Object Returns and Ownership

Yes. As the author of the law, I can attest that your interpretation is correct. Above all, whether one is deleting structures, replacing textures, or reverse-engineering work, it never hurts to ask. Perhaps this law should be amended to be more restrictive in its wording.

Another issue that this has brought up is conflict of interest. Given that it is the SC's job is to police the actions of others what does one do when it a member of the SC itself is engaging in the suspect behavior? I think it would be wise to separate roles and responsibilities in the city now that it's grown. For instance, one should require a master-level standing in the Guild in order be a sim manager. This master-level requirement would then preclude these individuals from serving in other branches. One could even pass a bill that says the sim owner and managers cannot hold any office. These are just a couple of examples.

Would a citizen like to take a stab at writing up a conflict-of-interest bill?

~Ulrika~

Not what you said to me just yesterday when we were talking about how difficult it was to place them. Of course there was, Ulrika had threatened to delete them.

I can't speak for why the GM decided what she did but there are very simple clear reasons why she may have.

For instance in the past when Ulrika had threatened to leave and take all her stuff with her, you have followed suit with a similar "departure ultimatuum" or declaration. It seems to me that there was a real possibility that Ulrika as owner could have decimated the city. It also seems to me that there was a real possibility of you following suit by leaving yourself rather than staying around to rebuild. It was only possible to recreate the walls the sidewalks and the buildings and keep the same character, style and location by replacing them while the old ones were still in place. To do so after they have been deleted and both you and Ulrika had left and taken the city builds with you would have created an impossible situation. This is of course speculation and as I said these are *my* views not anything I know about that was in the GM's mind, but any reasonable person could see it this way IMO.

I don't mean to make it personal, and I don't like to keep harping on your relationship to Ulrika, but how prudent is it if one is responsible for the city infrastructure to leave it open to attack in that way? To make it possible for the majority of the city infrastructure to disappear overnight? You obviously don't see it as a possibility but others do.

You have a threat of an attack from a non-citizen to destroy large parts of the city and if this in fact happens, your only reliance is on the best friend of the self same attacker to hang around and fix the things that are deleted? When she herself has shown in the past that she "sides" with the attacker and often threatens to leave herself? I repeat my assertion that this is simply not sensible to suggest that this is a reasonable course of action. It was a prudent thing to "hedge the bets" as it were and recreate the stuff before it was deleted by our terrorist founder.

IMO most anyone would have done the same. Yet now, in typical Ulrika fashion we are roasting the GM alive in a public forum for making what is essentially an eminently sensible decision based on an Ulrika defined technicality of the founding documents.

By all means let us focus on one word in the philosophical direction of one clause of one document written by the very person that provided this tangible threat to our city and its very continuance in the first place.

I am not suggesting that the law does not apply or that it should not be followed in all cases, but I find your defense specious and motivated not by adherence to law and the constitution but again by your loyalty to your friend. It seems to me that your arguments are merely filler to justify your already existing position on Ulrika, your "bias" if you will.

Your motivations are personal. You seem more concerned with the "historical" nature of your builds and your personal authority and sway than you are with the constitution IMO.

The first time you do it --it's damn hard. It's annoying as well. For me an hour represents a long time.

Ulrika did not threaten to take the walls. That's farcical. She has stipulated many times that the walls were my work and not in question.



Then why are you attempting to speak for the GM? I do know this, I'd have expected a member of the SC to be more familiar with the constitutional violations that were being committed.



I said Altenburg would secede. Much as Aliasi has functionally seceded. Meaning I was going to build walls surrounding Altenburg and declare myself seperate from the farce that was being made of the Neualtenburg Government.

My position was that of a Constitutional Loyalist who was barricading her city against Coup 'detat by rogue elements of the N'burg Government.

I didn't issue an ultimatum as is mispercieved, and when I did think I might leave actually told the N'burg Government I would give them my lands as long as they would let me retain my IP rights on Altenburg.

The time you mention previously surrounding Ulrika's departure --I actually announced my departure prior to Ulrika --and it involved hurt feelings between Ulrika and myself that we have since amicably patched up.

For you to use that instance as a prrof that I am somehow Ulrika's puppet is laughable --as my leaving at that time was because of a squabble I was having with Ulrika.



And your actions were illegal...and I might add insulting to me personally.




Yes --these mysterious others. These shadowy figures that nobody names.



Well you had best form a tribunal to oust me if I'm that much of a threat. I could do anything at any moment couldn't I?

BOO!
haha did I scare you?



I see no roast of the GM going on. I see a discussion of how the GM acted in violation of the Constitution and an attempt to figure out how that can be prevented in the future.

The pungeant smell of roasted Kendra is, however, wafting in the air like a pig at a Luau.



Yeah --what's a silly old Constitution for anyways.?



I'm not the one with the bias concerning Ulrika, dear. You are.




Considering you are currently a member of the SC involved with subverting the Constitution, I'll take your critique of my intentions with a grain of salt.