I guess Social Democratic is a code word for Totalitarianism

So does every other group in SL, Cat. You must admit that this particular group is singled out for way more than its fair share of public flogging.

Yup I agree Chip, I hope my posts have come off as curious as they were intened to

Cat

Exactly, Kris. We welcome *CONSTRUCTIVE* criticism, IE: "I think BLANK could be exploited in such a *BLANK* matter". Anyone is welcome to join Neaultenburg, give input, and not to mention, PARTICIPATE in the government. However, the majority of what we have been recieving can only be seen as a more sophisticated form of 'OMFG J00 guyz t3h suxor'.

Yes. I posted that because in another thread in our *group* forum I brought up the fact that we needed to discuss PR issues. And others in the group agreed. It was Nolan and Shadow that talked with me the other day and helped me to see that what while what is being percieved may be wrong, it is still the perception. So I told them I would talk to others in the project about this issue and that I agreed we could stand to do some PR discussion. That is exactly what I did.

I'm sorry if I missed your point?

I think Korg thinks you were trying to dictate how we should act in situations such as this.


Baaaaaaaaahahahah.

Okay.. I have said the constructive things I can say about this thread... so I am going to leave it for the near term, at least.

I have not attacked anyone in the group for their membership in the group. I pointed out that membership in the group implies agreement with the groups actions and goals in a similar fashion that the rest of the world accuses "Americans" of supporting the war in Iraq/Bush.

I pointed out that the current actions and statements are consistent with groups in the real world which have - when taken to extremes - worked out very porrly - both for the group and the world in the long run.

I also pointed out what I consider to be apparent inconsistency and a strategic method in the actions and statements of the group... something most political groups do. Nothing is said without intent - and the intent here is at best dubious and at worst nefarious as far as I am concerned. Note, I did not say it IS nefarious.

That clarification having been said.. I am out of the thread for at least a day as far as posting goes. I will probably continue reading it... but I have no hopes it will ever be a constructive thread... too many egos are involved and skins are too thin.

Lance don't make me silence you

Korg, I don't mean any offense, but little you have said seems to be constructive. It honestly comes off more like hate mongering.

I only skimmed You should get involved since you're always full of interesting and strong opinions.

Here's my one and only rant. If you're going to make a group that's going to get this much public flack and debate, for god's sake name it something easier to spell than neua... neeu... nua... er, n'berg!

NOT THE GULAG! ANYTHING BUT THE GULAG!

Behave you two! You're speaking on behalf of your entire NeualtenBorg Collective remember. No individual voices for you guys!

Man, I REALLY have to go back to doing these one line trolls. It's a lot less work to make the same point.

I'm off to bed now. Have fun tearing each other new orifices, all!

*hands the popcorn back to Nolan*

LOL Chip!! It is only because I have had to type it so much that I am FINALLY getting the spelling right about half the time.. hehe

and Kris! *HUGS* You! Sweet dreams.

I have to look it up half of the time :|

Until now, I've tried to stay silent on the subject of player government. I think it's a tricky subject that has the potential to either greatly improve the quality of life in SL or destroy the quality of life with an oppressive bureaucracy. Those who are strongly on one side or another may not fully understand the extent of these possibilities, and we should at least think about government -- by LL or by players -- in terms of problems and solutions. Not in terms of mimicking real-world goverments.

I've read that the Neualtenberg Projekt is a private group that is experimenting in developing player-run government, and that the chief architect of this government is Ulrika. I've also gotten the feeling that the group wishes to spread its form of government, once that's created, beyond the private into the general populace.

If this is true, this seriously bothers me. I've read some of Ulrika's opinions.

She has suggested that disputes between neighbours could be resolved by combat. That is, if you dislike what your neighbour has built, you can challenge them to a duel. In short, she advocates using violence.

She has advocated using vandalism to force neighbours to take down "ugly" builds, such as putting up harrassing signs. She has also suggested that a system should be put in place to remove "ugly" builds. Who the judge is of ugliness, I'm not certain, but vandalism and harassment should have no place in a creative environment like Second Life.

Now I read that she suggests repressing individual dissent. Suppressing the individual voice to protect the party line. This is too much.

Such beliefs have no place in any discussion of player-run government. I hope that nobody will allow these suggestions to continue, and I would also hope that such people no longer have any role in the creation of player-run government, even in an "experimental" stage. People who encourage violence, repression, and harassment should be discouraged, and should not be given a guiding role in the design of any government. People who grasp for power are the last ones who should be given any kind of authority.

I'm not convinced that any problems exist that can be solved by a player-run authority. At the same time, I am convinced that there are too many mini-dictators waiting in the wings for their chance at power. Be very careful whose voice you listen to at this stage. A poor choice could ruin a truly unique and excellent online community.

thank you and ni ni

I realy wish ppl would not degrade the opinons of those that disagree with them. Honestly when members do this it looks bad for the group as a collective. I am not saying that it is right, I am saying that is the way some ppl precieve those actions.
Which in my opinion could make a person look at a group in a negative way.

Thanks

Cat

Cubey, a couple of notes:

First off, I would love duels Of course, duels probobly would not be used in a matter of conflict when one side is clearly at fault. At least, that's what makes sense to me.

Secondly, as far as I know we have no current plans for expansion.

And thirdly- repressing individual opinion?! What?

I have to differ here Cat, sorry.

This was said, and it seems understood by the group, and they were in the process of addressing how to rectify the situation. Then it all came to a screeching halt when this post was dropped in here by Mal, (who curiously hasn't said a word since he started this flame fest) and it looks as though it's having it's desired effect. Let them address the issue, it's just plain disrespectful and unfair to attack them while they are in the midst of some political indigestion.

Cubey is wise

Cat this is what Nolan and I so ardently debated with Pendari about a day or so ago. Perception is everything and currently Perception of NBerg and its Founder and Co-Founder have been the dramatic climax that we see today.

Now as an organization they are trying to Rectify Bad PR.

But, like you said when members branch out on their own and make sweeping statments or simply singularly directed statments like the one that was directed at you the Perception of the organization and its goals wain severely.

((please note Cat I am agreeing with you here, and no Hell hasn't frozen over..well least not yet. ))

Actually Nolan you didnt differ you paralled under seperate context..LOL

Actually, the 9th level of hell (cocytus) IS frozen.

LOL Yeah Shadow I got that you were agreeing with me when my heart stopped but thanks to a quick thinking dog who jumped on my chest I'm good now

Thanks Shad

Cat

Lance thats only 1 level...pfft

Nolan its kewl

Cat