Open Letter to So Many Anti-Government Whiners

umm.... it's a government, of a sort and of a certain form.

governments range from very local to very global.

john searle might argue that government is an intersubjective fact (being ontologically subjective and epistemologically objective), and as such requires an element of intentionality.

foucault might argue that government in sl could exercises biopower but not sovreign power. not that i really think foucault made a very useful distinction.

your turn to argue.

hehehe been so long since I've seen a 'In Soviet Russia' joke that actually works

Brilliant!

land is not power. it may be symbolic of power, but it is not power. just as the quantity paper currency one has is not the same as the measure of one's wealth.

control over land is a power, but not imo a very meaningful power most of the time.

I agree with you! That is a very insightful way of looking at things.

For Nberg, I'd say we are trying the third option as well. We have land, are working cooperatively, and trying to attract people to join as well. However, we also add in our method of group organization, a democratically elected assembly, as one of the assets we can offer people who join.

Great point Khamon!

~Ulrika~

I can accept and even embrace a group that evaluates the greater needs and desires of the SL population pertaining to new features and bug fixes and even the priority of those. This serves a function in that it gives those in world who do not participate in the forums or directly contact the Lindens a voice in these matters.

With regard to decisions that SL Residents make regarding the land that they "lease" from LL, if the Lindens want to release some sims designated to zoning based on group government and participation - hoorah - go for it. I'll never buy land on them, but then others may.

As long as sims that are not zoned or governed in that manner are also released in proportional measure to demand and SL residents have a choice, I would see this as a solution to people who feel left out because their sim is not zoned.

The only problem I see with this solution is supply not meeting demand for one sim type or the other. It is in the Lindens best interest to keep supply of the more demanded sims lower to drive their price up higher. This would then become an issue when SL residents who want to live in a certain type of sim could not afford it and are forced into accepting something they do not want.

Thanks, Shadow. I think we understand each other.

One thing I do want to restate, though. I think I am just as much against the possibility of any government that has the power, or the predilection, to interfere with my autonomy. My design, in fact, is meant to place this body IN PLACE of any subsequent attempts to institute more repressive schemes. I have confidence that the People will protect a beneficial form of “government” much more vigorously than they’d work to prevent a void from being filled. I intend to have that void already full.

I agree that there is always SOME amount of danger when large numbers of people move together. If there is any danger in this model, you are absolutely right that the best defense is simply to participate. Or, at the very least, read the published minutes. Since all records are public – including all discussions leading to any decisions – all dealings will be transparent, and open for frank appraisal.

Still, as long as we adhere to the basic principle that no compulsion may be visited upon the local entity without its agreement and participation, your personal freedom will always be unfettered – no matter how uninformed you remain.

In the meantime, though, I think I will continue to call this “government” – or at least a “branch of government.” While it may be “powerless” as far as enforcement or individual compulsion, it still does represent the spoken power of the collective States (groups). It does have the power to speak Truth to Power. And that ain’t nuffin to laff at.

Perhaps, someday, it will grow into something more Parlimentarian. Probably not – that would be a bloddy transition from where I;m starting. Too long a road. At any rate, I doubt we will ever be rid of the King, or usurp any of his power, so I think the best use of our energies is to form a Representative Branch that supports and balances the Executive. This way, the Groups get stronger, the Executive becomes more efficient, and the People become well-informed and well-represented.

Ah but that dear Jacqqueline, is where you missed the boat. I am not fighting to stop a government within the confines of an individual owners sim or land as that is their right and I would never presume to take that right away from them.

However, as I mentioned earlier I am against any player even cloaked as a supposed "Government" official having any powers greater than mine within SL. To simplify this Any Player granted anymore access or control of Second Life functions due to an elected status. For Example a Person getting elected to a Policepersons satus thus having the ability to ban or remove anyone from SL. This goes as well for a government across the board with in SL.

I have no problems with a Land owner enacting dictatorship of his or her land as that is their right. However, I do oppose a government being able to tell that same dictator that they cant be a dictator on their own land. Or for that matter judging a build and calling it ugly and must be torn down. Sorry not flying here.

By Definition LL wants us to be self governing this in my vision would include the very same things Kathy outlined would not be in her organization. Such as Linden Powers to ban, access content etc. That is what I stand against. Anyone having any specialised powers that I as an individual do not. This alone is what my fight and my stance against the terminology of "Government" is.

I think there is no way to make it any clearer than by what I have defined here. If you ask those same individuals supporting government persey I am sure they would to an extent agree with that agenda. Unless of course their goal is to form a coup and overthrow LL and run SL themselves as a seperate company and that will never happen.

Shadow...The Ancient

Isn't this all just another level of organization? I mean, currently, we have a supposed organization of Linden Labs, players who have LL's ear, and the rest of us. Now we have 'government' proposals for a new layer of organization, to 'give a voice' to the rest of us (or rather, all players).

But you're just going to see the same thing happen as what's claimed to be happening already. In any organization of people, hierarchical structures are going to form, despite any safeguards one might try to implement. People are very good at taking existing rules and using them to their own benefit. Those who are better speakers, have better connections with others, etc, will simply become a new 'elite' in any organized group; it's inevitable.

If someone at the bottom has a concern, and wants it heard, and go through the channels... and someone 'up top' doesn't agree with them... who's to say their concern will ever be passed on? The Secretary takes down all the minutes without editing? Says who? What if I'm chummy with the Secretary?

Not trying to be paranoid, here... just realistic. People always try to find advantage in any structure. It's what life does.

Summary, Survival of the fittest. Those that can will...period.. Thank you Cross that so complimented the arguments both Rose and Myself had been questioning.

Rose,

The intention is that all groups (over some arbitrary number of members we’ll have to set and then adjust during the first Meeting) will be represented identically. This means the Neualtenburgers are equal to the Leftists to the WWIIOLers to the strip club to the shopping mall group to the group formed to rule a themed sim or an island sim. They all speak, they all get published, they all participate equally in deliberation and discussion, and they are all asked to agree on any proposals.

Non-grouped individuals, under this model, are not represented. I thought a long time about this. My model is basically a recognition of “States’ Rights” in that it sees Groups as the largest “governmental” unit less than national. This is the unit the Lindens have built for us to govern with, and it’s good enough, I think, to stand in for Home Rule.

Non-grouped citizens are tricky. If I give them a de-facto “Group”, it seems presumptive, at least, and wrong on a few levels. If I leave them out, then they get left out. I would be comfortable with some sort of “Petition to Speak” construction, but I’m not sure that would be much better. It smells a bit like non-Grouped people are less that citizens.

So, I think one of the first proposals, or even constitutional provisions, may be to form an official Group for anyone not in another Group, but who still wants representation.

It’s important to remember, Though, that there are bound to be many people who do NOT want to be in a representational Group, and prefer to left out of this process completely. This right must be respected, and the Meeting should never try to shoehorn these citizens into any adhoc “group.” In fact, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Meeting to even attempt to represent those who prefer not to be represented.

Thank you for the response Kathy. It does lead me to another question though. Many people are members of several groups. I am a member of at least 8, many of those so that I could put plants on their land, some of them because they are a group of like minded friends.

So people who are in multiple groups - does this mean that they have multiple opportunities to present their opinions?

Unfortunately, Kathy I still have to argue the point that what your proposing is not a government. Nor is it a sub form or layer therein.

It is merely a group of individuals collectively sharing the same Ideas and thoughts and voicing them as one to the powers that be.

Unfortunately this relates more to a Lobbist styled organization as the group is not part of Linden labs proper.
Thus not a direct part of the true government.
Remember Linden Lab has to listen to your organization for it to effect change.
That in a nutshell is my argument as to why your Not a Branch of the government or a Governmental Organization.
For that matter considering Cross's point your organization is not even a layer as there is no layers.
Itss simply Linden Lab and the consumer period.
If the consumers decide to take advantage of your organization they are mearly utilising a resource for stronger method of communication..

Shadow..The Ancient

Folks,

I have to drive home now. Give me time for dinner and I think I can pick back up around post # 274.

Damn Real Life.

Will our Lobbist treat the Lindens like Lobbist in the US treat our Congress people?

I can see it now - Bub would be insatiable.

We'd all have to pool our $L in for Haney's Havoc 2

We'd have to hire Blake to dance for Char

We could give Jeska SL theatre tickets (or threaten to disclose her location to Billy)

The list goes on ....

Well stated but again wouldnt Education be more of a Key factor in your proposal. For those that dont want to participate should they still not have the ability to be informed?

If they say today they do not want to be a part however through parusing the minutes they find a topic they are adament about. Would they have to join a group just to get thier voices heard. The problem lies where those individuals being partisans basically only there when you need them kinda people so to speak. So how would a group of individuals with the same stance yet normally unaffiliated be able to enact their concerns?

I will get back on track with this in the morning as its time for me to leave for the day.

Be well and I can pick up on this some more tomorrow.

Shadow...The Ancient

That's a good point Shadow. It sounds like Kathy is proposing a hierarchical method of passing information up from below to LL.

<devil's advocate>

To fill in for Eggy, why is a hierarchy needed when everyone can access the feature request page in the forums? Further, what if LL were to create an in-world or supplemental web-based voting page that allowed users to rank feature requests in the system? No hierarchy would be required.

I find governments much more valuable when they address a local group's immediate concerns and provide them with tools to make their gaming more enjoyable.

</devil's advocate>

~Ulrika~

Government Second Life? what will it be like! Well, lets look into Kayin's magical crystal ball and get INSIGHT --

INSIGHT FROM THE WORLD OF TOMORROW!

HAHAHA Your crazy!!!

So, good luck with that!

And you wonder why so many of us are against Governence by other users. I pay for my account, therefore the only people I will want to deal with with regards to rules are LL, not some user government.

Kayin! You are a genius.

Contact me by email or in world. I have something tangentially related to your clever post I want to talk to you about.

~Ulrika~

Rose,

Once again, in my model, the local groups govern themselves as they do already. The nationals Meeting would not be able to make - or, for that matter, enforce - an laws. The best they could do is reach a unanimous agreement that a law should exist. Then, if they want, the Groups would have the option of doing something about it. They already have this power, so the only difference would be that the Meeting allows the Groups to discuss and agree among themselves. If a Group decides not to act, then it doesn't matter a bit. They can still come to the meeting, and still say whatever they want. nothing changes.

Remember, there is no Membership List, and any resolutions must be unanimous.

Yeah. I read it. He's offering a reward of L$8000 for people to grief me. I'll state right now that I will certify any claim anyone wants to make against this clown. If anyone asks, you've already griefed me and can collect your 8000 from Bozo.

So, rush on over. Tell him you blew me up, blew me down, or just plain blew me. I don't care. I'll back you up. All I ask is that you take him for as much as possible.

His wanted poster:


Kathy "Wah, Wah, Wah" Yamamoto
They say opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has them, and nobody thinks that theirs' stinks. Well, to run with this analogy ... this woman seems particularly impervious to the toxic, nose-hair curling stench emanating from her specific direction. Kathy prances around trying to get her fingers in every virtual pie in SL. (An ironic bizarro version of her real life in which she runs around eating as many pies as possible with her fingers.) If a hilarious form of self-governance ever rears it's ugly head in SL you know this chick will be up for the Judge Judy role. Grief her silly! The reward will be L$8000! She's far more obnoxious than Huns who pretty much makes fun of himself.


I won't post his URL, since - shoulda known it - his site is constant popups, and he's easy enough to google.

I'm kinda pleased that I'm practically 20% of his site's total content. Must be love.

Oh god she is moving troops into Second Kosovo.

I personally do, again, state that I prefere the fact that the people in charge of my gaming experience are the people I'm paying to be in charge of my gaming experience.

Local projects are just fine, but if there's a global user voice that represents me without my say, I will go back to being a freebie and watch the user vs. user political drama kill SL.

We have a voice, we have a place to go, in world for problems (bug reports) an in-world place to discuss things with our leaders (liasions) and an in-world place to suggest things (Uncle Linden for feature requests).

If we're going to have some councel form of user government... I will just cry.

There's no way in this model that the Meeting could ever change into a law making, or power wielding, organization. There are many checks against this. Let me speculate a bit:

Let's assume that one of the largest groups decides to take over the world through the National Meeting. They manage to get the next 5 most populous Groups to help out. They all show up at the Meeting and decide to go for it.


First, they want to drive all the clubs out of SL. How to do that? They try to pass a resolution in the Meeting. It doesn't make laws, so this is the best they can do. A resolution is proposed. 6 out of the 20 attendees approve. The rest do not. It fails.

Ok, let's say they decide to make a resolution that turns the Meeting into a LAW making body. Let's assume they've managed to poison all the other AVs with some virus and the 6 are the only ones at the meeting. It PASSES! Now what? They pass it to all the groups and tell them to drive the clubs out. The other groups tell them to go rotate. The Lindens receive the news. They - as they should - send back a communique, after the Meeting has ended, that they need clarification. This, conveniently enough, wouldn't be possible until another Meeting. The next Meeting is attended by many more reps and it is pointed out and published that the previous ruling was unconstitutional. Since all this is published for the public, you can imagine the public response to such a power grab. You can also imagine that there will be special attention to attendance in the future. Next time, the proposal fails. There's a good chance the Lindens have a chat with the ringleaders for not quite getting the gist of the Community Standards

Ok, lets try it again. This time, the conspirators decide to raise a standing army to enforce their will. First off, they wouldn't need the Meeting to do this, but let's say they wanted to. So, they sink the entire budget of the Meeting into weapons, mercenaries, scripts. Well, unfortunately, there is no budget. So, they'll have to pay for it all themselves. About half way through the first battle in far away province (remember, they'll have to take over each group and region one by one since taking over the Meeting is not going to help) half way through the battle, the Lindens suspend them.

Given the fact that the Meeting cannot actually make Law, or field and army, or control the police, or tell a Group what to do, it is unlikely that any self-respecting megalomaniac will try to subvert the Meeting. Sure, he may try to publish lies through the Meeting, and he'll succeed, but the rest of the groups will be able to publish their version right next to his for the Public to ponder.

Tired. Let me know if I didn't made it clear.

Your right. LL isn't likely to stick their noses into a Group's business. Neither would the Meeting. The worst they could do is unanimously agree to publish a statment that everyone at the meeting thinks the WWIIOLers (Or the LLL for that matter) sucks.

I'm sure that would have a huge effect on how those groups conduct their daily business