Ulrika Declared a Terrorist in N'burg

Rhetoric often has it's basis in truth somewhere, though. What checks exactly exist on your SC?

It's very easy to impeach them all without needing any reason or argumentation (unlike impeachment hearings on the other two branches).

Also, while the Representative Assembly is elected (and you don't have any control on who is elected) and anyone can join the Guild, new members of the Scientific Council need to be approved by votes of confidence by the other two branches. So it's not easy for them to "grow" unchecked; they will all need previous approval, unlike the other branches.

The way I understand it, the SC has absolute power. I hear they are bound by the founding documents, yet they define the meaning of the documents. There is no checks on their power, as the document can't force them to obey. There is no one above them to insist they follow the document. No laws to force them to abide by the actual words in the document.

In the USA the Courts simply enforce the laws produced by the legislature and verify laws are constitutional. If a law is found to be unconstitutional the legislature can amend the constitution to make the law constitutional. It's hard to change the constitution, but that is how the court system is regulated.

As I understand this "constitution", the SC has the power to decide what the constitution says, even if in direct conflict with the original intent. There is no mechanism for changing the documents should the people find a need. And there is no oversight to their ability to veto virtually everything, including an impeacment of SC officers.

A government based on 3 legs of power to create a system of checks and balances requires all branches to be equal in power. In this case the SC holds absolute power over the other branches. If the SC becomes a rouge group, what is there to stop them ignoring the documents? Who checks their power?

You can see the whole Constitution here. The document has six Articles, of which the first three describe the city's three branches. In each of these Articles there exists a Section which describes how that branch relates to the other two branches. Those Sections are:

1. Article I, Section 7
   
2. Article II, Section 4
   
3. Article III, Section 8

I won't quote them all here but they include things like:

1. The RA provides a vote of confidence on candidates to the Philosophic branch. This vote is in regards to their perceived likelihood to uphold the constitution.
   
2. The leader of the AC may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified revenue bill for vote.
   
3. The Philosophic branch may veto or rewrite and resubmit a bill or constitutional amendment if it is in violation of any of the founding documents.

The last sentence by the way is the one that they're trying to change. They essentially want to remove the words "or constitutional amendment" from it.

What I don't like about the proposed legislation is that beyond altering the balance of power in the city, it removes the founding document's (Constitution and Bill of Rights) power to protect citizens. The suggested amendment, which is being sold as a way to reduce the power of a branch that has "too much power", would in reality make it possible to override fundamental rights provided in the Bill of Rights. To provide an example, right now one could not pass a law saying that there are no Hispanics allowed in the city. After the passage of the amendment, theoretically such a law could exist. It essentially provides a mechanism to circumvent what we in the U.S. consider inalienable rights. Couple this with the latest talk on reinterpreting what free speech in the city means, you can see where it might go.

In short you emotionally connected with the "too much power" talking point, not realizing that it's rhetoric to push through an amendment that would allow the circumvention of the Bill of Rights. I hope you now see why I returned to the forums.

~Ulrika~

You understood and heard wrong. Your entire analysis (not surprisingly) is wrong. I'd stick to Jesus and evolution posts if I were you.

~Ulrika~

To make a long story short, this concept has been central to an issue which has caused me a great deal of reflection lately.

Vis-a-vis a potential "Lord of the Flies" situation. Not on the horizon today or tomorrow, but what happens socially when a sim turns two years old? Or five?

Sims are quite small, actually - just about the perfect size to easily have one clique dominate a handful of other people. Even ten sims - that's only about 150 residents.

Sooner or later, you are going to have cliques of residents that strongly don't like other cliques of residents.

Unless of course you actively discriminate against users upon entry into the sim to try to balance it - which to me is a repugnant idea.



So what does one do?

I could snicker at the unrest now in Neualtenburg - but what delicious irony it would be, if the same sort of thing ever occurs in Caledon.

Right now, Caledon's explosive growth and newness has fostered a fun, powerful vibe - almost like what you would find in an 'open beta' of a new world.

But what happens, when the bloom comes off the Rose of the Western Sea?

No matter how principled and friendly I strive to be, from everyone else's perspective I'm still Ralph, and still holding the conch shell.


* * * * *


There was a thread constituting what it meant to be a 'good landlord' recently - a very powerful step in the right direction, I think.

But in the case of Neualtenburg the suggestions regarding how to be a kindler, gentler land baron don't quite apply, do they?

Thankfully, you are not me, so I'll do as I see fit. But thank you for your selfless concern.

I'm sure you think you know what's best. But that doesn't make it so.

Please explain how you see the example of the USA, allowing the constitution to be completely changed in every way, being a bad system. It seems only this tiny experiment you wrote insists there should be no way to change the founding documents, no matter how out of date they may be. Every other constitution lays out a procedure for changing the document.

The USA had this argument, and we decided to trust the people, through an elected government. All power resides in the people, and can be revoked at any time. In fact, one great founder suggested a revolution every 20 years would be acceptable.

Imagine America had we not had the ability to rewrite the constitution and redefine it's tenants. Would black people be free, would women vote? You want to write in stone those rules you choose, and want to insist all future generations of SLers in N'burg abide by your "constitution".

I saw your attempts to take control early on by reading your "rules", but it wasn't my place to protest. Now you insist these rules only apply to after the rules were written. That way you can demand money while new people who donate time and effort can't. It's very convenient that you get to write the rules, then say what you meant when there is a question. Then you can say those rules don't apply to you because those rules, the rules you expect all to accept and live by, weren't in effect at the time. Surely you wrote a constitution that you felt was how it should be. Now you say it wasn't how it was, that you deserve compensation. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I remember what it was that ticked you off. New builders were getting paid, and you didn't get paid. So this all became a crusade.

How much money would you take to hand over all rights to your builds? Please let us know, I might be interested in donating to a fund to buy your ip rights so you can "rest in peace".

Being Ralph is not so bad though.

We have quite a few Ralph's (and Piggy's) in Neualtenburg.

We just have a problem with Jack.
He won't go away, and still covets our conch shell!

Why is all of this Nberger dirty laundry being aired in Notices and Well Wishes? Seems you guys would have wanted to keep this amongst yourselves.

Blame Torley. She moved it here -- from General, I believe.

This belongs in the Nberger forums.

Well it was a non-Nburger (Ulrika), that started the airing of the dirty laundry, we don't generally do that sort of thing in Nburg anymore.

I think Torley was trying to add a bit of light-heartedness to what at the time was a sort of vicious attack thread, and to move an attack on Nburg, into the Nburg forum might have caused more problems.

Unless the moderator problem can be sorted out, it's questionable whether the current Nburg forum will even continue to exist.

The original discussion belonged outside of the N'burg forum but the current discussion is off topic and probably would be better suited for the N'burg forum. Because of the original topic belongs here there is a ~5% chance the whole thread would be moved and because the discussion right now is amicable it has only a ~15% chance of being locked, despite the fact that it's off topic. Thus it persists, although with dramatically less activity. Give it two days and it will be buried 10 deep in the forum.

~Ulrika~

That's right. There they are their own landlords, and direct the city collectively using a governmental system. The benefit is that everyone gets to share the power. The drawback is that everyone gets to share the power.

~Ulrika~

OMGawd this thread is still on top? *rolls eyes*

I'm definately Simon.

I really needed a refresher.



~Ulrika~

Between my intimate knowledge of the book Lord Of The Flies , and my working knowledge of the Pakuni language from Land Of The Lost --I have trumped you at least twice in my life.

Jesus aboma gosa.

Forgive me for commenting - I am not a member of Neualtenburg, but I did wish to remark on this paragraph.

I think that had the SC stood for Scrutiny Committee, and had the members of that body been elected, I would say that if that body had unlimited veto power that would be probably the only form of government that *could* work in a virtual world.

If one body is legislative, with no powers of actual implementation, and another body has 'unlimited veto power' over proposed new legislation without being able to create it itself, you have a body that will minimise corruption.

Once you start taking that unlimited veto power away, you are opening the door to exceptions, to favouritism and to corruption. IMO.

And I speak from experience of just that situation in another virtual world.

"Scrutiny Committee" would have been also a quite cool name Or "Skeptical Committee"...

That particular body has two names, actually. One is the arrogant name of "Philosophic Branch", the idea behind it being that these would be people thinking about what goes on in Neualtenburg, think deeply about the ethical and moral aspects of it, and emit fundamented opinions on important questions.

The more regular name of "Scientific Council" brings out the other aspect of this branch: it should methodically, critically, and skeptically question everything that is being done in Neualtenburg — past, present, and future. Everytime something is done in Neualtenburg, the SC should question if it's valid, correct, and appropriate.

The idea of having three different branches, each one created in different ways (by freely joining; by getting elected to it; by being nominated/appointed), and all keeping the others in check and balance, was exactly to try to minimize corruption and abuse of power. The trick, of course, is how to accomplish the exact amount of "balance of power" by implementing the required checks.

Yes those two things and the fact that you're one of the most amazing and prolific artists I've ever met in my life!

~Ulrika~

It's definitely not an unlimited veto. The SC is exactly like the U.S. Judicial branch in that it can overturn laws that are in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and nothing more.

~Ulrika~

okay 3 things.

OTOH you're a genuis who snarks way better than I ever will and you have the most beautiful daughter in the world. I have a cat and a parrot.

Oh yeah? Well you actually taught me the word "snarky" (I saw you use it in the forums) and I've been using ever since.

Hey, this thread is almost to 200 posts and 5000 views. Not bad for four months off, eh?

~Ulrika~

I'm half convinced now - since the thread has neither died nor been deleted or closed for TOS violations as it should - that this is a collusive effort between LL and certain N-bergers to attract more attention and draw more residents to the "program".

Think about it. Do you REALLY think any one else would have gotten away with the initial post as written without it being edited? It's "the latest" in a long history of drahma posts by a forum darling that tromps on various forum guidelines - and the only action taken by LL is laugable at best.

Why does this belong in Notices now - by any stretch of the imagination?

Why has what has obviously become, at times via quite lengthy posts, justification for and explanation of N'berg history, policy and personalities and actions, condoned outside of the N'berg forum by the silence of LL? Oh wait, LL did speak when Torley was in the thread moving it here --- once acted on no return and reconsideration necessary? I get it now.

Yeah, dismiss this as a conspiracy theory .. go ahead. Have a good laugh.

But afterward, try to answer the above questions in the context of logic and rationality... What's really going on here?