Doubleyew Tee Eff

bah

I would ask the moderators who are members of the SC to delete the above post for obvious reasons.

I love ya, KB --but that's wayyyyy out of bounds.

I could do it myself as a moderator of this board, but feel it should be done by an SC member and not just by one of the board's co-founders.

The other co-founder being Ulrika. Just sayin'

...

Given that Aliasi has resigned her government posts, Gwyn isthe only person actually empowered to moderate this forum who is still part of the SC. If you believe the matter to be urgent, you may wish to contact her directly.

i.e., Gwyn.

You and I have very different views of what happened. I will address my points at the hearing. The forums have obviously become too out of control to effectively make my case.

This is a good example of how the City can operate as an ad-hoc direct democracy, when faced with adversity, and why a strong and agile SC is needed to prevent it. This thread and similarly themed posts in the other thread are a repeat of what happened months ago, when a majority of citizens (including government officials from all branches) demanded my departure. Despite the fact that departure ultimatums are forbidden in the constitution, no SC members stepped in to moderate the forum discussion or point out the transgression.

After all, if you look at my posts, I came here for an important dialogue concerning the Constitution -- nothing wrong with that. I'm also here to settle the IP issue which was unresolved during my ejection/departure. How it's handled will be a test of whether the City is rule by mob or a government. After that I can rest in peace.

~Ulrika~

...until you come back again, of course.

I'm already dead. You are speaking with the ghost of Ulrika who returned to complete unfinished business. When it is done, I will rest in peace.

~Ulrika~

You mean like Freddy Krueger?

I can see it now... Ulrika's Revenge, followed by Ulrika is Dead: The Final Nightmare, followed by Ulrika: A New Nightmare, and finally Ulrika vs. Prokofy.

I'd pay the price of a movie ticket to watch the last one.

I was going to post this fun picture below but I can't get inline images to work nor can I figure out how to attach images like before. I guess things changed in the forum during my absence.



~Ulrika~

Take a hint then.

Keltrien, you're out of line. I'd like you to review your post and edit all offending remarks to Ulrika.

Or else I might have to do that for you

May I also remind you that any threat of leaving Neualtenburg is a constitutional violation. Somehow, this is the less enforced rule in the whole Neualtenburg; it's no matter if your name is Ulrika Zugzwang, Kendra Bancroft, or Keltrien Baker, you are specifically forbidden to "threaten to depart" in an "or else" scenario (usually expressed as "I will depart if this doesn't happen according to my personal wishes".

If you don't agree with the limitation on setting this kind of ultimatums, you're welcome to submit a proposal to the RA to make an amendment to the Constitution to that effect. Until then, the rule stands.

Last but not least, the first paragraph cannot be interpreted as being a limitation on your freedom of speech.

... it's against the rules to issue an ultimatum?

Yes, Rickard:


This was created to protect citizens from having members of Government to put pressure on them to go away; and, contrariwise, to stop citizens from using departure ultimatums as a political tool against the government.

The reasoning behind this is actually simple. Neualtenburg survives thanks to the monthly fees paid by citizens for ownership of deeded land. In a sense, citizens have a "hold" onto their government, as by leaving Neualtenburg, they're able to force it to a finantial loss and the unability to sustain the cost of the sim. Now, a big enough group that "threatens to leave" has thus the ability to hold the government in check: "either you do what we wish, or we go away, and you won't be able to pay for the island, and we all lose, ha ha".

This was naturally viewed as an unfair "weapon" to be wielded by citizens — and a very foolish one to be used by a Government (literally shooting one's foot). While the precise interpretation of this constitutional item is left to the SC — which might change in time — the current interpretation is mostly that the "departure ultimatum" cannot be used as a form of pressure.

Other forms of protest exist — rallies, putting up signs, posting in the forums, setting up sites with complaints, invading the RA, civil disobedience, you name it, it's up to the creativity of citizens to exert other forms of pressure. As a matter of fact, some very creative forms have already been used in the past

Excellent. Now that's what a strong SC can do for a group. I've come to realize that the Lindens act much like the SC in N'burg should. An impartial group that enforces founding documents to the letter.

~Ulrika~

I think we've debated this to death and it's become divisive. Get the vote done and this issue behind us. If it passes and turns out not to work, it can be revisited. Nothing is undoable, even Ulrika's departure.

We had a civilized debate until our amicus curiae showed up. Let's return to that.