Open Letter to So Many Anti-Government Whiners

*mew*

*mew!*

*translation: "Yus!"

<<<Ties String and Feather to Kris's Tail and watches her chase n Play with it for hours..

Now, I have stayed out of this for almost 48hrs to give me time to regroup rethink and reevaluate things and again my stance still stays the same.

The Irony of the entire thread is this. Kathy your initial post be it a manipulative tactic or not belays the recent sentiment of posters as most dont want to wade through the rhetoric to get to the point of replying to the initial post.

Unfortunately Kathy's modification or reevaluation has been missed or misspercieved. Do not confuse my understanding her view point with me kissing her ass as the latter has not taken place. This is where people become sucinct in vision yet wordy in retort.

So, Yes I understand Kathy's intent for a Lobbying group and yes to answer many questions about will it affect them yes it will.

Hence my point about if you don't at least subscribe to the minutes when LL affects change you wont be so in the dark about it.
Hmmm some would say "But Why? Shadow she has stated time and again it wouldnt affect our world if we didnt support it."

Again a missinterpretation of the sentiment of the group. Even with stating that it would not affect another members world or game play if enough of the SL contingent is amassed then yes it can very well effect change through arbitration to LL.

Never for a moment misconstrue an organized attempt to relay information to LL as a non-entity or non-effective force.

I think this will be my last direct commentary on the subject of this organization. I have made my stance against a stylized government that would ammend rights quite clear and will not reitterate them.

But I will make one last point that many seem to miss when they initially reply to Kathy and that is never misconstrue understanding a topic for being subjugated by it. People can agree to disagree but bantering back and forth that they do becomes moot and the actual topic is lost in the drone of "I understand you but I disagree."


I personally think this thread has been derailed and clouded to the point of it taking superHUman to get it back on a tangeable thought process. When the same Ideas continually are repeated back in forth between newcommers to the discussion and those that are battling to maintain their stance. Words are then taken out of context and manipulated to the point of diluting the initial topic.

I wish everyone the best if this thread continues but My stance is the same I am still against a government in SL and I have many points in which to back up the same topic but to continually beat a dead horse is not my Idea of fun anymore.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver...The Ancient with more ass than the forums have Teeth

Good point. I had made assumptions I should not have made. I apologize. I would like to point out though, that you seemed to make a few yourself. Is it really any more fair to assume and accuse someone of megalomainia, shiftiness, manipulation, lying and a bunch of other things because they won't move any further from their convictions that you will?





Yes. It's obvious that you don't see a need for it. Isn't it just as possible that I *do*? Does that perspective make me evil, stupid and dishonest?

And no, I don't intend for my system to magically fix things. The discussion facilitated by the meetings aren't about broken inventory and griefers. They're about issues generated by the members of the only inworld social structures created by the Lindens. I think it's very possible that people grouped by particular interest are apt to have issues and observations that may not come from individuals and forum posters. If I'm wrong, then there wont be anyone at the meetings. Period. End of experiment. If I'm right, then all we'll be adding to the mix for the Lindens is another way to sort the concerns and experiences of the players. Not a substitute way - aNOTHer way.





I really meant the part aboutthere not being a bureaucracy. No positons lasting more than a month. No filtering. No editing. No censorship from any player. No filter.

There is a difference between facilitation and bureaucracy.





I don't expect agreement. But I also shouldn't have to expect derision and slander. That was what my angry first post was in response to. Any discussion about things you disapprove of results in accusations and insults. Every time we try to see if evolutionary solutions are possible, someone threatens to leave, or calls someone else names, or dismisses the idea with a "never gonna happen." I admit that my first post was reactionary, but you have to admit that it wasn't unfounded. Whether or not you agree with the things I was attacking, you have to admit that they are ubiquitous.




Because there's no other place to discuss it. That is exactly my point. There are things to talk about that are practically impossible to bring up here. Even if I started with a "pretty please don't be mean to me" post. This is exactly the kind of subject that would be better served in a different conversaional environment. And its the kind of subject that would need a wide representation in the discussion. And, even if you would prefer that THIS topic never find a safe place to be heard, you must be able to think of other topics that might not find this forum to be fertile soil.

Some people are saying that this is exactly the point. That they prefer the acid in the dirt here. It keeps anything from changing. I don't know whether you think that or not.






No. I don't think the forums get special consideration - except for the fact that they are currently the only place where discussion like this take place. Nor do I think the discussions and speeches at the Meeting would get special consideration either. Once again, I'm not looking to disable or replace any other method of communication. And I think that if you think about it without trying to compare it to other failed attempts you might have experienced, you might get that point. At the very best, it will be an additional perspective. At the very worst, it vanishes in a puff of non-attendance.





Right. But until there is an alternative, this is the only place to discuss natioanl issues. And I'm not trying to convince the whiners and pouters. I'm trying to convince you. You may have noticed a few jerks popping in and dropping venom. I made no effort to sway them. The opening post was meant for them. The rest of the conversation was meant for those who are willing to think about it first. If you've contributed any lucid thoughts at all in this thread past the 1st page, then the first post was not for you.





I think we both have a bit of an obsession here. I'm also convinced that you are seeing my position through filters built elsewhere in your experince. From all you've said, I'm absolutely sure you'll eventually see that my model is a good way to preserve EVERYONE's ability to speak, ALL of our liberties, and ALL our various methods of play, while helping us to avoid the kind of patch-work benevolently repressive constructs you've expressed such a hearty disdain for.

*Pownce*

And to reiterate, on the subject of player governments, I think that... ooh! shiny!

*scampers off*

You're absolutely right. There were as many negative results from my opening as there were positive. And I think we've seen the winding down of the positives.

If I could close the thread at this point, I would seriously think about doing so. I'd have to think about whether that would be ethical, but it would certainly be tempting.

The best I can do is to apologize to those the first post wasn't meant for. And to move on.

I'd be very glad to listen to your continued objections to government - though I suspect we agree by now that my proposal wasn't actually "government" as much as a substitute for using the forums to discuss potentially controversial issues, and a way to amplify and discuss the concerns of Groups.

Even given the difficulty of having such discussions here, I'm very thankful to everyone who contributed to the evolution of my thoughts.

I have no objection to Self-Government - As long as I'm King.

I've read and thought about this "government" idea.

Personally, I don't see the reasoning behind it. Because of the following...

1. I am an adult, I do not need some other person telling me what is right or wrong, what I should or should not do. I have read the TOS, I'm quite capable of deciding what is right and what is wrong for myself.

2. I pay to play this game. I do not need some player who also pays, telling me what they consider how I should be doing things.

3. If I have a problem, I am quite capabable of either writing a letter to the Lindens, contacting them in game, or calling them on the telephone. I do not need someone speaking on my behalf. I have a voice and I do use it when I need to.

4. If I have problems with another player, I easily can ignore them or deal with them in what ever matter seems correct at the time. I do not need a "government" doing this for me.

5. As others have stated prior to me, we have the TOS to follow. It covers what needs to be followed. Very simple.


In other words, I do not need "big brother" or a "government" to take care of me or speak for me. Nor do I think those that enjoy second life need this. It only will be time consuming, bothersome, and frankly irritating if this "government" starts poking its nose in my Second Life.

Also, I do not, whine or carry on, in the forums. In fact, I tend not to write very often on the forums at all, but felt this was one time I wanted to speak up.

Thank you,

Fey

Libertarian of SL
Freedom for the People!!!

Fey Brightwillow for president!

There for a minute had you said "A big brother" I was gonna feel very hurt little sis..

But once again you shine through with the very same sentiment that I have and I totaly agree with your thoughts my little sister..

Shadow

similarly - informal, ad hoc, and temporary coalitions are entities and have effect.

Fey,

First off, of course you don’t whine or carry on in the forums. I’m surprised you thought I was referring to you.

Second, I totally agree with you that we don’t need a government taking care of us or watching over us. As this discussion progressed (and I don’t blame you for not searching for the various summations) the model became which makes no laws, enforces no laws, issues no directives, has no money, has no officers with more than a one month term, and does nothing more than gives group representatives a place to voluntarily attend – or not – and say what they want to say. Then everything is posted, and life goes on.

No group or individual is ever compelled to pay one lick of attention to the whole thing if they don’t want to.

Frankly, this seemed like a good way to avoid a later, more compelling player-government that I feel the Lindens are pushing into being.

I have signed off on this thread now, and only answered because I wanted you to know that you weren’t being ignored - or accused of whining – and that I have more interest in preventing what you talk of than promoting it.

You know, Kathy... I know you have a Master Plan, and that it would Solve All the World's Problems...

But really. You started the thread by talking down to people and insulting them. Then you got upset when people weren't inclined to agree that your idea is the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread.

There's not much point to a player beaurocracy, as I see it. The only things I would need a government for are consolidating technical requests from all the thousands of players, and that's what the forums are for. The sad truth is that this game is really successful, and it's outgrown the Linden's ability to manage it quickly in some ways. If players really want to help out with my gaming experience, then there's a Help Wanted link on this website. Get a Job with Linden Labs, and code the hell out of this game!

If some silent majority really want a player government, then it will just happen no matter what anyone says about it on the forums. Nice, responsible people will find their friends asking them to manage things, and it will grow from there. What makes it an okay idea is the fact that my credit card won't be tied to it. If I don't like the United States of Da Boom, I can always fly over to the United Kingdom of Great Coniston, or the Peoples Republic of Derwent. Or the Union of Ugly Plywood Shacks.... or Fred's Underwater Crab Cave...

If I'm sitting at a Wendy's, I certainly don't want the guys at the next table telling me that they've taken a democratic vote on how I'm supposed to distribute my french fries.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread Gydeon! Your on the mark.

Heres some more useless comments to add to the fray; Hahah:

I'm glad after reading over your initial postings on this idea I decided not to bother returning until now. Kim Anubis and Nolan Nash have been wonderfully elequent on this topic leaving absolutely no need for further commentary by anyone else. However, as more and more people read your statements here I think it will have the exact opposite effect on your cause as you had originally intended so I have a definite interest in allowing this thread to live as long as possible as an example against your ideology. Its rare that so many people seem to come together on the forums to strike down a bad idea.

----Read past this line only in case of emergency or sadistic interest.

You cloak your attempts at power in words of free speech and "promoting communication". IMO this forum serves exactly that purpose except as defined by the TOS pertaining to harassment and personal attacks. You claim people "shout" and frequently "drown you out" and "talk over you". These are, by definition, impossible through text based forum communication. These are only a few of the many misleading statements you've made over and over again. Next you will claim you are being "interrupted" by another person posting at the same time as you. Other people having other ideas is vastly different to actually restricting your ability to communicate effectively.

What exactly could you be trying to accomplish with such inaccurate propaganda? Due to your amazing verbiage on the topic it is fairly clear.



Apparently this is for our own defense after all -- Against the eventual tyrannical overthrow of Linden Lab's administration of the system by some form of repressive freedom-hating nationstate.

You seem to believe people have "talked over" you on this topic. Have your ideas on player run group institutions been "drowned out" by people who "shouted" at you due to your (annoyingly abrasive and condescending) personality? Its more likely they weighed your thoughts as well as those of others and just don't agree but I would guess your emotional reaction to widespread intellectual rejection is not uncommon.

When looked at from this perspective it makes more sense to me why you would want to create another forum to speak out in if only to divide official attention away from the areas you have so far been wildly unsuccessful in. Maybe you could flourish in a more restrictive governmental system - I don't know but I somehow doubt it.

A person's opinion will naturally be colored by their feelings toward you as a person, but attempting to relegate their entire dissenting view to a status of simple dislike or even misunderstanding can not mask your idea's natural weaknesses. I think even you relize this as you revise your "Master Plan" in ways that completely betray its original meaning. "Flip-flopping", you could say, in a way that not even american politics has ever seen. One minute you are arguing for a national government that dispenses "uniform justice" upon its citizens and "provide resources to those who dream a little larger than their own 512 meters"; The next it "makes no laws, enforces no laws, issues no directives, has no money". First you claim the need for even TOS-violating speech to be published, and then you admit you would close the very thread you began once it spun out of your control. I can only imagine forums under your moderation.

Now that you've had time to think it over - and since the thread will likely be open for some time (until the revolution?) - why not just publicly retract your idea instead of claiming to have "signed off" of the thread in disgrace?

Uh, I didn't sign off in disgrace. Actually, after a long discussion which you don't seem to have the time to catch up on, many of us reached several understandings. My final model was a tool for speech, and for sharing the opinions of each group that wanted to do so. It was a model that did what it twas meant to do - put the thought into the minds of those who think about such things that it may be possible to have the best aspects ofgovernment without reproducing the worst ofthe RL governments we despise so justifiably these days.

If you are unable to read up, then go ahead and rehash the old business. The original posting was designed to attract reactionaries and bright people both. It worked. I broke no laws or even forum rules. I suceeded in creating a thorough discussion of my idea. I suceeded in working out it's bad points and tuning it into a good model for promoting representative speach. I suceeded in planting the idea in the brightest participants minds that there may be innovative ways to approach player interaction, just at there are innovative ways to approach so many other aspects of our Second lives.

Whatever unfinished business you migh have here, go for it. I am done discussing the issue this thread was created to discuss, and apparently so is eveyone else. If you need to get excited about something other than the topic, perhaps you could open a new thread. otherwise, it will certainly take this thread off topic and toward a personal battle, I'm fairly sure that will get it locked.

Thanks for your past participation.

I really don't appreciate posts such as this, having been the recipient of them on more than one occaision. You provide absolutely no analysis on or insight into Kathy's original thesis. Instead you focus on her personality, crafting nothing more than a long, badgering, hateful personal attack.

I can't speak for Kathy but I often feel much frustration that I have to share this forum with (edited)-slinging orangutans. If you have nothing more to offer than insults, then get off the forum and (edited).

~Ulrika~

That was exciting, I got an immidiate response and an Ulrika bonus to boot! Woot!

Edit Note: You seem to have misspelled my name there Ulrika
What exactly are you trying to say?

Let's just say your post moved me.

~Ulrika~

Funny, I have a cube that operates more or less the same way. I call it "Speakers' Corner" and it listens quite well, never heckles, gives people a place to say what they want to say. The only difference is that my cube doesn't even post anything.

I don't think anyone gives my cube any attention at all. Is the original poster competing with my cube? Is my cube now in some political race? Well, I can assure you that "Speaker's Corner" has no past to hide, no platform to defend, no agenda at all, and can be sat upon in times of need.

I think that last attribute is really the most compelling; how many governments can also be used for a comfortable moment's rest?

Kathy if you want it so bad, why don't you buy your own sim and hand it over to your elected government?. I'm sure all the citizens of your sim will be most gratefull to you for paying the monthly fees.

The only problem i can see is if you wern't in the sim's government, you're just another citizen, and the elected government started doing stuff you didn't agree with, but the sim's majority of citizens did agree with. How long before you decide you don't want to keep paying your own RL $$ for something you don't agree with?.

But like, you would of course keep paying wouldn't you, coz the government's elected by the majority and that's something you firmly believe in. Maybe a whole bunch of you could buy some sims all together and form a virtual country.

Then one of the guys in your group of sim owners would decide he dosn't like the elected government and he could kick them out and replace them with a government he does agree with. Then you could have wars, military coups and stuff, just like what happens in real life.

Sounds really cool to me, count me in. Though i think i'd prefer to live on the mainland and just come over and join in for the wars. Dunno which side i'd be on really, it would prolly depend on which side had the coolest title, or the best uniforms. i look good in black btw

Hear, hear!
And for the love of god, people, stop bumping old threads.

Loethe,

Thanks for the thoughts. Frankly, this topic was finished about two months ago. Perhaps the person who resurrected this thread didn't have the time to read everything - or anything - past the first post, which was (and I've disclosed this long ago) designed to attract an array of perspectives while making an apparently too-subtle point about how only controversial issues get a visible discussion in these forums. I went on to describe a model where people can speak and be heard WITHOUT creating controversy to get it done.

If you really DO want to get involved with experimental governance, IM me in-world. There are such projects (much like you describe – except for the forcing people to suffer tyrants part, and the war part already underway, and they can use bright citizens.

I think the rest of this thread's remarkable life will be composed of people who respond to the title, don't take the time to at least go to the last page and scroll up a bit, but post their reactions nonetheless. It's clear now that I made an error in designing a post that would attract both reactors and thinkers, but failed to realize that it would continue to attract reactors long after the thinkers had thunk it all out.

------------------------

Eggy,

Right! Stop bumping old threads!

uh....

Wait a minute, I guess *I* bumped it too!

Damn.

Move along, Folks. Nothing to see here

As a member of such a governmental-sim project, I agree that we could always use bright new citizens. Also, we will shortly be starting our second phase! After laying down the foundation by creating a constitution and spending the last few months working the bugs in governmental structure, we're ready for the next step. More details to follow.

Note that Kathy's far-reaching idea has much merit and can exist alongside sims with government and sims without. For those who missed this thread, I recommend reading through it.

~Ulrika~

"Ya know? Good riddance. You were just the folks we needed to make self-government work - not! Don’t let the door hit ya in the butt. If you lack the intelligence and imagination to see the positive possibilities here, then you were just baggage anyway. Perhaps the frame rate will go up a bit when you’re gone. "


This quote is the exact reason I am against a player run governemnt. Your attitude towards those who dont agree with you is that our opinions are less important. Last thing I need is to have a group of close minded asswipes telling me how to live my second life.

Nice sales pitch there.

One more helpful contribution from one more non-reader.

While you certainly have the right to speak your mind, Beau, you might want to open it up a bit first. Before you try to contribute to a discussion, you should really start by listening to it. There have been almost 400 postings to this topic already. How many did you read?

To rehash the only part that seems to matter to you: No. My plan would NOT tell you what to do. It would not coerce you, or confront you, or berate you, or tax you, or even pass you in the hallway. As it developed, it would simply be an event where groups could talk. It has no governmental power at all. So step back. No one *I* know has the least interest in your business whatsoever.

Or, as you so eloquently put it, "Your attitude towards those who dont agree with you is that our opinions are less important. Last thing I need is to have a group of close minded asswipes telling me how to live my second life."