SC Meeting transaction logs posted to Wiki

The logs of the last SC meeting (May, 21st) was posted to the Wiki as well.

Sadly, due to some limitations on the size of the logs, the meeting before last was not totally posted (or rather, it is broken — you can't read it all). I've broken it into multiple pages after the first. Sorry for the delay on that.

Whoa! Now that was an SC meeting. A member of the SC was censured for engaging in the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of another person's hardwork and a trial was scheduled. Foreigners have had the right to due process restored, invalidating the earlier decision made by the N'burg kangaroo court. A formal trial adhering to the constitution has been scheduled. Finally, the GM was censured for violating N3-10 in spirit with a hearing to discuss whether or not a trial is warranted.

This finally lends credibility to the idea that the city is a real government holding all individuals equal before the law, instead of a government role-playing sim. Either that or all those critical issues were ignored and the SC spent the entire time waxing technocratic about RA seat replacement rules while ignoring the elephant sitting in the room with them.

It's just a lot of role playing at this point, isn't it?

~Ulrika~

Now they wish to mandate how factions fill seats on the RA, with zero regard that Neaultenburg has always been about factions and not a popularity contest.

I'm appalled.

Your example of how to treat outsiders is an excellent precedent. 'Not a citizen? Beat it!'

It is a sad time for the city. It seems to be expending its credibility faster than it earns it.

~Ulrika~

'cuse me, Ulrika.... why do we give a damn about your opinion now, again?

Off the top of my head, I'd say that it's because I'm the quintessential virtual-world politico that has been (for years) and will always continue to be involved in SL governmental experimentation. I also imagine that I'll be asked about this project and how it compares to current and future projects. As an authority on the subject, I will provide my detailed opinion (usually with lots of links to the forum and wikipedia).

However, that's just a selfish motivator for you. In reality, I'd say there exists a moral obligation to assign worth to all well-thought-out opinions and conversely an ethical transgression to vilify individuals and their ideas for selfish gain.

Mmm. Every reply to a snarky one-line post is a chance for me to dive into philosophy.

~Ulrika~

Personal attacks are no longer tolerated in the Neualtenburg Forums.

Personal attacks are no longer tolerated in the Neualtenburg forums.

Pointing out a historical fact is not a personal attack. It was in response to her post about how unfairly she is being treated. It's rediculous for her to expect special treatment after the way she acted.

The fact is she gave no regard to those who were not citizens, even blocking their ability to post in this forum is a historical fact that can't be swept under the rug. The fact her posts are not removed should bode well for the current government. These are people who can control their emotions. They don't act out of malice. She should be thanking them.

Kevn, you told someone because they aren't a citizen to "beat it." I did not delete your post (as I very well could have done), I simply warned you about heading down a road you don't wish to head down. Trust me on that.

If Ulrika's posts were removed, I would restore them, unless they become (like your's) personal attacks.

Accusing Ulrika of acting out of malice and an unabilty to control emotions is further personal attack. This is your second warning. If you go for three I will begin deleting your posts.

There have been multiple reports of personal attacks on both sides of this debate on this thread.

It would help if we didn't derail a simple thread about the minutes of a meeting with unrelated personal agendas.

I recognize YOUR authority in this forum. I will avoid further discussion outside the OP's reason for creating this thread. Thank you for not threatening people with whom you disagree.

I would suggest you recognize mine, Kevn. It's quite real and backed by the SC.

Really? I have the same reports sent to me and I've seen only 3 reports. One against each offender.

Well (IMO), multiple reports (3) from both sides of the argument (2); apologies if that wasn't clear. Please lets not get into inter-moderator arguing about whose on what "side" or who reported what. I think it's very bad form and pointless besides.

I promised a while back not to upset you, so with that I'll hold my fingers from typing something you would probably find upsetting.

then what did you bring it up for?

good call.

God gave me the gift of spiritual discernment.

I got mine from my Mom

God doesn't exist.

Prove it.

The Proof

Really, if you want all to discuss theology, please open your own threads under the General Topics (or eventually the Thinkers' group) where this kind of discussion is more appropriate.