Reject Prop 407

The Bill of Rights proposition doesn't even mention private property rights. A bill of rights that doesn't include the right to control individual property is a bad bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights = the ToS and the CS.

LF

Individual property rights are not mentioned because they can be included under a bill of rights. Under the proposition that was just an example of rights, and by no means inclusive of everything that could be covered by such a bill. Individual property rights do not in any way address the need for a fair and just justice system. This is the real heart of the matter. Individual property rights also do not address the need for freedom of speech and the rights for someone to express a dissenting opinion. Property rights are nice, but they arn't the band-aid for this particular hurt.

This whole thing to me is a non-entity, no matter how many votes this gets its just aint gonna happen

What is better, trying at a snowball's chance in hell or giving up and having NO chance in hell?

I will certainly take the little chance I have at helping things change than just giving up. You tend to lose 100% of the time when you give up on something like this. I am not going to simply give up and let my rights fall by the wayside as they are doing in the country at large.

What rights? You're using a private, commercial service. You have no rights except that which are given to you by the service's ToS and CS.

The Constitution usually doesn't really apply to commercial spaces.

LF

Hence why 407 asks the administrators to either extend the existing US Bill of Rights into their world or develop their own Bill of Rights...

That LL is a private corperation is a given and it is even stated within 407 that the ACTUAL US Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing in SL right now.

Residents who live in countries other than the U.S. may resent having the U.S. Bill of Rights modeled into SL, and rightfully so.

Yours and everyones rights are clearly stated in the TOS and CS. This is not a seperate country, its a paid for service. If the display in the Welcome Area yesterday is any indication of what is needed by these bill of rights we are all in trouble.

You have got to be kidding me....


You're PAYING for this service, you are a customer, you have no rights. None, whatsoever, and you can't go and pretend you do with some sill SL document, because it is PRIVATE COMMERCIAL company...

I really think this is a good idea. Logic outweighs this, as you all have shouted at Jarhyn about already, but I'm really in favor of some change around here.

And Jarhyn, dont even pay attention to the majority of the SL forums population. Most SLers dont even know the forums exist. Dont let it get you down that nobody here wants to see positive change in the community either, I know boatloads of SL people who want this proposition to pass, or at least be acknowledged by LL.

Why are people commenting about this being a private paid-for service, as though this was some kind of revelation? The argument doesn't seem to revolve around the US Constitution or any statement that it HAS to be integrated into SL, but that the existing "laws" could benefit from a better definition of members' rights. Whether these changes borrow from the US Constitution or any other real-world legal document, or are written up without referring to such documents, doesn't seem to have any bearing on the validity of the proposal itself.

Seriously, if LL had adopted an "it's our world and we don't care what you think" attitude, why would they have a voting system or a feature suggestion forum?

The controversy as I understand it revolves around Linden Lab's abuse procedures, which are a bit too "opaque" for some peoples' tastes. Reportees are not informed of the actual situation they are being reported for, nor who the accuser is. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any guarantee of response from the abuse department should the accused appeal.

To my knowledge, law enforcement in modern society tends to be highly transparent because it is human nature to form affinities for some people and groups and antipathy towards other people and groups. This natural divisiveness can happen along any boundary you can imagine - race, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, political or other group affiliation, you name it. Transparency provides positive motivation for law enforcement to keep things objective, and it also provides a mechanism for detecting any kind of inconsistent behavior (whether deliberate or subconscious) on the part of law enforcement personnel. On a more psychological level, it gives the accused the impression that they actually have a voice, and serves to eliminate the "honeypot" problem - namely, bogus abuse reports filed by people who do not fear repercussions for untruthful or frivolous submissions. In my opinion, protecting the identity of the accuser serves mainly the interests of conniving, manipulative individuals and groups. I believe strongly that those who wish to be free must be willing to stand up for themselves. In the two years plus that I've been here, I have negged a number of people for poor behavior. Neg rating is NOT anonymous and never once have I wished that it was, nor have I refrained from negging someone because I was afraid of repercussions. Imagine the kind of place SL would be if people could anonymously neg rate. It would foster the same kind of backhanded pot-shots that the current abuse report system encourages.

Now, I don't mean to impugn Linden's abuse staff with all of this, but these folks ARE human beings. I would think a higher degree of transparency would be something they could appreciate. By maintaining abuse resolution as an opaque system, I believe LL risks allowing potentially very subjective and prejudicial judgements to be handed down.

Huns has some good points. More transparency would be a good thing. I understand keeping the name private, but there should be some web-form mechanism for the accussed to reply to specific charges within a certain period of time, and to present their case.
Long term, mediation could be worked into the process, which seems to be an idea that's floating around.

Huns has some good points. More transparency would be a good thing. I understand keeping the name private, but there should be some web-form mechanism for the accused to reply to specific charges within a certain period of time, and to present their case.
Long term, mediation could be worked into the process, which seems to be an idea that's floating around.

It's a 'bill' that falls short of what a real bill of rights should do. Why so many damn votes?

693 votes/85voters? In world lobbiests??

freedom of speech - Already have too much of this. I would support stricter speech rules. Instead of banning 1st, FORCED MUTE and you are confined to land you own. If you don't own land, no login.

freedom of expression in builds - This is the only one I like. Freedom of expression is good.

freedom of press - We already have this?

freedom to bear arms in combat areas - swords and guns on Av's make them look really cool and there would be 1000 whiney threads trying to get arms banned from non-combat if that passed.

the right to know charges against oneself - You know what you did!

the right to self-representation and appeal - No, we all get equal treatment and if you get banned it's because you are hurting the game, LL should not spend money to hear you recount your shenanigans in any forum.

as long as you can change you ip and nothing happend to the user in the real world a bill of rights is pointless a bill of rights need more levrage to make people conform but even at that some people cant be forced to change.

and even if this is a private company no one is being forced to pay that being said it might be in their intrest to make their customers feel welcome to use their service

If we know what we did, and who was involved, and it's going to show up on the blotter (sort of), why should there be any problem telling us? Why all the secrecy? Why not lay it out exactly and say, for example, we must not do X, instead of just sort of vaguely implying that we did something wrong at some approximate time? It makes it too easy for them to be vague and inconsistent with their judgements, if they can just toss out a ruling and leave us to wonder at the exact thing we are being chastised for.

Do we all get equal treatment? How would you know if we didn't? We can't see what is going on in the abuse department. If we ask for any kind of clarification, we get no response. If we protest the charges, we get no response there either. If we file an abuse report, we get a "we looked into it and did what we felt like but we won't tell you what it is but you can look at the blotter and maybe possibly see if some charges mentioned there match yours. KTHXBYE"

This has pretty much zero checks and balances (unless you consider whatever internal stuff they may be doing - but if that is so great, why not open it to public scrutiny?) This does not lend itself to consistent enforcement.

It's the age-old argument: Who will watch the watchers? The best argument anyone has come up with so far seems to be that the watched should watch the watchers. Checks and balances and all that. It's why the USA was set up so that the government derived its power from the people; the mess they were fleeing from had little in the way of checks and balances, and as a result, it was riddled with favoritism and corruption at every level. I'm certainly not trying to say that LL is like England circa 1776, but we are all provided with similar cognitive equpiment, and they are no different. They are not gods, they are not infallible paragons of virtue. They are human beings like the rest of us. And because of this, checks and balances are needed. It's nothing meant to impugn them - just to make sure everything stays on the up-and-up, and favoritism doesn't lead to unequal enforcement.