Powers of the SC

(copyied from the other thread)
Hi Gwyn,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your patient explanations as well as your tendency to question even your own beliefs as you post them. It's a unique approach that's very refreshing to see.

In the time between this post and my last, I have been reading the Neualtenburg Constitution, and the other documents I could find and I've found a bunch of things that I think are possibly typos or errors that I think need explanation, so I am posting this on a new thread and using your reply to me about the Scientfic Council as a sort of scaffold.


I'm not sure its fair to paint the Scientific Council as disinterested. Members of the scientific council cannot technically "lead" the Artisans but they can and are members of some standing. The fact that its members, who's mandate is to decide apon our laws, are also leading members of the local merchants and artisans should be a concern.

That members of the Scientific Council might have a vested interest in the Artisanal group in regards the promotion of builds is to my mind a very good thing and that is probably how it was intended, but that they might have a vested commerical interest in the same fashion could easily be a conflict of interest.

I am actually a big fan of meritocracy as a political concept, but on what basis is the relative merit determined?

Ah, but it seems clear to me that it does.
If I have a veto power over the creation of the laws, then I have power, its as simple as that.
Both the Scientific Council and the Artisinal Branch have veto powers over the RA in terms of the pasing of bills or laws, even though the Artisinal Branchs' is limited to fiscal bills.

There is nothing more powerful in politics than veto power. It is a "given" that anyone who posesses a veto is in the "drivers seat," politically speaking. The possesion of this power by the Scientific Council means that they can not only sit in "sober second judgement" on Constitutional matters (perhaps this is what was intended), but they can also deny the passage of laws at all. They have the power, not the RA. there is no way for the RA to override the SC for instance.

Further, the fiscal veto of the Artisanal Branch is apparently canceled out by this line in the Constitution:

Article I - Section 7 - "Powers of the RA"
"... The RA can overide an Artisanal veto with a 2/3 vote."

Needless to say, a veto that can be out-voted is not actually a veto, and a 2/3 vote isn't even hard to get. Constitutionaly, this makes the unelected and self-appointed Scientific Council the only group with a veto, in fact the only group with the final say in all mattters of law.

Actually, not quite true.
Whereas we find this to be the intent early on:

Article I - Section 6 - "Legislative Process and Veto"
"the SC can) ..veto a bill or resubmit a modified bill for vote, if it conflicts with the constitution."

When it gets to the detail later we find the SC can:

Article III - Section 8 - "Powers of the SC"
"veto or rewrite or resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents."

This is a very much wider scope given to the Scientific Council than the other groups.

I think you will find that legally, "re-write" means literaly to write again or to start over. It certainly means a lot more than just "modify",even more so in this particular case as the "modification" of documents has already been covered by the other language. In this context it means something much closer to "write law!" (seriously)

Additionally, instead of just deciding on constitutionality of laws it seems the Scientific Counsil is now deciding on the basis of all the "founding documents," including the far ranging Neualtenburg TOS.

I dont think this is the way that we really want this to be worded.

Technically, with this wording the Scientific Council could take a bill from the house (the RA) and strike out everythign but the title, re-write the contents and pass it back. Further, because the Scientific Council is specifically formulated as being "beyond the law":

Article III - Section 8 "Powers of the SC"
... (members).. are not bound by a strict literal interpretation f the Bil of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal procedence."

There is no requirement for them to even behave contitutionaly or to make laws that are themselves constitutional ther than the fear of personal impeachment.

The RA could of course refuse to approve of the rewritten law, but what would happen after that? How long can the house delay a Bill before the Judicial branch (the SC again), can decide that it is in the best interests of the constitution to bypass them?
As sole arbitrators of the Constitution, it would actually be their job to do so.
Interesting no?

Again I dont think this is quite true.

By the wording of the Constitution document that I have, whereas it is written everywhere else that members of the RA and the the Artisinal Branch may be impeached on grounds of violating the consittution, or in the even more limited case of fiscal malfeasance, the part that refers to the impeachment of the Scientific Council by the RA is curiously different.

Article I - Section 7 - "Powers of the RA"
"... the RA can seek impeachment of the members of the Philosophic Branch by initiating an impechment hearing."

Legaly speaking this is a really a nonsense phrase and I find it interesting that it is there, when all the other sections refer only to constitutionality. Its the kind of phrase that lawyers put in contracts to make it appear that they are dealing with an issue when in reality they are saying nothing at all about it.

Its probably a typo but technically you would have a very hard time legally enforcing an impeachment with that wording.

By not specifiying any criteria for impeachment, this effectively (and legally), means that there is no valid listed critera for the impeachment of a member of the Scientific Council. Conversely however, the clause about the Scientific Council's ability to impeach is again different:

Article III - Section 8 - "Powers of the SC"
... the Scientific counsil can seek impeachment of members of the Representaional Branch for violating the constitution or acting illegally.

Again, much wider scope is given there. What does this mean? The laws of California? the laws of the TOS? The Nburg TOS? Can a member of the RA be impeached for having a real life parking ticket? It does not say that one cant, in fact it seems to be included.

In summation, by the wording of our own founding documents, it appears we are not a Democratic State. We are technically under the control of a Scientific Council that appears to hold all the cards in the political game.

It is the only branch of Government that holds a veto over our laws and appears to have the ability to actually create laws. It has far ranging powers of arrest, seizure etc., yet is itself above all law. It is our "police department" and our "supreme court" yet it is unelected and self-appointed. It's members cannot currently be impeached by the Representative Assembly.

As long as things remein this way, we cannot say we are a Deomcratic State. This situation is actualy almost the opposite of a Democratic State.

Sure, right now everythign is rosy and we are a small group etc. and these are all technical issues, possibly even just typos, but do we really want this kind of dictatorial structure, even in principal?

I would suggest an imediate revision of the Constitution or the formation of a committe to look into it.

Most of the things I have brought up here are what i believe to be errors or typos contained within Article III - Section 8 of the Constitution under "Powers of the SC." I would think from the way in which this section is differently worded than the majority of the rest of the document, that it is either a relic of a previous draft, or that it is the one thing in this current draft that has been recently changed. The simple act of changing the language in this section to be more in line with that used in the other parts would go a long way towards solving all these problems.

The other part is getting rid of that veto!

.

Just a quick request. It's best to keep posts relatively short and space out questions over multiple posts such that the thread is easy and fun to read and reply to.

With that said, let me dive into it.

~Ulrika~

The same can be said of the RA. That's why we have the ability to impeach members.


The SC doesn't write the law, it rewrites the bill as a suggestion for the RA. It's just a suggestion to be helpful. Alone, the SC can't transform bills into laws.

Yes it could. And right after that the RA could wrap a fish with the bill. Only the RA can make a law but both the RA and SC can unmake a law (the former by vote and the latter by a law being found to be in conflict with the founding documents).

This does not mean that the SC is above the law, it means that the SC will not interpret poorly written laws literally. For instance, when we say we have the right to "free speech" this means that we will not literally apply the law saying that freedom only applies to spoken word and not written word. Instead, the SC looks at the philosophy of the law. It's a way to overcome semantic arguments and literal misinterpretations and instead to focus on the true meaning of a law. This is a good thing.


I can't go on.

You've strayed enough from the true meaning of the document that I'm beginning to suspect that this is more reactionary trolling than a real technical analysis. Instead of going on, I'll post an interesting overview of the constitution and SC in two follow-on posts. If you still have concerns, post them one at a time and we'll discuss them in turn.

~Ulrika~

There are several key tenets on which the constitution is founded:

1. Protection of the minority from the majority.
   
2. A multibranch government with strong checks and balances.
   
3. Branches with alternative methods of selection.

Protection of the minority from the majority.
Our system tries to place as many people in power as possible using three branches which are not just separate but orthogonal. (By orthogonal I'm suggesting that the branches tend to draw participants with nonoverlapping skill sets, each using a different method to select members.) Additionally, in the elected branch (RA), the city employs counting techniques to give more weight to the voice of the minority.

A multibranch government with strong checks and balances.
By creating a multibranch government with different selection criteria, it ensures a diverse group of individuals with nonoverlapping talents will always find a way to exercise power in the city. Further, the use of checks and balances prevents any one branch from dominating the city government.

Branches with alternative methods of selection.

1. A representative branch (representative democracy). Members of this branch are ranked and then placed in seats won by their factions during a vote.
   
2. A selected branch (meritocracy). Members of this branch are selected based on skill and ratified by the RA.
   
3. A productive branch (ergatocracy). Members of this branch rise to power based on measurable contributions.

~Ulrika~

As the principal member of the SC, I thought I'd publish my personal requirements for what it would take to modify the constitution. Additionally, I've added my personal requirements for what it would take for an individual to begin the process of joining the SC.

My personal requirements for modifying the constitution:

1. Modifications cannot be in conflict with other parts of the constitution or founding documents.
   
2. Modifications cannot reassign fundamental branch roles, duties, and methods of selection.
   
3. If a check or balance is removed, an equivalent check or balance must be put in its place.
   
4. If a check or balance is added, equivalent checks and balances must be added in the other branches.
   
5. Checks and balances can be added and removed but never may be less than they were in the first version of the constitution.
   
6. Laws must be fundamentally ethical (either moral utilitarianism or existentialism).

My personal requirements for becoming a member of the SC:

1. Candidates must demonstrate excellence in their fields for many months prior to an invitation to interview.
   
2. One or more large, well written, and unique works must be published in a primary SL forum and defended publicly.
   
3. The candidate must have demonstrated a history of understanding, interpreting, and protecting the constitution in its current form.
   
4. The candidate must make an oath to act in the best interest of the city and to uphold the constitution above all else.

In short a candidate should be extremely intelligent, understand not just the constitution but the philosophy on which the government was based, and should be willing to defend the constitution against partisan attempts to weaken or subvert it. It's a lot like the U.S. supreme court only we wear underwear beneath our robes.

~Ulrika~

Oy! No personal attacks. I know for a fact Dianne worked very hard on her reading and analysis for the sake of the city. Or is it one code of behaviour for you and another for everyone else?

That is not a personal attack.

A personal attack would be statements that seek to defame and malign. This can be done by attacking a person's character, their beliefs, those they associate with using tactics such as shame, false statements, epithets. Note that negative statements are not always personal attacks and that one must also consider context. The process of weighing remarks to see if they fit the definition of a personal attack is known as moderation.

Your personal attack from several days ago is still unambiguously a personal attack: It has no other purpose in the context of the thread than to serve as a vehicle for one to label an event as "disgraceful" and shame not just one person but a group of people with "pity". Negative descriptors with calls to shame are almost always personal attacks.

In my case, I said: In this case I'm referring to the fact that Dianne's analysis had strayed far from the true meaning of the document (see below), so much so that I suspected "reactionary trolling" (defined as inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption from a person opposed to social liberalization).

For instance, she wrote:
This is false. The Guild has a financial veto and the SC cannot create laws.
This is false. Members are policed and can be impeached by its own and other branches.
This is also false.

Finally, she concludes with:
This call for a constitutional revision is based upon so many of erroneous interpretations of the text, that I began to suspect that perhaps Dianne was trolling. (Trolling is defined as the creation of posts with inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse.) Naturally, I stopped there until we could work out the problems with the initial errors one by one.


If you would like to spawn a new thread to discuss and define the definition of personal attacks, I'd be glad to do it. I've always felt the LL moderators have had mixed success at defining what is and isn't a personal attack, leading to a set of rules that are taken literally, applied out of context, and generally misunderstood. I think our group can do better.

~Ulrika~

I found Dianne's assessment of the Artisinal Branch equally faulty, I elected not to bother even commenting on it, as it was far from factual in it's premise.

Hi Ulrika, I am confused, it just doesn't seem that you are dealing with my questions here.

I say the poor wording implies that the SC can write a law, you say "no it doesn't." Well if it doesn't why is the wording different for the SC? Why not change it back to the same wording as all the other instances in the Constitution where Bill modification is laid out?

Also, I know the RA does not have to pass the modified or rewritten law, that is clear (I mentioned it in my own post ). I also gave an (I feel plausible), scenario how that could be gotten around, but that is just a hypothetical.

My point here is that the original conception of these documents (as I see them), is for the two unelected bodies (SC and AB), to be able to provide "sober second thought "to the legislative process. To apply their particular areas of expertise (Constitutional and Artisanal), to Bills and have the ability to send them back because they are not good enough. This is the key "checks and balances" that we are talking about, no? According to Gwyn this has actually worked in the past and performed just as intended. Great!

(As a side argument I would argue that to that end, nothing beyond the ability to "resubmit a modified bill" (over and over again if necessary), is really required. I would argue that the veto itself is not required for this process to work and in and of itself actualy stands our democracy on it's head but that is a seperate discussion.)

Here, what I am saying is that given all that, and given the veto, why is the wording different for the Scientific Council? You could say the same for most of the inequities I have found in the documents. Why have "rewrite" if its the same as "modify"? Why *not* mention the grounds under which a member of the SC can be impeached since it's mentioned for the RA and the AB? It makes no sense at all to have it that way.

Logically, either these are essentially meaningless "typos" or "irregularities"that just need to be corrected, or they are intentionaly different wordings with intentionaly different meanings. It simply cant be both ways. It is one or the other.

As I said in my first post, what I suspect (since the majority of the "wacky" wording is contained in "Article III - Section 8 - Powers of the SC", is that this particular section is from an older document and is mistakenly included in the Constitution in it's "old" form before the language had been regularised.

Re-regularise that section, and correct literally one or two other lines that refer to the powers of the SC and almost all of these concerns just dissapear.

I actually thought perhaps it might be a test or a puzzle when I started reading the documents because it is clear that most of us believe we are working on a democratic state, but the structure seems entirely oppposite to that in places. For quite a while I seriously thought that I might get a prize for discovering the "flaws" which in my brighter moments I thought might have been purposely placed.

Now I am thinking I will more likely get a bomb in the mail than a prize.

If, as it seems, the original intention of the governmental structure is a reciprocal situation where each branch of government can impeach someone from another branch based on the deriliction of their stated duties, then the language needs to reflect that. All I am saying really is that we have some "typos" in our Constitution. I think this is a serious matter becasue we are treating this as a legal document, but they are still typos.

I dont see how you can defend them, or why anyone would want to.

There is a couple of other similar points that I havent replied on here, (particularly the "above the law" part) I think the meaning is clear and to go on about them all simultaneously is a bit too much for this post.

.

Why is it not a personal attack to suggest someone is trolling? Dianne is trying very hard to work out the city's functioning and has invited answers. If she's wrong then she is ready to have things explained, as I'm sure she will say herself. Don't read the dictionary to me, I'm not stupid.

About my comment - go ahead, drag things up. I'm sure I can do the same. You are more oblique in your attacks, generally, but you do attack. You are wrong about my comment's purpose and I feel the same way about the situation.

You could have said that you were finding it difficult to continue with a reply to Dianne's posting as you thought it was too far removed from actuality but there was no need to suggest she was trolling. That is a personal attack on her character.

It would be an interesting thread to discuss the meaning of personal attacks and I might well do it if I can find the time.

Trolling is hardly an attack on someones character! I do it all the time. Sometimes trolling can be destructive (derailing a discussion) and sometimes it can be constructive (for fun).

A perfect example of trolling is when I stopped a thread earlier with the phrase "this thread is now about guinea pigs" and posted a picture of a wee critter. You taking this thread off topic to discuss personal attacks can be considered trolling. Trolling is defined as the creation of posts with inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with trolling (it depends on usage and context) and there's nothing wrong with pointing it out (it depends on usage and context). I don't think any of us did anything in this thread that I'd consider a personal attack (defamation or derogatory epithets).

~Ulrika~

The Executive branch of the U.S. government has the right to a veto and the Judicial branch can toss out a law on legal and constitutional grounds. Does that stand the U.S. democracy on its head?

Ah yes. I see what you're saying. I apologize, if I'm being confrontational. It's just in the last 48 hours there have been several people (and an elected official) calling for the radical deconstruction of the constitution.

I do want consistency and clarity in the constitution myself. Let's start this again and do it one part at a time. You can present what you think the piece could be interpreted as, I can state the meaning we intended, and then together we can work on new wording. I promise you'll get a prize for all the loopholes you find.

~Ulrika~

Actually I find this attitude is one of the reasons people don't understand the guild and question it's value. The guild has never participated in public discourse. Meetings notes are never availabe via the forums, and guild projects and intents are rarely announced. As both a citizen and a guild member I feel like I've been kept completely in the dark.

So when you have such a tight knit, inclusive group, who keep discussions private, the public often wonders what they are doing.

I like the guild concept, but perhaps it needs to be better organized, have better documentation, and making guild news, notes and info available to the public.

Any Guild member is free to call for a meeting of the Guild.

There is an entire subject thread in this forum devoted to the Guild called "Das Gildehaus" /103/a2/27794/1.html

There is now an entire subject thread in this forum devoted to Guild projects and intents called "Recent Guild Works" /103/fa/56765/1.html


The reason I didn't respond to Dianne's post about the Guild, is because it attacked rather than queried.

It's actually just the opposite. We tend to be like cats working independently and seldom talking and then occaisionally coming together temporarily for a fun project. The reason no meetings are published is that there haven't really been any meetings. Personally, I like it that way -- discussing things ad hoc either by email, the forum, or in world. As you'd expect, things happen when we have the creative urge. Sometimes there's weeks of nothing and then suddenly *pow* the city is done.

In the future when there are modifications to covenants or budgets, I imagine we'll do things the same way. Ad hoc, by email, or in the forums (personally I prefer the forums).

To defend Kendra a bit, Dianne's post was longer than my hand. (Sorry Dianne.) Those can be tough to tackle.

~Ulrika~

Well, this is perhaps the pre-Constitutional-change-forum-discussion, but actually, I must admit that I'm a bit surprised myself. I normally write things with half my mind turned on and do just a slight revision, but I often forget that others don't

Dianne, your post has definitely shaken me up. From your quoting, I can clearly see that what I thought that was in the Constitution - i.e. my own feelings regarding the powers of the SC - is not what is written there.

Note that my feelings on the matter are a result of weeks after weeks of working on the document. It was hard work. At the end, what I expressed in my feelings was the overall consensus on what powers the SC should or should not have. When the Constitution was posted, of course I have reviewed it quite often, some times late at night with my eyes half-closed and the face on top of the keyboard I remember that both ulrika and I have found out several typos, slight incorrections, or wording that was really contrary to the intended purpose. I remember a shock we had one day when suddenly two or three lines completely changed the meaning of what was intended, and we had to quickly post back on the forums requests for proposals to "fix" our doubts.

After a while, these things became less and less frequent, until one day we could read the document and say: "so, this should work for now - let's start with it as a working prototype and see what we can make of it".

Now I'm not so sure about anything any more, since I think if you have raised some very serious doubts, and I think that these should be addressed.

1. On membership of the SC

I think that Ulrika has stated this pretty well. The merit is "relative". She has posted good guidelines for what seem to be reasonable expectations on a SC member. It only makes sense that it's the SC that creates these guidelines. However, we foresaw the possibility of the SC getting too much power by changing suddenly all its own guidelines and inviting people contrary to all beliefs held by the other members of the Government. Thus, every member of the SC have to be approved by the RA. That seems to me a reasonable safeguard.

2. On impeachment

So, this seems like a typo or a case of bad wording. You're assuming that there are no legal grounds to impeach a member of the SC, since it's the SC that has powers of impeachment on grounds of unconstitutionality (or illegality), and technically these cannot be used against the SC itself. This is very, very tricky. I'm afraid you're right. There should be something in the Constitution that validates the grounds for impeachment of a SC member by the RA. If I understood the concept properly - and I agree that I may have lost the meaning of it somewhere during those many weeks of hammering out the Constitution - the RA's impeachment of the SC would be self-sustainable. So, the way I saw this at the time, was that the SC could try to block the RA by deeming all bills unconstitutional, but as "revenge", the RA could simply impeach all members of the SC and force it to start from scratch with zero members Now this is a really drastic measure, and since this could be used as a weapon in "political warfare" by both branches, it would also mean that both branches would seriously have to consider a compromise before entering this "game". At that time, I thought things were quite well balanced out. Neither branch could get an "advantage" in that "political warfare" - both could cancel each other out.

If this is not clear, I'm worried, because it should be (or have been), and any suggestions to change the wording should be suggested and approved.

3. On vetoing bills

Something is also not clear on the gronds for vetoing a bill. I think that Ulrika stated it quite clearly that the SC cannot pass laws; it can only veto bills, or rewrite them and submit them back for approval by the RA. What it effectively can do is block all bills from ever becoming laws. See case above - the only way to get rid of that deadlock would be to impeach some (or all) members of the SC on the grounds that they were blocking the law-creation process. The SC has no power against that.

4. On vetoing the budget

We had a long discussion around the 2/3 voting overrule by the RA, which in effect "cripples" the Guild, since it has a far weaker veto than the SC. There was a reason for that, if I remember correctly. When the SC vetoes a bill, it is just making sure that the RA works under guidelines set by the Constituition; of course, when the RA is impeaching members of the SC, this happens because the RA views that members of the SC are not acting constitutionally, but simply abusing veto power to stop the RA from passing bills (since the SC doesn't need to justify its actions before anybody). So it's a "constitutionally struggle".

When the AC vetoes the budget, it's not doing so because the budget violates anything "constitutionally", but simply because it doesn't agree with it, and the RA cannot "fight back" (and the SC certainly cannot!) using an impeachment based upon the Constitution. The AC has the constitutional right to veto the budget without any plausible reason (beyond a "feeling" that the budget is not the best for Neualtenburg). The budget is not a "law", so, all issues regarding laws do not apply in this case. An unreasonable AC is perfectly able to stop the RA to ever approve a budget - and, legally, you have not any grounds for deeming that "unconstitutional", so it'll be hard to appeal to the SC or attempt an impeachment of the AC (a fair impeachment trial at the SC will disregard any complains in that direction).

In order to stop the AC to exercise this power unconditionally, the RA was given the right to "overrule" the veto with a 2/3 majority voting. That way, the RA would never propose a "shaky" budget (you only need a simple majority to propose it), but only very strong budgets that had the power of almost all members of the RA behind it. The purpose of the 2/3 overrule was to make sure that the RA had something to work with.

Now, I understand that this weakens the only real power of control that the SC may have. A suggestion that I can make is using a RL analogue. Instead of giving a 2/3 overrule on the veto, let's state simply that when the AC vetoes a new budget, the old budget is reused again. This means a more tactical use of the budget veto by the AC. Basically, if the AC feels that the new budget is worse than the previous one, it can veto it, and the previous one will keep in place and be reused again. This is actually the case in some countries and/or organisations, because it effectively means that the branch proposing the budget will always have something to work with, but any changes can be vetoed by a second branch if they feel that "the change is for worse", and a compromise has to be found out.

I propose this amendment for the upcoming Constitutional revision

5. On "too much power in the hands on one person"

Looking at the way the SC and the AC work, there is a flaw in the system which was not obvious from the beginning. Remember, we had perhaps 15-20 members in the Guild, 12-15 people elegible for the RA, and three members in the SC. So we really didn't think that there was a problem of having "one person" with too much power.

Most of the discussions, however, were centred around the RA, and how to limit and control the RA's work. For instance, in the Constitution, the AC can even "force" the RA to meet - because the RA could, in a sense, block all the governance simply by refusing to meet to pass laws.

We 'forgot' that the reverse was not true. For instance, constitutionally, all branches are elected, although the SC and the AC only give votes to their respective members, but the RA gives one vote to every citizen. But each branch sets its own election term. If the RA 'forgets' to set up the next term for election, the AC can 'force' them to meet with that agenda, and do so repeatedly, until the RA sets a date for the upcoming elections. But if the AC refuses to meet, nobody can 'force' them to do so. In the Guild's case, in theory, the Meisters could ask for a meeting, but the Gildemeisterinn could refuse that meeting, or even simply disband all the Meisters and start from scratch. That is neither unconstitutional, nor possible to be "interfered" from the outside. In contrast, new members of the SC need a 'vote of confidence' by the RA, but nothing is said about its internal meetings. Worse than that, right now, there is effectively just one member of the SC which is elegible for Dean - Ulrika (I don't count, since I'm holding a seat in the RA) - and it's pointless to call for elections in the SC, since there is really just one vote and one person to be (re)elected there

This is a "limit case" which is very hard to deal with. It's interesting that the Constitution limits the number of Chairs in the SC - nine - but not the number of Meisters (although there has been a suggestion for a limit to be implemented). Nine Chairs! As if we could fill them all Also rememeber that we used to have up to 60 members in Neualtenburg, and it was even proposed at some point that up to 150 citizens would be interested in being invited as citizens... so I think we dreamed of having perhaps a group of +/- 9 people in the RA, around 60-70 in the Guild (of which perhaps a dozen Meisters), and 20-30 at the SC (with 9 Chairs, the rest being humble Professors). The reality, of course, is that we're very far from that "dream". I'm really not sure if we should adapt the Constitution to the "limit case" we have right now, or simply accept it as a consequence of having but 17 citizens in Neualtenburg...

6. On the laws governing Neualtenburg

When the Constitution, in its short preamble, lists the number of documents that should be uphold, "local laws" are mentioned. I always assumed those to be "local Neualtenburg laws", that is, laws created by the RA. Dianne pointed out that these could be interpreted as "Californian laws" or "US laws" or any RL laws. This is rather a philosophical question (but which has impact on other wordings of the Constitution), but which I think leads to an amazingly vast implication: is Neualtenburg under the jurisdiction of San Francisco, Californian law, US law, or international law? If the answer is "yes, of course it is!" then it means that the City of Neualtenburg is a virtual city, but part of the US? I find this a very interesting question, since it raises lots of possibilities!

Ulrika has often defended in the forums that Neualtenburg is a self-governing city, falling under the wider umbrella of Linden Lab's in-world "governance" (no matter if Linden Lab views itself as a "virtual federal government" or not; we view them as "our" federal government and we uphold LL's ToS and Community Standards under that assumption ). But the ToS is, in fact, subject to Californian, federal, and international law. So, technically, Neualtenburg cannot escape its ties to RL laws (at least not under this interpretation). The question of what "illegal" means in the Constitution should thus be clarified.

The way I read it, "illegal" means illegal against the laws passed by the RA. Thus, if I have commited a crime in RL, I'm not liable to impeachment in Neualtenburg under its Constitution. Of course, if that crime is something like hacking the SL client, or breaking into LL's grid, this is clearly a violation of ToS, and Neualtenburg cannot accept it. So, even though this hypothetical person is never charged with a crime in RL (because LL does not wish to pursue the matter legally), it is still a ToS violation, and "illegal" under the Constitution of Neualtenburg - meaning, the RA does not need to pass laws to specifically deal with anything covered by ToS. On the other hand, if you violate any law in the State of California - say, get a parking ticket - the ToS has nothing to say about it (and you certainly can continue to log in to SL!), and that "RL violation of the law" does not affect your "status" in Neualtenburg.

However, this is perhaps not clear to everybody, and it's a very, very philosophical question, one whose answer will certainly change a lot the way we think about government in a virtual world

I vote this the most interesting post I've read this month

You don't need to define trolling for me - I have encountered it many times in Usenet, and it is not a good thing. Scattering smilies everywhere and changing word usage to suit yourself doesn't deflect attention from your comment about Dianne. The introduction of the guinea pig raised feelings in some people of which you appear unaware.

Tell me - do you really think I am working against Neualtenburg? If so, why have you never spoken about this with me in-world? It's really helpful, you know, to voice our concerns to each other and not just to other people.

In reference to Gwyn's post: Shazam!

~Ulrika~

Ah Ha!

The good news is that now I understand the reason for the personal attacks and hounding during the election. Your feelings were hurt.

The bad news is that you revealed that someone violated my trust by forwarding the contents of a personal email without my permission. Oops.

Since you're making this personal, why don't you send me an email at [email]Ulrika.Zugzwang@gmail.com[/email] and we can discuss it? Or if you'd like I can spawn a new thread with the original email and we can have it out there. Your call.

~Ulrika~

Party! Party! Party!

... How's that for trolling

~Ulrika~

I was warned verbally that you did not trust me to support Neualtenburg despite your friendly approach the one time I saw you in-world. I supposed you had been talking to someone about me and was indeed hurt that you gave me no clue you felt that way. Email? Something else you don't want me to know about? By all means let's see it in public. I'd love to know how you really think about people behind the smilies. As for hurt feelings - well, are these trivial in your eyes unless they happen to be your own or do you just want an opportunity to make yourself look clever?

Your off-topic discussion is doing bad things to this thread. We should really do things like this by email or by starting a new thread. Nonetheless, since you want to do this in public (everyone always does) I'll give it one reply and then we should transition to another spot.


I hate to tell you this but I think there's a chance that you have might been manipulated for political reasons (this could be paranoia, see below ). This individual violated my personal trust and told you information, which was not intended for you to see. My assumption is that they were trying to build trust (and the MPP) by creating a "common enemy". Instead, the results are a loss of trust and interpersonal conflict within the group. It's a damn shame.

That said, the email I sent had less to do with real problems and had more to do with paranoia. You see, with every new person that joins the group, they go through a period where I keep watch over them. Heavens forbid someone like Pro-kofy or An-she (hyphenated to keep a search from summoning them to our forum) or one of their minions join the group and give us grief from the inside. In your case, you did three things in a short amount of time that had me worried:

1. You were rather negative about my initial museum build. The criticism aborted the process and now the city has a bald spot that will persist for another nine months.
   
2. You set up several city fachwerks outside of the city and advertised these structures without mentioning the city. You did nothing wrong but I was concerned (paranoid) that this was an attempt to take content from the city while not giving anything back.
   
3. I heard you trying to talk Dianne out of setting up shop in the city (that's the night we met in world). I believe you recommended An-she's land over ours or something similar. I was concerned (paranoid) that you might be a "secret agent" diverting productive members of the city to other projects.

All of these things seemed at the time to be attempts to block development or to remove content. Note that I was selectively ignoring the fact that you purchased land, built a great structure, and were actually spending time in the city. I crafted an email that expressed my paranoia and sent it to a couple of people I thought I could trust to see if they held a similar opinion. No one held a similar opinion. So I assumed that I was being overly paranoid and let it go.

You see, the email actually had more to do with me than it did with you. It's simply a result of me being protective of this community project.


Finally, I want to apologize to you sincerely. I had never intended for my concerns to be made public unless they were valid, which they most certainly were not. I will in the future try to strike a balance between my concern for the city and the feelings of others. I hope we can put this behind us and move forward, as I know I'm a good person and you seem to be one too.

~Ulrika~

I am still working on my answers for today, but this one is quick so wil post it seperately.

From the Wikipedia:

"The word veto comes from Latin and literally means I forbid.
It is used to denote that a certain party has the right to unilaterally stop a certain piece of legislation. A veto thus gives unlimited power to stop changes, but not to adopt them....The veto originated with the Roman tribunes who had the power to unilaterally refuse legislation passed by the Roman senate."

So right from the get-go we have overtones of dictatorship or at least of non-democracy.
It was originaly used by the tribunes to "get around" the uncomfortable democracy.

The US veto power specificaly, is derived from the English concept of "Royal Assent" and is generally thought of the same way, as a kind of absolute final say, by our "rulers."

Is this how you see the Scientific Council? as "ruling" us?

Specifically though in regards to the veto power of the US Government, your statement twists the reality I think.

from Wiki:
"The word "veto" does not appear in the United States Constitution, but Article I requires that all bills or other items of legislation passed by both houses of Congress be presented to the President for his approval. If he returns a bill to Congress within ten days (excluding Sundays) of its presentment to him, the bill does not become law. A two-thirds majority of both houses can adopt a law even after a presidential veto. Likewise, if the President takes no action during this period and Congress remains in session it becomes a law as if he had signed it ..."

So it is not entirely true to say that the US President has a veto over anything.

If you read the above, you can see that the envisioned situation is much more akin to the concept of "sober second thought," or of providing a simple and effective governor on the legislative pocess than it is a true veto in the original "Regal" sense of the word. This is much closer to what, in our Constitution, is formulated as the "revise and send back" clause, and that is likely how most folks intended the SC's veto to be applied IMO.

Secondly, the difference is clear in that the US President is elected of course, and even the Judicial branch of the US government is appointed by the president and ratified by the other branches of government. So even though non-elected, and even though they also do not have a veto they are ultimately appointed to thier positions by the electorate.

In Neualtenburg, there is a flat, straight, absolute veto by the Scientific Council over anything contitutional, and one by the Artisanal Branch over anything fiscal. These are both unelected, and self-appointed bodies. There are no provisions for the refreshing of these bodies either, making them sort of "dictators for life" in one sense.

One might ask, if these bodies (the SC and the Guilds), have ultimate control over all fiscal and constitutional matters, then what else is there really? Is the RA (the only democratically elected body in Neualtenburg), just a bunch of managers and paper shuflers? All the actual power to do anything seems elsewhere.

According to Kendra and Gwyns recent posts, it seems that the Artisanal Branch pretty much "sets" fiscal policy as well, or at least the RA is specifically told to "keep out of it." It makes me wonder why we voted at all.



PS - For the record, I am not totally opposed to the Guilds or the Scientific Council or even with non-democratic institutions per se. I am not trying to "tear anything down" or revise the whole system the way I think it should be. My problem is mostly that you simply can't call a system like this a democracy. It just isn't IMO.