Some further Constitutional queries.

No, no, this isn't me about to talk about how badwrong bits are. Rather, after the RA meeting some unclear points came up in conversation, and it was suggested to post them on the forum to see what they are supposed to mean.

Article II, Section 3: Exactly what is a "workshop"? By the overall... well, guild-like structure of the Guild I would have assume dthis means the journeymen and apprentices under a master... but as that doesn't seem like a very good rubric in the loose method SL builders generally operate in, I was wondering if something else was meant.

Not a vital issue, since as of now there's exactly two masters who aren't involved in another branch (and thus can vote), and I have absolutely zero interest in ever running the Guild, but that means this is the best possible time TO clarify it, eh?


The formatting in Article III is a little wonky, down in the bit where the powers are enumerated, on the website.

Finally, Article VI, Section 2 - is the bit on "land tiers" and "leaving the group" quite applicable in the island-sim version of Neualtenburg?

You are correct. A workshop is a group of individuals working underneath a single Master. Currently we use workshops to make sure that up-and-coming city artisans go through a single master when doing their work. You're also right that the relationships are more ad hoc than a Workshop implies. We do go through the Meisters (think of how everyone is already coordinating with Kendra for the Oktoberfest celebration) but it's not rigidly enforced.

Because of this, I agree that the ranked voting based on Workshop size in the Constitution does not make sense and should be modified.

One thing I would like to see clarified is that one's position in the hierarchy is based on productivity and contribution to the city. Aside from that we have a lot of freedom. For instance, should all votes in the guild be equal or do different levels have different say? Should there be a limit on the number of Masters allowed in the city (we allow only one Guild Master)? Does the Guild Master have ultimate authority (corporate) or are democratic votes in the Guild binding (hierarchical democracy)?

Let me know what your ideas are.

Everything looks OK to me. It might be a browser issue. Can you provide more detailed diagnostics or a screenshot? I'll fix the formatting right away.

You are correct. This is obsolete and needs to be updated.

The philosophy behind this section is that the city and citizen share a responsibility to make sure, even in ending their relationship, that sufficient notice is given to allow the city to recover from a land-tier withdrawl (no longer an issue) and the citizen to seek due process.

Currently the ToS states that repossession of land (and thus loss of citizenship) will occur after 30 days of nonpayment. Should we codify that time scale for repossession and offer reciprocally to citizens 30 days to clear out if they're found guilty of a crime that requires expulsion?

~Ulrika~

Firstly, the screenshots re: the website deal. As you can see, there's a missing new line where the SC's powers are enumerated, to make it match the other sections.

Yes, this is a really stupid tiny thing. I just happened to notice it.

I was under the impression that there was no specific limit on Masters, making the Guild in a way one of the most populist bodies, since anyone can join, provided they contribute something to the city. (And given this seems to include social event running as well as making and selling things, the traditional SL creative pastimes, it's relatively inclusive.)

All of the powers of the AC are noted as belonging to the leader of the AC, save that the AC as a whole can impeach any member (including, I assume, a Guildmaster) and that the Masters vote for the Guildmaster. This implies the Guildmaster has total power as regards to the government as a whole, although having the Guild itself adopt some particular method doesn't seem to be ruled out.



I think it would be best, yes. The ToS ultimately deals with real-world repercussions, and thus I feel those things dealing with Second Life specifically need to be in the Constitution. (This is an issue where there's repercussions in both RL and SL, of course, but it's the principle of the thing. What if Neualtenburg colonizes some other virtual world someday?)

Well, actually, since the Constitution refers to the ToS, it's redundant to restate the parts where it says basically the same — it only needs to address the parts that are different.

However, I agree that we need those clarifications to be included/corrected in the Constitution. Aliasi, propose a bill, and send it to the RA Perhaps it's time, after all, to tackle the small constitutional revisions, and these look like pretty unanimous to me.

I'll look into drafting those things up.