SL Burnout!?!?!

Is it just me, or do I notice more than just myself getting burtout from the consistant problems??

I have had to move my creativity a few times due to issues that I have had happen and I see that I'm not alone in being in the line of fire from annoyances.

We really need Private Sims.

To explain:

Themed sims are a good idea BUT, They are with preset rules. Have to have X number of people, have to apply for linden support with a preconcieved theme idea.

Why can't we have a few sims where the Lindens set as self governed? Isn't this the supposed goal of SL?

Where we can have a person or a few people go in and claim plots and set the rules for the sims, with no preset theme.

Like hmm a realistic area (modern homes etc..)
A um CITY???
etc......

And yet have the backing of the Lindens for the people who got there first and setup the area to a theme of sorts?

There are always going to be those who will buy up a public plot to challenge anything they feel they have the need to disrupt.

I could care less if they don't like it. But they will still do it. The world is plenty big enough for anyone to avoid a themed area they don't like...But there will always be those who are bent on stirring up trouble.

So LL if you want people to build cool stuff and keep it up. Why not set areas like this where if someone gets out of hand there are no questions needed to be asked, they are just removed from the area as they won't fit the set theme.

I'm about sick of the aggressive nature of people being allowed to be overlooked because of too much freedom for them to do so, and yet a lack of freedom from this behaviour.

So I know many won't care but I am refusing to build/buy land till there is some means to be able to police the area around like minded builds, not just me anyone who this fits for.

as said b4 in another thread,

Help us help you.

We can create a awsome world here, we just need to feel like we can.

i totally hear ya charlie. the SL community standards are great, but i think it would be best if we could deal with problems ourselves somehow.

giving negative ratings doesn't seem to be enough to discourage bad behavior, and in fact could actually be part of the bad behavior itself.

i think many of us want to live in a nice community, but a community can't really exist without the ability to make some rules that the members follow. i mean, isn't that what a community is? the rules themselves are no good if theres no way to enforce them. what we need is a way to enforce our own rules.

this brings up a problem though. the way land is used in SL, no one can tell you what to do on it. if there were a real government, we could take the land by force. in fact thats what a government is, it controls land and makes and enforces rules within it. but we don't have this in SL. if i buy a plot of land i could do whatever i want in there, and only the lindens can come by and enforce the community standards. and even then, whatever i do may still not be to the liking of my neighbors.

in a sense each and every player is their own government. we control our own land and enforce rules within it (to some degree). but theres no way to make sure we have neighbors who follow similar or at least tolerable rules.

so there are many people, me included, who have repeatedly moved from place to place because there doesn't seem to be any good place to finally once and for all settle down.

i've been lucky lately, cuz i just moved into gray recently with the Kazenojin. now i really have no complaints there (well maybe lag ) but i know this is still a problem and i really would like to see some way of making real communities happen.

edit: oh btw i had started another thread on this a while back. just in case anyone cares to read heres the link:
/120/45/2705/1.html

I hear ya guys!!

But there should still be sims with total freedom as long as people follow the comm. standards.

The real world is so policed so please let the people who wants to get away from that have that possibilty.

I am not talking about anarchy, I am just afraid that there will be missuse of the authority. Somehow freedom to do whatever you want is what SL stands for. At least for me.

But freedom comes with responsibility (of course)

While I agree with almost everything you said. I have to play the devil's advocate and ask. What would keep 10 new people from moving into the sim where you and 4 others have built and set rules, and decided all of them dislike your rules? There are now 10 of them, and 5 of you. Do they get to kick you off your land and force everything you've built to be moved/removed? Or are we talking just first-come first-serve? And if we are, what stops the "wrong" types from moving in and setting their rules on all the sims?

The only thing I could really propose to what you're asking, is not to fulfill this, but rather to create more sims like Boardman, which are pre-zoned and lotted, but rather than requiring the generi-condo, just say "This lot is for a house." "This lot is for a store." "This lot is for misc." "This is a nature plot, things like ponds are ok." "This is a recreation plot, gaming facilities are ok."

Unfortunately, we cannot let the SL residents set these zones. Why, you ask? They don't have the interests of the game and LL in mind, even if they want to say they do. They will force people out, give themselves what they want, and not be good for the 'community'. Hawthorne proves this elegantly, as they've done this entirely already without such regulations. They don't like what you've built? Guess what, you won't even be able to walk/fly into the Sim anymore. Though, the Lindens seem to look the other way on this behavior in Hawthorne, so perhaps it's acceptable and something you may want to investigate.

Hmmm...

I've become dubious of the feasability of permanent, specially zoned communiites like this (echo: like this); in fact, I wonder if they will be more the exception than the rule.

Numerous attempts at running self governed communites, and even some themes, have collapsed. People for one reason or another simply leave, and one true believer keeping it afloat doesn't last. Reasons might be, I want to get involved in something else, but don't have the money. I have to leave SL. I disagree with your politics. I'm tired of being broke. I have brown hair. Whatever. In the end, people announce in the forums that it's over and it's every man for himself. There's enough examples to validate this I think. Sometimes you wonder if even providing absolute protection will work; look at WW town.

This isn't to say that community isn't possible, but I think a different notion of community needs to be considered, one with mechanisms that don't just allow for turnover, but support it; the typical approach seems far too "RL"; in RL, you can't move into a community, invest in it, decide it's boring or too expensive or that hte neighbor farts green clouds too much, take your house into inventory, flip off the bank, release the land and fly away leaving somebody else holding the bag.

So, a thread mebbe on what's broken, and what a community would need to keep going in spite of fickle players, the relative ease of topping out your share of resources in the game, and the fact that people will always, always move on, often with no notice or consideration at all.

General brainstorming, imagine a community of "rings" (not physical, but status/achievement based). Based on certain criteria being met in the introductory tier, you become eligible for participation in the higher one and deeper involvement in the politics; board positions, ability to open a store, whatever. You have to prove your point via participation and meeting certain goals, but when you've done that, you can rip down your old and set up your new, and reap some form of new benefit, while still having to apprentice somebody in an earlier ring. You are required to be in a particular ring for a given amount of time (so no powergaming), and in fact are further required to be out of a ring by a certain time; you can reapply for more time, whatever. The arbiters would be an elected board of some kind who would themselves have term restrictions, so you'd need to keep people moving through the rings. The "community" doesn't even have to be uniform; just noodling, but early rings could be prehistoric; end ones could be the future.

Fact is, we seem to have the building figured out, but many of the social aspects of making a community work in a game that "encourages" moving on to a new thing, seems to need some figuring out.

Anyway my two bits. Please don't quote this post, it's too long. Just say "Tcoz's post from up above" or something.

Sounds a bit too much like 'levelling' to me. Unfortunately though, what you're saying about people up and leaving, flipping off the bank, etc actually does and can happen. The boards of several large companies have done just that. Taken what they wanted, bankrupted the company, and left. You are correct, people will always do it. SL is rather perfectly set up now for the 'high turnover' ideal. The problem is people just can't get over having things built next to them. They feed on it, they seem driven to detest it, rather than saying "oh look, how interesting, how ugly, ohwell." and going back to their lovely designs and work.

Perhaps in time, with lots more sims up, running, and open, they can lower land taxes/cost and allow people to buy a proper 'buffer area' around their land. Unfortunately, it's an ugly waste of sim resources to do that. This is why I think the pre-zoned areas like Boardman could do well, with less restrictions.

sI, I have to ask. Why did you quote my post? It's RIGHT above yours. AND I asked you not to do it. You conveniently cut that out.

There's nothing wrong with the levelling concept of play. Keep in mind this isn't intended to be the end all of your experience in SL, just something to get involved in for a while; that's the point. Assuming permanence just seems to be counter to the nature of the game.

Because I saw your signature, actually

Though if you'd like a more correct reason, there's no way to predict that you will be "the next post". 500 people could all be replying to a thread at any given time, never knowing whos will post first. While you replied immediately after a post, yours may come 500 replies after. Never know.

Usenet tradition, and because he wasn't replying to the entirety of your post?

/sigh. If you don't reply to the whole thing you are probably taking the part you are responding to out of context.

But whatever.

One of the things that has intrigued me most about Second Life is the promise of (or at least promise of the potential of) self-government.

I am looking forward to that developing when there are enough people to tip that tipping-point.

However there are a few things the Lindens will have to think about in the meantime. First, as I've mentioned before, there is no hope for locally generated legislation if there is no enforcement power. If the people in Shipley decided that free-floating structures, or toplessness are forbidden, then what are the responsibilities for the Lindens to enforce that? Are we empowered to set up ban units to exile miscreants on our own? What kind of enforcement issues are there for Linden Labs in the promise of self-government?

And, for all this to work, we have to resolve the problem of sovriegnty. Since local enforcment will have to have release from the Community Standards to impel people in safe zones, then the Lindens will have to have an arragement where they "recognize" a legitimate government body. They need to announce these arrangements and then support them by Linden enforcers or by promoting the police force of the recognized government.

If you know some other way toward the self government the Lindens have forecast, then I'd be interested in hearing about it

Anyway, the problem with creating arbitrary governments and bureaucracies is that

1. not everyone wants to be protected from themselves -- i.e., they prefer to be independent and stick it out on their own instead of having to be guided along by authorities, or
   
2. people will only use the governments/bureacracies to solve their personal problems, instead of trying to work it out privately, causing a lot of resentment for when the authorities step in, or
   
3. there's no system in place in SL to enforce the sovereignity of a government/bureaucracy -- multiple groups of people could unsuccessfully try to hold control over a sim, spending more time in conflict than they actually do developing, because there's no way to officially declare control one way or the other

It's because of attitudes like this, your ideas will never work. When you try to control everyone else to beleive in YOUR ideals, you are doomed to failure.

Letting residents rule on two or three sims might be just what is needed to prove it will not work. No one will believe it until they see it. The day resident rule becomes the norm and the Lindens set back and watch, is the day I leave SL. I like the freedom to do what I want, I have enough rules in RL.


-TK

Like many things, a contradiction in terms:

To be allowed to be self-governed one (in the community sense) must prove one can be self-governed.

For that matter, What is really stopping you? If a bunch of people are interested in governing themselves, and it's within community standards whose to stop them?

A great example I observed is Americana and it's former leader George Busch. I don't know if it works this way now but I wouldn't be surprised cause they've got their act together. George had setup, I sure with the help/influence of other members a self-governing system for the Americana theme. Looks like it worked rather well for them...

As for Si's post, don't mistake common interest for self-government, common interests are not a very solid foundation for such things because people change their minds. You may not be able to enter that sim now because it's inhabitants are gunning for you but who is to say that it will be that way forever? Though a month in game terms is a bit of time

Swartz, good points, and it's brings up a concern of mine. People have tried 'taking the law into their own hands' in the past and it got them in trouble. Feelings were hurt, people angered and just chaos in general. The example I bring up is the billboard fight in the outlands. If there wasn't a moderator with power above and beyond the average citizen who can have the final judgement in the matter? We all have equal rights/capabilities as far as the game is concerned. It would have been a stalemate that just kept growing like some malignent cancer. SL is a rather open game but your freedom has a boundary at where another's (all others for that matter) freedom is.

A fun saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it to."

Anyway just my thoughts on the matter...

I would like to see a sim self governed.
I would like to see total anarchy in another
I would like to see full campgrounds
I would like to see full themed areas completed
I would like to see neighborhoods develop
I would like to see an artists sim

...and for me well give me a cottage on a lake with a garden where I can watch the sun set and just sit and chat for a moment or two with good friends. When inspirtatin can hit and my dreams can unfold. I wish we all can do what we wish here and soon.

Yes I want to see it all and do it all here in SL this is not RL this is SL why the hell not


Cat

Tracey,

I've been in a lot of online communities, and I have experienced some experiments that turned out VERY bad, but remarkably few had to do with self-government. Most had to do with company government that couldn't resolve the range of different expectations of the players - like your need for anarchy and other folks' need for a sandbox referee.

As a person whose political leanings are somewhat left of liberal, I know what you fear happening. If there ever came about a centralised government in Second Life, I think I'd have to bail too.

My supposition has always been that Linden Labs intends to balance any "restricted" regions - those with rules - with the Outlands. I ASSUME that they don't intend to leave that as one lonely little sims down in Jessie. So I think there should always be an alternative.

On the other hand, there should be places where those who would be governed can do so. This is as much a valid form of play as any other. And, you may be right about these governments failing - most do fail - but MOST of any kind of game play is failure. It's the occasional successes that make it worthwhile.

I would love to see several governments be born, fail, and fade away. I would like to see one or two actually succeed and be adapted by other regions. I'd love to see one or two of those tested even further by rebellion and revolution. And, meanwhile, I'll hope for the eventual birth of a central government - which I will probably oppose and try to overthrow

The potential of this exciting roller coaster ride all rests, you know, on the courage of Linden Labs. They'll have to decide whether they want to go through the ride with us, or if they prefer to compete with TSO and There for the folks with more cash and less of an appetite for challenge. It won't be pretty - but it WILL be a blast

Something to take note of is the game A Tale In The Desert.

I played this game through bata, and it has a government system that might fit SL. Firstly, Linden Labs doesn't want to have to do a lot of work to appease players that don't really know what they want, and players don't want some government handed down from on high by Linden Labs.

ATITD had a great system where players could create laws - any law at all. It is like this:

- You go to 'Town Hall' and get a pettition.
- You write your law on the pettition. It can be anything at all: Blonds no longer pay taxes. All houses must have a basement. etc
- You carry around your pettition and get people to sign it.
- Once you get X signatures, the petition gets voted on over a period of time
- If X% voted yes, then the law gets WRITTEN INTO THE GAME by Linden Labs.
- If a law is not wanted later on, it has to be voted away by a new pettition saying 'Get rid of Law xyz'

I was really really impressed with this system ATITD has, and think it might work great for SL.

Some problems are: Rose specific laws won't concern people that don't live in Rose etc... but maybe this might be worth think about.

If anyone else played ATITD post your thoughts about this

thats pretty cool madox. i like that idea. its sorta like feature suggestions that we make, but if we get a certain amount of support for it, then it actually gets put in

i wanna clarify what i mean when i'm talking about governments. what this all boils down to is annoyances. i'm sure most of us at one point or another were annoyed by someone or something and we wish we had some power to protect ourselves from these annoying things, happenings or people.

thats basically all i want. a way for us to enforce our own standards. as long as we have some real power to protect ourselves from annoyances then i think this little SL experiment will work out better.

what kind of real power can we have? one idea may be to be able to 'ignore' a person, sorta like muting someone. maybe this would mean that the person becomes non-existent to us, including all of there things. they can't affect us in any way. that would be nice. but the problem that comes up involves land. the way it works now anyone can buy land anywhere and do pretty much anything they want there. so even if i had 'ignored' you, you could still buy land around me and mess with me. it is for this reason that i think the issue of anti-annoyance will have to be tied to land ownership in some way. and so this is basically what we call a government.

its funny how it seems like these things need to happen...

isn't it amazing, I feel just like the Founding Fathers of the United States, who argued the exact same arguments and others........... How cool, this game is making us think...

Is the US a true democracy? No

Should it be?

What is a Republic?

And to think I thought History was so boring back in my school daze!


Hee hee hee, Love Ingie

Not to pick any sort of side here on this whole fiasco, but I see an obvious point being missed here, that I think the Lindens intended in the first place.

They have given us the power to do essentially anything in SL, including self governing already. Not to pick on Charlie and Lynnix, because I love them dearly, but case in point. They at one point in time had the entire sim of Rose to themselves. They chose to release the land, to open it up to neighbors, with the full understanding of what that meant and the implications. Had they not have released it, they would be able to allow building there, and remove it just as easily if someone built something that was in violation of their self-imposed local 'laws'. None of the issues that happened recently in Rose would have occurred.

Why would anyone give up this kind of control? Simple, it all boils down to economics. It is very expensive to hold an entire sim to yourself because of the taxes. But the taxes play an important role in SL, resource regulation. Without the tax system things would get beyond crazy.

So here's the thing, what you're asking for is something you already have the means to, but the catch? You want it free!

Economics make the world go round, but for whatever reason people in SL seem to want to swim upstream against them. Over and over in the SL literature it implies that weekly stipends are for very *basic* living, that if you want to build castles, if you want to build governments, if you want to build empires you must WORK for it. But how many successful business operations do you see in SL? Not many, most people simply depend on their weekly bonuses as their main source of income. People want to build giant castles on private islands far from everyone else, without having earned the right to do so.

Sadly it is hard to build your own steady income in SL because so many people are opposed to money making ideas and jealousy runs high. Take the Roseridge Apartments for example (my apologies Aiko), but here we have a *genius* idea. She built a beautiful looking complex, saved people money with mutli-dwelling units that save a lot on land taxes for every resident, and managed to rent nearly all the apartments out overnight. Now she's the target of much hate and bitterness, why?

If you want your own private area, you have the means to do so, but you have to work for it. Work, save up, buy a giant piece of land, build in the center of it, build your moat around it, and live in the peace and happiness that you want.

If you want a self governed sim, elect an official, make them buy all the land, have them charge YOU, as residents, your own self-imposed taxes, so that they can afford to upkeep that land/sim, and vote on your rules. There is *nothing* stopping you! Granted there aren't really any empty sims right now, but there have been in the past, and there will be again in the future, it's not impossible.

But if you want to have your cake and eat it, you have to bake it first!

Unfortunately, the founding fathers of the United States were fighting for exactly the OPPOSITE of what everyone here is asking for. They wrote for freedoms for the people, they wanted them to be able to do more than they could under the former rule. They wanted no laws passed which would harm the citizens.

What everyone here is asking for, is the ability to impose their will upon others. Nothing more. They simply want to say "No, you can't do that." to everything which they dislike. I don't like this train of thought, and I can say for sure I would quickly leave this game if it came to that point.

Do not take this as an insult anyone, but I do not consider any of you qualified to pass "laws" in the game to dictate where, how, and what I will build or do. This is the Linden's place, not ours. Why? Because the Lindens have more than one interest in mind. The players have one interest, and one interest alone: themself. I know you'd LIKE to think you have the greater good at mind, but ask yourself, what motivation do you have for that? None.

The Lindens atleast have revenue streams to consider, which keeps them from catering to a single group, which is what every player government will do. People will simply create laws to keep themselves happy, and in turn hinder every other player. We (I) do not want this.

You are right and wrong Rathe,

If Charlie and Lynnix had done what you said that would be a dictatorship not the kind of government most want to see in here.

The only way to implement what you are saying, a government not for free, is for the Lindens to enable group land, something that I think most people that support governments want anyways.

This way the "gov" (read group) owns the land, and the members of the group, the citizens, perhaps can be taxed to pay the taxes on the land.... it would be a beautiful system once worked out.

give us group land!

JV

All governments come down to a dictatorship. Look at the United States. The thing which keeps that from happening is trust in the elected official, and above that, the fact that the people under that official would not stand for their actions should they rule unjustly.

That said, you are correct, in any government there is a dictative heirarchy. In RL, in SL, in existence. This is human nature, not to do with any semantics of leadership design. You could just as easily have every member of the group buy a "strip" of land, so that everyone has to agree to get anything at all done. I have a feeling that would be rather catastrophic though.

You are right in it being a dictatorship Jon, I never said it would be a democracy *grin*.

But all kidding aside, that's a trust issue, the elected official could be a "president" voted in by the people. But somehow you would have to be able to hold them to being removed from power (i.e.. giving the land to whoever else is elected) when/if necessary.

Group land would be nice, I don't see why we don't have that considering we have group objects. These are all minor features that could, or probably will be implemented, but development takes time (I know!).

All little features or bugs though that will just take time, but no where near the scale of what people are demanding in government tools, private sims, free power controls, etc.

if anyone was referring to what i've said, i just want to point out that i'm not offering any specific solution (especially in regards to some form of government), only a general request that we should have some way of making sure that others can't mess with people, or at least a way to really discourage annoying behavior.

i think the buzzword a while back was "griefers"

i simply want anti-griefing tools. but this will have to involve land control.

i'm not proposing any form of government. and i wouldn't want the lindens to impose one on us. i only want the tools whereby we can forcefully stop someone from annoying us.

because annoying behavior may involve buying land right next to someone i think this means that we need a way to forcefully control large areas of land. this may mean that we want groups to control it.