Self-government NOW!

1.2 Was Out of the Blue

After the shock of the 1.2 announcement passed and it stopped hurting to sit down, I realized that all said, 1.2 is a stroke of genius. Sure, it could be tweaked in many ways. But a lot of it really is pure genius. But it's not OUR genius, SL residents.

No, Linden Labs isolated itself from us and shacked up with experts who know more about SL than we apparently do. The usual tradition of LL telling us what's on the way and giving us a chance to offer constructive criticism on a specific plan was broken with 1.2. Instead of acting with respect for us residents as unique problem-solvers, they reacted to unfocused whining as though that was the height of our contribution and acted with benevolence as though we were children to be looked after and predicted. As a result, at least I feel betrayed.

Whether this step back was intentional or not, I feel that there HAS been a step back from us by LL. And it is in our best interest as residents to close that gap with government. We've been dodging this messy job for a long while now. But unless we step up to the job, we may see more changes under the banner of "because we decided what was best for SL." We need to elect a body of residents who can better decide what is best for us.

The question I have for Linden Labs - and I would be most interested in an answer directly from Phillip - is this:

If residents elected a small circle of representatives (one per sim* at first), would LL agree to communicate openly with them on matters that involve major changes to Second Life?

LL wouldn't have to bow to any decisions from representatives of course, but would at least keep them in the know and get their input early in the brain-storming process - more like a cabinet of advisors. This would make getting input from residents scalable as population increases, would make us feel like we have some say in our world's management, and would bring on the next stage of our social evolution. Wouldn't this benefit everyone involved?

* Only sims populated by 10 or more people, I think. No buying a spot in government. The vote has to mean something more than having deep pockets.

Having migrated here from a site which had its own government, I felt that one of the attractions of SL is that it doesn't have one.

You might think that the present system is not good, but believe me, from the perspective of a totalitarian and authoritarian administration, it is a breath of fresh air. I have been active on the internet since 1997, and I have seen more times than I can count, proof of the adage that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely'. In every case where an individual or group has been given power the result has been corruption.

I would rather have this kind of benevolent dictatorship where the dictator is the owner of the site, and thus has an interest in its financial well being than an attempt at self-government which would, even if it took years to do so, almost inevitably end up in a self-righteous clique of power-hungry individuals who would make life miserable for everybody else.

This might be a little harsh...

1. LL DID consult the users that 1.2 was going to affect he most.
2. LL has ZERO obligation to consult you before they make any changes. They made the game, they came up with the ideas, they own the servers, they own the property rights! (the intellectual rights to SL, the idea behind SL innovation is owned by LL, not the users)
3. LL has all the experts, this is why they take all the big decisions, they KNOW what is best for the game.
4. LL is not like any other company, they take HUGE gambles on the MMO style of gaming. And so far they have ALL paided off!(see #2)
5. YOU are the customer, if YOU don't like it, you can leave. You have choice, you are not bound to SL.
6. 1.2 IS going to happen, and NO one can stop it! (btw it's for the better)

That's all I have to say for now.

Kohne,

I thought I told you already that most Americans hate government. Even though Linden Labs has given us the right and EXPECTATION for self-rule, many residents have some sort of repulsion for the democratic process - or they don't want to do the work.

Of course, that's become pretty obvious in the real world lately - but let's let that speak for itself.

So, I applaud your attempt to promote democracy, but my own experience says you should just sit back now and listen to post after post accusing you of everything from laziness to ambition, from Socialism to Fascism, from being a corporate pawn to being ungrateful, and from sim-nationalism to Linden-assassination. Most of all, they’ll accuse you of wanting to BOTHER them.

So, here we go. Bring it on folks. After all the carping about how we don’t have enough input, let’s hear how you prefer to leave it all to the company. And, above all, let’s hear how absolutely AWFUL it is for someone to suggest you get off your butt and try to represent yourselves.

<grumble>

Kathy, even if there was self-government here its powers wouldn't extend to being able to make financial decisions for LL. Don't kid yourself.

Any self-goverment would have to be on a per sim basis, and I don't think you can have a representative democracy with 20 or 30 people. Do 10 make the decisions for the other 20? 5 for the other 25? 15 for the other 15?

Kathy,

In case your comments were indirectly aimed in my direction, or in case I was accidentally standing in the shrapnel area, let me say that I'm not American, and I do like government to the extent that in RL I am part of it (on a local basis).

If you try to set up a democratic system in a virtual world, the chances are you will end up with something that might call itself a democracy, but will certainly be in effect its opposite. Believe me, I know whereof I speak; I have come from a virtual world which ended up with all the trappings of 1984, including NewSpeak.

Normally this wouldn't matter, but in a virtual world people's lives often become entwined with their virtual one, and for those who are disabled or housebound the virtual can be a very important part of their lives. When a 'democratic' system goes wrong the impact in the real world can be very destructive indeed.

It is one thing enjoying the democratic legacy of the real world, it is quite another to try to set up a system which will not allow the power-hungry to rise and corruption to take place.

Mr Cellardoor,

I did not mean for there to be any collateral damage. I am sorry if you felt fired upon.

Having said that, however, I do want to make one response to your experience: the failure of various large governments around the world has nothing to do with the benefits granted by democracy.

Just because the Soviet Union fell, that doesn’t mean we should abandon pursuing our own countries' best interest.

On the other hand, I do agree with the observation that other attempts have gone wrong. But we have our own chance to succeed. Why should we give that up because you were abused in another virtual world?

I happen to believe that we have a better chance than most other worlds. We have the talent and the support from the company. I would hope we can also develop the courage, but we'll have to wait and see.

Kathy,

That's ok - I'm good and ducking and weaving.

I agree entirely with your first couple of paragraphs - I was not talking about democracy in the real world, which is a terrible system, but currently the best there is.

What I was trying to say was that we don't have a model for a virtual democracy, and when people try to set up a democratic government in a virtual world, things tend to go wrong pretty quickly. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it requires some people to make great sacrifices, and needs a system where the checks and counterchecks are watertight.

I wasn't abused at all in the other other virtual world, but I saw others who were. Things reached the point where long-time residents were permanently banned (and even accused of fraud), apparently because they criticised the 'government'. Bans could not be discussed, so people disappeared, and it was only some time later on the grapevine that we found out what had happened. The nastiness spread even beyond the confines of the site itself. I don't wish to live in that kind of environment again.

As you say, there is no reason why my experience should have any effect on what you are trying to do, apart from the fact that I have direct knowledge of what happens when things go wrong, and believe me, anything is better than that.

Anyway, good luck in your attempts and may the god of politics smile upon you.

We didn't make this game, dude. We have no reason to be a governing force in how it functions. We give input and then the Lindens decide whether or not the input sticks. And that's how it should be.

First, our role in self-governance is ALREADY IN THE GUIDELINES. Read it more carefully.

Second, I'm not advocating any kind of government in particular. I'm just suggesting a representation. You know, something where my voice gets as much attention as the guy who is buying three sims. Is that necessarily evil?

So, yeah. Like you said. We give input, and the Lindens listen. Where is the rocket surgery in that?

And. besides, don't make the mistake of thinking I'm even PUSHING for a governmant at all! I'm saying what I always said (and so many misheard): we WILL have player-made rules. Your choice is whether you get to be one of the ones making them. Right now, it looks like you prefer to remain silent and let the people with more cash make the rules. Well, as in real life, you'll likely get your wish.

I can afford to sit back and wait until the revolution Can you?



P.S. Selador, I agree that there hasn't been a proper model for virtual self-governance. But there hasn't been a properly balanced economy, or an emergent culture worth noticing, either. Nor do I know of any virtual worlds where the company INTENDED to have an emergent government. I think Second Life residents will eventually see it as just another area where Second Life can break new ground.

Just me telling the future.

Kathy, I wasn't pointing a finger at you; actually, I didn't read any post beyond the first, to be honest. My opinion stood solitarily.

While I agree that the rich people in the game have had much more input than others, don't you think 1.2 is a clear "win" for the less fortunate in-game? I think, if anything, 1.2 is proof that the "little people" get their say in just the same.

Though again, I don't deny that the wealthy people try to act like an in-game Illuminati; actually, through the grape vine I've heard of people specifically trying to control 'this and that' with the haughtiness and self-righteousness of one who might have control over the Lindens. This is an entirely different argument and statement completely; I just think that our representation appears in the forums and the Lindens read it and decide what will be best for us and -them-. Because again--this is their game. Not ours.

I agree with Daemioth, I think we kind of are already self governing from this forum. Its the best form of democracy, if enough people cry out about something, most likely it will be changed, its the same thing any government in SL would do.

I do not wish there to be a self-government, it sounds good, but it almost never works, either the company ends up just not listening at all, or the people in power get all power hungry, or both happen. And as I stated above, this forum is the best way to get Linden attention, no personal preferences, everyones post is just as important as everyone elses, etc.

I like the idea of governing bodies within the framework of the game, with a few caveats:

A) There should be more than 1 government. Different areas should be 'ruled' by different governments.

I want to see competing nations.

B) There should be an area with no government. I like the idea of a 'lawless' badlands.

The nice thing is that with an expanded/enhanced group system, we could simply have the government be a group.

Also---these governments should act as 'state' governments---i.e. developing rules like 'no buildings over x height in such and such zone', or 'this is a commercial zone'---'this is a combat zone', etc . . .

Also have the ability to collect taxes from all of the members (in L$) in order to fund public works (roads, shopping malls?)

Note: This last ability would have a gigantic impact inworld. The ability to collect a small amount of L$ from every resident in 'nation' would allow the government to pay L$ fees for land (they are prohibitive for the individual, but not necessairly for the community).

Linden Labs would still be the 'national' government. Linden Labs 'laws' would overrule any local laws, but LL would no longer have to 'legislate' things like height restricts in the 'pre-fab' neighborhoods, etc. . .

I think that having different realms of authority, plus multiple governing bodies (and a bad lands) help make this idea work.
Just my 2 bits,
Bit

I like what Nexus Nash had to say, so I'm gonna go ahead and use his points and add a little bit to them... maybe:

1. LL DID consult the users that 1.2 was going to affect he most.

Yep, they did. The users were from various groups and player types around the world. Although it wasn't 1 person per/sim, it was certainly good enough considering time restraints.

2. LL has ZERO obligation to consult you before they make any changes. They made the game, they came up with the ideas, they own the servers, they own the property rights! (the intellectual rights to SL, the idea behind SL innovation is owned by LL, not the users)

Yeah... but don't think this is prohibiting you from going into the feature suggestion forum and speaking out!

3. LL has all the experts, this is why they take all the big decisions, they KNOW what is best for the game.

Trust me, I love LL just as much as you do Nexus, but in this point I have to slightly disagree. Why? Look at Second Life and think back to the last time you played a game like this. Haha, tricked you, there has never been anything like this before so you can't really say that anybody is an expert on what is good and bad. Why do you think they use so many feature suggestions? However, I will agree that if anybody knows anything about Second Life and how it works, it's Linden Labs.

4. LL is not like any other company, they take HUGE gambles on the MMO style of gaming. And so far they have ALL paided off!(see #2)

Again, optimism that I love to see and can only hope is true! But uhh yeah... LL makes so many gambles, I doubt that once they make one, you can stop them from doing it.

5. YOU are the customer, if YOU don't like it, you can leave. You have choice, you are not bound to SL.

You can also complain! I understand the bounds you have with friends within SL and you feel as though you are being taken away from them. But remember, there's always the $10 lifetime membership possibility. Then you can always be with your friends!

6. 1.2 IS going to happen, and NO one can stop it! (btw it's for the better)

At least, as far as servers, LL budget, and public interests are concerned, it's for the better. When LL first mentioned 1.2 to the focus group, they said "some will be happy, some will be mad, but we have to roll with the punches". You should keep in mind that without 1.2 comming, LL may not stick around as long as we all wish them to. 1.2 might be the one thing that saved LL from bankruptsy for all we know!

Be cooooool and hopefully we can all get through this, together!

Well said Dave

I think any type of resident self-determination beyond in-sim zoning rules, architectural standards and the like would be a grave error. SL is much better ruled by the light hand of governor Linden's benevolent dictatorship. If we ever had any type of representative government I would hope that the representatives were selected by lottery, as was done in ancient Greece and is still the norm in Jury selection. That's the best way to get a representative and democratic voice.

Sounds like a plan

I for one am against a resident government.

My reasons are pretty simple: In SL there are a LOT of people I really like, a few I love as dear friends, and one hell of a lot of people I absolutely do not want making decisions -for- me that affect me.

SL is too small I think. IMHO there's just no way that this imagined government can protect itself from eventually (like 3 weeks after it's formed) crumbling into self and special interests. Personal agenda's will be the watchword, not what's right.

who says that the governments have to be democratic ones?

I thought that sim governments would have the power to set community standards for that sim, and determine if it was PG or M, and if it was Damage enabled or No Damage.
the thought that a Sim Government should decide on what buildings were allowed is atrocious, but it could reveiw all of the residents, and perhaps divide up land equally, so to minimize monthly payments?
It would be fun to see opposing Gov'ts, and perhps different types of curency.

Democracy?

There is no particular form of government required by the Guidelines. All it says is that we will eventually be self-governing and - to some degree - self-policing.

Let's make SL a monarchy. All hail King Phillip I of SL!

bah! Vote Cyanide Leviathan for supreme dictator!

If you want to minimize payments, the entire sim's land should be held by one person, who then passes on the costs to the other people in proportion to the amount of land used.

I think that one person SHOULd claim it all, but then they would divide it up based on the monthly land alotments by other citizens, based on if they were willing to give all of their land, 3/4 ot thier land, 1/2, or 1/4. You should need atleast 1/4 of your total land to be in that sim to have a say, it doesnt matter how much 1/4 of your land is.

The problem with virtual government is that there are no real faces... no one to blame for the apocalypse... but once everyone's dead, why does it really matter?