Bitter Ashcroft - A look from January 2007

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":175amegm]Ash does not attempted to discredit the whole CDS. He specifically directs his criticism at the group of people who first comissioned, passed and then discarded his work: the RA.[/quote:175amegm]

Unfortunately, Ash is loudly and repeatedly telling people that the CDS is full of "anti-intellectuals" and telling people to stay away from it. That's what precipitated this thread.

[quote:175amegm]Abuse and threats on that scale isn't trolling? I disagree.[/quote:175amegm]

I'll give you that one. Sounds like trolling to me! :)

User avatar
Sleazy_Writer
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:38 am

Post by Sleazy_Writer »

<TOPGenosse shakes his head at Carolyns post, and is not going into this>

[color=white:265fl4rl][size=67:265fl4rl](but knows he can expect a disagreeing reply anyway ..)[/size:265fl4rl][/color:265fl4rl]

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

It was sad, and I hope we can try again.

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

Today is my last day in the RA. I was the only RA advocate of the Judiciary Act from beginning to end. I am sorry I wasn't able to defend it more strongly, and reach another series of compromises and consensus to allow us to keep it in some form.

I don't want to debate or rehash the reasons for its repeal, let's just say that the democratic process was followed with 4/5ths of the RA repealing it.

I am hopeful that the CDS can still create an effective and enforceable conflict resolution system in SL. Along those lines please don't underestimate the massive amounts of work it would take and the Titanic amount of Ashcroft's work that has been discarded without so much as a thank-you. I wonder where we will ever find someone willing to put in the equivalent of 1000 volunteer hours of professional legal work.

I ask the community to show some restraint and not to appear petty or vindictive towards Ashcroft at this sensitive time. Thanks! -Pel

Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

The sad and simple fact is that no product or institution can be defended or justified merely on the ground that it took a lot of work to create. If the product of the effort is bad, or undesirable, (and the JA fits this description) then it should be abandoned without regard to the amount of effort that went into it.

In economics, the effort it takes to create something are called "sunk costs." Decisions should be made based on prospective costs and benefits. A thing should be maintained only if it is likely to produce real future benefits to justify its apparent future costs. The Judiciary Act failed this test. The Judiciary Act failed this test not because the project was a bad one -- or was in any way unsound -- but because of the effects of the unilateral choices Ashcroft made when developing and implementing his Act. These choices were not choices that fit this community well.

The problem with the project -- and the thing we should learn from its failure -- is that [i:2yy4nwek] carte blanche[/i:2yy4nwek] (or blank check) projects of this kind do not work well in democracies. We should develop our ideas and institutions collectively, as a community. We should not give a single person the power and duty to create an institution for later presentation to the rest of us when it was finished.

This latter way of doing things is called "dictatorship". This claim might seem overly loaded, but it is actually fair. On the Roman model, a "dictator" was a single person given [i:2yy4nwek] carte blanche [/i:2yy4nwek] powers for a particular purpose and for a limited time. These limitations worked well until the dictatorship of Sulla, who proved that having the institution of "dictatorship" is inherently dangerous because the institution has a natural tendency to defy its limits or to seek an unlimited mandate. (Sulla, like Hugo Chavez, was made a dictator for the purpose of "restructuring the laws and institutions of the state." I think that Venezuela's experience in the next few years will tend to confirm the historical evidence that such empowerment of an individual is a bad idea.)

In this case, it is fair to say that we made Ashcroft "Dictator for the purpose of creating and implementing a judiciary." This was a fundamentally mistaken process to follow in creating an institution of the state (a judiciary) which we all agree we want, but which will govern and restrict our actions and liberties. (I note that CARE does not appear to have learned this lesson -- as Michel's recent "let's just appoint someone else -- say Oni -- to be dictator instead of Ashcroft" proposal shows.) Rather, the RA, with consultation with the citizenry, should work to develop a new judiciary or (as I prefer) refine and perfect the existing judiciary (the SC).

This is not to say that we should not thank people who perform great work on our behalf, even if that work fails to produce anything we can accept or use. However, we did thank Ashcroft, repeatedly and sincerely, for his work -- while also telling him why we cannot use the product of that work. This thanks without submission was not acceptable to Ashcroft.

To Ashcroft, the only sincere form of thanks would be full, unquestioning and obedient acceptance of the Judiciary Act as he presented it to us. This "thanks by submission" rather than "thanks by recognition" is not acceptable to most of us, and is not compatible with the ideals and principles of a democracy. If Ash feels pique as a result, and if he has the pettiness to strike at us out of that misplaced pique, I consider his actions to be a full and further indictment of his character -- an indictment that justifies (even if it were not justified already) our decision to refuse to follow the Ashcroftian road.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Dexter Leopold
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:56 am

Post by Dexter Leopold »

I would have to agree with Pel's prior comment that this is no time to be petty and vindictive regarding Ash's "annoucement." Some people become more passionate and emotional than others, and express said feelings in different ways. I would express "my opinion" that I have seen many a post on this very forum that was far more attacking and hateful than what Ash elected to send out (which was in poor judgment in my opinion). To respond in kind would make us no better, and would do little to boost our imagine amongst those potentially interested in becoming a part of the CDS. Who would want to join a society when their first impression of that society is it engaging in a finger-pointing, word war (aside from maybe Beathan, of course, jk)? And why in our "democracy" should we be so enraged over someone's decision to criticize our government? What are we truly if this is some reprehensible act to us?

I recall reading a prior post suggesting that the best thing to do is to move forward with positive promotion of the best features of our society, rather than continuing this volley of negativity. I sincerely believe it is time to move on. I feel that this whole episode has not been our proudest moment, but it is just a moment. A moment that will pass, if we all just allow that to happen and move forward. Hopefully our society, and particularly specific members of it, can exist happily without the need for some heated topic giving them the opportunity for constant and heated debate. I for one believe all of our citizens are intelligent persons, with the ability to interpret events themselves, and do not require that be proven to me.

Remember: This is a democracy, not a utopia. Not everyone is going to be happy all the time.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Update

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

After I sent a notecard to group members about the issue of whether it was appropriate for him to post a criticism of the CDS in the group notices of the Local Government Study Group, without anyone else having the ability to post group notices, he ejected me from the group.
Again, we see that Ash doesn't value democracy or democratic concepts with his actions.

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Update

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":1h37jbzs]After I sent a notecard to group members about the issue of whether it was appropriate for him to post a criticism of the CDS in the group notices of the Local Government Study Group, without anyone else having the ability to post group notices, he ejected me from the group.
Again, we see that Ash doesn't value democracy or democratic concepts with his actions.[/quote:1h37jbzs]

You deliberately omitted to mention (no doubt in order to decieve) the fact that you posted in that notecard a private IM conversation between us that you had failed to obtain my consent to redistribute: a violation of the LL Community Standards.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Update

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":21a4z064][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":21a4z064]After I sent a notecard to group members about the issue of whether it was appropriate for him to post a criticism of the CDS in the group notices of the Local Government Study Group, without anyone else having the ability to post group notices, he ejected me from the group.
Again, we see that Ash doesn't value democracy or democratic concepts with his actions.[/quote:21a4z064]

You deliberately omitted to mention (no doubt in order to decieve) the fact that you posted in that notecard a private IM conversation between us that you had failed to obtain my consent to redistribute: a violation of the LL Community Standards.[/quote:21a4z064]

/me rolls eyes. Yeah, Ashcroft, whenever a fact is left out, it's "deliberate" and "no doubt in order to decieve" (sic).

As we discussed, if you are appointing yourself watchdog of the Community Standards and the ToS, you should look harder at your original posting to the group and whether it violates Term of Service 4.1(iv) which states, "You shall not...take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; "

I am also again disappointed that instead of really promoting local governance through your group, which is an area of interest we share, instead you have chosen to restrain free speech within the group and use it to bash the only true local government in SL.

I forwarded the same notecard I sent out to group members to Philip Linden and asked for his opinion on whether or not I was out of line with my behavior.

By the way, I rejoined the group. If you want it to be your private club, you need to make it private. If you want it to be a public group, it needs to be public.

User avatar
Chicago Kipling
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:07 pm

Post by Chicago Kipling »

This will go nowhere beneficial to either of you friends. Perhaps we should ponder a few thoughts we received earlier and move on.

A good photograph is like a good hound dog, dumb, but eloquent. ~ Eugene Atget
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Chicago Kipling":53g8haee]This will go nowhere beneficial to either of you friends. Perhaps we should ponder a few thoughts we received earlier and move on.[/quote:53g8haee]

I would LOVE to move on. That's why in spite of Ash's behavior in the CDS, I still joined the Local Government Study Group he founded rather than creating a separate group. Unfortunately, his inappropriate behavior has continued.

Ranma Tardis

we all lost

Post by Ranma Tardis »

It is sad that things worked out this manner. Our Chief Judge leaving us and internal conflict ruling the day, we lost a lot from this conflict.
I hope there is some way that we can all get along and move along tougher. We are so much stronger tougher than separating and going our own way.

User avatar
Prokofy
Lurker
Lurker
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:58 am

Post by Prokofy »

Just a quick note to say:

1. I am not an ally of the CDS, I never follow socialists, especially those that have to try to qualify their socialism with a distracting "democratic".

2. I found Ashcroft to be an insufferable boor, and came to the conclusion that he was even deranged. He is untethered. Even in a synthetic and imaginary world, you need people to be tethered.

3. Ashcroft isn't to be credited with being an "inspiration". He merely appeared in a vacuum because there was a social demand. The demand for justice didn't go away because he failed. There are lots of reasons for this failure, but chief among them is that he is untethered.

4. Beathan's song is really funny!

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”