Constitution for Linden...

To put it another another way, and with NO reference to anyone posting in this thread:

I do not need the kind of people who really like making PTA meetings last 4 hours telling me what I can and can't do in SL.

Oracle, you are absolutely right. The nature of self-rule has yet to be determined. and yes, I've seem many online groups fail too. BUT most of those have been from either the group or the provider failing to maintain a clear set of rules of behavior.

As I've said before, I wouldn't mind insisting that Linden Labs be more concrete about the Community Standards, and at least give us a considered re-write that makes some sort of universal standards clear. I could live with that. I don't believe, however, that even this will be enough when the population reaches a few ten's of thousands - or more.

You are also absolutley correct that other forms of government - or rules - might be better than what I posted. Of course they might - I posted a document based on a deep distrust of all forms of government. I would be VERY happy to see other types of proposals. Especially those that clear up player vs player expectations universally, but restrict actual government to those who want to opt in. THAT would be the solution I would would support most happily.

So, I think we're more in agreement than out. I prefer a light touch to a heavy one, but - again - there are reasons to think about the possibilities now, instead of later.

I too am with Wednesday, Oracle and the others who can say what they think so much better than I, I see no need for a "National" constitution. How can one set of rules cover everything from Middle Earth to Spaceships? If part of a themed community or not, each sim is it's own state and if that sim wants self control, then that's as far as it should go.

This is one of the reasons I did NOT buy the lifetime membership. Sooner or later a change will be made to SL that I just can't live with, and this "National Constitution" could just be it.

And to further empathize one of Oracle's points, "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy", anyone who attented one of the first two meetings for Americana should be dead set aginst this proposal.


Tracey

Ok, Folks... Let's clear up something. Although I would like the questions all discussed, please do NOT conclude that *I* am after a strong centralized government. Big government -BAD. Little government - not SO bad.

In fact, one of the reasons I chose this template to work with is that it ALSO prefers to leave as many decisions as possible to the local (or "state" governments - whoever they declare themselves to be - however they want to govern.

If there are any attractive aspects to having ANY sort of universal constitution, it is in three aspects: first, there is some sort of Bill of Rights - maybe the "broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community" that the CS refers to.

Second, there is some sort of appeal when someone is "ganged up" on by a group he would otherwise prefer NOT to leave. It is easy to say "Well, if you don't like it, get out.", but that isn't really the best implementation of "broad concepts of tolerance, freedom of expression, and local community" is it? What if I really WANTED to be a part of a themed community or a particular sim, but just got off on the wrong foot with the guy who started the group? What if I just wanted to have someone impartial hear us out and mediate a bit?

Third, there is some arbitration body available for groups that run afoal of each other's ascetic or life styles. We've already had situations where groups have collided, and - right now - they can only resolve through allowing them to eventually decay to the point that someone leaves or gets thrown off for some angry action further down the road.

If these three aspects can be achieved through some other form of government - or absence of same - then I'll stand behind THAT instead of a universal constitution.

Remember: KATHY doesn't want a strong central government. She just doesn't want to leave it all up to luck and other folks' best interests.

So, how much is the MINIMUM amount of government we will need? And what are our expectations when things go as bad as they could - but not so bad that the Lindens can just walk in and gun down all the "bad guys"? What will leave us the most freedom - not just from government, but from each other's personal expectations of us?





(Again, thanks for managing to go so long without getting prickly and violent folks

Sorry to say I agree we do not need this. We have politics in every area of our lives as it is, From Voting for our governing leaders to, PTA. Churches, Scouting, Sport activies. Name it in most areas of our lives. there is a vote called for some thing. Just trying to organize a recent issue in Brown was a headache. I come to SL to get away from the hassels of everyday rl. I think our current communty standards work well, and Linden Labs listens when we speak to them. I certianly wouldn't want to have to come to a pixel govenrment meeting.

I must say that I agree with wednesday. I don't want a world wide government. I was expecting that this was only meant to get the discussion about governments going, not about a worldwide government.

Nyna,

I agree that we don't need this - yet.

Yes, our Standards work well enough, and the Liaisons are always easily found. But, we are only a few hundred folks right now, and with an undeniably large proportion of clever, experienced people. I just think thyings are going to get more exciting on the way to the 10,000 folks LL has declared the next landmark. And those are apparently only the folks who are ment to make things pretty for the REAL influx of citizens - perhaps 10 to 50 times as much?(!)

But if only a few hundred of the best can have such large disagreements about how they treat each other, how's the future look?

Having made that same transition in the early days of AOL, as a Guide (Liaison), I'm suggesting that it might be good to have some of the adult behavior, that you can pretty safely expect from all of us so far, down on paper for the hundreds or thousands of people coming who may not know what you mean.

It's fine to rely on the Liaisons and the CS now, but you'll see a lot less of both when they have to suffice for something the size of Boulder, Colorado.

So, again, I'm just saying we should clear up what we need to clear up before that happens. I am certainly not advocating something that would require you to attend any more meetings.

Fun post Kathy

Even a local sim government would be an amazing achievement considering the diversity involved here...

Perhaps this idea should be started as a theme, to see how/if it works? I can't say I ever would join, I like my freedom personally but perhaps those interested such as yourself could put your ideas to the test on yourselves.

Sounds like someone has way too much time on their hands

There's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Give people the freedom to do whatever they want and the first thing they do is try to set limits on it? SL is enough of a popularity contest as it is... now you want to let the winners of that popularity contest set rules for what other people can and cannot do? No offense to anyone who thinks this is a good idea, but I hate this idea with a passion. You think there's a lot of contentious squabbling now? Just wait until there's a player run government. I can feel the fun leaking out of this game just thinking about it.

I meant free from the Lindens, not totally frreedom.

Gaudeon


Yes, it would be amazing if any sort of government was set up. I'm sure, though, that some will be set up. But, from my sense of how difficult it is for folks to get past their initial reactions and actually think about the questions this raises about how we interact, I'm sure we'll just wait for other people to set up whatever they like and then carp about it after the fact. And I suspect it won't be as congenial a discussion as these have been.

(Someone please take down a quick "Told ya so" for me to use at a later date.

I would like to suggest - for a future discussion - that you consider whether your freedom - which you love too much to mix with things like government - is likely to remain after OTHER folks create THEIR ideas of government. Or do you intend, like some folks in this thread, to simply ride it out until it's unpleasant and then bail?

And, no, I certainly don't want to "test" this on myself. It's not a question of seeing "if it works" - it was a questions of seeing what OTHER people considered important in self-government. Of course, it turns out that the most important aspect of government seems to be that y'all don't want any - at least until you need it later

I'm assuming everyone had a chance to read what I've typed several times here... I really don't want a "world" government any more than the rest of you. Social politics just happens to be one of my areas of interest, and my intuition tells me it's time to start the conversation that we will - sooner or later - HAVE to have.

But, hey, better late than never. I'll see you guys - those who haven't left - then.

Thanks for taking the time to make suggestions, Gaudeon



Barry,

Sounds like someone has too many flip, trivializing opinions about other people when they do things you consider unimportant




[on edit: Sorry. After re-reading, I didn't mean for this post to sound half as cranky as it does. Not half. ]

OK, I want you to make this JUST so I can leave the "protection" of the law and make war upon your government. Wouldn't that just be fun to make you actually call up an army? And the reall kicker, by this constitution, I would still have the right to vote in your government. If enough of us leave, then we can only vote in anti-war types .

I like to look at government from a kinda lockesian social contract perspective. I will give up my rights (and consent to be governed) only if I need that government to protect other rights.

Kathy belives that we will need this protection when the population grows to the point it would be impractical to hold this disscusion in a forum. This may be true, but a government is only valid as long as the people consent to it. The first flaw in this constitution is that every user is bound to it as a citizen. I can not make that choice myself. I am bound to the command of representatives of a system I do not want to participate in, and you leave me no way to get out.

We can not have a centralized government for that very reason. Even though I find the constitition fair - the very first thing I will do is rebel becasue I have never been given the choice.

I think this would be a great idea for a local government. I'll make my own though, and we can have wars. Second Life is great because you can have a military culture of artists.

The Community Standards are capable of protecting our basic rights. That is not enough for some, as we have seen the last few weeks. If you feel you need to protect your right to not have an ugly billboard infront of your door - you give up your right to make ugly billboards when you enter a community that disallows them. The community needs you in order to have the power to hold the land , but also needs to protect your no-billboard rights. A local community will be able regulate those things that are not coverd by the CS. if it means we have city states - so be it, I'd rather be greek than roman.

James - sorry dude, but free from Lindens? Are you being repressed by the system? I am really curious on how the man is holding you back - a constitution isn't going to make it so you can put more prims on a sim. The only way to be "free from Lindens" is not to play - heh, and I guess that is certainly your choice.

fen said it all............

The United States has one of the lowest turnout rates for elections in the free world. You already know why: Because no matter who you vote for, it’s just going to be politics as usual. There’s going to be another fight for control of the House and the Senate. There’s going to be another scandal in the White House. And what is scandalous anyway? Obviously not drug use or sex (thank you, Mr. Clinton). Democrats vs. Republicans. Republicans vs. Democrats. Well, I’ve decided that I’m tired of politics as usual.

governments=power=greed=death to freedoms

and isnt that why we are here in linden? to be free?

I find this conversation very interesting. There seems to be the fear of the unknown....the future wave of sl's (Barbaric Hordes) that will destroy the world as we know it . To me it would seem that as long as LL continues to parse out the land to satisfy the needs of the increased population things should work out on their own just fine. We have to much government in RL ....do we really want to see it rear its ugly head in SL? I am very new to SL , naive and ignorant of many things but its the FREEDOM of the world that is so enticing and alluring. I think a formal Gov. might tarnish that.
just my 2 cents.

BBC, I fully understand the ironic nature of "citizenship" in this document. In fact, it is meant to accommodate your desire to leave the Governed States. In fact, it is designed so that you CAN move everyone out and vote it to death. Isn't that interesting? A government that provides for it's own peaceful demise if it isn't satisfactory? I especially liked that part

And YES! I think it would be GREAT to see how this works in case of an "international" crises. I think it would be a large HOOT to see dark menacing tanks and sober-yet-variegated infantry and huge war balloons moving from the valleys of Gibson toward the rebels in the Old Outlands. Remember that we have some of the best minds in Shipley and Hawthorne, and some of the meanest snipers in Jessie!

But I digress Another point you make is that this document automatically includes everyone as a citizen - even though it doesn't require much from them. In fact, the Bill of Rights even restricts itself to only the declared Governed States. I reflexively agree with your mistrust of a government that doesn't ask you if you want to be a member, but then I realize that it doesn't actually ask you to participate - or be bound by it's rules.

Anyway, I was not going to say this...I was going to wait until someone else realized it themselves...whatever you don't like in any constitution can be CHANGED before it's enacted. I simply this thing here as seed. Not as a suggested final document.

At any rate, BBC, I agree with your perspective in almost every particular. I must say, though, that I really do not believe that the CURRENT version of the Community Standards is sufficient. Perhaps it seems so to those who haven't found themselves enmeshed in any of its holes but, nonetheless, it does have holes. It needs tightening or expanding or something. Plus, some other rather significant happenings are soon afoot. We have tools coming for self-government. ALSO, there are a number of minor governments in-world already. ALSO, the Lindens have already stated that they intend to bring in 10000 of the brightest people before they even start pushing SL on the public at large. I thought of all these facts and figured there might be a way to take a bite out of the negative effects of all of them

Maybe, instead of a constitution, all we need is a bit of firm editing on the Community Standards? If it were a bit clearer, then I know *I* would feel less need to have some sort of universal Bill of Rights (that isn't EVEN universal :-/) And without that need, then a constitution seems rather silly, doesn't it?

So, perhaps we just need to get Linden Labs to add a clear Bill of Rights (?) to the CS?

Or is that a bad idea too?

Yep, the current community standards might not be sufficient, but the key word is current. I've seen them born, and change as we grow, so its not a static document - but I get the feeling you do not think it will be flexible enough to gaurentee the rights of the users, and I'm curious to know where you see it fail.

bbc

Teaches me not to post... Thanks Kathy...

Ugh, Kathy can you by any chance limit your posts to like 50,000 words? So much in them I can't even skim and get an idea of what the hell you're talking about. (No offense, i'm sure it's great content, but brevity in literature is a blessing).

Anyone, much as I have stated in other threads/posts, I would agree with Wednesday, feniks, Tracey, Chip, and the others in saying that we do not need this, nor do we want this. Getting Linden tools to do this on land specifically set up (post facto) for this purpose is fine. Coming up with this stuff to impose upon the existing New World is unacceptable, at best.

It would be like the European settlers coming over and trying to impose their government upon the Native Americans. You're better off just forcing them off their land or killing them, it's more humane.

Don't get me wrong. I am a strong believer in simple flexible documents of principle. I've just seen quite a few of them and I don't think the current CS is consistent. (Or is it that it isn't complete? Damn that Godel!) I see that what we take to be our basic principles for player vs player behavior are stated weekly - as if we all already know what they should be. I also see places where efforts to be enticing, or non-directive cause apparent contradictions elsewhere in the document.

I am really not worried about what the Lindens mean to say in the CS - I only worry that they refuse to risk being clear. Of course they chance offending people who enrolled under a false impression of the premises of the game, but that's really better than standing by while opposing views both find strong evidence of their contradictory perspectives. It just needs a firm edit, that's all I'm saying Otherwise. the players are going to have to fight it out (literally, I suspect) among themselves.

I sure hope I didn't give you the feeling I didn't want you to post!

NEWSLINE: OAK GROVE

The Sovereign State of Darkwood has taken the Independent Territories of the NAV by force; Shebang reported missing; Ama Omega sez "no comment"

Si,

In order to save you time sraping through all the discussion, I'll repeat what I've already said in response to other statements similar to yours. I am not trying to impose anything on anyone. I simply put the document up for perusal and discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion mostly seems to be about how bad it is to have brought it up.

I am not trying to impose European values on aborigines. I am announcing to the natives that government is coming - they can either get ready for it, or wait for it to take them from behind. Those who don't want it (like ME!) are not going to get their way simply by insisting they don't want their freedoms messed with. There are people coming who make a hobby out of messing around with other folks' freedoms in favor of their own.

You will drive, or you will be driven.

This is not the way I want it, it's just the way it is.

I think I agree with those who say that it is too early for this.

Look at these numbers: 1492, 1776, 1790.

If you want to draw any parallels with "constitutions" in real life we are a lot closer to 1492 (when America was "discovered" than we are to 1776 (when we declared our Independence) or 1790 (when a Constitution was finally ratified by all 13 colonies).

Beta being over or not, I think there are lots of things about the system that are still under development, not to mention the size of the user base. Rather than start out with a document that "perfectly" describes our self governance now and have it cluttered up with amendments (or patches for you techies) in a year, why not sit back and relax for a while and get some experience with how we all work together before formalizing everything.

I personally think that the characteristics that define a beta tester are going to be a bit different than those of the users who join now. Shouldn't we let more of those non-beta types get on board before we nail things down?

Finally the Linden statement on self governance is fairly broad. They have an incentive (smaller staff size) to allowing the users to run as much of the system as possible. On the other hand I don't think they are going to turn the cypher codes for the computer room over to us next week. Transfer of control (power, authority, whatever you want to call it) from Linden staff to users is likely to be a gradual process, not something that happens all at once. With that in mind, there is no need for this document to cover any more than it needs to cover, and at the moment, there really isn't much for it to cover at all.

You can't learn to drive by reading a book. Likewise, we don't have the experience we need to create this document just yet. We need to get our hands on the controls and "play" with them a bit first.

Hhhhmmmmm....

And you can quote me on that!


========================

I see no need at this point in time for a contitution of any sorts, and I see no need at this time to ever have a document seperating the players from the Lindens. One great feature of SL is the close ties the developers have with the player base. Town hall meetings are held and the forums actually read and responded to. Player concerns are addressed and systems changed. Any document designed to give players specific rights from the Lindens will stand as a wall between us. A wall we most definatly do better with out.

However I do see a place for contitutions in the future of SL.... when player government controls are in place and the constitution stands as a global contract tool between the player run government and the members of that government.

Along those lines I strongly support the freedom of SL. Organized sims can work and so can anarchistic (not using it as a bad word) sims. And government options or controls I think should be limited to a sim by sim level. If several sims adopt governments and those governments decide that they could benefit from ties to other sim governments then that too should be possible.

But it shouldn't be forced, and it shouldn't be enacted on any 'free' sim.

And by no means do I think a document should ever be in place that stands to seperate the players from the Lindens. May the Lindens always be players and may the players always be developers - helping the Lindens to build a game that is better for everyone through support, ideas and bug reports.

- Ama