Player Run Conflict Resolution

Kris used the word 'bullshitted' to describe her view of the actions of politicians generically!!!!

*runs around in circles, panicked*

*ends thread for everyone*

Yes. Another good political tactic. The switch-and-blame.

Typical..... <says no more>

Nope, she'll claim a simple yes or no poll is too binary then make a new one, supposedly breaking things down *for us* and when things don't go in her favor she will lump all the categories together and pit them against the one she is against thusly returning it to it's binary state.

ahhhhh typical.. I have waited a couple hours fo a few answers, but you deem the thread closed. I hope you realize that any poll in the forums means nothing since in actuality Nuealtenburg consists of about 1/4 of 1% of the accts in SL. The forums generally consist of less than 30% of the total SL accts. Please explain to me how you can then state 60% of the people in SL want a change?

I wanted to remain in the 70+%..... Ulrika forced me out

i dont know enough about the game to know if we need conflicts helped with players or not. i think i dont care becaues i dont really do anything wrong anyway.

I have to say that allot of you in this post seem really rude. someone just wants to talk and your so nasty. i thought the poll was fun. mabye she does have a point if the world is filled with people like you.

Isolda, this has been going on for months with Ulrika. Take some time and read other threads. Dont grant her martyrdom from one thread.

Ooh! Yes! Seconded! I want my own Linden! Can I have Jeska or Char please?

Wait a second... Group controls are entirely different from self-government.
The term "self-government" is usually used here to refer to an SL-wide system where everyone would dictate what everyone else can or cannot do. It would be an integral part of SL, and not something you can join or leave at will, like a group.
I agree that groups shouldn't be limited to just officers and members. I have proposed a number of ideas on what should be done with the group thing and I am ready to endorse any concrete suggestions you may have in that area.
Ulrika, you fail to recognize that SL is for all intents and purposes RL, and that you can enforce contracts by getting yourself a nice and pricey attorney.
Once again, you should distrust people by default, and heck, trying to use SL for anything complex is a bad idea in the first place
This is a social world where you come to hang out and have fun. If you need arbitration to begin with, you are doing something outside the scope of SL.
SL is indeed modelled on the web, and in fact it uses HTTP servers and proxies internally, as part of the asset system.
We are here, at most, to produce content for other people to view. If you need a large team of people to build a web project, you start a REAL corporation, not a vague notion of "web" corporation that would somehow not be related to the real ones.
SL needs as much self-governance as apache and frontpage.

(FWIW, a new permissions system and contract system is actually in the works so there's no point in fighting about it now - let's wait and see)

Ok I live in Atlas...hmmm...can I have a good looking Linden please?

umm the survey seems to be flawed, it dose not cover all possible conditions. If there are 3 options. A B and C that over lap. Then there should be 7 choices to chose from. Plus it doesn't practice the double blind standards that are subpost to be used in the scientific process of serving.
Thus the survey is in conflict. not only because it wasn't done by a none bias 3rd party. But because there should be 7 options and only 4 answers offered, skewing the results. Even if it was argued that the party who surveyed was not bias, the results are still skewed.

To get any accurate results it would have to be some thing like:

1) Are you farmilure with the current solutions for conflict resolution in sl?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided, don't care]
2) Do you consider the current conflict resolution system successful?
[very successful, some what successful, ok, some times works, rarely works, never works, unsure, undecided, don't know]
3) Do you think the current conflict resolution system is reasonable fair?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
4) Do you think conflicts are resolved after the current conflict resolution system has been applied?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
4.2) Do you think the current conflict resolution system is expedient?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
4.3) Do you think the current conflict resolution system has serious problems?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
5) Have you used the current conflict resolution system?
[yes, no, don't remember]
6) Have you seen the current conflict resolution system used?
[yes, no, unsure]
7) How many times Have you seen or have used the current conflict resolution system?
[never, 1 time, 5 times, 10 times, 20 times, more then 20 times]
8) of those times how many times were you the person who triggered the current conflict resolution system?
[none, 1 time, 5 times, 10 times, 20 times, more then 20 times]
9) in reference to question 7,  of those times how many times did some one else trigger the current conflict resolution system?
[none, 1 time, 5 times, 10 times, 20 times, more then 20 times]
10) Do you think under the current sl conditions there should be another option for conflict resolution?
[yes, maybe, maybe not, no, unsure]
11) If you had a need for conflict resolution, would you turn turn to a group of your peers to solve the problem?
[I already do, no I wouldn't, unsure, can't decided]
12) if no to 11, if the group had special powers granted by the lindens would you turn to them for conflict resolutions?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
13) do you think a group of your peer would need special powers to do conflict resolution?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
14) Do you think any one other then the lindens staff, should have special powers in sl?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
15) if yes on 14, should special powers include banning players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
16) if yes on 14, should special powers include temporary ban players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
17) if yes on 14, should special powers include banning players from specific servers?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
18) if yes on 14, should special powers include changing player names?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
19) if yes on 14, should special powers include invisibility?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
20) if yes on 14, should special powers include tele-porting players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
21) if yes on 14, should special powers include delete objects?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
22) if yes on 14, should special powers include resetting servers?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
23) if yes on 14, should special powers include fining players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
24) if yes on 14, should special powers include pausing servers?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
25) if yes on 14, should special powers include fining players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
26) if yes on 14, should special powers include locating players?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
27) if yes on 14, should special powers include checking server load?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
28) if yes on 14, should special powers include moving faster then the speed limit?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
29) if yes on 14, should special powers include changing object permissions?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided]
30) if yes on 14, should special powers include changing land rights?
[yes, no, unsure, undecided] 

onnestly I think conflict resolution has very little to do with government. Thinking about adding a government may be looking at the larger picture. But right now sl doesn't even have any political parties. Or groups pushing their own agendas. And most of what a government are subposto do LL already dose, and would never give other people access to such sensitive data. It's impossible to build a house of cards from the top down. If you really want your own government. Buy a private server. Where you own all the land. Require people to agree to your terms to rent from you. You would be able to tax renters. Witch mean you can really pay people to enforce laws, and give them the powers to enforce those rules.

Personally I think the closest we will ever get to a 'government' would be groups with political agendas. Groups that have proven them sells useful to the lindens, and have social sway in the game. Like the creators of simcast. Or if some of the major scripters who have caught many of the sls scripting bugs, and continue to be trend setters in game made a group. Or if the top 50 builders formed a group. Even if they could get the backing of the general populus. And even then they'd have very little sway. With no special powers.

That's the problem in a nutshell Kurt. It's exactly what most people have been suggesting since the mega government thread many months ago. So Ulrika set up Neualtenberg...and we all rejoiced...and actually thought that it was a positive step forward. Sadly, it's now rearing it's head again....as it would appear that a small slice of governed SL land, may not be enough. Fingers crossed it ends here.

If "local" says it all. Start your own sims and form your own government in your own backyard.

It's as simple as that.

And what if some users of that local area do not want to be subject to this kind of rule by a local government? Will they be forced to move? Will they get deported? Will their lives be made impossible? Or what? I can't see this idea succeed if not all users in that particular area agree to it.

Other...

Leadership decided by "Trial by fire"

Someone shows up at your house...

Sets you and your computer on fire....

Waits 15 minutes...

Then proceeds to extinguish the flames enthusiastically with a Cricket Bat...

If you and your computer survive, you can be in charge

---------
Seriously, a contract system could be automated.

And, the day one player can enforce something over another is the day we all lose freedom here.

People who sacrifice their freedom for security deserve neither.

it would have to be enforced by Linden Labs.

So: Player Government / Player Conflict Resolution is Irrelevant.

Realistically if a player run government was instituted we would probably be dealing with President Anshe.

Are you talking about paragraph 8.1 of the TOS (Privacy Policy)? That's the only part I can find that would limit LL's ability to share liaison responsibilities with residents. What did I miss?

I don't see the connection. It has been suggested, for example, that LL shows bias toward the largest land-owners. Why wouldn't a randomly selected panel of residents have as good a chance or better of not being invested in the outcome?

I agree. I'm looking ten and fifteen years down the road.

I agree. And we're not going to grow up by ignoring the problem for ten years and then taking it up again. It's going to take (a lot of) in-world experiments like Neualtenburg and (a lot of) threads like this one. I don't find the "go away" and "what part of 'no' don't you understand" posts to be productive (or very nice, for that matter).

The part I don't get is that everyone is acting as if Ulrika is dangerous! She doesn't even have a push-gun!

Ya, these "binary debates" are pretty tough on people who see both points of view -- if others can't pidgeon-hole you comfortably into one crowd or another, both sides accuse you of arrogantly attacking both sides. That's tactic number one -- the group disagrees with you, and the group must be right. Tactic number two is usually an ad hominem attack -- attack someone's motives or ridicule their choice of "d'em big werds" -- but avoid the substance of what they say -- as Nolan Nash did. Tactic number three is "put up or shut up" -- join one group or the other or keep your mouth shut -- as Ulrika has said.

All three generally have the same message -- you wanna fight in our ring, you play by our rules.

Ain't your ring; neither side owns the debate.

There are many different ways to approach these issues. I've seen exactly two proposed and debated -- and yes, I promise, I swear, I take an oath -- I've read the threads. My original points remain: the level of discussion is low and can't we make it higher? you're talking process and structure when you should be talking need and benefit -- player arbitration is one of the last steps, not one of the first. and, is SL ready for player governance? probably not yet.

Binary debates polarize issues and eliminate "third way" alternatives. Americans in particular are good at doing this. Interesting to see it happen in Second Life.

Ulrika would you please stop trying to be SL's first Stalin and give it a break.

Looks like you want a government in place to purge or alienate anybody who doesn't fit your little mold of the perfect human bieng.

Why don't we form a goverment to boot you out so we don't have to listen to your constant drivel.

Three years of leading player run government has been enough for me. You can go ahead with government. I will, mmmm, I think I will, mmmm, probably, mmmm, maybe I will not take over this time

*hugs*

Love you all )))

I say "other," because the options are traditionally defined models of thinking.

I think there are much more powerful and useful tools not yet in existence that will serve the population of SL better than a traditional mode of "governance."

Par example: Live Help -- while not perfect, is a system of order. LL is obviously focused on larger issues than, "Why do I have a cabin stuck on my head?"

I believe systems like this will form a transparent governance. Rather than any set individuals "deciding the fate of" another residence, the abuse reporting system could be decentralized. Just add a few classification options and the report could be sent out to a random sample of players in SL who simply vote on it. A database server tracks the responses and begins to learn the patterns of resolution then starts weighting solutions based on gathered data -- changing the sample as necessary or delivering automatic solutions based on collected data.

This of course is just one of the potential ways to solve disputes and abuse reports in SL. The thing is, democracy sucks. republics suck. monarchies suck. oligarchies suck. autocracies suck. Why? Because they're egotistical and short sighted -- they aren't systems developed to organize hundreds of millions of people. We need a system that trancends the common notions of governance just like we are developing an economy that trancends the common notions of traditional economies.

A jury or some political "party" isn't going to work here -- it's a virtual environment with people distributed internationally. Traditional economies are only as strong as the environment they exist within and governments as we know them are meant to manage the people existing in those economies within those environs.

Well there's that and the fact that you don't just log out of your RL and go somewhere else.

You basically condescended to everyone who actually made a point without making any point other than the fact that you think you're superior in your thought process to the rest of us. Pardon me for pointing out the ridiculousness of your post. Have another margarita, on the beach, with a troupe of latinas, whatever prompts you to think you're somehow wiser and better than the rest of us. Especially when you make no point other than to ridicule all the points, and to ignore any points made by way of your own chest thumping.

To play *devil's advocate* you need to have SOME point other than to illustrate your own delusions of grandeur.

"d'em big werds" Thanks for making it easier to illustrate your superiority complex.

How do you imagine she's going to make this happen? Maybe if she had a push-gun to your head ... no wait, that wouldn't work. Looks like there's no way to coerce people here in SL.

Or you could not click on the thread. It's not as if the title was deceptive or Ulrika's name was hidden.

Wait, I see. It's not that you don't want to listen to her, it's that you don't want me to be able to listen to her. Well, at least that makes sense. Luckily for Ulrika and me you don't have a push-gun.

I want to acknowlege this post -- a bright point of intelligent and constructive engagement in an otherwise murky sea of anger and fear.

Excellent post, Icon!!! Now if we can only come up with something that doesnt in any way come across as traditional governments I may consider it

It seems however that what is being tried so far is forms of tradtitional governments and is doomed to failure and this is why Im against them.

Can I offer a solution? No, I cant but would very much to see it done

I rarely post on the forum, check my post count. But this is something important.

I can see that change has to happen somewhere. Personally the only 'Law' I would respect ingame would be 'Linden Law'. After all, I pay them to play this game and I agree to abide by the TOS. There is no way I would accept any other body of people telling me what I can or can't do on our land, simple as that!

I voted 'other' because I see there has to be change, but I have no idea what will work. I leave that to the owners of this game. Yes I would like to have a say in what changes are made. But in the end, they must be 'Linden Law' for me to accept them.

Also, just a thought. Say for instance that SL turned out to be a collection of player governed cities or states. The players that did not accept these 'Player created rules' would become 'Outlaws'? Maybe living in bands of spare land on the fringes of the city?

How much hassle would that be? Are we looking at a 'Mad Max' scenario here?

Like I said, my personal opinion and a thought or 2 to mull over.