Object Returns and Ownership

we can't agree on everything

I think this is our first disagreement though.

Wow, more bullshit accusations based on lies from Ulrika Zugzwang.

Here you carefully repeat the accusation of "reverse engineering" and add a little twist of an implication that it is somehow illegal or immoral.

You imply that the choice of a roof was Kendra's and that I copied it, knowing full well that both walls are a copy of a RL wall complete with roof. Mine is actually closer to the original and much more lifelike however.

I have more artistic originality in my little finger than a creature like you has seen in her lifetime.

Wow, think much of yourself?

You make it sound here like you "allowed" the Guild Meister (who is actually in charge and well within her rights to make virtually any of these decisions alone), to do what you wanted her to do.

I bend over backwards, (and the GM too), to throw *you* an olive branch and all of a sudden you are the imperious peacemaker solving all our problems for us?

A real fairweather friend you are.

The RA is in charge of city layout --they must give permission for the Guild to change it.

I'm sorry you have become so self-involved not to see that I just defended your walls.

The point is, I could have easily brought the Gildemeister up on charges for going against the Constitution, but I didnt. Instead I brokered and arrangement that seemed to satisfy everyone. The fact is the Gildemeister is not well within her rights here according to the Constitution.

Apparently I'm only your friend if I agree with everything you say ::hrug:::

I do not need any "olive branches" thrown to me --I've done absolutely nothing wrong.


NL-3-10

Summary

The Guild shall be free to make modification to city structures on city land provided those modifications don't significantly alter the layout of the city or adversely affect the performance of the sim. Changes which affect the layout of the city or adversely affect the performance of the sim should be discussed publicly by the Guild, submitted as a bill, and then voted upon by the RA.


Philosophy

The philosophy behind this law is that it will allow members of the Guild to make changes to city structures when the creative urge strikes them while avoiding the delay associated with seeking an RA approval. In return any large changes to the city layout, including moving, replacing, renaming, rezoning, etc. city buildings, streets, lots, etc. will be approved in advance by the RA. The goal is to strike a balance between supporting creativity and protecting the existing structure of the city.

You have yet to actually defend my walls one iota and when you were the GM you would have done any of these changes in a heartbeat.

It is within the Guildmeisters purview to change and update structures in the city. Ulrikas argument is based on an interpretation of a single word in the "philosophical motivation" for a clause of the constitution.

She appointed me to make new walls which I did. At my own expense, on my own time and as a free donation to the Projekt. Seventeen completely original textures, most of them tile-able, in a set, made from source photographs of the actual walls and real bavarian castles. I even offered these textures to you.

I spent a week in the sandbox working on various prim designs seeing what worked and what didn't and what would fit in the exact space of the old walls. I ended up realising that the way you did it given the constraints was one of the best solutions there was (lets face it there are very few ways to build the same wall out of 10x10 squares.)

I thought that I would make the redesign less harsh and more "Nburg like" by emulating your style just a tad but my reward for giving you the nod in design greatness and trying to "fit" into your design ethic is to be accused of plagiarism and "reverse engineering." Great, thanks a lot.

The guildmeister, in consultation with other members of the government and with the full agreement of the heads of all branches of government decided to implement the new walls in order to head off the imminent threat that Ulrika was presenting to the city. You just don't see this because you refuse to see Ulrika as the threat that she is.

*I* defended you however (several times) and asked that you be consulted about the walls because I thought you would get upset. Yeah, your welcome.

I cannot speak for those that made the decision but the lack of consultation was most likely due to your continued, large and obvious bias towards Ulrika. You blind yourself to the obvious fact that her only purpose is the complete destruction of the Projekt.

When the walls were replaced and you complained, the GM out of pure kindness and consideration agreed to stop and give you a break. We then gingerly brokered an agreement that you be allowed to keep *your* walls in your area. Even though you have bitched at her in the past, *she* is the one that wanted to make sure that you "stayed with us" because we want you to be a part of the city. Yeah, your welcome for that too.

Then you have the gall to come on the forum and join in with the evil little troll to jump all over my walls? Calling them "reverse engineered" and implying that I copied them from you? And then implying that you would not "allow" us to alter *your* walls? Saying that the GM was acting autocratically and exceeding her authority? Illegally?

You have certainly learned at the feet of the evil master.

Your moderation of this forum (if they have still let you keep it), is hypocritical at best.

- You agreed to let your "zug-Zug" delete posts by Kevn that were totally innocuous simply because she hates Kevn. You did not complain about the injustice there nor censure her.

- You actually claim to believe that Sudanes reposting of Ulrikas own words was a "hateful personal attack" (your words!), yet you let your "zug-Zug" attack me and the entire government of Nburg day after day after day with out a single word of censure?

- You claim to be "for Neualtenburg," you claim to love the city and it's works and the idea of government, yet you let your so called friend piss all over everyone else on a daily basis?

Now is the time for another one of your trademark "I'm leaving" routines perhaps? But you can turn your back on us all you want, (after we have reached out our hands towards you) and it won't change the facts. People will always remember what you do and who you are, no matter if you walk away or not. Why not do the right thing and stay and help your friends get on with their lives and make Neualtenburg the sucess you know it can be?

Just the other day before Ulrika started her latest round of attacks you told me that you were "so happy that Neualtenburg was experiencing a resurgence." Does it make you happier now to see how Ulrika has destroyed so much of that in so short a time? Is this what you really want? To merely revel in the destruction of the city like "Zug-Zug" does?

I would defend you if you were being attacked by the likes of that thing that you call friend, why won't you defend me? If you are my friend as you once claimed to be, why do you remain silent as that thing publicly humiliates me and stomps all over everything you claim to love about Nburg?

Why not stay and be with people you can trust? Why side with someone who will stab you in the back once she is finished with us?

Last night was Walpurgisnacht, no?



I am neither German nor Bavarian but even I can appreciate the irony of that.

Kendra,

Since you will be unable to attend Wednesday, please explain how the current alterations change the city layout. The walls are where the walls were. The new Residential builds are where the old were. The streets are in the same place. I guess I just don't get how all of this is changing the layout.

In this very thread (scroll up, hon) I said I believed your source for the walls was the same as my source (Rothenburg Ob der Tauber) and that I didn't believe you reverse-engineered them.



What part of no major changes without the Guild submitting a bill to the RA for approval to you not get?



She had no business having you start that task without RA approval. Obviously you didn't share the same concerns for the time I spent making the original walls.




again --I not only haven't accused of reverse engineering the walls --I've stated clearly that I DON'T think you did at all.



I didnt accuse you of it --I said you were inspired by Rothenburg's walls --as was I.



Thats right. If not believeing Ulrika is a monster is a crime, then color me guilty as charged.



What should I thank you for? Defending me behind my back? I haven't attacked you, Dianne.




Nice... So Im judged a traitor because I stand up for my own principals. From my point of view not going by Governmental procedures and sidestepping the Constitution is a far greater danger than this chimeric version of Trotsky your making Ulrika out to be.

I'll choose my own friends thankyou very much. You just cant stand that I agree with her points and yet I'm still in Nburg.

Wanna throw me out? Go ahead and try.




really? well thank you for making me feel like a fucking pariah in a city that I fucking built.



I said nothing of the sort --as my own posts in this very thread will show.

You have certainly learned at the feet of the evil master.



I had and still have no evidence that Ulrika even deleted the posts --they do not show up as being deleted.




Attacking a Government --and attacking a person are decidely different. I disagreed with her about the walls --but I agree with her about the fachwerk. So sue me.




I don't think you have any idea what Neualtenburg is anymore. Its not the buildings --it's THE CONSTITUTION. It's the people. And how do you suggest I stop Ulrika doing from what Ulrika will do? Frankly it's not my business what she does --or my concerns. I think she raises valid points. Apparently you disagree with me. Well guess what --that's okay.




Yes --I'm knocking myself out giving people free houses and rebuilding the Marktplatz because I dont care about Nburg. I'm fighting for a return to proper Governmental procedure because I dont care about Neualtenburg.




I dont impart those motives to Ulrika. I see her as trying to save Neualtenburg from collapse. The fact that people are now falling all over themselves to scapegoat her --and not satisfied attempt to scapegoat me doesn't particularly compel me to change my views.



I defended you where you were in the right. I didnt defend you where you were in the wrong. I'm funny like that.



It would appear you are the one currently with the knife at my back.





As I'm Jewish --it would appear more as Krystalnacht. No?

"n return any large changes to the city layout, . including moving, replacing, renaming, rezoning, etc. city buildings, streets, lots, etc. will be approved in advance by the RA The goal is to strike a balance between supporting creativity and protecting the existing structure of the city."

You are replacing historic City walls. City walls that were the very first things to be built in Neualtenburg.

Had this been approved by the RA I'd have no problem --but I'd also have had the opportunity to poit out that the creator of the walls was me (a fact Ulrika never disputed), and that they had historic value to the city.

Then the RA --representing the citizens would have had a chance to vote approval or nay.

You're being very mature and centered right now. It's impressive, in that you stand as the sole voice of reason among so much irrationality, immorality, and politicking. Amid childish mudslinging, unprincipled complicity, and rampant cronyism you alone have promoted an adherence to principles while simultaneously seeking compromise. You have shown an understanding and commitment to city law that is in excess of any single member of the current government. You are the sole individual in the city government I actually trust and have any remaining respect for.

I say that with mixed feelings because I admit I have fallen short as well. I have failed to live up to the kind of honest effort you've put into resolving this. It's either my hell-bent leftist desire to seek justice at all cost or simply a lack of maturity (perhaps the former is the result of the latter). Anyways, I will strive for that kind of behavior. Perhaps in time I can grow into it.

With that said, I think you could help me put together a compromise. I'll send you an email in a day or so with my remaining concerns and perhaps we could put together a solution amongst ourselves that we can later present to the faceless oligarchy that controls the city behind the scenes. You can serve as an arbitrator. What do you think?

~Ulrika~

I am going to agree wtih Kendra on this one. From my reading of NL 3-10, replacing a significant city structure would require the authorization of the RA. I would say that the city walls constitute a major city structure. That being said, don't read this as an attack on the design charecteristics of the new walls. I do like the new wood textures and some of the accents that were incorporated into the structure. It just seems like the RA should have probably been considered during the project, that's all.

I will admit it is right on the edge in a sense, as the structure of the wall is very similar, so it is not like you are tearing down the wall and putting up a chain link fence or something radically different. However, the law does seem to fall on the side of consluting with the RA in this case, or at least in my interpretation.

At this point, since this thread is once more being reported, I would like to remind every participant that new rounds of personal attacks, name calling, and public defamation will not be tolerated.

The purpose of this whole thread was initially to speculate why in-world objects were being deleted, and if they were legitimately deleted or not. It should be the purpose of the Government (at this point, the RA and the Guild) to further provide explanations and reasons for them. Misunderstandings caused through personal interpretations based in an incomplete assessment of the facts only lead to further accusations and name-calling, and while naturally public speculation on the facts is an expression of your freedom of speech, public accusations and attacks resulting from those speculations are not allowed.

Until there is an official statement (which I suppose to be forthcoming) by the Guild and the RA to explain the reasons for "object deleting and ownership", there is absolutely no need to proceed with this type of public personal attacks.

I'd be happy to help you work out a compromise to put before the three branches of Government, with the proviso that all partys agree to honor the outcomes of this compromise, and that the whole thing is completely and totally transparent.

Having said that It is high time we all recognize that the purpose of The Constitution is to hold us all accountable to what we have already agreed to. It is in effect the original Compromise.

I would encourage Brian, Kendra or any other citizen who believes RA approval is required to draft a bill and submit it. Tomorrow night's agenda is open until noon.

Claude. It doesn't require a bill. It's already in the Constitution as clear and pure as the driven snow.

What needs to be done is for the Guild to submit a bill to the RA for the changes they'd like to make. Sudane needs to submit a bill. Not me.

Frankly I'm astonished this is even at issue. During my tenure as GM I always waited for RA approval on any changes I made. Sheeeeesh we had 2 months of deliberation on whether or not I could change the floors and walls of the biergarten.

This is for the Scientific Council to decide. As has been stated countless times already, appeals to the SC through note card or email; impeachment and election of government officials are the recognised mechanisms through which citizens exert influence on the interpretation of the Constitution. Any forum bickering on the basis of an individual citizen's own interpretation is pointless.


Just a few facts, which can be ascertained from looking at the Neualtenburg wiki and the forum history:

1) The Construction Authority Act of October 2005 reads as giving Die Gildemeister the authority to implement changes to structures of Neualtenburg as long as these changes do not significantly alter the layout of the city or affect adversely the performance of the sim.
Reference: http://aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-index.php?page=NL+3-10


2) According to forum history, when you were Die Gildemeister you claimed to have authority to progress to altering the floor and the walls of the Biergarten immediately after bill 3-10 was passed into law. You stated that you interpreted the new Construction Authority Act as allowing you to make changes to the city as long as they did not interfer with the layout of the sim:
Reference: /103/7a/64274/1.html#post672326


Frankly, so am I.

It is clear to me that the wholesale changes to the city's infrastructure which are under discussion were counter to city law. My reasons are those as already outlined by Kendra and Brian in this thread.

What to do about it? In my opinion the RA needs to exercise its prerogative by seeking explanation for these actions from the Guildmaster at tomorrow's RA meeting. The explanation could be that these actions were taken in extremis in response to the perceived threat to the city. It would be up to the RA then to decide whether the explanation was adequate and either ratify the Guildmaster's actions or censure them.

I'd like this item put on the agenda for tomorrow's RA meeting.

I would like to point out that references to what a previous Guildmaster may or may not have done have limited relevance (again, in my opinion). Two wrongs do not make a right after all!

In all fairness, since I posted claiming to be presenting facts I should elaborate on my brief quotation of act 3-10. The accompanying 'philosophy' states that any replacement of city buildings is considered "a change affecting the city layout", which "will be approved in advance by the RA."


I did not mean to imply that Kendra was doing something wrong when interpreting Act 3-10 to grant her power to replace floor and walls of the Bierstube. My example was meant to illustrate a permitted precedence of the guildmaster exerting her discretion to replace (parts) of a building with the remit found in 3-10. Only afterwards did I become attentive of the qualifying remarks made in the 'philosophy' section.

I second your recommendations, Patroklus.

But it fails to serve your purpose as a precident, and rather serves mine.

The precident illustrates precisely what I'm saying.

As Gildemeister, though I percieved I had authority --the RA disagreed and I waited to perform the service until I had RA approval.

The precedent in my view supports neither interpretation. Rather more the qualifying statements made in the philosophy section support the interpretation that the RA should approve of replacement of the city walls.


I find it difficult to understand how there is any benefit in having prior authorisation to make minor changes to city structures as a guild member if one must nevertheless obtain prior confirmation from the RA as a collective that one's interpretation is valid before proceeding with the changes. Perhaps we should elaborate even further on the definition of 'significant' in the act if you felt at the time that the wording in the philosophy was not precise enough to provide you with sufficient guidelines to progress with the work immediately.

They don't need prior confirmation, they need to submit a bill requesting that they can make changes. The RA can then approve or disapprove of that bill. That's the process.

The Constitution is not murky on this.

The point is --that even if I did claim authority as Gildemeister at that time, I was told --by Sudane no less --that I did NOT have that authority and needed asccording to procedure await approval of the RA.

As Gildemeister I often argued for increased authority --what I never did was simply take it.

The Guild is at fault here, clearly and unambiguously according to our own Constitution.
While everyone is up in arms about buildings being replaced --I'm busy trying to save our Constitution from being replaced.

I don't see a need to center the discussion on issues of personality and I certainly do not see the benefit to the community of wanting to turn every little technical discussion into a question of 'defending the constitution.'

As I see it, we are debating the issue of whether act 3-10 is sufficient to give Die Gildemeister a relatively well-defined prior authorisation to make alterations to city structures as she deems necessary in light of the circumstances. I think the elaboration given in the philosophy is quite detailed but we might want to look into the feasibility of explicitly bestowing further powers to the Gildemeister to act in response to sudden, unforeseen circumstances necessitating a quick remedy.

I don't see where I've said anything personal or about personality. Where are you getting that?

As far as your suggestion? Submit a bill.

No matter what was done, Ulrika would have found fault with it though.

In this situation we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If significantly different walls were made, then its a "gigantic change without consultation," if walls were made that were the same as the old ones then it would be accusations of "IP crime."

The walls are very similar to what was there before and one of the many reasons that they are is that they were intended to fit into the same space and to be as small a change as possible. To make as little a ripple as possible and to be as non-radical a change as possible.

It ends up hinging on what you define as "replacement."

If the walls were merely re-textured, would that be a "replacement" or would it be an upgrade? If the prims were in exactly the same shape and exactly the same spot only with a different owner (made by someone who didn't threaten to delete them), would that be a "replacement?"

In that case, the wall would still be there and still be the same shape (albeit plywood textured.) It would (technically) be completely "replaced" but still be there in exactly the same spot and exactly the same shape.

Even more interestingly, the "layout of the city" (which IMO is the central thrust of NL 3-10 and the philosophical direction for it as well) would not be changed one iota despite this hypothetical "replacement." So in that case its a replacement that isn't a really a replacement at all looked at that way.

In any case, accusations of "piracy" (which are being made anyway), would have been rampant if we had taken that approach and we would all be arguing and screaming for lawyers but over a different set of circumstances only. The problem isn't the possible technical violation of NL 3-10, but the personalities driving this debate.

To me it all hinges on Kendra. If she had been involved in the process, then the ownership could simply have been changed on the prims. She also has the textures for the old walls in her inventory.

However, given the imminent threat and the daily (no hourly!) accusations coming from Kendra's best friend Ulrika and given Kendras constant siding with Ulrika even when she clearly violates the LL TOS, the Nburg TOS, the forum rules, her word or the constitution, I think it was in retrospect a wise decision not to bring her in on this change. It is certainly understandable, whatever the final determination of the GM's actions are.

IMO, any normal unbiased outside observer could see the potential problem in defending the city against a possible attack by telling the best friend of the possible attacker what you plan to do to defend it. This is just common sense, or should I say it is non-sense to suggest that it be done.

Something had to be done to defend the city from an imminent and publicly stated threat made by a non-citizen to delete large amounts of the city and I for one applaud the current GM for taking action. I think she did so in as delicate a fashion as possible and with great consideration for all concerned.

speculation.



The walls were not in dispute by Ulrika as they were created by me. Even if she had deleted them, since I was the creator of said walls, I could easily have replaced the entire structure in an hour.



I define replacement as replacement.




The walls did not need to be replaced. There was literally no reason to do so.




Your structures, while lovely, are not the structures that were the first things placed in Neualtenburg. They are not of historic value. We could debate whether or not historic value is an actual value in a digital world.



To me it's about lack of consideration for the creator of those walls, and decision of the Gildemeister to violate NL 3-10.




My creator tag was already on every single one of those walls. Of course I have the texture --I CREATED it. I would have loved to be involved in the process --but nobody told me that they planned to get rid of the original walls.



Yes --I'm quite aware of the fact that my friends now need Government approval.



Wow.



I disagree. Somebody quick! Fetch a fresh noose for Kendra.