Bill 4-26: Guild Construction Authority

Everyone was celebrating prematurely, I think. If I were you, I would create some alternative bills:

1. A clarification and strengthening of N 3-10.
   
2. A clear antipiracy and reverse-engineering bill.
   
3. A conflict of interest bill.

Originally the Guild was created to protect artisan's rights, however it is now doing quite the opposite. To repair it, one must simply pass laws that seek to strengthen consensus building and ethical behavior in regards to content creation.

~Ulrika~

Once a building becomes public it is no longer the Guild's building. It's a public work and must be protected as such.

I thought this was so obvious I completely misread this bill.

What is the point of having a public work if it is at the mercy of One Branch of Government? Particularly a group organized like the Guild , where you have what amounts to a corporate oligarchy.

It's just the typically negative way you are wording it.

It doesn't allow the Guild to do things "without permission," it gives them the permission.

It allows reasonable changes to city structures by the body empowered to maintain and create the city structures. It also clarifies the fuzzy "cover-all" language you used and makes the GM's job easier by letting her know exactly what the limits are.

That's a thought I had had before as well, and I'm glad the suggestions was favourably received. (As to the mechanics or politics of which group owns the objects, I can't say what would be best.)

What it allows is the possible rise finally of a Fascist State.

Should this have a clause "unless the guild has permission in writing from the owner of the land parcel", or similar?

Otherwise, if the guild produces, say, a house for someone and they later want to change a texture at the request of the landowner, they would be prohibited from doing so since that would be "altering a structure on privately-owned land that abides by its covenant".

The whole amendmant should be voted down.

I am in favor of strengthening NL 3-10 --not castrating it.

I think this is a really interesting proposal but it clearly needs more time for discussion. I propose that the RA defer a decision on this bill at their next meeting i.e. tomorrow and take it a week or two later to allow time for discussion.

I think we need to go back to first principles. What powers do we want the Guild to have in relation to the city's infrastructure?

FWIW, my take would be that we want the Guild to be empowered to make alterations without having to refer every texture change or prim reduction strategy to the RA for approval first. I'm thinking in particular of replacement of 512 textures with 256 or 128 to improve sim performance without changing the fundamental look and feel of the public spaces.

The new bill, as drafted, leaves some holes for interpretation and potential conflict. I will probably have a different understanding of modifications that "don't significantly alter the theme and layout of the city" from others in the city for example.

The budget point only muddies the waters, in my opinion. Surely all work on the sim (bar minor tidying up) should be paid and accounted for now? I thought that was the direction we were going in.

Travis (and others) made good points about clafifying who the work has been done for.

Per Kendra's request everything on the agenda is going to a seven day discussion and vote. I'm not that worried about overhasty action.

There are two issues here.

The first is, "How much lattitude should the guild be given?"

That one is pretty obvious. The underlying issue is the amount of protection and deference given to existing structures. Kendra seems to want changes to in place builds to be relatively difficult to approve, while supporters of 4-26 aren't as concerned with protecting particular objects from alteration.

I'm sorry you cannot support the bill, Kendra.

I hope no offense is taken here, FR --I really do applaud your initiative and following of procedure. It's a very well considered bill and very well written..I just don't support it's intent.

sorry

Natch, we must all vote according to what we believe in.

This discussion is inevitably framed by recent events and guild actions. I can't help thinking that a casual observer looking at the new and old roads and walls wouldn't notice the difference unless they were very observent. We notice because we look at them every day. Therefore what we're talking about is an object that looks very sinilar and performs the same function in the same place. The most significant change is in the ownership of the prims. I have difficulty accepting that the RA must approve a change which in essence changes prim ownership more than anything else, the other changes being quite subtle.

The law N 3-10 wasn't created to satisfy casual onlookers. It's goal is to seek consensus and support from those who contribute to the shared space. After all, it's not the Guild's land -- it's the people's.

~Ulrika~

What's interesting to me is that they're enfeebling the SC while empowering the Guild. It seems the RA exists to pass laws that satisfy immediate conflicts without vision for the future. In the future more protection must be taken to maintain the balance of power between branches. (Ulrika scribbles in her notebook.)

~Ulrika~

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

It's amazing how so much of your work requires so much explanation.

If the Guild Master is overstepping her power, she can be impeached. Like the members of the SC.

Though by that time the damage will have been done and buildings destroyed.

It wasn't simply an explanation of a law. Instead, the post contrasted the methodology used to determine a significant change in the original law and in Claude's rational. Do you have any comment on the appropriate benchmark that should be used to determine when a structure should or shouldn't be changed?

~Ulrika~

Exactly. The law is about adding a delay into the modification process to make sure those who have invested time and money in the sim approve of the changes.

~Ulrika~

This is true, which is why your idea of a repository of all public infrastructure is an appealing one. I would add though, that the SC can also do as much--if not more--damage, though it may be less tangible, before its members are impeached. Actually, the same can be said for the RA, I suppose.

The nice thing about this bill is that if passed, it is ordinary law. If the Guild oversteps itself, the SC can say it's illegal under the law. If the Guild does something the RA thinks is not good, but is actually *allowed* by this bill, the RA can vote to invalidate the bill, or replace it with a new one. That is, the RA is not giving the guild some power it cannot take away.

*shrug* I obviously think it's a sensible piece of legislation, since I wrote it.

I don't like the idea of the Guild having power to unilaterally change public works at it's whim. It makes what is already the most powerful branch even more powerful.

Yes. But the SC must be neutered and the AC empowered. Don't you see that Flyingroc wrote it so it must be sensible?

~Ulrika~

And I don't like every texture change requiring an RA bill. I guess that's a point on which we are going to disagree.