SL Burnout!?!?!

llEjectFromLand() and Sensors are all you really need for land management of this sort. With one failing point. Sound

That request has been made though, pretty please Mr. & Mrs. Linden?

That aside, i'm glad i'm not the only person who dislikes the idea of player government.

but what about right next to your land?

Well, right next to your land, is not your land, but someone else's land. What happens there is well, whatever that someone chooses. They could always have land management tools on their land as you do on yours, and if you're a "community" you can allow each other access.

I wouldn't necessarily advise that, but that would be the best (IMO) way to go about it.

There will always be a 'just outside your land', even if you own an entire sim. The difference is the buffer zone you allow yourself between where you are on your land, and empty land you own which you use to space yourself. All comes down to how much you can afford, the resources you're allowed, etc.

exactly, and what they choose to do may be to annoy you.



this is a good point. i think with group owned land, we could squish ourselves enough that there is a comfortable buffer from annoying stuff. just a thought.

anyway like i said i'm glad i joined a community, cuz it sucks having to find a place anywhere else. i just wonder if LL is gonna keep having us create communities with the same procedure. i didn't really like it too much to be honest.

I would like to take a moment of thread time to apologize to Tcoz. When I used the terms “you” and your”, I honestly did not mean to specifically mean Tcoz. I have heard from a couple people wondering why I was so upset and “picking” on Tcoz. That was not my intent.

Tcoz, please believe me when I say I did not mean to belittle what you were saying. I was only using what you had said to make a point. Obviously, I failed.


-TK

Polotics bad.
Tree pretty.

Oh no, this is EXACTLY the type of thing that they talked about, it's what the Greeks talked about, it's what the Romans talked about.......... it's western civilization!

Ok, if I say anymore, I'll start something, LOL, and that's not what I want to do.

By the way, Kathy, I love your attitude!!! Hee hee hee YAH!

Love Ingie

LOL yeah, most people don't know much about our founding fathers.

They fought to get away from taxes (already happening in SL )

They also wanted a Republic, not a democracy, that is why we have a democratic Republic... notice Democratic is modifying Republic... the US is a Republic that is democratic. WE don't live in a country that is a Democracy but is somewhat a republic.

They loved the ancient greeks and even sported their names at times.. George Washing saw himself as Cincinnatus.

JV

hmmm did i say greeks i meant romans i think.....

oh well it all gets rusty after the classes but you get the point

JV

[/B]

And the next person that says "That's where democratic and republican come from"... I swear I'll do it this time

Well it just shows that Republicans are what we are meant to have j/k

Darwin you darned liberal Hippo what am I gonna do with you?

Yes people its true even the Hippo's have political divisions.

JV

the first two parties were the Federalists and the Democrat-Republicans; the Federalist party vanished over time, and the Democrat-Republican party split pretty early in the country's history

don't forget about the anti-Federalists which came even before the Democratic Republicans If i remember correctly...

JV

Please forgive the rambling nature of some of this. I like to think outloud sometimes. And this is one of my favorite topics....





Well, that seems true on the surface, but it is also true that the founding fathers built a very strong government. It wasn't a case of being as permissive as possible, but of protecting as many "God-given" rights as possible will maintaining the rule of law.





Well, we're talking about imposing the will of the People upon the individual - a time honored international tradition. It is also probably the natural - or inevitable - outcome of simulating communities, which is a Linden-stated goal in Second Life. And, as for leaving Second Life, I would certainly fight any effort to have a uniform government here. So, I would expect there to always be a home for folks who dont want to play Government. I dont see a need for anyone to have to leave the game - perhaps just a few sims. (And yes, I do see the irony in this statement when I remember that same argument being used against me in Jessie

At any rate, I would always support the creation of new un-governed zones to balance any zones that opt for local rule. I have already discovered that there is a strong believe in the Company that there should always be an Outlands, and that it will become as large as it needs to be to accommodate those who spurn societal convention. There should never be a need for that kind uniformity in this game.





I certainly am not taking insult. And I hope you understand that my comments are meant in the spirit of political discussion - not personal judgment.

As for qualifications to pass laws, the assumption is that those making laws can only make laws for themselves. Period. Any sort of non- representative process would have to be overthrown - or amended - as soon as possible. In fact, that is one major complaint against some of the other suggested forms of government I've heard - they aren't representative. In fact, neither is the current reliance on the Company to fill that role.

I have to disagree with your assumption that anyone who believes they have the Greater Good in mind is deluding themselves. I think it is a bit dismissive to simply say that there is no motivation for altruistic behavior, therefore it cant exist. Actually, both those statements are false - and not important. I can certainly believe that a representative government - and the executive powers that must accompany those laws - are in the best interest of everyone, but it is only necessary that I believe that cooperation with my neighbor is good for me.

And I would also disagree that the Lindens have more than one goal in mind - unless you count making a profit AND running a ground-breaking social experiment. I might believe that - but I SUSPECT they will eventually decide for the former if it conflicts with teh latter. Unless, of course, we have already gotten through the hard parts of self-governance before they have to make that decision.





I'll go ahead and disagree on all the points in your concluding paragraph. My business training said nothing about it being necessary to consider any group but those willing to pay the bills. I suppose it all depends on how you define "group". If you mean "group" to stand for those people who will try to impose their point of view upon those who aren't a part of the "group" then I don't think the Lindens care - except to keep the peace. I doubt that they will step in to quash a popular totalitarian regime just because they're afraid it'll drive the minority away - unless, of course there is gunplay I think the Company wants to maintain the stance of allowing players to pursue their own ends - whatever lawful directions those go. On the other hand, I don't know how any individual Linden feels about these organic political processes - or how much weight the perspective of any one Linden applies to the limits of our self-determination. I guess we'll see.

People DO create laws to keep themselves happy. I disagree though that this hinders every other player. In fact, there are many laws - including large parts of the US Constitution (we need a Constitution here, by the way) that declare the FREEDOMS due to others. I am perfectly willing to support a law in my local sim that will declare your freedom to carry a gun, run around with no pants, or whatever non-violent activity you like. In fact, I can even see myself campaigning for laws that will allow certain VIOLENT activities here and there. I only insist that we DO make laws and that it is WE who make the laws.

So, think about it. Realize that there may be many - perhaps even a majority - who feel the same way you do. Isn't it better to gather your group together and vote on laws that PROTECT your freedoms? And, if that proves too difficult, then we can rely on the Lindens to do what they really are best at: provide up with the land and tools to create our own communities, countries, and governments.

Let me tell you something about this politics business. TSO has a "government" run by the citizens. Maybe you've read the articles about it - it's a MAFIA.

I question the motives of anyone who wants political power, especially since the "Report Abuse" option is there. I can point to several lines in the Police Blotter that are there because I reported someone for harassing me in PG sims. Like that broad who was walking around De Haro and Boardman with no shirt on, demanding sex and pushing people around if they told her to get lost. Yeah, she got hers. Two days in solitary if I recall.

I'd also like to give a little advice to people who are going to move into a new area. Before you build a huge structure that impedes someone else's view, think about what you are doing. Think about how your structure will blend in with the sim. Ask your neighbors what they'd think if you were to build your apartment building/office building/lighthouse/giant onyx castle/etc. Don't just be an ass and build something that doesn't fit in and then tell everyone to go F themselves when they complain. THEY were there FIRST. It's like someone is having a party in the park, and then you wander in with your friends and start causing a ruckus. Technically you have a right to be there because it's the park, but that doesn't make it right to disrupt what other people are doing.

The less considerate people are of others, the more likely we are to see some kind of government spring up. Why go through all that?

What a great thread to inform 1.1 feature decisions! Thanks.

Lots of very good points here - we are very carefully watching and thinking/debating how best to do this stuff. As we've discussed in forums and town-hall meetings, self-governance in some forms is a design goal for the 1.1 release.

Some summary thoughts upon reading this thread:

Clearly group control of sims/land can degrade into insular combatative 'cells' which are of little collective interest. But if the right balance of controls is struck, I think we can avoid that. We have a specific design meeting on this very topic planned thursday morning! Definitely something to do carefully.

At some level (with previous paragraph in mind), self-governance can certainly 'cohere' the activities of multiple people in powerful ways. We all (I think) want to see emergent structure beyond the individual merchant/artist/etc. Civilizations become rich and fascinating because of shared characteristics.

Anarchy is deeply appealing as well, especially with good global community standards (which I think we have). We should always have many places where this ultimate freedom can be enjoyed as a welcome escape from the modern world.

Keep the thoughts coming. I appreciate that it will be a lively debate. It is very intoxicating that we are all in some sense founding fathers here (though not necessarily specifically the US ones, as pointed out earlier)!

Hiya Charlie I am behind ya 110%! I also feel there is a definate need for private sims. My idea is for the lindens to keep creating sims like boardman but not boardman for those of us who would like to see our ideas come to life and have some sence of control over the landscape. Anarchy well to be honest I dont mind it a bit and there are pleanty of exisiting sims open already for those ppl. Now what about those of us who want to see a sim that the theme all flows together in its own way not "what ever" way as we clearly see in sim after sim. I honestly think it is to the lindens advantage to see that there are a great deal of us who want to see this game evolve.

We are past the stone age ppl time to see some organized sims take shape and show what ppl from all different walks of life can do when they combine their talents.

Theme sims are excellent for that but again its their way or the highway. I am talking about retaining the individuals creativity with some sence of organization but not so much that they are are too limited. Yes it is a fine balance there but as I read the forums and talk with ppl there is a definate need for it.

Politics well I hate politics blame Clinton for that one lol. Neighborhood watch, well I can get into that

Cat

This may be a little late to respond to hehe, but i so agree with what you said there. I don't understand why there are some people who don't take a look at the area they are wishing to move into. If you were to see a sim full of pretty trees, walkways, bridges, waterfalls, a castle, a few nice large homes, would you want to put a big concrete boxing club on the corner of one of the waterways? (please don't think i'm pointing fingers hehe, the club is cool, i just think there could have been a better spot for it ~). Its the same for putting a giant skyscraper in the middle of a quiet neighborhood. Or huge pictures of half naked men(now i'm pointing fingers ~). I'm a pretty quiet person in world, but when i've spent hard work trying to make an area that is peaceful and pretty and somewhat organized, people just irk me sometimes.

I don't understand why they don't think before they build.

~end rant, sowwry ~

But yes i liked what you said in your post Huns hehe.




[/B]

Could this be what Boardman was trying to do? I think the problem there was the restriction on home creation. Maybe some rules to govern the building as opposed to the prefab houses.

fen-

Philip,

Just a couple thoughts about your response.


You say:
>....self-governance in some forms is a design goal for the 1.1 release.


I'm very glad to hear this. I would like to point out that there is really very little you can do wrong in this effort. The simple step of providing secure anonymous voting tools would be enough to start the governmental ball rolling. That will be enough to provide elections (sans chad) and accurate polls. It would also be handy to give us the ability to register voters - or for the Company to allow us to choose which demographics are represented in any given vote. For instance, if we hold a vote in Shipley, we should be able to register or select Shipley landowners (or residents?) for that vote. If we need to hold a primary, then selecting "party" members would be important. And if we need to test the results of our legislation, we should be able to choose new residents, or merchants, or income level for polling purposes.


>Clearly group control of sims/land can degrade into insular combatative 'cells'
>which are of little collective interest. But if the right balance of controls
>is struck, I think we can avoid that.


I still need some idea of the Company's perspective on "control." I know you haven't finished considering this question, but it's a crucial one to my mind. If there is to be some sort of regional governance - with legislation pertaining to both residents and travelers in that region - then there are going to be circumstances that require enforcement of that legislation. Is your working assumption that the Liaisons will act as the enforcers of our local ordinances? Or will the Company officially "recognize" governments and give them the authorization to constitute their own police? Or, perhaps, is it possible to give sufficient power to a private in-world security company so they can hire out to local governments and companies?

It may be sufficient to simply give such Player Enforcement Officers the authorization to temporarily ban (from land other than their own), bump (from the grid), or report (to a sysadmin). At any rate, local officers must have the ability to either act on their own (accountable, of course, to their government and to the Company) or to dramatically expedite an appropriate response from those who can act.

I really think the problem of enforcement has to be thoroughly addressed in any of your corporate discussions about future self-governance features. And I believe it is better, in the long run, to have citizens take the most visible roles in enforcement - with a CLEAR grant of authority from the Company.


>At some level (with previous paragraph in mind), self-governance can certainly
>'cohere' the activities of multiple people in powerful ways. We all (I think)
>want to see emergent structure beyond the individual merchant/artist/etc.
>Civilizations become rich and fascinating because of shared characteristics.


It's important to realize that "shared characteristics" can also sometimes mean agreed-upon policies of exclusion. Now, this is not necessarily bad. We may want to include only the best scriptors in our own collective in Bonafacio, or we may want an artists' colony in Mocha. But it is also possible that we may someday be confronted with walled communities that exclude only avatars of scarce means, or with enclaves dedicated to those professing certain negative beliefs about real-world genetic or gender issues. Both of which could be created and maintained without necessarily violating the sparse Community Standards we currently cling to.

Given all those possibilities, I suggest that - even for those areas not otherwise governed - there be a Constitution created - at a representative Constitutional Convention - that will lay down the bare minimum rights and expectations for ALL of the sims. All future governments would, of course, need to be in alignment with this document. And, even in those regions where there is only personal autonomy ("anarchy", the individual would have to comply with these minimum expectations. The Constitution would, of course, be subject to Company approval and open to later amendments.

The Community Standards are a good beginning, but they certainly need to be examined and recast with a bit more of the basic principles that we, as members of this international (and intersim) community, hold inalienable.


>Anarchy is deeply appealing as well, especially with good global community
>standards (which I think we have). We should always have many places where this
>ultimate freedom can be enjoyed as a welcome escape from the modern world.


The dichotomy between "anarchy" and the Community Guidelines is, as you know, a hot topic for some of us The discussion always starts with some spluttering about the basic principles behind the Community Standards, but always devolves into a contest over the exact letter of the law. This, I think, is because the principles in the Community Standards don't reach far enough to define the level of mutual respect we expect universally in this world. I know that such definition is a hard thing to create, and I wouldn't reasonably expect that level of involvement from a Corporation anyway. It's really something that WE need to do.

We will need to remember the need to preserve areas promoting high levels of personal autonomy, personal danger, even aggression and frankly "anti-social" behavior. These should not be "legislated" away by any Constitution or Community Standards. But certain levels of mutual respect must be baseline. It's clear that, at the least, all members must share the principles of Tolerance and Freedom of Expression that are in the Preamble of the Community Standards, and of mutual Respect as mentioned in the Rules of Conduct. And I believe it will take more than careful editing alone to resolve the almost inevitable conflicts between these principles and the parts of the Community Standards that allude to expected behaviors in the Outlands, mature areas, and PG areas. I think we may be able to improve on the Community Standards in a properly considered Constitution, or even come to different expectations.

These are exactly the kinds of things that need to be resolved prior to allowing minors in-world, by the way. And the presence of universally supported principles coupled with regional determinism is the best way to disarm the multitude of future conflicts that will only increase geometrically with the growth in population.


>Keep the thoughts coming. I appreciate that it will be a lively debate.


As usual, I am thinking out loud here. I would really appreciate hearing some of the results of your thoughts on this stuff. I'd rather discuss or debate than simply see this devolve into players' comparisons of what we all believe are the most likely worst-case scenarios. Please let us know how the discussions go at your end - this will go the farthest toward helping us feel that our future will be more participatory than directed.

Wow Kathy, interesting post, and I like your ideas

I talked a long time ago to a couple of Lindens about a group of elected people that have tools just under Lindens abilities but more than the average user to "police" ares that are in a government situation.

More specifically, A group that is elected by the majority of SL residents, not just the ones that are in the goverment ares, as these abilities/powers would be hard to limit to just the area in governed.

Than after a group of people come out as the best decided on/respected by the general public. Linden staff looks at the list and decides if these members based on previous behaviour, helpfull nature, anything else in the past of these people in SL would make them good canidates for the extra ability/responsibility.

So it could be a fair election by the people for the people (LOL had to). And approved by the Lindens.

But also if these people abuse this power votes can be called by SL residents to remove abusers of this power.


Also just to make sure its known.

I was intending the ideas to be area/sim specific, not Global.

We definatly need areas of total Chaos/anarchy, just scuz itsa fun to stretch the creative legs.

As the world will get bigger a few sims here and there or a group of sims could be set for government / SL resident control.

In rethinking from my original post and some of the responces I came to a conclusion on an idea:

The idea of 2 or 3 people gaining control of a sim setting a government of sorts then 10 more people move in and don't like what it is and want something different, could turn messy, but here is my short unprethought out answer to that....

First off as a community grows ideas will be added/changed.
That is a givin, no one person's will should be imposed on any group. But...

The way I think this could happen is close to our already Themed ares. In the way of application....I know a bit contradictary to my thread starter but hear me out..

The application could consist of this:

1) A set number of people at minimum.
2) A general idea or goal (not to be confused with theme plan we already have those)

3) The application must include a declaration of ground rules for the are if said government should be set in place. (of course with the understanding that as time goes on the citizens make ammendments. But the application ground rules must stay in place or a reapplication process would have to occur. As any change of the ground rules wouild constitute a possable drastic change from the original application.)

4) Maybe at first till the idea of Citizen ran areas grows and have some tested time involved, we vcould have a clause that any major voted in ammendments need to be ok'd by a linden appointee. (of course excluding things like build requirements and other minimal things.)

5) Include a policy of how newcomers to the governed land are welcomed or "initiated" into the area. (to see if its acceptable to LL long term community goals.) And once this is submitted it cannot sway from this. Amendments or not. A change to this would require a reapply.

6) How non-member/citizen of said governed area are treated/welcomed, how they would be expected to behave and how to deal with those that visit and don't adhere to the governed guidlines. (also this must not change or be subject to reapply)

Any ideas? I know its written like a "my way" format but its not intended that way. Basically written up in application instruction final draft style. Meant to be ripped apart, commended, critisized, added to, removed from, etc....

I hope ya get the point. I'm trying to see if we all can take that step further much like Katy putting her ideas out there.

I think as a whole we can make this work. As I am for self governing in specific areas, not global. Everyone has that little rebel in them that didn't go away after the teen years
We need our thrashing grounds too

Charlie,

That is an interesting idea. A model might be something like a "County Sheriff" for instance. They are elected, and have a jusristicion that encompasses all the towns within the county. If he or she needs more officers because it is a particularily populous area, then Deputies are hired and fired by the Sheriff - but he remains accountable for their performance at the next election. And, of course, he or his deputies are always accountable to the Company directly.

In our model, they could have minimal powers - perhaps only the authority to detain or ban temporarily. Or even the ability to report directly - in emergencies - to the on-duty sysadmin who can bump folks off-world or suspend them. (However the Liaison do that.) It wouldn't take much as long as the Lindens give the officers enough tools to be "peace" officers

I agree - and would like to reiterate - that I do NOT want a strong central government. I DO want a universal Constitution, but I want it to provide for a VERY wide range of possible State governments - including the Outlands, the Mature areas, and any other sim that doesn't feel like putting a government in place. That is why I feel the Constitution should include a Universal Standard of Conduct that applies in ALL sims - a standard that simply lays down the barest minimum acceptable behavior.

(It is certainly possible to have as much anarchy and warfare as you like without having to publicly humiliate and denigrate other players. Right?)

So, no, I do NOT want to see one type of government take over all the sims. In fact, I doubt it could. There aer not only a LOT of strong personalities out there who would sooner die than comply, but there are many people (like me) who'd spend a lot of play time working to thwart central government.

I want to watch ALL the various experiments struggle, and fail or succeed - I don't really care which I just don't want to leave it all up to the Company. There's no reason that a group of extremely creative adults has to have a bunch of propellor-headed geeks babysit their playtime (ooops! Did I say that outloud!?!? They DO happen to be the very BEST propellorheads in the business, though

I have been reading through this thread, and I feel people are getting overly complicated with their ideas about governing.

Personally I feel that the recent experiment by the Lindens in allowing settlement groups to have the first crack at new sims was a great success.

Currently, the formal group structure is a great model for 'opt-in' government. The survival of a themed sim depends on the continued enthusiasm of the group members, and if a group fails to maintain that, perhaps it is best for it to fade away.

I would recommend a few options be added to the game to fortify this group system:

1. Set an option on land for "Allow owner build only" and "Allow group member build only"

2. Allow the officers of a group to "uninvite" group members if they prove troublesome

3. Provide the owner of the land the option to send other's items back to that other's inventory rather than simply deleting them.

4. And 4, when opening up a new sim for settlement, perhaps the threshold for early settlement and land claiming could be set a little lower - allow each member to claim up to 1/8 or 1/4 of the land. 1/16 is too small to allow sim standards to be set by a core of active group members, and the rest of the land still sits unclaimed.

And Lindens, please please do not change the debt and tax structure! As it stands it allows a well-organized group to maintain a great deal of deficit spending and I thank you for this.

Any online company like Linden Lab is going to have people watching its network 24x7x365. It's just the cost of doing business. If someone has "enforcement" powers these should be limited to paging the tech on duty, explaining the nature of some violation, and having the tech verify and handle the transgressor. I do not want to see other SL residents with more power than myself because I don't trust them to use it to everyone's advantage. A dispassionate third party like Linden Lab is the only way to go.

As long as these bare minimum requirements don't force people to leave you alone when you enter Jessie, I don't have a problem with that, at least not RIGHT NOW. I really hope you aren't trying to use underhandedness to push Linden Lab in the direction of making Jessie as safe as its neighbors. Honestly, there are 48 sims on the grid (I just counted them) and I don't think it's too much to ask that one single sim be available to folks like me who enjoy a walk on the wild side every now and then.

Again I am smelling something a little "off" with this line of discussion. All this "the Company" jargon and such, it is raising red flags for me. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but reading "The Art of War" and "The Prince" has caused me to question the motives behind management- and politician-speak.

Certain levels of mutual respect must be baseline? In every sim? Mein Gott. I knew it, I knew it! You want the equivalent of a UN peacekeeping force to escort you through the Outlands, suppressing those filthy rebels who dare to shoot at you! Why can't you just leave them ALONE? You have 47 other sims to play in, and they just have the one! Christ on the cross, lady! ONE SIM!!! ONE sim for us to go to when we want to live dangerously. CAN WE PLEASE JUST HAVE THE ONE SIM PLEASE AND THANK YOU!!?!??!??

I've read Machiavelli and Sun-Tzu. I know your game.

If they ever let kids into Second Life, I hope they put them on a totally different continent on a different grid of servers that you can't get to even by teleporting. Many of us don't want to have to deal with kids in SL (some because they already have kids in RL they want to get away from, ha!). 'Sides, I don't know about you folks but I've seen some really creepy avatars, and the thought of my nieces interacting with them makes me bilious.

If we HAVE to have minors on the grid, I can live with it if there is a minimum age restriction, like 16. But even that would probably be a pain, knowing how self-centered people are at that age (even though they would like to believe otherwise).

Another thought on maintaining successful groups and thus successful opt-in government:

Provide access to the database on groups!
Allow each member to see a list of all the group members, including when they were last on, and whether they have left the group.

This has become a problem with my group, Kazenojin, as it grew beyond the point where everyone knew each other. We have something like 35 members listed, but no way to get a reliable up to date census.

Also, improve group communications: Set the group IM's feature so it will save these messages, just as it does for individual IM's

I continue to think that making groups more robust is the best solution to 'self-government'