Questions submitted at the RA candidate debate Nov 8

Post Reply
Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Questions submitted at the RA candidate debate Nov 8

Post by Callipygian »

Bromo :Q. "What are your plans to grow CDS?"

Stephen Xootfly: Q. while I appreciate my fellow candidates' position on the matter, I would challenge them to specify HOW they would create a sense of community beyond engaging in conversation.

Cadence Theas: Q1) Is it possible to build a POSITIVE working relationship with ALL of the citizens of CDS if one’s campaign is based on tearing down many of the previous administrations (chancellors and RAs) and accusing them, without concrete evidence, of incompetence?

Q2) I would like each candidate to define in very specific terms how they understand “diversity” when referring to the CDS population and potential members.

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Questions submitted at the RA candidate debate Nov 8

Post by Rosie Gray »

Callipygian wrote:

Bromo :Q. "What are your plans to grow CDS?"

If the number of citizens would warrant it (meaning that we have enough citizens covering the tier on all the existing sims), and a desire from existing citizens to grow the CDS, I would like to see us do 2 things: 1) purchase a homestead sim to fill in the gap on the west side of NFS. This would make a fine skiing sim in the winter, and natural area for the other seasons, with a few rural lots for people's homesteads. 2) Complete the plans that have been discussed for many years now, for the expansion/completion of NFS.

Callipygian wrote:

"Stephen Xootfly: Q. while I appreciate my fellow candidates' position on the matter, I would challenge them to specify HOW they would create a sense of community beyond engaging in conversation..

I believe that a sense of community is created by sharing in projects and interests. We currently have so many interesting and intelligent people who are citizens - I'd encourage people to bring their interests in-world and create groups for discussion, or activities... whatever it is they are interested in. Ludo Merit has done this recently with the Antiquariat in NFS. Perhaps someone would be interested in creating a horse-club, or a theatrical company. These types of activities give people something in common to focus on and collaborate on. Jamie has spoken recently about the football (soccer) field under the platz and holding games there again - another great idea that I'd love to see happen.

Callipygian wrote:

"Cadence Theas: Q1) Is it possible to build a POSITIVE working relationship with ALL of the citizens of CDS if one’s campaign is based on tearing down many of the previous administrations (chancellors and RAs) and accusing them, without concrete evidence, of incompetence?

The short answer to this question is a resounding 'no'!

I think that bullying people, ranting in meetings, disrespecting the process, spouting inuendoes and half-truths is very negative. Even if I haven't always agreed with previous administrations, I've always respected that those people have done their best to do what they think is right for CDS. The outgoing Chancellor and RAs have worked very hard as volunteers to make the CDS work and be a great place for everyone. There is a LOT of work that has gone on by these people; they don't necessarily blow their own horns about this work, and in my book this is a sign of a mature, decent person.

An empty vessel makes the loudest noise.

Callipygian wrote:

Q2) I would like each candidate to define in very specific terms how they understand “diversity” when referring to the CDS population and potential members.

Diversity:
Tolerance and acceptance of people no matter their creed, race, religion, sexual orientation. Further to this, diverse ideas on any topic, as long as they are expressed in a respectful manner and don't stand on anyone else's ideas and/or beliefs. This includes 'furries', 'tinys', elves, dragons, tree-avatars, animal avatars and whatever, as long as there is no repression of other people as expressed living in a democratic community such as the CDS.

"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Re: Questions submitted at the RA candidate debate Nov 8

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

Although I have addressed most of the answers on a separate thread, and since I was (again) unable to be present at the Nov 8 debate, I'll try to answer the additional questions here.

Bromo :Q. "What are your plans to grow CDS?"

I will not deny that I'm an expansionist! That means that any RA that includes me as a member requires someone with good fiscal sense to curb my attempts to fully implement the Masterplan in the shortest possible time.

In brief, I've always been a supporter of the 'one extra sim per year' concept. Since the RA and the community usually take one year to plan and implement a new sim, this would mean that one standing issue at every RA meeting would be the planning of a sim — once a sim is released, and given over for development, the RA would immediately start planning the next one. From my perspective as an expansionist, it is not so relevant how exactly the new sim will be marketed and sold — we need so much discussion and planning in advance, that this should be an ongoing effort. The 'last' discussion on a cycle of planning would be, 'can we deploy this now — do we have money and a waiting list — or should we wait another month?' But the RA would leave everything finished and approved for deployment and immediately start planning the next sim.

This could obviously lead to a situation where, for several reasons, a sim is not deployed on a particular year — but with all planning ready — and, the subsequent year, when conditions change, two sims could immediately be deployed. The work of planning sims would, however, go on indefinitely. This would also mean that a part of the frustration of groups like the Artisan Guild, which sometimes 'have nothing to do', would be avoided — they would constantly be planning and discussing the next sims and how to implement them.

Now that's my overall philosophy. Let's get down to earth!

Personally, I favour the continuation of the Alpine Theme, with another sim adjacent to Neufreistadt, because I believe the Covenants are a bit more flexible: 'medieval central European theme up in the mountains with some post-modern elements'. What this means is that the Alpine Theme is not meant to depict an imagined city as it was in the 1400s. Instead, it should look like a city in the 21th century where the majority of buildings have a medieval origin and have been preserved up to this day — which is commonplace in many actually existing European cities. This means that you can have a bunch of Fachwerks in a row but a modern, concrete bridge behind it — or a towering, post-modern Art Centre in the skyline. For individual citizens, outside 'public' areas, there can be a mix — you can have a villa which is actually not a Fachwerk but still looks great in the overall environment. As you all know, I'm actually fond of Jon Seattle's 'Red House Forest' plot in the valley: it's an abandoned gothic church which was 'reconverted' into an open-space public meeting area. This is very consistent with the 'Alpine Theme' and would not be out of place in RL — lots of similar mixes of 'very old' and 'post-modern usage' are common, and they still look great.

For this new sim I propose that a consistent effort is made to use meshes for the main buildings (and the 'freebie' buildings that we usually give away for citizens who don't know how to build — like me! — and/or cannot afford to pay someone to do the work) to see the impact it makes in terms of lag reduction. Consistent with the recent discussions, I would favour a sim with mostly large plots with plenty of LI, no commercial zoning (but no prohibition on commercial activity, for those who wish to engage in it) and a minimal public area for informal gatherings and minor events. Maybe a park with a duck pond!

Stephen Xootfly: Q. while I appreciate my fellow candidates' position on the matter, I would challenge them to specify HOW they would create a sense of community beyond engaging in conversation.

You cannot hammer 'sense of community' inside people's heads :) They either have it or not...

More seriously, in my past experience in the CDS, I have seen two ways of creating that sense of community. Yes, conversation is one of them, and I still think it's one of the best :-) But the second way is, and always has been, building things together. We have seen that happening over and over again: let people build something together in the public areas, and old enmities are dropped, as citizens formerly not on speaking terms come together and do lovely builds, forgetting their worries. Building things in the CDS is almost a miraculous therapy against apathy, envy, and enmity.

This is actually tied with the previous issue. We expansionists believe that a static CDS, where nothing much changes, and where citizens have no opportunities to come together and build things, lead to a growing sense of irritation and boredom. By contrast, an ever-evolving, ever-expanding CDS (within our fiscal abilities and the amount of work that can actually be done by volunteers!) presents an unique, ongoing opportunity of 'working together for a common goal' — and there isn't a better way to develop a sense of community.

At least that's what I have always seen happening in the CDS in the past.

Cadence Theas: Q1) Is it possible to build a POSITIVE working relationship with ALL of the citizens of CDS if one’s campaign is based on tearing down many of the previous administrations (chancellors and RAs) and accusing them, without concrete evidence, of incompetence?

Well, that question begs the answer 'no', if it's formulated that way.

While I'm usually naive and an optimist, I still retain some realistic expectations about that issue, and I'm aware that it is impossible to have a positive relationship with ALL citizens. But that is not a requirement of a democracy. Democracies realise that people have all different views, goals, fears, and expectations, and they cannot be 'forced' to 'get along together'. Instead, what democracies propose as an alternative is a way for settling issues in a peaceful matter: giving people the vote to decide how things ought to be done.

So, no, I don't believe that it's possible to please EVERYBODY. But obviously you can make an effort not to be a nuisance to your fellow citizens by avoiding to defame, libel, or accuse them. Sadly, however, that's a moral issue — and while democracies propose an overall ethical model of tolerance and inclusiveness, individuals will not subscribe to those issues. But that's why we also have mechanisms to deal with that as well! (e.g. appeals to the SC, for instance).

Q2) I would like each candidate to define in very specific terms how they understand “diversity” when referring to the CDS population and potential members.

A very good question, and one which, I believe, I have already partially answered, but I will try to address it in a more focused way.

For me, as long as the CDS remains a democracy, there are only two requirements for being a citizen: 1) Abide by the constitution, laws, and covenants; 2) Pay tier. It's also implicit that people have to follow the LL ToS (which means: no sharing of account passwords and the like). Note that 'citizen' is the person, not the avatar (this ought to be clear for anyone who still thinks that alts can be allowed to become citizens...).

'Diversity', in this context, means sticking to that rule and being inclusive — not elitist, not exclusivist, not practicing ostracism. I'm well aware that this is an ideal which can often not be reached, but I still maintain that one of the fundamental values of any democracy is being inclusive, and giving everybody the same rights and duties. This has a lot of implications, some of which I'm aware that nag on some people's nerves. For example, should we open up the CDS to well-known griefers or people who have a known track record of disgruntling communities through their words and actions? Many would say, 'keep those people out'. I would instead say, 'so long as they abide by our constitution, laws, covenants, and pay tier, let them in'. Because griefing, dismantling communities, lying, cheating, abuses, and so forth are all covered by our laws, and are good reasons to fine or even ban those types. But you cannot exclude them a priori just because you dislike them. Even the worst griefer or moral offender might, indeed, become a peaceful citizen if they are quite willing to abide by our constitution, laws, and covenants.

This is what happens in RL democracies as well. If you're a criminal, you still have rights. If you're released after years of imprisonment, and choose to abide by your country's laws, you get full rights as a citizen again, and legally — even if, sadly, not socially — you have the same rights and duties as every other citizen. In practice, I understand that this is not really quite the case (there is a huge social stigma attached to having been in jail), but I'm talking about the values that democracies ought to defend and promote, not the everyday application of those values by biased and prejudiced citizens.

It's the same issue with that all-encompassing virtue of democracies, 'freedom of expression'. Yes, you have the right to say whatever you wish, whenever you wish, to whomever you wish. But if you're offensive or disruptive, you're violating other people's rights — the right to personal integrity, for instance — and these actions are seen as libel or defamation, and treated as crimes. What this means is that you can say whatever you wish so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others of personal integrity (i.e. so long as they are not offended). The careful balance of those two extremes is what gives democracies its strength.

So, in my view, 'diversity' comes from embracing the concept that the CDS, as a democracy, cannot say in advance which are the 'right' people that it should have. In a democracy you cannot 'screen' people to see if they are 'suitable' to be part of the democracy. Instead, everybody is acceptable, and everybody has the same rights — but also the same duties! What would be seen an 'unsuitable' person by many is someone who is constantly violating our constitution, laws, or covenants — but, in all those cases, once they actually happen (and not before), we have ways to deal with them.

I cannot stress this further. I totally oppose the idea that we can only have 'one type of citizen', which is deemed to be 'ideal' for our democracy. This is completely against the whole ideal of a democracy — it is, quoting Prokofy Neva from years ago, pure bolshevism: the idea that you have to be invited to be part of a closed group to benefit from its advantages. A real democracy is not a closed group. It will have widely different individuals, with different goals, ideas, purposes, expectations. But that variety — 'diversity' if you wish — is actually one of its biggest strengths.

I strive to make sure that CDS is not merely another groupthink community, like so many others, where you have to please the 'leader' and think like the 'leader' thinks, in order to continue to be part of the group. Instead, a democracy like the CDS embraces the concept that everybody is allowed to think by themselves, and voice their opinions publicly.

Let me just add that I fully understand why this issue is constantly raised — I'm naive, I know, but not that naive. First, there is the issue of 'friends'. For some, the idea that citizens may have 'friends' outside the CDS and bring them all in to become new citizens is a horror. This is seen as being a cheap trick to buy votes and gain influence at the RA, Executive, or other branches of government. Well, in my experience, this practice doesn't last for long. You can certainly bring in a hundred 'friends', let them stay around for 6 months, and win the next elections — but so what? Either those hundred friends become active members of the community, and then, as valid citizens, we will benefit and be enriched by their presence and ability to do great things — or they will tolerably accept to vote once, pay tier now and then, but simply leave afterwards. SL is fluid and dynamic. I remember that Beathan once made that attempt, as a proof-of-concept, inviting five friends to pay tier for half a year, so that he could be elected to the RA — which he was. This was made publicly. Where are his 'friends' now? They left, because they didn't find the CDS community that interesting.

On the other hand, we have certainly excellent examples of friends who were invited, joined the community, found it wonderful here, and remained for many years — sometimes even taking different approaches and adopting different ideas than the ones from the original person who invited them. So what? New citizens are new citizens, no matter where they have come from.

It was also argued in the past that 'letting potential disruptors in the CDS is a bad idea', because that would raise the amount of drama, and have 'old' citizens leave in disgust. Well, I have a huge problem with the concept of a 'potential disruptor', because, in a democracy, everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Who knows if a 'potential disruptor' is tired of being so 'disruptive' and joins the CDS because they wish some peace of mind in a community that does not practice ostracism? Shouldn't we give them an opportunity to prove how our moral values as a democracy work, and how they can make life (even life in SL!) much better? Isn't that the purpose of being a democracy, after all?

If the 'disruptive' element is so strongly present that this person cannot avoid but to violate the laws and so forth, then, well, that's why we have them — to make sure we can legally kick them out. But it won't be 'on a whim' or based on 'assumptions' and 'rumours', but because of hard, solid facts.

I think that it's time for some of us to realise that the CDS is not our private playground, for a tiny closed group that has amassed a large amount of money which allows them to create pretty buildings and chat with their close acquaintances, while excluding others at whim. This is, indeed, part of my 4-step programme for my campaign: making sure that we become an inclusive community, not a 'private playground', and that means not fearing the diversity that naturally arises if we are quite clear that no one in the CDS is to be ostracised.

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Post Reply

Return to “Additional questions submitted to Chancellor & RA Candidates by citizens”