Diannes Last post for a while ... Yay!

This message has been taken from the other thread and posted here as a new thread because I was concerned about the old thread being so old and long that no one would read it. Apologies for those terribly offended by this etc....

Hi Gwyn,

Apologies for the late reply, hope you read it.
It's way long!.. and personal too

I have been seriously disillusioned about certain things lately and not been posting on this thread much as I can't see much point to it. I am tired of talking to myself for the most part and I am certain that most folks here are tired of listening to me go on about things.

I guess no one "got" what I was saying much but ...

I think the basic set-up is fine and the reciprocal "bill-verification" and impeachment proceedings are a fine way to set up those "checks and balances" that we all talk about. However I don't think the SC or the AC should be "in control" or that they should "control" the RA, because the RA is the elected assembly (the democratic part), and the other two are not. To me this is what democracy is all about, having the elected folks in charge of things.

I am not proposing some "new" setup or "new system." My entire first three or four posts were about correcting the language in the founding documents so that the system that we thought was there, actaully was there. It was really about some sloppy writing that was getting in the way of what I thought was the apparent meaning of the documents. Because I could not simply assume that the document was sloppily written, I had to ask the questions about what was intended by a particular passage, or give opinions (informed ones), on what a particular passage could mean for our naiscant political state.

It turns out that now it seems I was right about what I thought the documents were trying to portray, and since no-one has yet poked any holes in my "corrections" (except to simply gain-say them), I think it was a good exercise to do it. And although it bothers me that I seem to have lost some potential new friends, I would do it all again.

Given the system that we now know so well, I would argue further -- and I have always said this was a completely seperate argument from that I was making about the text errors -- that the vetos should be removed because the system would actually be closer to RL and possibly function better without them.

In RL, the kind of vetos we have built in to our system are very rare IMO, and almost completely non-existant in constitutional democracies. The veto of the president of the US is one of the few exceptions, and if you look it up, (I quoted the reference in a preious post), even *that* veto is and was originally concieved as a kind of "change it and send it back" clause, not an actual, absolute veto as we have in our system. Vetos of that kind are usually military, or regal as they are meant to reflect an absolute dominance of a single entity over another entity.

That being said, it is entirely typical that the judicial branch of a democratically elected government has the ability to "stop" the government from passing an unconstitutional bill. But again, in RL, those judicial officials do not operate in a vaccum and are in fact appointed by the elected representatives. They work from within the system and their only power of "veto" is that they can rule on the constitutionality of a bill. It might be referred to as a veto by some, but in practice and in fact, it really is not. If a bill is "struck" on constitutional grounds, folks are usually meeting in back rooms and re-drafting a more constitutionaly minded version of the very same bill almost before the decision is announced.

This is the whole point of the judicial branches of a government holding the representative branches to the letter of the constitution is this revision of the bills. If you think about it for a second you will see that to veto a bill is really to get nowhere at all. For this reason, the simplistic "absolute" veto is not used much anymore. This is because of the extremely scary level of power it gives to the wielder of it and the non-existent return it gives in terms of actually producing legislation. It has been replaced almost everywhere by the "change it and send it back" kind of thinking, because that is the kind of thing that works and the kind of thing that should happen anyway.

With that veto, our system is a lot like having the entire judicial branch of the US government, the Supreme court, the Police, the FBI (and all the other spy agencies) rollled into one entity and to have that entity (self) appointed for life with an absolute veto over any bill passed that might affect their job. There is even a clause that, read one way, makes the SC "above the law" in that it removes the requirement for them to act constitutionaly in coming to their descisions. This is like saying the Supreme Court in th US can pretty much just just decide anything they want for almost any reason. There is no one I trust in RL or SL to be that saintly and good with that much power, and I think it foolish and unecessary to set up the system that way.

Without the veto, we still have a "revise and send back" clause that encourages the two groups to work together. If a bill is "bad" or specifically, if a bill is unconstitutional by the reckoning of the SC or poor fiscal whatever by the reasoning of the AC, then it cannot become law. They revise it and send it back. This can happen over and over again and can as effectively stop legislation as any veto can, but it also carries with it the requirement for dialogue and an intent that is more about cooperation than domination.

I know this is just a game and perhaps I am getting too serious about it, but I thought that was what we were doing here, getting serious about government in SL. As I also keep saying, everything is rosy now, but what of the future (assuming we have one), when there are multiple sims and many more people under the same government? The way the system is now it is totaly ripe for one or more charismatic personalities to arrive on the scene and control the whole works, it may never happen, but why would we want to set it up so that it might?

As I said at the top however, I really am sick of the whole discussion. I just wanted to post one more time in as clear a way as I could what I was trying to say, since for whatever reason, I dont think I have comunicated it very well.

At this point I could care less what is actually decided on this issue or if anything is decided at all. I am not a member of the RA or of any Nburg political party and I am unlikely to be asked to be a part of the SC or the AC even if I wanted to be because I am pretty sure that those folks are the ones that are the most mad at me.

Assuming I can keep my big mouth shut, I will exist merely as a spectator to the Neualtenburg political process, it will certainly be interesting to watch and I hope that everything goes as well as we have planned. If I haven't said it already, good luck to the new Representative Assembly, you have a job that I dont lust after at all!

--------

PS - The new friendly "Wilma" icon is intended to twist your subconcious minds into liking me again and agreeing with what I have to say.

Well, I agree with you on many points, but I'd like to understand just one thing... what is the difference between the "change it and send it back" thingy (assuming that it is compelling) and a "veto"? The issue for me is if the SC and/or the AC have compelling powers or just advisory ones. The original reasoning presumed that the powers were not only advisory, fomenting dialogue, but compelling as well. So far, what happened is that the veto was technically never used, but the SC has asked the RA to revise a few bills - and the RA agreed (in one case, the RA simply let the bill drop, ie. it wasn't passed into a law).

In my mind I don't see a difference between a compelling "change it and send it back" thingy and a "veto", except that "veto" is shorter to write

If there is a difference, I'll be glad to know it! After all, the way you put it:



... sounds exactly what I always thought the veto should be. Note that any veto must be based on a solid argument for employing it -- it's not to be used on a mere whim (or it would be the basis for an impeachment). No member of either the SC or the AC is allowed to veto anything "just because it wishes to do so". That way lies tyranny

As for you not posting any more, well, I know your feeling -- I have stopped posting for a while myself, a bit tired of using my own words, twisting them, and using it as arguments against the very same things I was trying to defend. Fortunately for me, this happened to me in the General forums and not in the Neualtenburg ones -- so I came back to Neualtenburg's forums instead. Although the tension in the past two weeks have been higher than usual here, it's still much less a stressing environment in the "jungle out there" (meaning the "other" forums...) -- but I guess you don't feel the same way

Ironically -- or perhaps not -- I actually proposed your name as a member of the SC There were several reasons for doing so:

1. Despite other people's views on your posts, it's unquestionable that you have taken some time to think your argumentation over. The SC should have people that make an effort to argue properly.
   
2. You made me re-read the Constitution (and I guess that I wasn't the only one doing so!) and see if it agreed with the idea I had of it. It made me question some points as well. In a way, the SC is supposed to be our "conscience", gently reminding the citizens when things are not being properly written down or incorrectly interpreted. Interpretation, after all, is what we demand of the SC.
   
3. Contrary views (either in the SC or any other body) are a good thing. That's why the SC has a procedure for dealing with conflicting opinions of its members - yes, it has a democratic way to vote on opinions - and I strongly felt that, like every other body, it should have a broader range of views and opinions.
   
4. The SC should always foment dialogue, and neither dissent, nor silence. This mostly means raising questions and discuss them openly. The past term, the SC really just "raised its voice publicly" on one issue (the finantial control of Neualtenburg). But it could have done more. I think that, unlike your "fears" of the contrary, the SC is much more "dormant" and condescending than you picture it to be (but then again, this is just my own opinion ), and much less interventive than it technically could be.
   
5. We should also have more members not aligned to any party in the SC
   

All in all, they were pretty good arguments for having a new SC member. I won't discuss publicly the reasons why you weren't accepted, but just let it stand for the record that at least I considered your nomination seriously enough.

Yikes! This is a dangerous post on so many levels!

First, by publicizing partial SC opinions directly to individuals you risk hurting feelings and pulling politics into the SC nomination process. The SC should make announcements through impersonal official group statements (called a Journal in the constitution), which could simply be a thread with a single post from each member stating their opinion.

Second, we never had an official vote on admission rather we shared a couple sentences by personal email. By stating your point of view and implying mine, you thus reveal information I sent to you by personal email. You know how much I like that.

Finally, Dianne was never discussed as a candidate for the SC in any email we shared or any official SC business that I can find. I found an email where you put forth two other candidates but not Dianne. If you can find it, please forward it to me.

~Ulrika~

As long as we're on the subject of becoming a member of the SC, I would say this list below is my personal requirements:

1. Candidates must demonstrate excellence in their fields for many months (at least one RA term) prior to an invitation to interview.
   
2. One or more large, well written, and unique works must be published in a primary SL forum and defended publicly.
   
3. The candidate must have demonstrated a history of understanding, interpreting, and protecting the constitution in its current form.
   
4. The candidate must make an oath to act in the best interest of the city and to uphold the constitution above all else.

As long as we're on the subject of Dianne's candidacy, I would say that her desire to modify the constitution and her dislike of investigation and enforcement would preclude her from joining. The reason is, that the SC has two roles. From the constitution, it states that the SC's governmental role is to interpret and enforce the constitution and its service roll is to resolve citizen disputes and moderate user forums and events.

It seems to me that her natural talent would be best used in the RA either as a member or a consultant to help direct or lobby for changes to the constitution and to prevent investigational abuses. She's definitely an excellent advocate for constitutional reform.

~Ulrika~

I stand corrected about Dianne not having been nominated in any way - and I offer my apologies to you both. It was a silly mistake. I had it on the Outbox of my Mail program - I have usually dozens of open emails there, writing on each one according to my moods, and sending them as I finish each one. But I never pressed the Send button on it, just the minimize one. I know, I shouldn't do that kind of stuff in parallel, but that's the way it is, I'm not good at serialising things

So, you're right -- you never got that email. Which, in a sense, it's even worse I was pretty confident that I had sent it to you (and some other people as well), but I never did. Well, it's pointless to weep over it now.

This only shows how little you can rely upon those nasty tools

Anyway, I never thought that the nomination procedures should be held in secret, since the last ones were simple posts on the threads, for all to see - but it makes some sense, after all. I wonder if we should do the same for the Guild as well. I have some people who have asked to become apprentices - I'll keep those names in secret as well, at least until the next Guild meeting.

Sorry about the idea I gave of "revealing too much information". It won't happen again.

On another point, I think I'm getting a bit too overstressed over "confidentiality issues". I'm a loudmouth - as it says in my title - and it's time I get over my dilemma: post things in the forums, allowing for the much valued transparency of the processes, but risking hurting other people's feelings in the process; or keep it all in secret, and being accused of withholding information? The answer, of course, is never "black & white" ("only the Sith deal in absolutes", but I find it increasingly harder to find where the dividing line is.

This was basically the very same dilemma I had a few months ago which led me to avoid the General and Land & Economy forums. Worse than that, when I started to miss where the dividing line was, I commited several mistakes in a row. I must be very, very sure of myself of where the "limits" are, when they're not "written", but assumed generally that everybody knows where they are. I'm not so good at "assuming" those limits. They are where my heart tells me they are -- but my heart very often fails me.

And please don't read any "political statements" in these words. I really am a bit tired of arguing every day over that, when I feel that the arguing is just wasting time, and not reaching any productive effort. There is still so much else to do in Neualtenburg, and I'll concentrate my efforts in Neualtenburg instead of in the forums...

That said and done, I'll go back to lurking mode for a few more months as well. It's far safer that way.

No problem.

I've just been getting it from all directions in this forum lately. When I saw your post, I was a bit worried that more punishment was right around the corner.

Personally, I'm a big fan of having everything done in public, with the exception of things that could hurt people's feelings or embarrass them. That's why I made the faction rankings in the constitution secret.

~Ulrika~