Lobbying System is born - It needs Rules and Transparency

Excellent suggestion! Lobbyism is unavoidable in any society. You may like it or not. So better recognize this fact and set up some rules to at least make the lobbying process transparent.

I aggree that the biggest cause for all the outrage may have been the perception that this group sees itself as kind of "representative of all residents"; or "all important residents" . This can't be, because of the way the group was formed. And I dont think that this was the self-understanding of the majority of the groups members. (I still think some of the ideas presented would be beneficial to a large number of residents outside the group, too.) But taking into account that among the groups founders were some of the most prominent and most hated residents, the outcome probably was to be expected.

I still wonder how some of the suggestions proposed would have been discussed, if they had been presented by someone else ...And I am not sure if all of these rules are neccesary. They all seem to be plausible to me. On the other hand, a too rigid set of rules tends to be ignored (or dodged/evaded) more often than a simple pragmatic one.

This is especially important with the rules regarding publicity. I am not sure how I would run meetings in my different jobs in RL, if I knew that every word spoken will later be scrutinized, interpreted or missinterpreted on a public forum on the internet. (And I don't think that even political groups in RL could work that way.) Hard to imagine an open and frank exchange of opinions under this premises.

Maybe at least for those meetings in which official representative of our government take part there should be a summary of the results (decisions, next steps etc.)

Spin it how you like. It isn't about politics and any attempt to make it about politic is going to find resistance here. Thankfully (for now anyway), Linden Labs is smarter than this.

Mistake, Anshe. If you're going to try and spin your opponents as being what you are, you first have to insure they are actually what you are... you know... self-serving.

It was almost a nice try... but you mucked it up by letting your distaste for the plebs out of the bag too early.

Better luck next time.

LL has said in the past and even in Philip's last statement with the MJW group that he is all for player-created rules and regulations for the metauniverse.

The simple problem is that this type of "laws" for players needs to be built into the software so that as it is amended, it can be changed.

Just like the permissions need to be amended.
Just like the group land tools need to be amended.
Just like the Linden purchase tools need to be amended.
Just like the ....

Forget it. There's too many that needs to be amended and fixed that are real bugs prior to the creation of any new software dealing with social issues of the players.

Then again, LL gave the players the chance to create their own little governments by selling full sims. If you want government within SL with your own rules, policies... buy a sim. If not, it's a free-for-all until the software and the social policies are created and changed.

I disagree with this whole thread. I don't think there is a lobbying culture in SL, neither do I think one should be cultivated.

If Linden Labs open themselves to listening to groups, secret or open, having their time to privately lobby for things, nobody will know where we stand, and there will be hundreds of lobby groups and counter lobby groups.

Linden Labs have already started the right solution, by creating the feature voting tool, to make the process of change transparent, and not based on cloak and dagger pressure groups.

Additionally if people are worried about this or that with LL, they should write a letter to LL in the Hotline to Linden forums so that many others with the same worries may benefit from the response, and there can be less doubt and fear passed around, and less for secretive lobby groups to feed on.

I absolutely agree. Which is why I propose two classes of Lobby Group, public and private.
The private ones could have closed membership. All the public would have the right to know would be that the group existed, the names of its members and officers, its declared and definitive objectives and concerns, and that a lobbying meeting took place on as certain day, with stated attendees. Maybe the duration of the meeting.
And the reassurance that nothing outside the stated objectives was discussed (Linden rule).

No offense, but the whole idea of a Lobby is that it is NOT transparent.

It lobbies for special interests of a few, not of the whole.

Just my two.

What happens now is blurred, isn't it Anshe ? Philip seemed to be telling your group that your open entry was a factor in him being willing to meet with you. And asking, further, for open distribution of any information given. How such meetings should be handled in future needs I believe to be thought through and codified.

Personally I don't believe it is practical for all lobbying discussions to be on open transcript, and that if this were publicly the policy, it would just mean that we would never even know the private ones had happened. I prefer to know what meetings occur and with whom, as even more important than reading the transcript - though I want that whenever possible.
I also want rules on how one gets a meeting, or at least frank and open guidance on the criteria.

Now we have learned that such round-the-table face-to-face small-attendance conference room meetings with Philip are available, I want them out in the open and subject to principles of fairness, transparency and at least partial reporting.

For the record Anshe - I saw nothing wrong with your lobbying activity except the mistaken rhetoric of some of your less bright confederates in trying to sell it as not a lobby group of special interests at all, but as a deeply principled and selfless movement for all citizens. This naive misrepresentation is, I think, what roused the anger of the masses.

...Oh yes...and some rather unfortunate words you perhaps unwisely used...whoops ! But thats a matter for you, and unconnected with the principles I am concerned to establish.

I agree, I was not impressed at all by Anshe saying she's better than me. I would challenge her that she is not.

Anshe, you will never be better than me. Just cause you put some money in SL, that makes you so great?

But Jamie...the whole point is that we can maybe reshape a better world. You seem to be suggesting we have no choice but to copy every detail of the existing one. Maybe a different word would be better, but do you want our world to be full of such nonsense as "quarks", flavored "charmed" or "strange". A new invented nonsense-word for every not-quite-RL concept ?

I definately want a better [virtual] world.

The lobby group wants a better fiscal world.

I agree with you in one sense, Ellie. It's clear that the intentions of this group are to start a political lobbying system. What allows me to be so casual and laid back about it is that it seemed pretty clear to me from Philip's and Robin's comments that they're well aware of that, and they're not buying... at least not wholesale.

Think what you will of LL's recent decision to create their own in-house currency exchange despite the impact on GOM (a very powerful and influential resident business) but to me it made something pretty clear... LL is more interested in serving the common good than protecting the profit-making ability of any individual player business. Despite all the cries of "LL is evil" that ensued, people should actually be comforted by that development. It proves the opposite of the pet premise of one of MJW's founders (Prok)... that big content producers are some kind of ruling class. LL, in one fell swoop with the GOM incident, proved just how wrong that premise is. Now, like something out of a Monty Python episode, the person who howled longest and loudest about insider dealings, favoritism, and special favors, alarmed by the fate of GOM, has now started a lobbying group to try and convince the lindens that some people DO deserve special consideration and protection! People need to not worry so much and just enjoy the hilarity. Try the veal.

Anyway, a lot of the fears over this kind of thing are predicated on the notion that LL is staffed by gullible twits. I simply don't believe that to be the case, and I trust LL to do what they feel is best for the real common good. It doesn't really matter who they're polite enough to listen to.

you know i have read every single post on this that i could find and being somewhat new in comparison to most of you, i did so with a pretty open mind. bringing absolutely no outside opinions on any one person or group involved in all this simply because i don't know many of you personally.

without getting into details - there are some things that upset me in these threads but it just seems to me that a lot of people are missing the whole point. chip says it all right there. if you sort through all the nonsense, and just look at the very basics of what the lindens are planning or have done...they are clearly looking out for every single one of us.

two very simple examples of this are 1) that the new exchange system will benefit the players that do not create content or run businesses 2) the removal of the stipend and ratings bonus will benefit those that do.

i will add one huge ol opinion based on all i've read....the people who reside in SL that are lucky enough to have stumbled upon a world in which they can earn a living need to remember one thing...that player who spends their entire second life doing nothing but chatting, dancing, shopping, whatever - the ones that are here for fun only - you lose them..you lose your business. seriously, if nobody was buying your products or land, would you still be paying linden labs all the money you have to gain your so called "power?" somebody "small" paid you and thats how you paid them.

everything comes full circle and maybe i'm naive but i honestly believe the lindens are aware of that and working for the greater good.

If you read what I really said (and not what some other people try to make it look like) you will nowhere find that I would claim I am better than anyone. This is simply nuts, sorry!

What I said is that there are people who have more to loose in Second Life than others. I have never limited this to just one aspect, such as wealth. There are people with very serious social or emotional investments who have much stake too. I have friends in SL who are immobile in RL and who, by now, have almost all their friends, all their social life in Second Life. For them SL is their lifeline!

Now does this make them, or me or anyone else better than the casual user for whom Second Life is just yet another game? Of course not! But if you have people who practically live here and have so much to loose, you are no longer merely talking "game design". Justice, human rights and fair process become totally different weight when there are considerable stakes and you can not simply say: "Go play Everquest".

We are not better than you or anybody else. But we are some of the people who very seriously depend on this medium and thus have one strong self-interest in not having SL fall prey to anarchy, corruption and injustice. Maybe you are like us? Is SL more than some game for you? Could it be that you actually share our concerns? Ask yourself. If not, that is fine too. You are entitled to be who you are and this doesn't make you better or worse.

You chose to invest in SL. There is risk associated. Deal with it, but don't expect any kind of assurance or support to protect yourself from your own choices.

Your choice = your responsibility

Tomorrow somebody breaks into your house and sets it on fire. I will hear you saying:

"I chose to invest in this neighbourhood. There is risk associated. I will deal with it and not expect any kind of assurance or support to protect myself from my own choices."

Exactly

Not really the point. They could have any intentions they liked, but that couldn't force Philip to sit at a conference table with them, or announ ce his willingness to do so with others. I would say it is indicative of Philips intention to encourage a lobbying system. How informal or codeified it ends up to be is what I am trying to influence. Like it or not, it now exists, through Philip's will. That is why it needs taking seriously.Uh Uh. We're onto the details of the Prok/Anshe agenda again. Not that it matters in the context of discussing the possible birth and nature of a lobbying system, but I happen to agree on this GOM point, Chip.

As you can find in this post:
/130/70/60061/1.html#post628211

I can only advise you ask him about this directly. I'm glad I did.

Oh dear. I am not interested, as you seem to be Jesrad, in private communications with Philip which I then cryptically keep to myself.

I observed a huge upswelling of outrage in the main thread, with substantial numbers of previous "lurkers" feeling strongly enough about how such meetings should be handled, to post where they are normally silent. People care about this.

I am trying to recognise this fact, and kick-start an intelligent debate, initially with other residents, NOT about this one meeting, but about how to recognise and focus the popular concern it engendered into a set of rules and guidelines we might like LL to adopt in future similar meetings.

Gee, no disrespect, but this is like running in treacle...........

Uh ? I just mean that, if you feel doubt about Phil's own position on this, then you should ask him to clarify... And if you really want to know, all I had was a 2 message exchange and I'm not sure the TOS allows me to post it publicly :/

The risk is real, Anshe, but it is not always impossible to predict. Like GOM, you have already had many months of warning that LL is unhappy with the huge tier discount (doesn't a sim owner pay tier at only about half the rate of the smallest owners) and is considering drastically reducing it, or even eliminating it.

Since it is this very discount that makes many aspects of your own business viable, you must surely regard yourself as on notice of a huge difficulty close over the horizon.

Just because you have chosen to make yourself so vulnerable to this does not mean that LL (and therefore in reality the rest of us) should compensate you when the well-predicted, pre-notified sky falls. There is no reward without risk. It is your willingness to take the risk that separates you from the tourists, and in part justifies (and it does) the income you are earning from the rest of us.

This does not mean that LL should damage any business flippantly, without a counterbalancing wider good. Thus the current land price and exchange rate slides are reprehensible, they serve no wider good, and LL should act to provide fiscal stability, as a true government does.

I suppose at rock-bottom Jesrad, I am feeling surprise and doubt (as well as delight) at Philips expressed willingness (even eagerness) to meet personally with resident groups.

Perhaps I fear that if I give him the opportunity to withdraw or qualify this eagerness, to me in private ("what a misunderstanding" "pressure of work" etc etc) then I will be put in a more difficult position in trying to urge that we hold him to it in public.

Not that I actually distrust him. I take as I find, and so far I am frankly pretty impressed with him, his honesty and directness, and his organisation. But others posting here feel differently, and I have always to be aware that it is not totally impossible that I am being naive.

Yes, which is not surprising!
Lobbyism is a factor in any human society. It has been called different names in the last few thousand years. But is was allways there. We may like it or not. It won't go away by saying "but I don't like it" or trying to forbid it. That would be as successfull maybe like trying to forbid egoism.

The best way to handle lobbyism, is accepting that it exists and try to make it as transparent as possible. The problem with lobbyism in the western democracies is mainly that lobbies dont exist in the law and that their workings - and their communication with the "official" pilllars of these democracies (executive, legislative and jurisdictive) is not regulated at all.

BTW: it makes not that much sense to regulate the "inner workings" of a lobby. Because thats hard to control. But it is possible to at least set up some rules or guidelines how especially executive and legislative (LL) work and communicate with the lobbies.

I love you Pham.
On-topic. Succinct. Intelligent. Realistic.
That one reply makes all my typing today worthwhile.