SC Questions

SC Questions and Reservations on:

Neualtenburg Responsible Money Management




----------
(3) That until such time as the owners of Second Life provide the residents with better tools for the management of group finances, the members of the Finance Committee shall determine among themselves, as their first order of business, the members who will establish “alts” solely for the purpose of holding the various accounts needed to fulfill the charges in paragraph (1). That all members of the committee shall have the passwords of all alt/accounts established by the committee. And that upon new members assuming their positions on the committee after the appointments as described in Section 2, that the credit card designations on each of the alts be changed by the new members to connect with the RL individual assuming that account responsibility.
----------


-->My only problem with the above provision is that I worry about how the Lindens feel about all this sharing of account information. Especially the parts about sharing credit card info and passwords. I’d appreciate it if someone would talk to the Lindens and work out a way to do this where they feel comfortable. Otherwise, we’ll probably have to figure out another way to do this. Perhaps and actual bank account or PayPal account?


-----------
(6) That it be an article of policy that “free and clear” donations to the city be discouraged, particularly as the city manages to achieve financial stability. Donations, unless clearly defined, can contort the free exercise of speech and opinion. While the author of this proposal profoundly appreciates the generous donations that many have made to sustain Neualtenburg up until the present day, so that the experiment could even hope to survive, it is proposed that such donations be gradually phased out. Neualtenburg is an economic and political entity. Gifts potentially represent a “conflict of interest”, and should be carefully limited.
-----------


-->How will this section work in the new potential model, where we will have to figure a way to pay for a new island sim? I don’t mind paying some money, but does this section prohibit that?

Also, does this prohibit donations for a specific purpose? For instance, can I contribute to a “Park Fund” where we hire and pay a contractor to build and maintain a central park?

Kathy, could you explain more what your concern is here? I can understand the concern vis a vis the residents, the account holders, who would volunteer to have their accounts used for this purpose. But it's not at all clear to me why the Lindens would care, so long as each avatar account is backed by an active and valid card. There must be many instances of several RL persons sharing an alt by sharing the password.

As far as the residents go, we have determined that keeping the same alt, and simply changing the card info, will not work. There is a compromise of residents privacy, which most residents will probably not accept, (myself included) which would happen if a new resident went to an alt's account and inserted their own card information. This should not be a problem with the two "business" accounts, because the new office holder can simply set up a new alt and receive the funds from the old one. The problem with that system for the main island-owning alt is the US$100 fee that the Lindens attach to transfering ownership. This detail we may well have to discuss with them.



My concern here (as the author) was that money donated, without any expectation of return, can contort the relationships which we all have to the group as a whole. With many groups founded on charitable concepts, this would not be a problem. But Neualtenburg is a "social political experiment", and the value of each citizen, and recognition of that equal value in the system itself, is really important.

If a person does some work for the city, we hope to establish a system by which they are "paid". (Somehow, yet to be worked out). Likewise, if someone provides funds to the city for its use, they should receive a benefit for that. That might be repayment of the funds with interest, or it might be a "return" based on the city's revenues. Obviously, we're still struggling to figure out how that would work.

But a donation contorts that relationship. The donor, emotionally at least, may expect a return for their donation, some benefit. It's human nature. When that "return" is not defined, i.e. the donor gives with no expectation of return, then problems of relationship can occur.

Please understand. It was my intention to insert this as a principle, and surely not yet as a hard and fast rule. It is obviously true that neualtenburg would not be anywhere near where it is now without the very generous donations of many who felt and feel that it is really a very noble enterprise that we've started. They truly deserve our profound thanks.

But, for the future, I feel, and the others present at the meeting on Sunday concurred, that Neualtenburg should be operated more as a business than as a charity.

Sudane

Sudane,

I don't know if Linden Lab WOULD have a problem with it from a PRACTICAL perspective. I would just like to hear if they'd have a legal problem with it. Especially since there's a good chance that those credit card numbers seem to double as ID from LL's perspective - I think. The "sharing personal information" prohibitions are a good example of LL having a hard line drawn in the sand, though it is hard to know exactly where they've drawn it until you cross it.

So, I'm just asking if we could run it past them and get them to say "We don't care, That's your business, not ours."

Even if we decide not to check with them, I certainly won't veto, since this is not a constitutional point - just a personal concern.

My main question concerning donations seems to be answered between the lines anyway. I was just wondering if the government can set up a special fund for a specific purpose and accept general donations into that fund. If so, given that such donations were publicly disclosed - and perhaps limited in amount - I would again have no constitutional issues.

So, bottom line, nihil obstat. If I can speak for the SC, then the SC has no issues with this legislation.

Certainly a reasonable request. It appears more and more that as the details behind this issue take shape, ( /103/0b/37898/1.html#post409911 ) there will need to be a more broad based communication with the Lindens anyway, in order to sort out a number of issues regarding group money.

Sudane

The best I can try to do is to see who's replacing Haney Linden in these "community related" issues, invite her or him over for a chat, and ask the question point-blank Most Lindens are pretty straightforward saying "no". BTW, yes, password sharing violates ToS.

On the other hand, I have given some thought about "external third parties" solving the "shared account" issue. I've been in touch with Apotheus Silverman (of SL Exchange, who once touted the idea of having escrow accounts and bank accounts, but dropped it later...) and he says that SL Exchange could technically be set up for having an account shared by several avatars. So you would get:

1) An easy way to deposit and withdraw L$ to a common bank account
2) No ToS violations (SL Exchange is independent of LL...)
3) A third-party who acts as a neutral party (ie. no need to have concerns about someone seeting up a "fake" system )
4) Proven technology (no need to start a new project from scratch)

Right now, Apotheus is not too interested in developing that "feature" because it doesn't appeal much to his user base. But I'm stubborn and insist a while If not, there are alternatives...

In regards to the bill above, as a member of the SC, I wanted to let you know that sections of it are possibly in violation of the constitution. The constitution requires that the treasury be handled by the Artisanal branch. It's one of the fundamental separations of power. I've posted a write up in this thread.

~Ulrika~