Avatar Bill Of Rights? Wiki It?

I saw Hiro's suggestion/question in the Hotline, can't reply there so I thought I'd do it here. Original post by Hiro:

/invalid_link.html


So my suggestion, or additional suggestion. Is to Wiki the Bill Of Rights. Maybe simular style to how the support wiki features are setup (https://secondlife.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Features).

Have Linden Guidlines, a base of guidlines unchangable and the base force. Then have User Suggested Ammendments or some sort. In which users can make suggested changes/additions to the Bill, a Linden would then approve or reject them and add or delete them to the base guidlines.

Basicly this would probably turn out to just be a extended CS. But I agree with the original idea, theres alot that we don't know about what exactly is wrong or right, and most of what we do know is based on loose interpretation of the CS and TOS or based on past situations and rulings, some of which are conflicting due to different Liasions interperting the rules diffentley themselves.

I made a suggestion awhile back that there should be a Liasion hand-book that was public. The hand book would basicly be a set of rules that the Liasions enforce and what is not ok and what is ok to do. The reason for the suggestion was because it seemed that alot of Liasions had different ideas about some rules of what was ok and what wasn't ok, and seemed to me that there was no such hand-book.

I think the "Bill of Rights" or whatever you'd like to call it, would not only help users, but LL as well.

Surely not every situation can be governed by rules either. But when a decision is made, they could be ammended to the CS/Bill/etc.

In Neualtenburg, we needed an Avatar Bill of Rights (a Constitution wouldn't be complete without one!). So this is the thread where we discussed this issue.

I originally brought up this discussion - can't find it though, and gotta run... that's where I get the quote from Nolan Nash that I used to have in my profile.

I think this could be a tremendously good precedent.

Geeze, I hate to be the contrarian again but a Bill of Rights? Are we a government by representation? Who are the representatives that will come up with this Bill of Rights and how do they attain the level of power to make a Bill of Rights more than just fluff?

Linden's position re. actions/activities and what is legally enforcable in RL is our Bill of Rights (and responsibilities). It's called the TOS and was drawn up by their real power -- their attorneys.

I respect the suggestion and the energy spent to consider this and am not down on it just to be a jerk but a Bill of Rights will only be effective if you have a true representative government. Which we do not. We live in a dictatorship. An enjoyable one but still a dictatorship.

What would be better is if our dictator acted like one and enforced their laws. If they did that consistently there would be little need for a Bill of Rights. If they choose to continue to be hit-or-miss with enforcement, this cry for a Bill of Rights will continue -- which really is a cry for formation of representative government.

This was not my intention or understanding the intention of the suggestion.

I don't want a user run government either. Basicly how I interperted it, and what I thought would be neat (not sure if Hiro meant it this way or not either) was that the Bill, would basicly be a CS/TOS simular as to what we have now, but with more clear cut guidlines and which could have user suggested additions based on situations/changes that happen.

The reason for the Wiki suggestion is because things happen so fast in SL, its hard for any official documents to keep up.

User government or any users with higher power, is the wrong direction IMO.

Basicly it would be a more open CS in which more details are given about what is right and wrong behaviour.

I think that this is a noble effort Oz but again, who creates this Bill of Rights? A handful of people that hang out in the forums? If it is user-driven does Linden have an obligation to inform the 'users' that this initiative is underway and that if they want a voice they need to get on the boards? Otherwise it is a group of regulars creating a guide to proper manners.

I'm uncomfortable with "clear cut guidelines" because I don't know how whatever group comes up with this document will determine what is clear cut. There are debates every day where people take different positions on the TOS. If you, Hiro and whoever else decide to take one side and include that in the "Bill" isn't that giving some more power (read: you, Hiro and whatever).



I totally agree with you here. That is why I am fine with our dictatorship and since we are in a dictatorship, we should not have a Bill of Rights formulated by users. If Linden wants to come up with one and asks the general public to submit suggestions, fine. But they won't do it unless their attorneys say it is OK since the TOS is directly tied into contractual obligations both from their side and the user community. And if the attorneys get involved there will be no such thing as a clear cut guideline.

My thoughts are, that eventually, SL will become so big it will be much more like the WWW in size, and we need to establish an "avatar bill of rights" that will serve as a framework for all future incarnations of the "metaverse", because like it or not, it IS coming to the world, and once we see more and more RL business etc. in here, there will be much more potential for abuse. Once it gets big enough, LL will no longer be able to be the mediators in citizen and corporate disputes.

I can also see that eventually LL would start open-sourcing some parts of their code to allow for even more content in-world. In the end, I think that what LL has started here could definitely "take over the world"... I mean, look at HTML... who "owns" the rights to that? My point is, eventually it will become so ubiquitous that citizen protections beyond "dictatorship/service level agreements" need to be established, not only to protect one citizen from another, but also to protect all of the citizens from potential abuse by the "dictators/owners" of the technology.

Seeing as 99% of the content is created by the citizens, and they have the most collectively to lose, the citizens should obviously be the ones to initiate this process. The Lindens have been immensely involved in the community and I seriously don't think they would snicker at the idea of protecting its citizens rights (BEYOND content guidelines etc), whatever they may end up being. As for "clear cut guidelines", it's not like someone is going to OBJECT to having their rights protected, is it??? An example of a similar document, besides the USA Bill of Rights, would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights written by the UN. It's simply writing down and stating what's important to us as digital citizens of the metaverse. The TOS is a good place to start looking as to how something like this can be incorporated into LL's business practices.

In the current LL/customer relationship, if something like an Avatar Bill of Rights were to be generated, LL would have the option of embracing it or rejecting it in favor of their own guidelines. Like I said before, I think that eventually it will get too big even for them to handle it, so why not start discussions and try to get things going in the right direction right now?

OK enough rambling for now, back to work!

Peace!
Arti

'Tis a nice concept, but 1500+ years of attempting to codify contract or tort law shows that it is virtually impossible to write unambiguous rules that can stop people from being jerks. Human experience is a little too broad to be reigned in with satisfying rigor.

Two things:

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is regularly ignored by UN member-nations. Nice to read and dream about but holds no water. Good example of how these types of documents seldom work. U.S. Bill of Rights is an example of how it can work.

2. Linden will not embrace anything that relates to conduct or TOS without their attorneys signing off on it and their attorneys will tell them, "we already did this, it's called TOS." Especially when you consider what you rightfully pointed out about growth and the introdcution of rl business elements.

I'd like to see something like this come about and am not anti-member-rights. I just don't see how it can be done in the parameters we live in where you have rl pressing up against the ideals of sl.

Well, it is fascinating to me.

Also, like Planet Earth, it'd be a curious thing if different regions of sims (especially new ones that are yet-to-come, as to not impose anything on where Residents are already accustomed to living unless they want it) had different laws and codes of conducts and even technocultural traditions. The potential for this is great. I recently read a good story in the SL Herald about how Duuya Herbst of the Deeni people has brought his traditions online:

http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=663

Doing this extendedly, in some ways, would not be unlike an experiment version of the Phyles that Neal Stephenson wrote about in The Diamond Age.

I seem to be repeating myself in threads anymore...

I'm going to stop calling it a Bill of Rights, because I think thats giving off the wrong idea of atleast what I'm thinking (again, can't speak for Hiro and his original suggestion).

The Wiki CS, would be, for all purposes, originaly written by LL. Note in my first post I mentioned how this would all work... with BASE guidlines, written by the Lindens.

Below that, or on a seperate page would be USER suggestions. These suggestions would be to make changes to the CS based on current events.

LL would then decide which user suggestions to implement.

LL would be in full control of the CS and how its changed.

Users would have no power other than to make suggestions.

Click the link I provided in the first post, I imagine it would be setup simular in fashion to that.

ANY user could make a suggestion.

Basicly think of it as the CS we have now, with users making suggestions on the same page as to what to add. The suggestions would hold NO LAW untill added to the CS by LL.

This would have the benefit of the CS perhaps being updated faster than it is now.

Also this new CS would provide better detail and explination of what is ok, what isn't ok, and what rights each avatar has more clearly. The current CS and TOS are broad, and vague, which is great for legal speak, but horrible when it comes down to "did I do anything wrong?".

ALSO this would provide Liasions and users with a DEFINIT list of rules, in which the Liasions could enforce without any differences from one Liasion to the other (as there sometime is now), and users could see just WHAT they did wrong.

I think I've made it perfectly clear now... unless someone totaly ignores or just skims this post.

---

Torley, that would be a bit scary, imagine walking across the world, stepping into a sim, and violating some law of theirs and being punished in some way. Its a bit like going out to get milk, walking into another country accidently, and being arrested for an unknown reason. Would be neat to see, but still, scary, especialy with how easy it is to just end up in a sim randomly. Or even scarier, per-parcel laws.

All females are required to be nude by Oz Law on my property.

HAHAHA... it might be a bit scary, but a bit funny too sometimes. Like that kind of chaotic creativity that arises from dealing with such misunderstandings, not unlike the way Indiana "I Hate Snakes" Jones looked at monkey brains! Seriously though, if something like this happened, I would hope notecards or some methods of clearly showing rules was available, similarly to having an av's "Bill of Rights" laid out for all to be educated by. THOSE WHO CHOSE TO IGNORE, CHOSE TO REMAIN IGNORANT AT THEIR OWN PERIL!!!

Oz, I very much think Bill of Rights is precisely what it should be called

You're right about needing it to be representative. There's no reason why it can't be drafted, proposed by LL, and ratified by players.

Besides, this isn't supposed to be a restrictive document. It's suppose to affirm rights of players.

1. I don't think the UN is really relevant - they deal with wars and corrupt governments where they have no control. LL has direct control of what goes on in SL. A better example would be the US Bill of Rights, which works pretty well.

2. I disagree. LL is very forward thinking, and I think their attorneys must be fairly forward thinking as well or they would not have signed with LL. Bottom line - I see this Bill of Rights as a progression needed for the Metaverse, and if Phil & Co agrees, so will their lawyers. There's no reason to think that a Bill of Rights can't exist / augment the current TOS.

Would this be a bill of rights for me, as a user of Second Life, or for my avatar, the virtual puppet that I use to interact with others?

I feel that user rights in a virtual world should be explicit and protected.

I don't really feel that protective about my avatar, or see a particular need to protect her from abuse.

*grins* That's the rub, eh? Where's the line? When does libeling your avatar cross the line into libeling the player?

The trick is that the avatar is a piece of property. By "Avatar Bill Of Rights" I suppose it could just as well be "SL User Bill of Rights". That includes having your property not be exploited.

Excellent point.

Hiro, I hope you can do something with this.

I also hope you are correct about their attorneys however attorneys don't typically operate that way. SL to them is just another widget. They need to make sure their client is protected from any damage the widget may cause. Sure some of their attorneys may be forward-thinking and I would imagine that if they have an in-house counsel he/she is very forward thinking. But the law is the law. It was suggested here that because of the supposed upcoming influx of rl marketing and businesses that we need this so-called Bill of Rights. My point is that this influx will ensure that a LL approved Bill of Rights will never happen. The actual US Bill of Rights is the only one that will apply.

If SL was all about funny money and just people in an RPG, this would be a no-brainer and LL should approve whatever the community comes up with. However, if anyone takes LL to court because they lost money (real US$) for whatever reason, LL does not want to be in a position to have to defend a so-called Bill of Rights that states something to the effect that X wasn't being a "good neighbor" so Y lost money for his club.

One thing that does not seem to receive much consideration here is that because our subscriptions are a rl contractual arrangement, people cannot separate RL and SL when it comes to commerce and actions. US law does apply. I doubt if any state's AG cares about it but LL attorneys have to keep that in-mind to protect their client. Remember, we are the adversary in their minds. They don't give a shit about us (and shouldn't).

Here's a copy of my original post here (circa 2002):http://memeticdrift.net:8080/refs/58, and I think it's time I revised the damn thing for today's environment!

More to come...

A simple way to deal with this issue is assuming avatars are just "pseudonyms" like in literature or the entertainment business. Copyright laws have dealt with this issues for uncountable decades. You sign contracts using pseudonyms, but have a claim on the pseudonym as being "you".

So, the "Avatar Bill of Rights" does certainly apply to you as the persona "behind" your avatar.

I read through Artillo's Avatar Bill of Rights.

I didn't see Freedom of Speech/expression listed.

Did I miss it?

Was it left out intentionally because a protected Freedom of Speech/Expression will often conflict with an operating company's aimed-for TOS/CS document? Often these documents include proscriptions against racial or offensive terms.


If we cannot claim for ourselves such basic rights as Freedom of Speech, is it really accurate to consider ourselves citizens of a virtual world?

Good point. I think speech was somewhat covered (albeit vaguely) when they discussed the right to protest in the manner they see fit but expression is totally void from this example. So if you say, "Allow freedom of expression without offending the sensibilities of the community," you are pretty much where we are today. A subjective TOS that can only be resolved by LL, if they feel like it.

My point exactly.

"Freedom of speech, bounded by the sensibilities of the community" <> "Freedom of Speech"

:/

Please... be careful on what you're suggesting. "Freedom of Speech" is a very tough philosophical subject. It's not so easy to say that "freedom of speech" is the ability of being able whatever comes to your mind. It isn't. And please don't take my word for it. Go to the Wikipedia for starters. You may be able to say what you want, but you can be punished for what you say (slander and difamation being notorious examples of "limiting" freedom of speech).

Yes, Freedom of Speech is a "basic right", but the point is, there's nothing "basic" about it. It's a way too complex issue to be discarded with trivial off-the-hand remarks. You cannot have "absolute" freedom of speech in societies with more than one person. You can only have "relative" freedom of speech. The purpose of including the Freedom of Speech into a Bill of Rights is exactly to define the amount of "relativity" which is desirable to a certain society.

Yes, Gwyn, you're completely correct.

Like the old example of yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, Freedom of Speech is not absolute even in RL.

However, the point I am trying to raise is that in RL, there are areas of freedom that protect people's rights to be offensive. There is often a difference between "offensive" and "offender (against the law)".

In SL, however, there seems to be a very strong movement both in the TOS and among the community, to move towards a law system where "offensive" = "illegal". Don't like your neighbor's build? Abuse report them. Don't like something someone said? Abuse report them. Don't like a sign that someone put up? Abuse report them.

To a certain extent, this is a good PR move, as SL is a "new new thing" and largely unknown among society at large. It would probably be detrimental to SL's short term chances of success if it suddenly became a haven for Neo-Nazis and Bukkake afficionados. It's in LL's best interest, short-term, to put on a shiny outer coating and sweep the malcontents under the rug. (for example, the current practice of giving residents a chance to appeal punitive decisions....AFTER those decisions have already been made and executed, and without so much as being read the charges against them) However, in the long term, I feel somehow innately that SL's success or failure will be related to it's ability to either:

-draw fine lines on what is or isn't allowed, and defend the rights of people who, while grossly offensive, are not in violation of any actual rules. "Offensive" would not necessarily equal "illegal".

-vastly improve the abilities of individuals to nerf the actions of others that they find objectionable. Offensive and Illegal would largely not have to be used as synonyms; if you are offended by X, you have Y and Z options to nerf it, to render it inneffectual against you. Much of dispute management in grief situations would involve individuals self-directing their Second Lives, and of necessity growing a slightly thick skin against the provocations of others.

Gwyn, who put forward the quote that societies can best be judged on how they treat their incarcerated? I criticize LL where I feel it is falling short, but only because I have so much enthusiasm for what they are doing. Really, much of SL is breaking new ground on different fronts; and it's exciting to be part of this experiment, even if it doesn't in the long term succeed.

I fully agree with you on your post, Unhygienix

I agree as well, good post.

It would be great if more people could settle their differences through conversation... but we all know how many times that happens in RL or SL.

So for that it'd be nice to know when something you think is your right, or something you think is wrong, is actualy a right or a wrong.

Might lower the AR's... but then I'm also assuming people will actualy read the damned thing.