Open Letter to So Many Anti-Government Whiners

Well if you get it Done Kathy Id be willing to read it unabridged if you can send it via email.

Shadow..The Ancient that has more ass than the forums have Teeth

Yes I would have been more amenable to your ideas if the original post wasn't so inflammatory.

okies...First off I will admit I haven't read the entire thread. What I have read has simply solidified my view on the subject.

I will not bow to the whims of some supposedly elected few imposing their view on how things should be run in a game that I am paying for. I am here to play the game for me and my friends. I am not here to be told what to do, when to do it and in what orientation or rotation that it is to be done.

Impose little fantasy government on lands that the members of the "elected" rulers own. Should an attempt to do so on any land that I or my partner own, paid for with our L$, and those actions will be resisted with the utmost force available to me.

One of the things I will stand by as a Linden given right is the ability to play this game as I see fit. Not hamstrung by a mob that thinks they know best.

The first thought that comes to mind should this whimsical idea actually come to fruition is to push our plans ahead ...get an island and simply declare ourselves a sovereign state ....lol

If you have anymore interest past just slamming the idea of player government, then it would be good to just roll back a page or two. You'll get a better understanding of what I'm talking about.

I’m talking about a construct that does not require you to bow to anything. It doesn’t impose any requirements on you at all. It won’t tell you what to do at all. There are no elected national officials, since there are no national elections. It is soley run by a voluntary participation of representatives from already existing Second Life Groups.

You can play as you see fit. If you don’t want to talk to us, nothing will happen. We won’t care. We’ll stay off your land.

Interesting thought though: If you run off and declare a sovereign state, I guess we can proclaim the birth of yet another player-government.

hm. Sounds to me like the Quaker Meeting system.

I guess the "open letter" wasn't addressed to me, as although I am "anti-government", I'm not a "whiner." However, this plan, if it's ramrodded it down the throats of the community with this one-woman show here on the forum, would affect me, so I'm going to speak up anyhow.

One of the best things about SL is the ability for each member to play or work at their own "game." Some people want to be furries, so they're furries. Some people want to be real estate moguls, and here they are. Others want to be artists, or run chains of shops or malls, or be elves or mistresses or slaves or live on a space station . . . and they do it here. Some people like to debate, and there are forums for them. Some people want to be politicians or union organizers or experiment with government. Cool! I mean, that's really neat stuff, and it is great that people who like that can do it here.

However . . . if you have no interest in wearing tall ears and a curly tail and a pelt, you can pretty much ignore the furry subculture of SL. If you aren't into S&M, aside from watching a slave stroll by in collar and leash, you don't have to pay it any mind. If you aren't into debate and the ongoing soap opera of the forums, you don't have to read them at all. And if you're not into government experiments, and just want to be left alone to build stuff or race cars or boff other avs with glow-in-the-dark attachments, well, hey, just don't go to Neualtenburg or read any of the government threads on the forums. Don't go to these "Meetings." No prob, right?

No, there's still a prob.

If I don't participate in the furry subculture, doesn't matter. If I don't decide to pay attention to what's happening on the slave scene, I won't face any repurcussions. However, if someone organizes a national government in SL and I am not part of it, hey, stuff might change around here in ways I didn't sign up for and in ways I might not like. And, frankly, that pisses me off, because I don't ENJOY reading the latest political news or deciding for whom to vote or having to hold office in order to keep my views and those of like-minded people from being unheard amidst the very loud voices of those who enjoy that sort of thing.

Yeah, right, we don't have to participate in this "national" government unless we want to. Right. The whole point of this Meeting system is supposedly to give a voice to the voiceless or whatever you want to call it. It's supposed to get the Lindens to listen to those who are willing to participate. What about those who have other things to do? What about those who just want to pay their money to an online service provider, according to the contract they signed with Linden Lab, and just do their thing? Well, if we don't participate in this Meeting system, we won't be heard, or not as much as those who go to the Meetings. So now, instead of spending my Second Life building stuff and selling stuff and flying around in my plane and occasionally having a good old dose of drama from the forums, I'm going to have to go to Meetings. Or else LL might change things in ways I don't like in response to those Meetings which I didn't attend. Great. Fucking great.

I don't have to wear furry drag in order to be heard by this company I am paying. I don't have to play S&M games or be a shop owner or a real estate baron, and I shouldn't have to play politics and go to a meeting, either. I pay my money. I am a customer. I do not have to go to meetings to get my Web host to answer my tech support calls. I do not have to go to a meeting in order to tell my cable company I want the Sci Fi Channel. I do not have to attend meetings or deal with any sort of political crapola when my ISP fucks up. I don't have to go to meetings to have a good time at a theme park, or at a resort, or when I play a computer game.

I don't go to a restaurant and organize the other diners in order to make a request that they not serve us cold soup, or that we really, really want a tuna melt on the menu.

I'm here at Second Life because it's FUN. This government shit . . . reading this longass boring thread, the prospect of having to attend meetings or else be drowned out by those who do -- that ain't FUN. IRL, before the last presidential election, I blew my Sunday afternoons sitting in a Quaker meetinghouse writing postcards to voters in swing states, and it sucked, but I did it because I felt I had to. I sure as hell am not interested in having to deal with that here, where I pay to be able to do just exactly what I want to do, which doesn't include government experiments.

If some of you folks want to do the government thing in SL, that's great. Knock yourselves out. Have fun in Neualtenburg or other areas you own and control. But stop trying to shove your hobby onto the rest of us.

Dammit, I could have been off building a plane instead of writing this. Which is exactly why I don't like it.

In some ways, the process and structure are the same. However, I do not expect it to bear many similarities after that.

The Quaker Meetings are based on the assumption that there is one Truth and that the business of the meeting is a matter of the members understanding it. It is possible to forgo voting and rely on unanimity because all the members have the same Truth in mind.

My assumption here is that there is one goal, and that is to be heard. And that all the members have that one goal in mind. As long as the process guarantees that everyone will be heard, and that everyone engaged in the process has that mutual interest at heart, then it should be possible to rely on unanimity here as well. Besides, since everything is always published, even the failed proposals, no one is ever silenced by anything like a vote.






Well, Kim, there will not be any changes to anyone who does not consent to the change. If your group decides to change something, well they could have done that anyway. It would be wrong to blame a conversation among group representatives for it. That’s like saying “it wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t given them the idea.”

If you aren’t in a group, and enjoy your autonomy, then nothing the Meeting does will impact you. If the Meeting manages to convince the Lindens that something you hate is a good idea, then I suppose that would be a problem. Still, that’s still a lot like the “gave them the idea” argument.

I can’t apologize for what people do with ideas. My goal is to spread as many ideas as far as possible as often as possible. I will agree with you that that might cause uncomfortable change.





You can certainly continue to be just as heard as you have ever been. If that’s “not at all” then certainly nothing will change. If you choose to shout in the forums, I’m sure they’ll continue to notice.

But, again, and I want everyone to know this, the intention is that LL WILL CHANGE THINGS in response to these meetings. AND it may be in ways you don’t like. I can promise you that the Meeting will never make a law that will affect you, but I hope everyone understands that the whole idea is to give the Lindens – and the Public at large – an earful of what the Groups want them to hear. If the Lindens choose to take it to heart, then I certainly won’t be sad about that.

Again, if communication and the sharing of ideas create change, then I would recommend you either take it in stride, or spend some time talking to other people.

Didn’t you think that something like this MIGHT even happen because of something said in the forums? Are changes caused by the meetings so different from changes caused by the forums?

Or is it a matter of personal control?





You don’t have to do any of that stuff here either. No one will ask you to. And none of this forces the Lindens or the Groups or anyone else to do anything at all. The worst we can do is present ideas and perspectives. You’re welcome to do the same in your own way – or not at all. As before, you are absolutely free to do want ever you want to do.

And I will go so far as to point out that, while aspects of this may also suck, it is still the right thing to do.







Right. Go fly. Stop getting all worried about other people having conversations. I promise not to bother you. If anyone having anything to do with the Meeting ever bothers you, let me know. I’ll have a word with them. We will never try to shove anything onto you or anyone else.

I think you should listen to Kim Anubis, she knows what she is talking about.

Uh, I did listen to Kim. In fact, I wrote a fairly lengthy response. I’m not dismissing Kim’s concerns. I’m explaining that this project will have no effect on the lives of those who don’t participate.

Where did you get the impression I wasn’t listening?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, I did listen to Kim. In fact, I wrote a fairly lengthy response. I’m not dismissing Kim’s concerns. I’m explaining that this project will have no effect on the lives of those who don’t participate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not true. You have already said elsewhere in the thread the following:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They communicate their decisions to the national conference and to the Lindens as needed. No national government will force YOU to do anything. Your neighbors or your Group members might make requirements, but any compulsion would come from LL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let's be honest about this. You are envisaging the group taking proposals to LL who may or may not introduce the suggested changes/new rules etc. If they do, it's obviously not just going to affect those who have opted in to your group, it will affect us all.

That is why a large number of us are opposed to any form of government, lobbing group or whatever you wish to call it.

Alexa

Kathy, you say to Deklax, "I’m explaining that this project will have no effect on the lives of those who don’t participate."

But to me you said, "But, again, and I want everyone to know this, the intention is that LL WILL CHANGE THINGS in response to these meetings. AND it may be in ways you don’t like."

Which is it?

Lots of people are not into meetings. Lots of people are petrified at the thought of public speaking. Lots of people will be at a disadvantage because they aren't good at typing in front of a live audience. In her blog (http://secondlife.blogs.com/change/2004/12/sometimes_i_hat.html), Robin Linden herself wrote: "The first thing I thought was, it's just as scary to give a virtual speech as it is to give one to a real audience! [. . .] So there I was, standing in front of all these people, cut...paste....cut....paste. What a slow and tedious way to communicate! [. . .]But I couldn't smile easily. I couldn't speak with the right emphasis. An attempt at humor came across as sarcasm to some. All I could do was type as fast as possible and hope for the best."

On the other hand, some of us have a lot of experience communicating this way. And, should the community and Linden Lab pay the attention you hope they will to the meeting logs, those who are comfortable with this medium will get a disproportionate amount of member support and Linden attention for their wants and needs.

It'd be about as realistic a representation of the members of this site as the forums . . . and forum posters sure as heck are not an accurate mirror of member demographics or concerns -- in ANY online community. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure the Lindens have the sense to be aware of that.

"Again, if communication and the sharing of ideas create change, then I would recommend you either take it in stride, or spend some time talking to other people."

If you don't like participating in fishing, but fishermen have the ear of the Lindens, why . . . either take it in stride, or go spend some time learning how to tie lures. And if you want good customer service from your cable television company, I think you'd better either take the crappy service in stride, or start going to stock car races.

"And I will go so far as to point out that, while aspects of this may also suck, it is still the right thing to do."

In your opinion, it is. In mine, it is not. This is not a matter of fact, but of opinion.

I've been seeing debates about member government since I came to this site. I've encountered the exact same arguments on other sites, as well. And I know the Lindens have mentioned from time to time a desire to have member government. Why? Why do they want member government?

It's not because that's the way to find out what the members really want. That's a load of crap. As I've pointed out, eloquent and popular folks have the edge when posting or public speaking (public typing hehe), as do those who like to hear the sound of their own keyboards clicking. It's not an accurate or fair representation of member desires, and no online community manager with half a brain in his/her head is going to forget that. It's info that's dumped into the hopper, but it's taken with a grain of salt the size of the Giant Cube. There are much better ways for a community manager to find out what the members want and need . . . such as the opportunity for every member on the site to fill out a survey, for example (please, without a rectal prolapse-inducing cover letter).

No, that's not why a company that owns an online community site would want member government. Why, then? Well, maybe there's a bit of that gee-whiz factor. You know, it's neato. It looks good in a press release, gets some coverage. The company's idealists and the marketing team probably all drool on themselves at the thought. But they aren't the ones who decide. Businesspeople decide. So this is something to consider, but this isn't it, either.

It gives the members the feeling they are being heard. That's a biggie. Whether they take it with a Giant Cube of salt, or they read the chat logs with a beer and a lot of giggling and then throw it in the round file, as long as the company doesn't SAY they're not gonna pay much mind to this stuff, it makes the members feel listened to. That's one reason, but this isn't it, either.

Another reason is that some of the members like this stuff. Some are into government experiments. Some are just into the associated drama. Drama keeps people around, and that's good for the company. Another reason -- the reasons are adding up -- but this isn't the biggie.

No, the biggie is, if you make the members govern themselves, you don't have to do it yourself! Or not as much. You won't need as much staff. You won't have to PAY as much staff. If you can get the members to be the live helpers and the mentors and the instructors and the greeters and the jury and the gatherers of public opinion and the drafters of the zoning rules and the subdividers of virtual land and all that, why, you hardly need any community management staff at all! This works all over the place -- heck, AOL runs an entire online empire on volunteer labor. So, bottom line, it can be cost effective, plus those other useful points I mentioned.

Of course, the question is, how much of the running of the community do you want to put on the staff, and how much on the members? Well, put as much as you can get away with on the members, of course. And how much that is varies, depending on . . . well, how much the members will put up with. If you give em a good, rousing speech and make them feel special, and build a good feeling of community, and tell them that they are pioneers and the builders of an electronic future and alla that, well, hey, you can even have them offering to pay for land tier to host a newbie welcome area! Some of em will probably even pay to come to the corporate office and whitewash the fence.

Wow, such a deal! Imagine a restaurant owner managing to not only have the customers bus their own tables, but also have some of em wait on tables and cook on a volunteer basis. Amazing contrast, huh?

Edited to add: Of course, untrained volunteers rarely do work of the quality you get from paid professionals, and you get into the whole elite/favoritism mess, but you can probably get people to put up with a lot if you've got em to the point of volunteering to work for free (and various fringe benefits, which would be a whole other post).

I say again: This Meeting system will give a disproportionate amount of power to people who are popular and eloquent and interested in playing government. I am paying LL, not only for server space and the right to play with their toys, but also for the services of a community management team. This Meeting plan, while it might be fun or interesting for some, is not the best way to tell the Lindens about member needs and wants -- it's a toy for those who like that kind of toy. Better to ask the Lindens to have more surveys, more meetings of staff and members, and more online community management staff. In my opinion, that is the right thing to do.

Well, I was trying to keep it simple for Deklax. He hasn't really been following along. The truth is that the process will have no effect except to promote communication at a global level.





I understand. That's why there is no speech necessary. The Meeting will accept whatever the rep brings. If the Group wants to put something together before hand (which I'd suggest anyway, since I'm shy in public too) and simply hand it in, it will be published the same as the presentations.






Right. The Meeting does empower Groups, who can and want to communicate, more than anyone else. As I've said before, this is not a way to give even and equal representation to all citizens. It is meant to provide a forum for Groups to speak and discuss. It doesn't have to be universally fair to all citizens, since this isn't a voting body. It only has to serve its target participants. Groups.

And none of the usual methods of expression will be affected at all. The forums, email, one-on-one, inworld chat, all of these are still in effect. If one of those makes you more comfortable, then that's good for you. I don't think the Lindens are going to change any of that.





I can't help but feel that you are unhappy with the idea that someone else - someone you don't have a stake in - gets to talk to the Lindens. This Meeting is not going to talk over you, or badmouth you, or drown you out, or take precedence, or become Lindens' Pet. Why do you think a Group Meeting will somehow repress your right to speak?





Well, that's true. It is my opinion. It's also the truth. Anything that promotes communication and cooperation is proper and right. Anything that helps to bring the truth to light is right.





Actually, I think it's certainly PART of it, at least. A great deal of Second Life is experimentation. I have heard from you why you play Second Life, and I respect it. I don't get the impression you respect mine. I am here for the experiment. That's what it was when I started in the beta, and that's what it still is. I suppose it will eventually become another Sims or There, and then I'll leave like I left those places. But, until then, it's at least partly an experiment. If you can get LL to tell me that the experiment is over, and that the bottom line takes precedence over trying new things, then I'll shut up. Promise. Save this post. Shove it in my face. When the experiment is done, I'll shut up.





You're right. There's a very good probability that self-governance is in the business model down the road. I wouldn't be surprised. I signed on and paid for my Lifetime Account with the clear understanding that that might be the outcome. What understanding did YOU get from all your research prior to signing up?





I guess we keep bumping up against the word "disproportionate". I'm fairly convinced you read most of this thread. How can I make it clearer to you that proportionality only counts when people are counting. We have no voting, no power at all. All we are changing is how we exercise our freedom to speak. Why is it so frightening that we might choose to do it as a group instead of individually? We aren't meddling with your ability to speak. Nor are we pushing you away from the Linden teats. We'll simply be publishing a bunch of Group statements in a forum somewhere. We will sometimes talk about what troubles us. And then we'll publish that too. People may read it. Some of them may be Lindens.

My sense is that you aren't clear on this. I think you may still be trying to superimpose this model on top of how you feel about the word "government".

But, Alexa, don't you try to make changes to Second Life too? You've never spoken up? after - what is it - 142 postings, you're saying you have a problem with people making their opinions known to the Lindens and the public? What is the difference between you and yours posting your opinion here, over and over, and the members of Groups posting THEIR opinions in a public forum?

What secret "effect" are you imaging? Why does ANYone's free speech frighten you so?

Reading back over your postings, btw, I see that you have already said that you will be leaving if government comes to SL. So, you come to this discussion with an open mind? Perhaps not. But now I see your point more clearly. Since you'll have to leave, I guess the mere fact that this free speech is going to happen WILL be adversely affecting your life. Hadn't thought of that. Sorry.

Let me re-phrase: If you aren't one of the people who have to leave SL because you've promised to do so, THEN this project should have no un-voluntary effect on you than any other form of citizen speech would make possible.

Well, Kathy, you've been working your butt off here to sell your inoffensive-sounding, all-inclusive-seeming, user-friendly-appearing, non-threatening-looking Meeting plan. It's downright saintly, how, when you have zipola tolerance for "carping" and "whining" in "so MANY different threads" that you'd consider going to regular meetings where you'd certainly hear more of the same.

You have no idea what experiences I or the posters whose views you refuse to even consider have had with online community or player governments. No, you told us right off to leave, and "Good riddance" and "Don't let the door hit ya in the butt." Because, you know, we "lack the intelligence and imagination" to agree with you. We're "just baggage anyway" and "Perhaps the frame rate will go up a bit" if we leave.

Yeah, real all-inclusive of you . . . community spirit like that makes one want to weep from a deep feeling of inclusion, all right.

"We will have a player-run government here. Have no doubt. We will have it by ignoring your whining and just doing it. Or, we will sneak it in when you’re not looking. Or we will leak it in from Neualtenburg. Or we will nurse it along on an island sim and grow it until we have proof that you’re full of crap."

Yeah, maybe sneak it in as an inoffensive, friendly, Quakeresque, all-inclusive, informal Meeting, right?

"One way or the other, we will have it. We are sick of your constant gripes about how the Lindens don’t feed you properly, or wipe your butt gently enough, or don’t understand how your gaming experience is so much more significant than everyone else’s."

Yeah, good thing no one's gonna have customer service gripes to air at those Meetings, right?

"Well, forget it. It isn’t your yard. You aren’t the boss here. You own absolutely nothing. You’re just renters with a bad, self-entitled attitude. You aren’t equal citizens – you spit on the concept of citizenship."

I'm not a citizen. I'm a paying customer of an online community site.

"I don’t care if you stomp off and quit. I really don’t care. You won’t be missed. A few strip clubs will close, that’s all. A few less sex balls will be sold. We’ll most certainly survive. Just do me a favor and all of you raise your hands now so we know who not to bother with. (Someone take notes.)"

Gee, I know that makes ME feel real welcome to share my views. I look forward to such welcoming speechifying at your Meetings.

"The Lindens have offered to let us try. We don’t have to rebel against the Company, they’ve actually TOLD us to get on with it! They’ve publicly offered to give us the power to move past the level of self-indulgence and constant wanking that seems to be the norm for some of you. I say we’ll do just that. We’ll see what grand creations and arts we’re capable of when the citizens solve their own problems instead of whining to the sheriff and his posse."

This is nuts. It's also rude. And makes you come off as pretty stuck up and out of touch. It's a bit silly to be beating people -- people paying to hang out on a playground -- for their lack of work ethic.

"We need to have local government, so that local issues get dealt with, and people feel their neighbors support them, and neighborhoods and states and cultures can grow. Then we need a national government so that we can maintain a uniform justice with appeals, and provide resources to those who dream a little larger than their own 512 meters."

Some of us don't care if states grow in Second Life, yadda yadda. And where was this talk of "uniform justice with appeals" in your cute little Meeting plan, huh?

"Don’t let the selfish and arrogant run your Second Life for you. If they really believe self-government is evil, then at least require them to come up with a better argument than temper tantrums, pouting and holding their breath until they turn blue."

Who's selfish and arrogant?

From the latest post: "The truth is that the process will have no effect except to promote communication at a global level."

I think you're just building yourself a soapbox and an audience so you can peddle your true agenda.

"I can't help but feel that you are unhappy with the idea that someone else - someone you don't have a stake in - gets to talk to the Lindens."

I can talk to the Lindens any time I want to -- I just send an email or pick up the phone. So can anyone else. What I am unhappy about is that someone who flippantly tells other paying customers if they don't agree with her they should just not let the door hit em in the ass on the way out is attempting to make a power grab with a view toward things like running a justice system.

"This Meeting is not going to talk over you, or badmouth you, or drown you out, or take precedence, or become Lindens' Pet. Why do you think a Group Meeting will somehow repress your right to speak?"

Because you already tried to repress speech with which you disagree with your raving flame at the outset of this thread. And because it seems you have more in mind than a simple Meeting system, and I don't much like it.

"Well, that's true. It is my opinion. It's also the truth. Anything that promotes communication and cooperation is proper and right. Anything that helps to bring the truth to light is right."

What's the truth? Nice informal meetings with a round of Kumbayah at the start, or the no-room-for-whiners government glimpsed in your first post in the thread?

"I have heard from you why you play Second Life, and I respect it."

I mentioned some of the stuff I like to do here, and it's already clear from your previous post that you don't respect some of my reasons for being here.

"I don't get the impression you respect mine."

I don't know all of what you're up to, but you're correct, some of it I don't respect.

Bah. I'm tired of this. My point's clear enough.

After taking a couple of days to consider this issue further because I wanted to give it a fair amount of thought, I have come to the conclusion that I am still against this idea for a representative body to present issues to LL. I actually had a few moments after reading the Shadow and Kathy's exchange, where I thought that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Everytime I thought I might be alright with it, someone messed it up.

There has simply been too much assumption of both the needs of SLers as a whole and their intellects, labeling, backpeddling, double-speak and outright manipulation in this thread alone. I can just imagine what it would be like if this vocal minority gets what they want.

I was stunned to hear Kathy claim that she intentionally started a flame fest to "herd" the "nay-sayers" into one thread so she could address them in front of others. *shakes head*

Perhaps that was a clever attempt at disguising the fact that she was simply pissed off and blew her cool for a while or else she was manipulating people. Either way, is this someone we want shaping the future of SL?

Then we have Ulrika chastising someone in another thread for said person's use of the word "whiner' and then calling Kathy "her hero" for using it in this thread.

There are dozens of examples of this type of double-standard behavior throughout this thread and others.

I have heard suggestions that certain SLers have too much input on LL policy decisions, yet the N-berg group is the only group that enjoys a special, unique relationship with the Lindens in this respect. Does that bother me? Not until I start to hear rhetoric coming form some of those group members that amounts to vague finger pointing (scare tactics; elite SLers are subjugating you..) to try and drum up support for their agenda. An agenda that appears to me to have shifted from being a voice for the folks who aren't being heard to representation for groups, which we already have simply by and of the fact they exist and have Officers and Members.

Sounds to me like the real little people, those who arent active in an established group, newbies, and the like, will be drowned out by groups of political hobbyists. As for the rest of us, we may be left feeling that, if this does indeed come to pass, that we must now join or not be represented. I would almost feel coerced.

Your world, your imagination! I imagine a government! Suck it up buddy! Live with it or leave! It's coming! You must not be reading what I am saying because you certainly aren't agreeing with me! It's a government and it's coming whether you like it or not! No. Wait. It's not a government! It's just people representing your issues to the powers that be, certainly that's not a government (is it?)!

I like to do many things in SL. Some of them are extensions of RL hobbies I have as well. Some folks are political hobbyists and wish to extend that interest to SL, which is fine, but please just keep it within the confines of your group(s) and land borders.

It's really that simple for me. I can envision groups joining this body simply because they feel they must to have a voice - not because the believe in the theory behind it, which is a good portion of my issue with this. Another good portion of it is when people have the audacity to think that they need to "educate" the masses. I am really starting to get the feeling that some of the folks pushing this agenda don't even realize half the time, that they are coming off so arrogantly because they are so aloof and detached.

In the end, I honestly see a solution looking for a problem. Unfortunately this is probably because a small handful of people think it would be neat and fun. That seems pretty selfish to me. It also seems selfish to propose one's own hand made solution to a problem that hasn't been proven to exist.

What did you do, go back and start over?

Look, this is exactly my point. If you want to get something heard in the Forums, you have to get out a stick and wack folks in the head. Next time, wear a helmet.

The entire point of my proposal is to create a DIFFERENT environment for speech. Perhaps you like this stuff, but I suspect most people don't. I sure don't. But I'm willing to put up with it - and deal some out - in order to make things better for the people who at least put in an effort to get along.

Ok. You caught me. Maybe I do get a little extra pleasure from getting directly in the way of selfish people. Mea culpa. Oh well. It's a habit I'm trying to break. Really.

It really doesn't matter. As you seem unable to believe, I have no interest in the kind of shady things that seem jammed into your imagination. It is possible, you know, for someone you don't like to have altruistic purposes. It is also possible for something in the world to be a bit better than the worst you can imagine.

My purpose is to give people someplace OTHER THAN THIS CRAPPY BITCHING BOARD to talk about their interests. That's the truth. Do you have an issue with someone preferring another place to talk? Or do you imagine you have some sort of control over everything that happens here, and wouldn't have that if people escaped this forum?

What's the truth? Is this place a better place to speak than a "nice informal meeting"? Do you really find this shouting back and forth to be the best way to improve everyone's experience? Or don't you have any interest in that goal?

As for "repressing" your speech because of my abrasive post, I have to point out that, if I HAD meant it to repress people, it sure didn't work well. After 360+ postings, and 4000 views, I might even claim that my post had the opposite effect. It's been one of the most active threads in the last month. It isn't my job to make sure everyone who enters the forum to register disdain leaves satisfied.

By the way, that would be a major difference between these forums you seem so attached to, and the meetings you seem so afraid of. At the meetings, we'd have to publish whatever nastiness managed to sneak in under the TOS.

I think it's rather low of you to accuse me of having alterior motives with absolutely no evidence. The only proof you have is your exclamations of how much I piss you off. Well, that's regretable, but it isn't a crime. And, given our relative principles, it may be unavoidable.

My claim stays the same. If your Group wants to say something - WITHOUT PEOPLE YELLING AT YOU - then come to the meeting. If you'd rather solve things by competing in contests like this, then just stay here. I'm sure I'll be back to help you out.





Listen. If you're accusing me of lying, then I'm going to ask you to back that up. I've ticked off a lot of people here by saying what I felt was the truth, but I've never lied. Your suspicions don't make it a fact.

As for the lack of respect, I guess I'm not surprised. You still have mine, nonetheless.

Now, either bring it all the way on, or take a breath and we'll start over fresh.

Well, thanks for getting this far, and especially for listening. I sure wish you'd gone ahead and pointed out all those "messed up" points though. Regardless of your implications that I exist only to manipulate people, the truth is that I really would like to resolve as many objections to this plan as possible.





Yes, I have made assumptions about the needs of SLers. They were based on what I've seen and heard inworld and in these forums. I don't get the rest of it though. If your talking about the actual creation of this thread, then I'd say it was a pretty out-in-the-open kind of manipulation. It seems pretty clear that you, yourself, wasn't fooled, right? Or are you accusing me of POORLY EXECUTED manipulation?

And before this round of shouting goes much further, let me point out to anyone reading this stuff that I didn't start it this time





Well, I didn't think I had disguised my being pissed off. I think that was pretty clear. I said what I meant to say. And yes, I said it as a fresh post in the forum because that was where to find the people I wanted to express myself to. And no, I was not afraid of a flame fest. Never was. Probably never will be. A lot gets resolved. It isn't nearly as effective as a nice respectful meeting, but I take what I can get. And, until we create a place to talk like adults, this forum will have to do - with all of the shouting and accusations.

Would it have been better for me to just send all the knee-jerk anti-gov people a nasty IM? I don't think so. So, we did it here. And, despite the fact that some folks just couldn't get past their habitual suspicion, I think many of us actually understand each other a bit better.





Well, first, I thought we had gone back to talking about ME. What does Ulrika have to do with it? Is this some sort of guilt-by-association thing? And are you trying to imply that I've been put up to this, or avoid punishment because of some imagined protection from the Lindens? So, I'm an Elite who is using Fear of Elites to ,,, uh ,,, do something ... whatever.

And my proposal is for Groups to be heard by each other and by the Public and the Lindens. How is that covered by the fact that they have Officers in groups? Huh?

Perhaps this all made sense during that conspiratorial single meeting I had in Neualtenburg. Oh. That's right. we talked about whether RL demonstration get to happen in the Square. Perhaps I slept through the conspiracy part.





Would you PLEASE explain this persistent fear that a discussion in one location somehow represses a conversation in another location? And how does a posting in one forum drown out a posting in another? Do you really think I have some plan where I can manage to convince the Lindens to only listen to ME from now on?

I must write better than I thought.





You're right (as far as I can decipher your rather sparse parody). I started out thinking about how we can create a government that would satisfy anti-gov objections. After hundreds of postings, and input from many bright people, I adjusted my original model. Gee. I thought that's what discussions were all about. Are you actually using my change of mind to support an argument that I single-mindedly set out to ... uh ... do whatever?





Well, perhaps it was my aloofness and detachment that impressed you in my first post. Did it really come off as remote and emotionally uninvolved? I was under the impression that people found it a bit forward and over-emotional.

And, ya know, I'm not sure why a group would all of a sudden conclude that they might loose all their current means of communication just because the meeting exists. Or did you mean that they might come to the meeting because they saw other groups go and saw that they benefitted from the experience? I can understand why such organic developments might scare you, but it sounds, to me, like the meeting was selling itself as a service.

By the way, I have never attempted to educate any masses. My assumption is that you've all been to school before you bring it on here. If that isn't true, then I'm sorry for the discomfort.





Selfish. Right. I'd like to know how all of this was supposed to pay off for me. Money, land, friends? Fame, book contracts, free love?

Oh, I see. It's a hobby. Some sort of monstrous, man-eating, selfish, toxic, commie, pinko, socialist, Linden-led, anti-Linden, grassroots, elite, uppity, Liberal, Capitalistic, sneaky, blatant hobby. Right.

Anyway, I do appreciate your insight and unique perspective. Really, I do. You make some very good points, though they sometimes get a bit jumbled in with your strong dislike for liberals with dry humor. I'll extend my promise again: I'll never interfere with your gameplay. Period. And I'll continue my habit of waiting until you attack me before I say mean things back to you here in the forums.

I'm not sure what it is that makes you hate me so much. Am I too positive for you? Or too negative? Too ignorant? Too literate? Or am I just not ingratiating enough to the alpha male?

I don't hate you. At the same time, I do not trust you with the future of SL, which is my right. Interesting how we go from "if you disagree with me you aren't reading what I am saying" to "you hate me" simply because I disagree. Wow. I simply think you are wanting to impose your vision for SL onto 1000s of people and making it known where maybe 15% of the population can see it. Seems backwards to me, so I guess it's about "getting it through our heads"...sigh... You just don't see that folks who are so convicted about their beliefs pertaining to something that has no precedent are subject to skepticism, especially when they presume to speak for the good of everyone, do you?

I am not an alpha-male. Far from it.

No, this is not "guilt by association" but sometimes I do get a mental image of those cartoons with Spike the Dog and that little dog circling his feet yapping.

I happen to be a liberal too, with libertarian leanings. I don't know why certain people cannot have a disagreement about something without it having to be lowered to assumptions about people's motivations for disagreeing such as political affiliation, gender (Alpha male), etc.

Can't it just be because I don't see a need for it?

Can't it just be because I think we have much more important issues that a body such as what you are suggesting cannot address, i.e., disappearing inventory, broken teleports (still), lag issues, griefers, and so on? LL is fully aware of the big issues. Will your system somehow magically fix these things? What makes you think that a player body could expedite new issues when we still have several old, persistant issues unresolved?

There are several avenues available to make the Lindens aware of our issues, both in-world and in-forums. They are simple and direct. They are not filtered through a player created additional layer of bureaucracy where they could possibly be watered down or discarded at the whim of those appointed to be the go between(s).

As far as that "funny" post of mine you quoted; that was in response to someone who had been complaining heavily about percieved negativity in the forums. I was trying to express that indeed it's ok to talk about serious issues here and sometimes it gets heated. It wasn't to tell anyone not to talk about something, quite the contrary actually. I would argue for your right to post whatever you want here, just don't expect me to always agree.

Didn't you just decry the state of the forums a couple of posts up? "My purpose is to give people someplace OTHER THAN THIS CRAPPY BITCHING BOARD" to talk about their interests." Perhaps you should reread my post in the proper context. It was in direct response to the repeated assertion that the boards are just what you say and I disagree. Most threads are not bitching threads, it's just that people seem to notice and respond to them more and then project that stereotype onto the forums as a whole. Like rubbernecking and accidents, the freeways must be "crappy". Also, if it's such a shithole here, why do you torture yourself?

I think some folks place a lot more value on what gets discussed on these forums than is warranted. It's that simple. Some also seem to think that the Lindens are setting policy on what goes on in the forums. While there may be some influence, I do not think it has any more so than any other of the multitude of avenues we have available to us for discourse with LL.

Do you really think that SL forum veterans hold an inordinate amount of sway with LL? I sure don't, and speaking for myself, I have never had advantage because of my regular use of the forums nor do I feel entitled to any.

I am a little confused as to your goals here. You say there are these lazy, cowardly, whining people on the forums, and that it doesn't matter to you if they leave, but 300+ posts later you're still trying to convince those same people whom you could care less if they stayed or not, that you are right. Interesting marketing strategy. Seems like that time would be better spent in-world working on your plan and trying to spread the word, after all only a small percentage of SLers use the forums right?

Edit to add: When I said that I think you're being selfish, it was not because I think you have money or the like to gain, don't you think I am aware that people can be motivated by satisfaction via accomplishment? Especially when they seem to have a near obsessive relationship with the topic at hand? I will not belabor this issue any further, I know where you stand, you know where those of us who are not on board with you stand. We can go on for another six months about it and the results will be the same. I won't agree that funneling player issues through other players is the answer.

"What did you do, go back and start over?"

Yes. I had to double check, before I continued . . . had you really sounded like a flaming loon? Why yes, you did! Did you seem to be contradicting yourself? 'Fraid so.

"Look, this is exactly my point. If you want to get something heard in the Forums, you have to get out a stick and wack folks in the head."

That's incorrect. I've noticed many instances in which posters have been heard quite clearly without being antagonistic. lilone's Wilde got a computer. People love Torley. But if they'd posted, "I'm gonna get the money for a computer out of you people whether you like it or not!" or "If you don't like watermelon, you're a whiner and fuck off!" I suspect they wouldn't have been so well received.

"Ok. You caught me. Maybe I do get a little extra pleasure from getting directly in the way of selfish people. Mea culpa. Oh well. It's a habit I'm trying to break. Really."

So do you really believe anyone who disagrees with you is selfish, or is it just a rhetorical device? I'm so tempted to set up a rhetorical trap right here, but it just wouldn't be right. Oh wait, that was a rhetorical device, too. Goshdarn.

"My purpose is to give people someplace OTHER THAN THIS CRAPPY BITCHING BOARD to talk about their interests."

It's a crappy bitching board because of crappy bitching posted on it, and you, Kathy, started this thread with your crappy bitching. You've contributed your very own turds to the heap, and . . . I'm thinking of a word that starts with the letter h and I bet you can guess what it is.

"Do you have an issue with someone preferring another place to talk? Or do you imagine you have some sort of control over everything that happens here, and wouldn't have that if people escaped this forum?"

Yeah, that's it. The idea of someone preferring to speak anywhere but right here in this forum gives me hives, and also causes seizures in rats. And I imagine I have superdooper mind control powers over everything that happens here, thanks to the enchantment placed on my keyboard by a 12th-level Mage, but if anyone escaped the forum the magic circle would be broken and the demons would rush in and drag me to the lowest pit of hell, where I'd burn forever cursing Kathy and her penetrating questions.

"What's the truth? Is this place a better place to speak than a 'nice informal meeting'? Do you really find this shouting back and forth to be the best way to improve everyone's experience? Or don't you have any interest in that goal?"

I am not interested in your goal of member government. I believe there are better ways for Linden Lab to know what customers want and need, and I think so-called member government would distract customers (but not LL) from more valid and accurate channels.

"By the way, that would be a major difference between these forums you seem so attached to, and the meetings you seem so afraid of."

What would be a major difference between these forums you seem to feel are so depraved, and the meetings you think are the panacea for which we should all plunk down our two bits? You figure there won't be any of those nasty selfish people there disagreeing with you . . . no alpha males tryin' to keep ya down? (lol that just kills me) Or are you trying to say you want me to believe that you only intend to inflict your crappy bitching and your collection of manipulative rhetorical devices on people who read the forums, and you really, really won't do it in a meeting?

"At the meetings, we'd have to publish whatever nastiness managed to sneak in under the TOS."

If people post something that violates the TOS, they sure didn't have a problem saying it in public. And you said that the meeting logs would be published, where, in a group forum? Which means, if they violate the TOS, they're gonna be edited just the same as if they'd been posted on the forum in the first place. So what's it got to do with anything? You trying to tell me the nice little meetings are gonna be better than the nasty old forums because at the meetings stuff that violates TOS is going to be allowed to stir up extra shit before the Lindens step in? Oh boy, that makes lots of sense.

"I think it's rather low of you to accuse me of having alterior motives with absolutely no evidence."

All the evidence it took to make me question your motives was your own posts in this thread. Despite the fact I had never noticed you before, you managed to attract my attention with this thread, and you managed already to damage my opinion of you. You've tossed around all kinds of spurious crap (from the flaming troll at the outset, to the scummy sexist jab you tried on Nolan), and although I figure it's generally been in service of your various ill-aimed and mishandled rhetorical devices, I'm afraid now I don't find your posts very credible.

"The only proof you have is your exclamations of how much I piss you off. Well, that's regretable, but it isn't a crime. And, given our relative principles, it may be unavoidable."

It's your own insults, contradictions, and rhetorical games in this thread that made me feel that way. I don't need any more proof. And I spoke up and said so because, you know, you pretty well double-dog dared me to do it. Don't troll and then bitch when you get a response. Oh no, wait, that's the purpose of trolling, isn't it?

"My claim stays the same. If your Group wants to say something - WITHOUT PEOPLE YELLING AT YOU - then come to the meeting. If you'd rather solve things by competing in contests like this, then just stay here. I'm sure I'll be back to help you out. "

My groups say stuff all the time. We don't usually yell. We don't usually TYPE IN ALL CAPS. We don't usually put an open letter on the forum baiting people and telling em if they disagree with us that they can just fuck off, either. We don't tell people we intend to force government on them whether they like it or not, even through sneaky means, then act all hurt and innocent when someone points it out later. After your trolling here, I'm not much interested in confirming whether you pull the same kinda routine in realtime chat. I'll just direct people who might be considering listening to you to check out this thread, so they know what kind of mess you left lying here before you fled to a new environment and audience.

"As for the lack of respect, I guess I'm not surprised. You still have mine, nonetheless."

Right.

"We will have a player-run government here. Have no doubt. We will have it by ignoring your whining and just doing it. Or, we will sneak it in when you’re not looking. Or we will leak it in from Neualtenburg. Or we will nurse it along on an island sim and grow it until we have proof that you’re full of crap. One way or the other, we will have it."

Kim, your post was eloquent and I agree with all that you said.

Kathy, you did not answer my last post, just waffled. If this group puts forward ideas/new rules to LL who decides to impliment them, how will I and others who do not wish to be part of this lobbying group, not be affected. Are you seriously suggesting only those opted into this system will be subject to, say, a new rule.

The answer is obviously no, so why don't you have the guts to come out and say it. You repeatedly say this group's actions will have no impact on the rest of us. This is patently not true.

Alexa

To put it simply - very simply -

WE DONT NEED IT - WE DONT WANT IT.

If you go back and reread all the many, many, many posts - you will see

the Court of Public Opinion has spoken.

Get over it - move on - You will find no interest here.

I'll reread them if you do.

But I'm so grateful you've dropped in at the end of all this to straighten it all out for me.

Thanks.

I really meant it to be clear, but this point seems harder to communicate than I thought.

Yes, if a group of people get together, talk something out and come up with an idea, and ask the Lindens to make whatthey consider an improvement, and then the Lindens think about it, run it past the forums here and things look good, and they makea change - THEN there was a change caused by the meeting.

What I guess I don't understand is how this would be any different from soemone starting the process here in the forum, or during a conversation with a Linden in world?

The only way I can promise that no change would ever occur is to say that all the groups will be required to shut up and keep to themselves.

Is that the message I'm supposed to take awat from this?

I *have* promised that there will not be any laws, directives, rules, etc, etc, coming from the Meeting. I CAN'T promise that the people who talk there will never produce a good idea. How could I? That was the idea in the first place: to have the Groups talk amongst themselves and come up with ideas and problems.

Am I confusing people or something? Should I have just downplayed the potential for actually getting something useful out of the meetings?

After reading this thread in it's entirety I would like to make a statement on behalf of all the unsung catgirl voices in SL, of which there are many.

We have considered long and hard the pro's and cons of player run governments and the various models and forms this might take, and have come up with the following unanimous statement:

*mew*

*licks Kris*

Actually, this part of your post contains a good question.

I have no idea how the Lindens are going to appraoch our publishing exact logs of the meetings. If things develop they way I prefer, then they will be exact. If there is material that either offends the Linden TOS, or that the speaker prefers to withdraw, then perhaps that needs to be considered. We'll have to figure that stuff out.

As for why the meetings are better than the forums, I don't think they would be better. They'd be different. Many people (perhaps most) don't feel that tossing an idea into these forums is the most effective way to discuss something. The meetings would provide a more respectful place to bring things up and talk about them.

It is clear that some people don't need this, and that some would prefer that others not meet this way. Still, there are those who would benefit from it - regardless of wether you think they need it.