, sensacionalistic miscommunication, and so on. Some use these forms of expression to emphasize their personal opinion against Neualtenburg, shielding under the umbrella of "freedom of expression" — an inalienable right that protects the content, but does not allow abusing the form.

Once upon a time, one very wise person wrote the following paragraph:

Concrete examples of forms of expression that will not be protected are personal insults, hate speech, and griefing. All are forms of expression which are abusive, defamitory, or injurious to other people.

Can you guess who it was?

/103/f7/27882/1.html#post278087

I still adhere to the philosophy of that post. These forms of expression will not be protected or even tolerated.

And don't forget that verbal violence is a form of violence as well — mostly so, in a world which is mostly text-based.

I have two issues with the list above. First, you have lumped together a list of descriptives that are widely separated in their potential to do harm. Second, some of the items on this list have the potential to in fact be beneficial. You then follow the list with a quote of mine, that falsely gives the appearance that I have spoken out against the very thing I'm trying to promote. (I love that quote by the way. It was the result of several attempts to explain to people what should and shouldn't be protected expression in a concise but accurate way.)

In regard to lumping descriptives, dissent is not intrinsically harmful. In fact, in the face of a corrupt government, dissent can be beneficial, despite it being painful for the government to hear. Further, in order for speech to be unprotected it must cause immediate and unambiguous harm such as a call to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, or libel. Dissent and sensationalistic communication instead fall into the category of difficult to hear, which is protected speech.

This is reflected in most free-speech laws in the West and should be in N'burg as well.

This is a standard argument used by those who wish to suppress speech that offends them by claiming this speech does some kind of metaphysical harm to them, as if the words themselves cause damage to their psyche equitable to a physical attack. The problem with such arguments is that there is no true immediate and unambiguous harm and what is difficult to hear varies from person to person.

So, I submit that your support of the above argument and lumping of forbidden speech in with difficult-to-hear speech is specifically because you wish to stifle dissent in the city. Specifically you wish to prevent individuals from being able to create bad press for N'burg.

As proof, I submit that there was anger over my thread here, however similar posts such as this that return the favor to the dissenter are ignored. What you have then is a policy that frowns upon "sensationalistic miscommunication" generally but only prosecutes expression which is negative for the city. It is the beginning of an unspoken (and possibly unconscious) dissent-suppression agenda.

Finally, to tie everything together with an example from this week, those who dissent, despite dissent being a form of permitted expression, are often retaliated against using expression which is forbidden. A perfect example is the personal attacks, illegal banning, and libel I endured from N'burgers in the N'burg and SL forums for simply trying to express my concern over a constitutional amendment. Note that I have received more scrutiny for my expression (because its dissent) than the libelous statements ("terrorist" printed in the N'burg forum.

The SC is investing more time thinking about how to stop future dissent then punishing the libel and personal attacks that exist in its own forums. (That previous sentence was dissent. )

~Ulrika~

First these forums are not "ours", they are the sole propriety of Linden Lab, although the SC is allegedly entrusted to moderate them according to the same standards of Neualtenburg.

Secondly, I may not have been precise with the use of the word "dissent", and bear with me, as English is just my third language, and I often fail to capture the nuances of interpretation. I've emplyed dissent as meaning "discord":

Synonyms: conflict, discordance, dissension, discord, dissidence, disunity, friction, schism, strife, variance, war, warfare
Related Words: clash, collision, competition, contention; altercation, argument, bicker, brawl, debate, disagreement, dispute, falling-out, fight, hassle, jar, quarrel, row, run-in, scrap, spat, squabble, tiff, wrangle; incompatibility, incongruity, inconsistency, inconsonance; animosity, antagonism, antipathy, enmity, hostility, ill will, rancor

You're using a much softer (but perfectly acceptable) version of "dissent", namely, simply to mean "a conflict of opinions", which has absolutely no pejorative meaning. I naturally agree that preserving the difference of opinions is crucial, and I'll promote and protect that universal right. My apologies if I was not being very clear in that regard; I might have been a bit harsher than usual because of a wrong interpretation of your words.

Thirdly, the way the forums are supposed to be moderated is also a matter of personal style, choice, and ethics. Being assumedly of the "old USENET school", moderation should never be pro-active, but reactive: posts are to be deleted/edited only if there is a formal claim to the effect.

I'm well aware that this is not the tradition on the Linden forums (the RezMods are allowed to delete other people's posts left and right at their whim) or at other types of forums. Moderation is often seen as a super-weapon that allows people to override the freedom of speech of others. Well, I don't see it that way; libel/defamation is only effective if the offended party files a claim. If they ignore the fact they're being attacked, nobody — even a moderator — should have the right to remove their posts, just because the language is "offensive".

I would probably just draw upon two special cases — since these are, indeed, Linden forums — which is "hate speech" and "mature content", forbidden by the Lindens. Where exactly should "offensive speech" be separated from "hate speech" is never clear, and needs often subtle interpretations. "Let's all kill Gwyn" is hate speech. "Gwyn is a bloody-minded, stubborn idiot" is just offensive speech — if, in this case, Gwyn takes offense. If Gwyn does not take offense at that message, it should be left on the forums for all to see. Unfortunately, the dividing line is never so clear in reality — the extremist example is, sadly, the one that is rarely, if ever, found.

The old school also uses an approach not unlike the Lindens method of sanctioning. First, you're encouraged to remove your own posts containing offensive language, after someone has complained; if you fail to comply, your post is edited (not deleted) on the parts that are offensive, and you're given fair warning and a light sanction; if you persist, you get a temporary ban/suspension; and if you recur, you're permabanned. These are all decade-old methods for dealing with misbeaving individuals, but I admit that I'm biased towards the school. Others may truthfully believe that nowadays people need much harder measures.

To restate: The difference between the old USENET school and the contemporary school is that the old school would ignore offensive speech until someone effectively emailed the moderator to remove the post; the contemporary school of happy deleting would be pro-active and delete the post first, and ask questions later. Frankly, both approaches are possible, and they can co-exist, since no one was presented with the clear guidelines on which approach is better.

So, yes, I'm much more worried about the way the name of Neualtenburg is slandered publicly — not only on the Linden forums (read by a handful people), but on blogs, the in-world media, in-world discussions, but even beyond that, on the non-SL media as well. To the best of my knowledge, there were two requests to the moderators of this forum for removing abusive speech; in one case, I agreed to contact the author to remove the offending content, and the author complied; on the other case, it was clearly a prank and a parody, and I ignored it completely.

One of the reasons I've never accepted the repeated appeals of both Jeska and Robin to become a RezMod is that I truly believe that the old school of the USENET days, with its clearly-defined (but unwritten) rules of netiquette, are far better than the current "expectation" that moderators delete everything on sight that might be offensive for others. I'm sure I'm too soft and understanding for dealing with the contemporary rules.

On the other hand, for those that have had the patience of reading my replies on the myriad forums outside SL where I irregularly participate, I'm rather harsh and aggressive where the good name of Linden Lab and its platform, Second Life, are publicly defamed with plain lies. This is something that I personally will do regarding Neualtenburg as well — at least, of course, until someone in the City will prevent me effectively to do so My "official" opinion regarding Neualtenburg is only worth as much as the branches of Government allow me to express it; as a matter of fact, the notion of PR for Neualtenburg is now in the hands of Kendra as head of the Chamber of Commerce, and it should be her to define some guidelines on how we should worry about the "outer image" of Neualtenburg, not me.

So at the end of a multithread discussion on protected speech we're essentially in agreement. Isn't that just like the forums?

As for the word "dissent", it's used often in political circles (especially the left) to refer to a conflict of opinion with authority. Search for "dissent" on Google and you'll pull up a list of progressive magazines and organizations.

~Ulrika~

Yes, I did so — and found out that my use of "dissent" is not the only one possible, thus my previous post.

It's like Linden Lab shutting down "delinquent" users when they don't pay. "Delinquency" is something I'm used to tag to criminals and I always thought that LL was really pushing it too far when someone's credit card wasn't charged properly for some reason. Ah well, another one I've learned the hard way

I found something quite amusing. While doing research for another thread I found a transcript with you using "dissent" correctly, mentioning in jest how dissenters should be shot on sight, and then negating the humor by supporting the complete freedom to dissent. Now that is quite a timely and amusing find given the topic of this thread!

~Ulrika~

Yes, in that meeting, the context of "dissenting opinion" was clear to me.

Ulrika,

Did you *really* do a search on 'dissent' in all of the threads in which Gwyneth participated, merely to try to catch her out?

No, of course you didn't.

I really didn't. I was doing research for the upcoming hearing on forum moderation for this thread (check out the huge amount of supporting material I dug up for it). While searching in the forums for the thread where I stated the SC must be in control of moderation (seen here), I found the old 29 Jan 2006 RA transcript with the mentioned quote.

What's fascinating is, that that single transcript contains elements of all three major discussions going on in the N'burg forums right now. It contains information on the SC's role in moderation, the support for dissent in the city, and discussions about changing the Constitution. Incredibly, many of the points I've brought up are present in that very transcript with other individuals arguing my same points -- some of which are now arguing the other side of the argument! Needless to say it was an amazing find and a link to the transcript was placed in all three current discussion threads including this one.

~Ulrika~