Constitution for Linden...

Well I might as well put my 2 pennies in too...

I am really, really not keen on centralised government. As mentioned before, IMO it would end up being a popularity contest (plus, anyone who wants to be in power probably shouldn't be ). And the idea of an overall President? YUK!

I am more in favour of localised sim government, but I can see problems arising with that too (fluid population, border wars etc). Even then, I think it should be restricted to defining acceptable behaviour in that sim, and perhaps zoning rules (which could well say 'anything goes')

And I really don't understand 'wanting to be free of the Lindens'. Maybe it's because I don't play much during US hours, but I don't see much of the Lindens apart from the odd one building, or Daniel popping in to check up on complaints. Are they really that overbearing?

Hmm, I've rambled (this is vocal for me ). I'm firmly in the 'don't need it yet' camp (room for one more at the campfire guys?)

I agree totally.

Wow, i signed up for a lifetime to play games and have fun.
I really dont want to be forced to be ruled by anyone, except the laws and or rules that i signed up with, at the begining.

We have enough politics and so called leaders in real life, not to mention the ones that line their pockets while we continue to sink in a already damaged economy.

So to the citizens of S/L, I hope everyone will continue to exercise their freedom!

I suppose the issue has been beaten to death. Nonetheless there is only one bottom line from my perspective:

Add any sort of global-level politics to this game outside of the standards already imposed by the game's creators, and the game will effectively die.

The number of detractors on this thread alone should offer a clue as to how quickly that would happen - in short, practically immediately.

We already have a perfectly functional federal government in SL as far as I can see. We also have a system in place for local governments, called "groups," which appear to do the job exceptionally well. I admit I'm new and therefore I do not know the ins and outs of the matter as well as most others, but perhaps that's an advantage, here.

Attempting to impose a constitution on an already well-oiled machine (speaking in relative terms, here, folks - this is the most peaceful community I've ever seen online or off) reeks of ulterior modus operandi, whether the proponents are aware of it within themselves or not. Good intention is not enough to keep a seemingly benign concept from turning into a disasterous social effect.

Do not bring further user-created global government to the game. Great premise, bad punchline. This is not First Life. Our Second Lives should not be as complicated.

To sum up:

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. ;o)

-J

Well what i support is small gov's in certain areas which they are allowed, it thought this is what Kathy was going for, not sure why she jumped to global gov.


There were many more supporters for a smaller scale gov in certain sims and it would solve many problems, i hope that is still up for discussion.

JV

wow..this is sounding awfully ominous for a GAME.....

Ok, once more for the folks in the back....


I DIDN'T JUMP TO GLOBAL GOVERNMENT! i DIDN'T JUMP ANYWHERE AT ALL!

All I did was put up a document for discussion (complete with disclaimers as the first line of the post that I was NOT proposing this for adoption!!!!). Peoples' natural paranoia has apparently made them fearful of world domination.

If folks would re-read my postings here, and many other places, they would see that I do NOT support a central government. In fact, I have said I would fight AGAINST a central government.

Look, if people don't get something, they should speak up and say so. That's a lot better than trying to beat complex concepts into clumps with whatever hormonal or experiential hammer you have handy, and then turning around to blame me for trying to force clumps on people.

I happen to think it's a Good Thing to TALK about the various forms of social organization that can (for better or worse) form here. I think it's good to explore the negatives and positives of ALL the possibilities, so we can make good choices - for global OR local reasons. Or maybe even discover good arguments AGAINST various options based on how they change in a virtual environment.

But, this conversation is obviously not ready to happen. It'll take a crisis to make it important enough to get folks to THINK about these issues. I guess I'll wait unitl then.

SO, STOP FRETTING. Let's go on to something else now.

I didn't take it that way Kathy I know you're not trying to cram anything down anyone's throats, and I admire your initiative. And even if you got some knee jerk reactions there's still valid information to be gleened from that... namely that player run government makes a lot of people like me very nervous. That's nothing personal against you. To my way of thinking it would cause a lot more problems than it would solve. Having the laws and the enforcement of the laws seperate from the players and controlled soley by the Lindens is best for everyone in my view.

Slander has become something of an art form in SL. I notice a lot of people spreading misniformation and unproven accusations about people to their friends because of misunderstandings that they never actually tried to resolve with the person in question. There's a lot of very biased character assassination that goes on. Having governance in the hands of the players would only serve to make that problem worse and more widespread in my view. If someone has an issue with the Lindens most people will never hear about it and it's very unlikely that it will translate into a severe wounding of their reputation. However if instead that becomes an issue with players in positions of political power then it's very likely that a small misunderstanding could balloon into something that ruins that persons reputation, no matter how unfairly. There are some very high strung people in SL who tend to react and lash out before being sure of their facts. That's human nature.

Also it takes a certain kind of person (and I'm not suggesting that you fall into this category Kathy) to want to be in charge of other people's destinies. They tend to be busybody types who somehow feel the need to impose their will on others. As someone else previously mentioned, the kind of people that would be most drawn to running for office tend to be the kind of people who I'd least want imposing their will on me.

The Lindens are the ONLY people in the game who can be truly impartial and not swayed by their own egos or desire for social status. As far as I'm concerned, enforcing the rules should be soley their domain.

Chip

And I guess my point - all along - has been, these people you speak of WILL eventually accomplish much of what you fear. That would be the NEGATIVE side of getting these new tools, plus the increase in population over time.

I just wondered if it is better to deal with them proactively - by putting a system in ahead of time that would blunt their impact on the rest of us - or deal with it reactively - when the advantage is theirs.

I know there is nothing to be fixed now. I was trying to keep it that way

But, as I said, it is clear the respondents here prefer to deal with all this later

The people have spoken.