Player Run Conflict Resolution

Variety is not necessarily a bad thing. If we have 25% of the population implementing a player-based arbitration system, that could lighten the load on the Lindens, improving the quality of arbitration for the other 75% of SL. It will be a win-win situation for us all.

~Ulrika~

clear as mud as usual... I migh ask now since this is something you wish for your group why it was posted in the General Forum? A recruiting drive perhaps?

When it comes to conflicts, there is always the chance that a "happy medium" cannot be reached and eventually one of the parties involved would get the bad end of the resolution. We have seen in many conflicts that have been brought to the forums how many people disagree of what would be the best resolution. I would prefer that LL be the one to have to make these decisions and not other players, especially decisions that could have an effect on my gameplay while I am a paying customer. This kind of situation involves a lot of trust and I for one only trust the company that I am paying to be the ones to make decisions when it comes to my account.

Ulrika, did you mot create this poll/thread because you felt the other one was too binary?

Now you are totalling up 4 sets of votes and pitting them against the 5th one, which happens to be the majority. You have in effect made it binary all over again.

Well then, I will remain an Anarchist, no if's ands or buts about it for in SL I will not recognize any form of government other than the Linden. Another player cannot rule over what I believe in.

A player created government is a losing battle and you will have fights from within along with fights on the outside.

I would rather not live in SL than be apart of a 'player governmental institution' because I know my SL will be invaded by these 'activists'.

An anarchist accepting the rule of a monarchy? I haven't heard of that kind of anarchist before.

~Ulrika~

Anarchist to a Player government, a LOYALIST to the Lindens. Get your facts straight and do not try and twist my words.

To use your own rhetorical device, is this any different than players that feel they've been treated unfairly by LL? Don't you suspect this of being a straw-man argument as well?

I am somewhat re-assured by your response; and may have over-estimated the number of residents that one LL staff member could manage. Still, it will surely grow linearly with the size of the population (as the development team cannot while still remaining effective); and a million residents is quite a few!

And we currently have no way of adjudicating contract disputes, which will be necessary if we are to have large-scale investment in content.

But you (and many others) speak as if Ulrika will be the one that makes the decision! I think your beef is with Philip:

The key being in what Philip said is a GOOD resident system, this would take years to accomplish.

There's a lot of things Philip says but does he actually do them? That's the question. I seriously doubt he would give a player god like powers to handle disputes. That is simply illlogical and a poor business decision.

I don't think you're seeing my point and I always love when folks invoke the *straw man* when they don't agree with a point...

My point is, someone has more of a legal leg to stand on if they have their punishment doled out by other users and not the developers. I signed a contract agreeing that LL could and would administer said actions but not that other players could. Not to mention my point implies that there is simply no way that any player body could be as impartial as LL.

I asked Phillip directly, though it probably won't be answered, about that quote. Ulrika appears to agree with that sentiment, hence I will ask her the same questions if that's ok with you.

One of the main differences is that we have already agreed that LL has such rights in order to join SL. I for one would not agree to be ruled by a player-based government. Unfortunately, players are more likely to be more biased and be more influenced by a player (be it because of loyalty, friendship or social status of said player) than Linden Labs would be, since we are paying customers and therefore should be treated equally.

I would like to know how many player disputes have actually resulted due to the growing population of SL and why would this merit intereference by the creation of a player-based government?

Oh, come now! This is all getting much too dramatic and hysterical. Both sides just love fanning the flames, thumping their chests, and declaiming brave thoughts, don't they?

Keep it at this level and the pro-government faction won't have to do any real work beyond acting like badly-misunderstood martyrs. And the anti-government faction can forestall any action by marshaling arguments based on the fine logic of emotionalism, ridicule, and short-sightedness. Politics in SL will remain a drama-factory.

If SL is going to "take over the world" (heh), then limited player government and services are inevitable. It will only be a matter of timing, circumstance, and (likely) a catalytic crisis. Get used to it; make it work.

While limited player government and services may be inevitable, success will require a level of thought and planning that is -- so far -- not in evidence in SL. Up until now, discussions and efforts have been largely derivative, irrelevant, unproductive, and stillborn.

Frankly, SL isn't ready for a player-run judicial system, or even arbitration. Even more than representation and executive administration, arbitration and justice takes a level of maturity and discipline that does not exist here. No, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm saying that a successful judicial system requires experience, stability, and mature values that SL "political culture" hasn't had the time or the need to develop so far. In the absence of maturity, any system set up now will likely depend on a familiar group of "well-known and committed people", and the decision-making calculus will devolve on personality and popularity.

Once again, certain people here are proposing last things first. A poll on arbitration and justice is useless at this point -- it's just "white noise".

You're nation-building here. Learn from the mistakes of past and present real life -- and especially from the American example, since the United States is the most rampant experimental nation-builder in human history -- the most successful, and the most prone to failure at the same time. Concentrate on ordering the economy, on creating and administrating necessary services for growth and social order, and on defining what a "virtuous and responsible citizen" in a virtual world is. Do that, and the issues and solutions of representation and arbitration will begin to define themselves.

Most of all, raise the level of the damned dialogue. All this chest thumping is starting to deafen people to valid points.

ed.sp.

Great question. I think to overcome this problem, people would have to agree to be moderated by other players and agree to accept their outcome. If they choose not to agree, they would be allowed to go through traditional channels.

This agreement could be the acceptance of citizenship within a city that has its own government or agreeing to arbitration by a jury of Linden-selected peers. Ultimately, a user should always have the option of having a Linden review the problem.

~Ulrika~

This is what you have now.

We just added two new people to the Philosophic branch in the city with the sole purpose of addressing this challenge. Will you rise from the bench, put on your helmet, and join the game or are you doomed to sit back in your recliner cursing the television for the mistakes you think other players are making?

~Ulrika~

In the end, either people will accept it or not, its not one way or the other. A virutal government does not have the same control as a real world government has.

Is this some sort of Ultimatum? I think thats EXTREMELY uncalled for.

Yes it is! What's missing is codified support and backing from LL. I'd like to work out a method, where a local government receives an agreement that LL will enforce local laws and contracts, if needed. It would allow a local government to have binding contracts and laws (often described as "teeth" in the forums). In theory, the benefit to LL would be a reduced amount of user arbitration time.

~Ulrika~

No it's not Einsman! I'm a very nice person and am in this forum for casual conversation. I guarantee I'll be on my best behavior in this thread. That statement is in regards to a discussion between Donovan and me, where I was trying (and still am) to recruit him to contribute to the direction of our city.

Please disregard this as anything but me trying to get Donovan's attention.

~Ulrika~

In my experience, whenever someone feels compelled to issue a disclaimer like the one in bold print above, the content usually conveys that which the author is disclaiming. Why else would they feel the need to add such a disclaimer?

A lot of us here choose not to make our points by tossing about 100 dollar words and condescension. In my mind that does not lessen the validity of anyone's points, pro, con or otherwise.

I really don't see the chest thumping, dramatics, hysterics and emotional outbursts you are decrying. Care to respond to some actual, individual posts or points or are you just going to play headmaster?

The last two sentences are actually very insulting. Would you like a foam brick to throw at the TV?

What for? If players want some form of a government, create a group and figure it out. If participation is entirely voluntary for everyone involved, then it's a given that they'd be willing to agree with the decisions made. I don't understand why anything has to change. They might decide to leave that "government group" after a decision against them is made, but that's their call too.

I voted for the independant governments and 'other'. The first because I don't care about other people playing politicians if thats what they want to do with their Second Lives. The 'other' was essentially because I can't in all good conscience tick a 'The current system without changes' box, because the current system sucks... in that it is not consistent or fair, and pretty much depends on what kinda mood the adjudicating Linden is in or which way the wind is blowing.

So my preferred imaginary tickbox is 'The current system overhauled but still under complete Linden control'. It's not that I don't have faith in the Lindens to do it right... they just don't have the rules in place to guide them as to what the right thing is.

I will never, ever recognise a player run adjudication system of any kind.

are you sure that your not insulting anyone? that was the nastiest post in this entire thread. you came in and attacked every single person on both sides of the argument! what an arogant thing todo

are you sure that your not insulting anyone? that was the nastiest post in this entire thread. you came in and attacked people on both sides of the argument! what an arogant thing todo