Page 1 of 1

Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Wed Feb 05, 2020 8:36 pm
by Han Held
1)Groups are independant entities; we have no control over who joins someone else's group, nor how they are run.

2)Group access could potentially be used to circumvent bans -if nothing else they allow a "back door" for people to be a part of the CDS even after having been banned.

3)Group management comes with drama, and that drama will be put at our feet starting with the first breakup where the citizen partner is kicked out of their group and we're asked to mediate (and we will be -regardless of whatever policies we bring up).

4)It makes citizenship ambiguous

5)Who votes? The officer? What about the folks who become officers after the census is taken? Do they get to vote?

That's honestly just scratching the surface; people who are smarter than I am can come up with even better, more detailed arguments as to why this is a horrible, horrible idea.

Please do not do this.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:37 am
by Sudane Erato
Hmmm...

Han, I'm not sure if this post is in response to Lyubov's proposal in the RA section... or not. That one needs to be read on it's merits. But with regard to your points... I have to say that I totally agree. Providing for citizenship BECAUSE you as an individual belong to a group is a terrible idea, for all the reasons you say.

However, that's not what Lyu's proposal presents. Her proposal simply adds an extension onto our existing citizenship definition, which is that a person must have at least one parcel in their name, and matching tierbox in their name, current in tier. Lyu's proposal adds the possibility that subject to the proposed conditions, that parcel could be owned by a group of which the individual was a member. The tierbox would still need to be in the citizen's name.

If it was determined as fact that the individual was no longer part of the group, then they are simply no longer a citizen until they re-meet all the criteria. This happens all the time in the CDS, where people fall behind in their tier and find themselves no longer listed. In that case they need to pay up. In the case of the tierbox connected to a group-owned parcel, they'll need to get their own parcel (and tierbox). There's no "backdoor"... individuals are individuals, regardless of what groups they belong to, so if they are banned, they are banned.

Anyway, I hope you... and everyone... can see the merits in the new proposal. It enables people to join in land ownership and enjoy the benefits of multiple parcels while also enabling citizenship to be gained by that ownership.


Sudane.................

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:02 am
by Tanoujin Milestone
There are two points that need to be taken into account to understand this proposal.

1.Before, when a group owned parcel changed owner, the scanner software was not able to handle groups and referred to the previous owner as „nobody“. So it was not possible to keep track of the changes after the fact.

2. there is a high demand of couples (or similar social structures) to share parcel rights. With the current regulation a couple that wants to share rights on a parcel needs to own 3 parcels - one group owned, and the other two to maintain citizenship for both of them.
Lyubov gives this kind of group the possibility to keep it down to two parcels.

I do not want to discuss the current citizenship definition again - having other ideas in mind, I accepted it as it is because it is simple to understand and it works fine in reality. It is manageable this way. If there is demand, we should give the potential citizens the best possibilities we can draft *within* the given framework. And Lyubovs proposal does exactly that. It is an add-on.

My only critique is that it does not pass the grandma test the way it is written now - obviously after some hard work in the back office. Please add a rationale and make it understandable for everyone.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:32 pm
by Han Held
Sudane Erato wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:37 am
Hmmm...

Han, I'm not sure if this post is in response to Lyubov's proposal in the RA section... or not.
It is. Given how famously bad I am at law it's entirely possible that I misunderstood what I was reading.

If I did, mea culpa.
Sudane Erato wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:37 am
That one needs to be read on it's merits. But with regard to your points... I have to say that I totally agree. Providing for citizenship BECAUSE you as an individual belong to a group is a terrible idea, for all the reasons you say.

However, that's not what Lyu's proposal presents. Her proposal simply adds an extension onto our existing citizenship definition, which is that a person must have at least one parcel in their name, and matching tierbox in their name, current in tier. Lyu's proposal adds the possibility that subject to the proposed conditions, that parcel could be owned by a group of which the individual was a member. The tierbox would still need to be in the citizen's name.
I didn't catch that the teirbox would still be in a citizen's name, and that does make a world of difference.
Sudane Erato wrote:
Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:37 am

Anyway, I hope you... and everyone... can see the merits in the new proposal. It enables people to join in land ownership and enjoy the benefits of multiple parcels while also enabling citizenship to be gained by that ownership.


Sudane.................
To be obvious -and redundant, I'm having difficulty following what's being proposed (or even the use case for it -as opposed to setting land to group now). I'm nervous about anything that touches the core definition of citizenship, but this seems to have a lot of support (and no opposition that I'm aware of) so we'll see what happens.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 8:49 am
by Lilith Ivory
The only reason why I think we need this addition to our existing citizenship law is to allow friends to share prims within a region.

Let´s say for example that we have citizen A and citizen B who both have one parcel in NFS. They live together and would of course like to join their prims in one pool. The only way to do this is to deed both parcels to the same group.

Sadly so far we could not grant citizenship in this case due to limitations of SL and our landscanner tools. So far all group owned land just showed as owned by "someone" for the landscanner and we had no way to figure out to which group the parcel belonged.

This has changed now!

Thanks to LL and Sudane who worked hard to improve our landscanner script we are now able to get the group key (did I use the right word here?) for each group owned parcel.

I am quoting Sudane here from http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9359
as she can explain this better than little me can :)
Technically, the scanner returns the "key" of the owner group. The application process proposed by Lyubov asks the applicant citizen(s) for the name and key of the group, as well as the list of citizens who would be qualified to be owners via this group. We'll then add a simple look-up table to our citizenship file which delivers the name of the group each time the scanner detects that key
This means that if Citizen A and citizen B want to join the prims of their parcels they form a group and give the key of their group and their names to the chancellor who passes his info to Sudane so she can put it on the citizenship file.

Sudane further states:
As for group membership, this we have no automated access to. We *may* require that qualifying group members be listed "publicly" in the group so that this can be checked. Or we *may* simply disqualify someone who, upon challenge, is discovered not to belong to a group they claim to belong to. Personally, I don't feel it makes much difference. The purpose here is to obtain correspondence between the name on the tierbox (which *must* be the prospective citizen) and the ownership of the land itself. A group officer can supply the list of qualifying names, and they can be checked.
As some people might not want to have the members of their group exposed for all SL to see I am in favor with the second option.
If one of those people leaves the group, true, we may not know right away. Technically they are no longer a citizen, unless they then go and buy their own parcel in their own name. But anyone who suspects this might be the case can check, and if need be challenge that citizenship. As I've noted elsewhere, this happens all the time with unpaid tier, which also disqualifies a person from citizenship.
The citizenship of group members can be challenged exactly the same way as we do it with "normal" citizens.
… and as member of the SC I would like to ask especially the exec team to make more use of the challenge system as it also happens all the time that a citizen leaves CDS after a census was taken but still stays on the voters list as nobody informs the SC about this fact officially.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:11 pm
by Tanoujin Milestone
Thank you, Lilith, for giving a simple example from the users‘ perspective.
So how do we find our group key for application if it is not showed in our viewer? (Firestorm shows it, the Standard Viewer does not!)
I found a script that returns the key of the group to which an object is set:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Group_key_finder

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:28 am
by richie deschanel
I have to say that I support the proposal. Awen and I both have parcels in NFS but are unable to share prims without grouping but if the land is grouped we both lose citizenship, even though we are still the 'landowners' . How fair is that?

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:24 pm
by Emilia Avindar
My minimalist take is that irregardless of group deeding, the owner of the tier box/post is the "owner" for purposes of our Census. If this is accurate and fair, I see no reason not to allow groups to behave as families or other fraternal societies while remaining under the sponsorship of the Citizen/Owner of the Tier Post who also belongs to the group and who deeded to the group. '

Of course, no group deeded parcel may deviate from CDS regulations and whatever Terms of Service apply.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:12 am
by Tanoujin Milestone
„To hold title of a parcel means: to be the only tenant of the corresponding tier box AND to be owner of the parcel as seen in the About Land Popup, EITHER directly OR by membership of the private Group the parcel may be deeded to.“

Ok?

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 1:28 am
by Awenbunny Lisle
Richie and I have been waiting a long time for this improvement to the system. We own a prim plot to supplement our home while I own a “citizen residence” that we are currently unable to use the prims from.
Thank you so much for figuring out a way we can make this “citizen residence” be of some use out of election season.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:10 am
by Han Held
Tanoujin Milestone wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:12 am
„To hold title of a parcel means: to be the only tenant of the corresponding tier box AND to be owner of the parcel as seen in the About Land Popup, EITHER directly OR by membership of the private Group the parcel may be deeded to.“

Ok?
Group membership can change, though.

I can't imagine a practical case where someone would leave a group but allow it on their land; but for the sake of argument let's say that they do? Then one of the two requirements wouldn't be met.

I don't understand why you need the dual clause there. I see the issue with needing to allow group owned land, and it seems to me that changing the definition from "their name is on the about:land" to "their name is on the teir box" would solve the same problem.

Why not go with something like: "parcel ownership shall include either direct ownership of a parcel OR having their name appear on the tier box" (or however you want to specify that caspervend has them assigned to that parcel)?

The dual clause is confusing to me, and seems unnecessary. I would suggest changing it from "appears on about land" to "is assigned to pay that tier on caspervend" and then specifically allow deeded land.

As far as I am aware of, there's no way for groups to "own" a parcel on the caspervend website, is there?

I think that there are more direct ways to allow deeded land than what's being proposed. As you pointed out earlier in the thread -it's very unapproachable to folks not conversant in the law. it not only doesn't pass the grandma test, it doesn't pass the i-am-not-a-lawyer test.

Re: Allowing group citizenship is a dumb idea, which will blow up in our faces.

Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:14 pm
by Tanoujin Milestone
I did not intend to call you a granny, Monica :D. Btw my fathers mom, the black Luzie, was quite clever - surely smarter than I will be ever - so even if I would call you a granny, we would have to think of her as the epitome of it ;)
edit: you know, it is interesting what patrimonial mainstream makes of old women, going back to imperial roman roots: they are seen as the embodiment of the unwanted. Witch hunters have killed them en masse - a both fascinating and gruesome topic.