Guidelines for a moderation authority for ethical sales - the Better Business Bureau

Hello all,

This is not a new idea, and not a new project, or something never discussed before - rather the contrary. It has been discussed before. It has been attempted. So far, most of the projects in this direction have failed. Thus I'd like to propose it again

At a recent Thinkers' meeting, discussing dispute and resolution issues, lots of ideas about a "Better Business Bureau" were proposed and discussed, as well as the method of how to implement it. These are some of the issues discussed, although most of them are my personal opinion, since I was very late to come to that meeting and missed the beginning

As SL grows and it becomes harder to understand the complex relationships between users, some merchants/service providers and customers are feeling the need of being able to "complain" about unethical business practices, violations of SL agreements, and all sort of unfair usage (and abuse) which happen every day in SL.

Most of these discussions arise on areas where either the Linden ToS is not clear, or where LL cannot, in faith, have a saying which is neutral and impartial.

It's time to start thinking about ourselves and what kind of business relationships we want to have in SL. The Lindens are our spiritual fathers and mothers, but they also expect us, as children, to leave our adolescent days and try to behave like adults.

One of the things about this "rite of passage" is that we start to assume responsabilities ourselves, and begin to plan ahead, showing that, as responsible adults, we can work together on a common moderation authority.

The first thing to define is what this "authority" should do. Since I'm very bad at reinventing the wheel, what I propose is based on RL models. They have worked for centuries in different cultures and environments. They need adaptation, but they probably work in SL as well.

IRL, merchants defending their reputation congregate voluntarily into "merchant associations", which regulate business practice. To get admitted, you need just to run a business, be willing to be subjected to some rules, and earn the right of claiming membership in the "merchant/trade association". Some of the rules may include a certain geographic location; a certain type of trade; or getting proposed by existing members.

Who does the rules? Most of these associations have a Board which is democratically elected by its members. The Board runs the administrative/executive part of the association - accepting new members, promoting discussion, doing promotion to get new members, proposing the rules and having them voted by members, etc.

When disputes arise, there is another body inside the association that is usually called the "Dispute Resolution Committee" or the "Ethical Committee". These are also elected for a term and consist of a number of people who review the disputes and suggest a resolution, based on the rules that all members have agreed upon, and applying common sense to them. They may also file a particular dispute as being something to be dealt by the law instead - and in this case they're basically "record keepers" to facilitate the authorities with evidence. In any case, the Ethical Committee acts as arbitrator and mediator, trying to get a consensus between the member and his/her customer(s).

(As a side note - even Linden Lab works that way for dealing with abuse reports although I believe that they're not "democratically elected" hehe)

The member is then subjected to the decisions of the Ethical Committee. At this point, several things may happen:

- the member abides by the rulings of the Ethical Committee - e.g. apologizing to the customer, returning the money, abiding by a contract, whatever;
- the member rejects the rulings, and appeals. This time, both his/her opinions and the Ethical Committee's decisions are reviewed by an enlarged body - a general assembly of all members. If the member wins, the general assembly may eventually elect a new Ethical Committee; if the Ethical Committee wins, the member is forced to abide by the rules;
- the member is expelled for refusing to abide by the rules;
- the member simply cancels his/her membership.

Who "controls" the Merchant/Trade Association? Well, we have a notion of "SL law" - the ToS - so there are limits to what they can or cannot do.

But mostly the Merchant/Trade Association is controlled first by their peers (the members, desiring to enhance the reputation of the Association, will try to use common sense, in order to show the customers how legitimate they are). But more important than that, the whole community - i.e. the customers - will control the Association. Simply stated, if the Association is too unfair and unbalanced, this will be soon become public. In that case, members of the Association will quickly leave it, because being a member is considered a "stigma", which will be bad for business. In that case, the Association would work towards the opposite goal - a "seal of approval" by them would tell the customers to run away as fast as they can.

The success or failure of this system will be in the hands of the customers. Mantaining a healthy image with good reputation is harder in SL due to anonymity and trust issues. If you can pull it off, it means that some people in SL are giving you credit for your common sense and your sense of justice. If you can't mantain that image, it'll work not only against yourself, but against the whole group, so the whole group should take measures to deal with that - or be condemned as a whole. This, I think, will make potential members very careful when joining. They have first to trust the group they're joining - that they really are interested in mantaining a good business reputation, and that by joining them, the merchant is really interested in contributing towards better reputation overall. The reverse is also true - the members accepting a new merchant are taking a risk: is the new member really interested in mantaining the groups' reputation, or is he/she just interested in personal status, "gaming", or simply working to destroy the group reputation?

The society is SL is unforgiving. One mistake is all it takes to be branded as a criminal - even if you apologize. This, I think, is the largest obstacle that any "trade association" must overcome. They cannot make any mistakes - either collectively as a group, or individually as members. However, I still believe that most of us are responsible adults, and able to work together - despite differences - for a common good.

I think that's enough from the side of the merchants. What about the other extreme - the customers?

It's usual that consumers join together to form "consumers' associations" - an anti-lobby that also vouches for ethical business practices. However, I'm skeptical that those will work well in SL, because from the consumers' point of view, they haven't a reputation to defend. I mean, when you have several choices of businesses to pick from, you can safely attack one business - with or without reason - and you'll always get support from some people that will be glad to make personal attacks against a stranger, just because they don't like the clothes she's wearing at the moment. A "consumer association" can safely target random targets - and thus, it's much harder to "enforce" an idea that they also have a "reputation" to defend. While business owners can make one single mistake, and they'll be immediately labeled as "unethical", consumers can safely insult everybody without being accused of unethicla behaviour; after all, if you really put your mind to it, you can always find something about a business transaction which does not seem right (ie. the product is too expensive, it has the wrong colour, one script has a bug in it, whatever). An emerging "consumer's association" will be much harder to appear (except, of course, if it had some Linden support).

Now, as to the method of discussion about the creation of this group - there was no consensus, so I can only forward you my personal experience, both in SL and in RL, knowing fully well that this is not by far consensual.

In RL, these sort of things are better created by a very small group who propose a "working draft" - setting up the group's composition, the admission rules, the ethical guidelines, the administrative part (how people get nominated, where they can file complains, how someone is dispatched to deal with policing and resolutions, etc.). Due to efficiency, this group shoud have no more than 7 +/- 2 members. This "magic number" is built-in in us human beings (no matter how much you disagree - trust me, it is), and this is the reason why company Boards usually have that size, committees also work with that number of people, and indoor sports usually have that size as well. You'll see that most "tactical units" - in business, in war, in politics - are about that size. Less than that, and you don't get enough differing opinions to be able to have an overall fairness; more than that, and some people will never be able to voice their opinion (if the group is trying to promote efficiency over thoroughness), or, if you wish them all to have a saying, things get pretty inefficient very soon.

Let's assume, thus, that we have this "working group". How shall they meet? In RL (and so far, all my experiences in SL have shown me that the same applies), they'll meet together during an hour or two once in a while, where they'll try to agree quickly on many points; and work "off-line", through a public forum, where you can work at your leisure and expand arguments to try to cover more ground. This is "preparation work" for the next meeting, where you pull all the work having done "off-line", summarize it, and try to get an overall agreement in a meeting, which is the fastest way to do that.

After a few iterations, the "working draft" of the "group manifest" (and rules) is ready for an enlarged consensus. This is the time where the working group starts not only to promote their ideas, get new members, but to discuss the ideas in public with a much larger audience. A few meetings - which are really "presentations" followed by Q&A sessions - should be done as well. The point here is not to create a new "working draft" for the group manifest/rules, but really to make sure that

a) most people understand what it is all about, and can make a reasonable commitment to the idea (or against it!);
b) people are able to quickly find out some inconsistencies, since small groups tend to be biased towards the work they have done, and that way you can root out all the inconsistencies, and incorporate new ideas.

Again, the "working group" gets all this input, and try to work on a "final draft" - but this time, a much wider audience has been reached, and they already know they must start to build up their reputation even before the group is ever created. People will expect their criticism and complains to be incorporated in the "final draft".

When the final draft comes out, you start to accept formal membership. Technically, in some cases, the "working group" should be dissolved, and instead you have a "founding group" - ie. an enlarged base of members who are willing to start this up, following the guidelines on the "final draft", knowing that they will be able to change it further and adapt it to external changes as the need arises.

The founding group will have several means at their disposal to inform the public. A more general channel (let's call it the "mass media" - in SL terms, we're talking about the General forums, or the Land and the Economy forums, etc) is used for general statements - mostly, expressing opinions on certain issues, which affect the whole community, and not only the members of the group. This is basically PR (and a bit of marketing, since a good opinion can work as an incentive to get new members/supporters). In RL, this is mostly done through the media (newspapers, magazines) and of course the Web.

A restricted channel is an internal communication tool which endows the members with more information. In RL, this was traditionally done through mailings - nowadays, you have it on mailing lists and Web sites with restricted access. This information is publicly circulated among the members. In SL, you can do it at the Group Forums, with an additional advantage - the information is still public and posted for everybody to see, although, as you know, they are not widely used (excepted by those who are really interested).

Announcements and informations on forums is great, but sometimes you really need face-to-face communications. For instance, an audience of the Ethical Committee cannot be done on the forums - it simply takes too much time. So, in-world meetings are necessary. Again, remember you'll have at least two "councils" inside the group: the Board, which will deal with the administrative part; and the Ethical Committee, which will review complains and dispatch mediators. These two bodies should regularly meet in-world, and their meetings should be open to all members to attend (and even, in some special cases, completely open to the public - a notion that is completely strange to companies, for instance, although it may not be so strange for non-profit organizations or even some Governmental bodies).

The results of those meetings are, again, posted on the members' forums. Some of those meetings may decide about completely new things that will affect the whole community; these will "go public" on more general forums, and eventually on the group's homepage or something like that.

As the group grows (as we expect it to grow!), there will be a need of two hierarchies. On one side, you'll have the administrative/marketing part: things like getting new members, setting up any devices that are needed on their shops, explaining people how the membership works, etc. These will report to the Board, and eventually will have their own meetings to discuss how they should work together. You'll probably have Junior and Senior members on that hierarchy. Another hierarchy are the Mediators who sit at the Ethical Committee. Some dispute resolutions may be simply resolved by dispatching a Junior Mediator; others will require a Senior Mediator; and some of the more complex cases (specifically the ones that the mediators will not agree upon a course of action) will need to be dealt with at a meeting of the whole Ethical Committee.

Saying so, I'd like to hear about your opinions - specifically the constructive ones. Remember, you should consider this as an "extended poll" for opinions - these will be supplemented with a few in-world meetings as well, I expect, until we can agree on the "working group" for starting the "draft group manifest". Also remember that only a tiny part of SL population is really reading this. 5 posts saying "I completely disagree with any sort of traders' association and this discussion should stop now" is not representative of the overall interest in the subject (there are already dozens of merchants interested in this idea). 30 posts saying the same represent at most 0.1% of the population. However, a single post explaining in a detailed way why this is a good/bad idea can be much more valuable for what the group should take in account when discussing the "draft".

A synopsis of the above, for the benefit of those who don't have patience to read a lot:

1. a group of merchants/service providers in SL is currently worried by unethical business practices, and willing to set up a moderation/arbitration authority which sets up ethical business practices for its members to comply with;
   
2. such a group ("the Better Business Bureau", for the lack of a better name) needs to find a consensual way to start its work, and needs input from lots of sources - merchants and consumers alike
   
3. a suggestion would be to start with a small group that will set up a "working draft", based on opinions vented both in the forums and in-world meetings
   
4. how should the group be organized - the Board (administrative/marketing), the Ethical Committee (dispute resolution), the General Assembly (all members) - how admissions
   and expulsions are dealt with, how the Board and the Ethical Committee is elected
   
5. how disputes are brought up to the group's attention, how are they reviewed, how are they appealed, and what the effects of a decision are (fines/suspension from the group/expulsion from the group, etc)
   

Suggestions are welcome - constructive criticism is even more welcome.

Gwyn,

What you are essentially proposing here in a very complex presentation is that a small pre-selected and self-selected cabal of players (with Lindens?) run an operation to blackball certain players that are disliked and possibly run them out of the game.

You'll do that under the absolutey best of pretexts -- "preserving the game from harm" and "defending the consumer from fraud" and with the absolutely best of motives.

But that's how it will be seen, and if you do not take certain steps for accountability and transparency yourselves, that's how it will be, too.

Are you aware that it is not just you and your friends discussing the formation of the BBB, Gwyn? There is at least one other group doing this, if not 10. It's a bigger game than you imagine.

Who will watch the watchers? Especially when the watchers may involve the very people who have done demonstrable harm to some in the game and also succeeded in silencing them as well.

It cannot be run by only the reputationally-enhanced older players of the FIC. And by the metagame of reputation enhancement, I don't mean literal pluses, I mean the posturing and maneuvering that takes place among the status quo ante here.

To prevent these charges, you have to ensure the following, as I've already written on my huge thread on this subject (which you're stepping over handily now)

/130/79/41626/1.html
:

o The BBB has to have buy-in from various sectors of players, old, new, random. It has to be free of alts, free of obvious Linden favouritism, and representing different sectors, not just the old buiness sector elites but the new businesses and new players and randomizing factors to keep it from being biased itself. The make-up of the BBB has to be something that has respectability and credibility to all, and doesn't cause some average players, when acquainted with it, to roll their eyes.

o The BBB cannot be an in-game scripted, information-gathering, third-party site operation that uses the guise of the BBB to continue to gain an advantage in the game by gathering dossiers on other players. That means it cannot be run off third-party sites that collect information *when they themselves do not sign up to follow the TOS as those entities*. Some businesses envision themselves above the fray and free of fault and imagine themselves running this entity to protect themselves from investigation. Your notion that the people forming this cannot themselves ever make a mistake seems laudable, but you're forgetting that you can blot out their actual past harmful mistakes simply by blessing them with membership in this group, where they get to lord it over others forever. I'm for having a rotating membership of this given the way in which possession of the BBB itself will be gained by the power groupings.

o Picking one player's lot in the game, one player's business, or one player's website -- or group of players -- will instantly discredit this BBB and only stimulate consumer advocacy movements against it as it will be a bastion of Big Business. Even for "convenience" it cannot be "housed" within one player's business or "housed" on their website where they use their scripts or website functions to gather information as they perform investigations.
There has to be transparency involved in the investigation process itself and it cannot become a backroom function for "confidentiality" reasons. There's a lot more that has to be said about due process here.

o Lindens who become involved in it have to be of the "office Linden" type with highly professional backgrounds, and not liaisions who were five minutes ago old players with their biases and networks

o The BBB has to have the power to investigate charges of fraud, and charges of bad business practices, and charges of reputation slander. But it cannot become the last instance. The last instance must be Linden Labs and its TOS and its own procedures.

o The formation of the BBB and its operation cannot be a secretive process but must have transparency and accountability

Gwyn, consumer advocates groups are the lifeblood of any society. You've handily slammed and discredited them all in contrast with merchants' groups which you've blessed. You've done that because you think they are too untidy and go after the wrong targets or are even "random".

But consumers need them when they are harmed. To be sure, they lash out when they are harmed, yet free, democratic societies realize they need to have that right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under the constitution. If you had your way and kept consumer groups down, we'd have never gotten seat belts or warnings about choking hazards. Some consumer groups get a good reputation for doing fair investigations. Others are seen as rabid mad dogs and don't gain a following. But they have to be allowed to exist. I've long discussed this as a possibly solution for SL too, and I think ideally, there should not only be a Better Business Bureau, which will inevitably be a FIC-type bastion in this game, given the Powers that Be, but a consumer advocates' group.

When I discussed this before, there was confusion over the BBB as a kind of Chamber of Commerce celebrating itself as a bastion of business versus a BBB which isn't made up of businesses trying to preserve themselves from investigation, but is made up of consumers. Most people have not really studied the American BBB model to understand that it functions as a non-state, non-profit, non-business, non-interested party in performing its functions. Coca Cola doesn't donate $50 million a year to the BBB to ensure itself freedom from BBB investigations, and doesn't run the BBB from its own offices or websites. In fact ,the BBB in most areas is used for local merchant investigations and really isn't the kind of institituion required in a society to tackle big corporations -- for that Congress and the government and courts are required.

There's a lot more that has to be said about your proposal, but here is my very strong cry to the Lindens:

Please do not bless any one group of residents' proposal for a BBB and hand this over to them as a huge reputation-enhancement fgiveaway, and as freedom from scrutiny of their own practices -- in some case HIGHLY questionable -- forever!!!!!

There are at least two groups of players looking to form the BBB now, each of it with their own very clear agenda which goes beyond BBB formation. Please do not bless any one of these proposals without ensuring that the BBB itself can be scrutinized, that it can function transparently and fairly, and that it is not being used merely as a clearinghouse to filter out and pressure disliked residents who have questioned the very behaviour of these companies forming the BBB.

Thanks Gwyn I can't believe all the work you put into that post. We need a BBB or something like that because people copy content.

It's like in any online game where cheaters use illegal exploits to dupe the most valuable items or exploits to make game currency. Cheaters ruin the game economy. Sometimes they sell the duped items or game currency on ebay.

I've never heard of an online game where the game company can put a stop to these exploits, and it stays stopped. Linden Labs will be working to improve the permissions system, but cheaters will be working to get around the protections. If we can help LL by some kind of certificate of authenticity??? that could make a big difference.

The thing we have to watch out for is the certificate of authenticity or seal of approval or whatever has to come from honest people.

Please see the RATE group forum. Much discussion and groundwork for how a BBB could be set up and function fairly has already been done but is currently stalled due to lack of time and interested people to volunteer. The biggest challenge with any such system will be getting people to donate their time to administration and dispute resolution. It will be a completely thankless job. If people are interested in getting something going then please incorporate all the hard work and discussion that's already taken place in this area.

When I wrote to the Lindens a few weeks ago and urged them to consider various proposals from various residents' groups for a BBB, and NOT bless any one group, the response I got was "well we already have RATE".

But having RATE *is* blessing one players' group, and I heartily oppose that.

And the RATE model is NOT what a BBB or consumer advocates group is. It's a merchants' good-housekeeping-seal-of-approval.

But unles I'm not briefed on this, it didn't take on the structuring of mechanisms for dispute resolution or the functions of mounting private or public investigations into allegations of fraud. These are very, very different types of organizations.

Please don't close your minds, Lindens and residents, and say "Oh, they did that already over there."

Because they didn't.

As Juro Kothari and others have pointed out, RATE is moribund and doesn't function. And Chip is saying -- like Neualtenburg denizens' are saying -- "oh, this is boring work and just requires volunteers and nobody ever wants to put in the work".

I never accept that because work is boring or administrative that some select group of "the same old players" get to take it on, often while heaving sighs of self-pity.

It's very important for the credibility and effectiveness of this group that it not be the FIC or those who say there is no FIC. It has to have credibilty! It can't if it is just the usual suspects.

Akane, in order to create in in-world body of residents, with Linden approval, to do this, you have to have them be credible.

That is, you can't have the top skin maker, the top animations maker, the top handbag maker, the top robot maker, the top vehicle maker or even the top thinker and their friends sit on the board as "big businesses" or "enhanced reputations in the metagame" and have them dish out "certificates of authenticy" to those they've apprenticed and controlled in this business.

That's how it works now in SL, a barely-disguised apprentice/master guild system.

We'd need to have very transparent, credible criteria -- open agreements, openly arrived at -- to make this work for consumer and merchant.

That means we have to have a mixture of people dishing out this certificate, even on a rotating basis, and having crystal-clear criteria for awarding this blessing that is not a thinly disguised merit badge for remaining loyal to the "masters" in each field.

Otherwise you'd get a blacklist, hidden or explicit, made up of "people me and my friends don't like". I already see how easily people are accused wrongfully of the "Crime" of theft merely by holding a yard sale and selling objects clicked off for resale. I already see that people who hold lessons and have $1 items for sale are accused of not being properly "educational". The mob justice by this tiny self-selected mob is brutal and efficent and almost impossible to get the Lindens to look at.

Or you get the "sterling list" of only those people the select few approved, and under the guise of the masses fearing fraud and scams and feeling vulnerable, you'll get just a few controlling this function and thereby controlling the SL economy.

When someone slanders you, the Lindens say "They have a right to express their opinion." That's it. They don't find the facts, they don't dispute-resolve, they don't do anything except possibly look at a report on verbal harassment if the person is aggressive and swears at you.

There is no way to fight libel in this game, and the creation of a BBB, which should help end the impunity for libel and destruction of reputations in this game, which is a horror curerntly, will never end such horrors if you hand over that function to the very people who have no checks or balances on them to keep them from libeling in the name of keeping the economy under their control.

That cannot be permitted if we are to have a free world.

Open agreements, openly arrived at, not secretive committees, is the way this very needed BBB or dispute resolution/consumer advocacy function can begin to appear in this game.

Prokofy, with all due respect, it won't matter what a BBB turns out to be. You will accuse it of favoritism, FIC, and all of your other pet conspiracy theories. RATE isn't functioning because it never got out of the planning stages due to lack of time to dedicate to it. I only contribute ideas because I simply don't have time to be involved in the administration. No one has ever said anything remotely like "I never accept that because work is boring or administrative that some select group of "the same old players" get to take it on, often while heaving sighs of self-pity." Much of the discussion surrounding RATE was directed precisely at preventing it from becoming a closed system that would be open for corruption with ideas such as very short terms for officers with continual rotation of fresh blood into the leadership roles and so on. I know you're in favor of some kind of BBB so please try and keep your biases and bigoted assumptions in check.

Chip,

While I realize my comments appear as "bigotry" and "bias" to you it's merely because what I often have to do is oppose the bigotry and bias of others as I see it. Free discussion is how you get at the truth.

Whatever RATE's vaunted notion "very short terms for officers with continual rotation of fresh blood into the leadership roles" -- it was the same-old, same-old making it. Just look at the names. That doesn't inspire confidence for some.

That means they set up the procedures and criteria, too, in their "boring meetings no one comes to" and that means it becomes biased and a funnel and even blessed by overworked Lindens.

I'm not for allowing that to happen. Whatever RATE's merits in having to work through these very hard issues -- and I do appreciate that - we should not all be re-routed to RATE now every time we ask for a BBB. We need to have something that FUNCTIONS soon.

I fear that both RATE and Gwyn's plan is just way too complicated to get going and yet it needs to get going.

I propose starting with a much, much more simplified dispute resolution center FIRST, attempting function FIRST and then building the elaborate institutonal mechanism with its safeguards and checks and balances later. By making this dispute resolution committee PUBLIC and OPEN with open meetings (an absolute requirement) it can be freed of the usual cabal-feel that these enterprises often have.

I proposed a three-person panel to judge my own case when another player slandered my business with false charges. That effort was merely ridiculed here. But abstract that from me, and think about what it could mean.

Start with a three-person panel which is the first prototype for in-game dispute resolution.

One respected old player with mentor status, one respected new player without mentor status, one Linden.

Preferably, the older player with mentor status will not be someone attempting to get a BBB created to secure their sector of the economy from challenges. An older mentor without huge business interests might be a good solution here.

Preferably, the newer player without mentor status will not merely be an apprentice to one of the guild masters of the old players in the old-player run economy.

Preferably that one Linden will be a "fresh" and "professional Linden" free of a past as an older player with old biases and networks.

Just get those 3 people first, and start. Getting those people right and the mechanism to refresh them is the most important thing of all.

There is already a culture of beta-testing and making millions of versions of things including this very game, correcting it each time. The important thing is to get started. If you don't like me as the first case, use someone else.

These three people hear both sides of the dispute. They get a list of witnesses or testifers. They hear them or collect notecards. They examine disputed products over copyright, they examine land transactions, whatever. They hold one, maybe two sessions, and they deliberate. They ask the parties to accept their decision as binding, subject only to Linden Labs review under the TOS if an allegation of TOS violation is at stake.

Their decision then comes in the requirement for one party to make a public apology on the forums and to cease the activity for which they were disputed.

It's not really a pretty system but it's a start. It's not pretty in a lot of ways but it has much to offer it as a way of BEGINNING instead of wasting months creating elaborate edifices which are then ready-made superstructures for SL egos to walk into and run to their own advantage. (The "not pretty" part comes in things in RL justice system protections like: separation of powers, protection of witnesses with anonymous testimony, sequestering of witnesses, subpoena of chat logs from authorities, etc. etc. but procedures for these matters could be evolved.)

For extra credit, make a four-man panel and have whoever happens to be the latest newest member on the forums to have a vote. Those joining the panel vow not to use alts in their process, i.e. not to make a fresh acccount to appear as the "newest member of the forums". (I can't think of any other way to get a random new person except maybe standing in Dore or something.)

I'd like to see a larger panel ultimately but 3 is a good start. Obviously Vishinsky thought so LOL.

"Who will watch the watchers?"

I dunno. Who watches you? You act as a your own BBB with your "blacklist", terrorizing (Do you like that drama? You should, it's straight out of the Prokofy Scriptures) the boards with your jabs at anyone and any business that doesn't operate to your satisfaction. In other words, if one doesn't pay homage to your paranoid anthems, they are unworthy of trust. How convenient.

OH! I forgot! You are 100% virtuous just because you are Prokofy and you said so! What kind of fool would trust anyone else?

I realize you think that nothing can be honest if you're not involved. You are dead wrong.

Stop pissing in everyone else's pocket. This goes for Gwyn's proposal, Brace's group, Schwan's, and the rest. Thanks.

So Gwyn is a bigot and is biased?

Sorry pal, you don't get to write outlines for other's proposals.

There is no "Prokofy review board".

Truth? You wouldn't recognize "the truth" if it smacked you upside the head.

gwyn,
i think this is a great idea. and far from needing approval from the community, it's something that can go ahead and start operating, requesting contributions etc. i only read your cliff notes but here are my suggestions:

i would enlist some established and content contributors who have helped make sl what it is today as a board of directors. they can then enlist agents to help with the cause. covering 50 km2 of grid is really going to take a lot of involvement. i think all participants should have an adequately lengthy history in sl so as to assure a degree of vestedness in sl. no new players at all as new accounts are constantly gamed by underhanded players who use them to spy, create the illusion of contreversy, and griefing. no lindens because they should remain neutral in these matters.

some suggestions i have for the kind of people you could have on the board of directors, to give an idea: cristiano midnight (snapshot baron), ulrika zugzwang (political visionary), chip midnight(clothing baron), aimee weber (fic), merwan marker ("excellent" poster), lordfly digeridoo(architect), adam ziaus (scripterati), anshe chung (landshe)

these are all players who are really passionate about sl and their role in it but also take the time to particpate in its discourse on the forum, and they are all highly regarded and trusted by all!

make a nice website and advertise it in world. i will be happy to host a kiosk in world. with the new apatch, you can make web browser links and soon we can expect www interface in world! advertise the heck out of it and i'm sure it will be able to generate enough paid sponsors to run non-profit.

Chip, I took your advice:


I know you've done a lot of work, but it's very general. I'm worried about cases where the bad people are getting around our permissions system, or the permissions system doesn't have enough features yet to protect content creators. Remember that case where somebody seemed to be copying another person's hair, but making a messy copy? Remember the guy selling a broken version of Cubey's free teleporters?

RATE seems to be about general ethical business practices by merchants. If you're looking for help with that you'll attract people with an axe to grind against a particular merchant, maybe a competitor? They'll want to use RATE to get at that hated person. I see how you're trying to protect merchants against the stigma of an investigation that turns out to be untrue. That's so crucial. You also need more of a focus to get help against specific things that damage SL.

I also really appreciate your emphasis on getting honest people in RATE. But some people blatantly lie inworld and on the forums. They repeat the lies over and over again as if that's going to make it true. If a person like that tries to get into RATE or tries to block a hated competitor from getting into RATE it could turn into a 'he said, she said' kind of drama.

Precisely. So you have to have mechanisms to prevent that. I've proposed a simple one that is a 3-person panel that merely gets a rough consensus from the forums to start.

Gwyn's proposal is open to that kind of charge of being initiated by someone with an agenda just to block a hated person from ever examining them. I know *exactly* what this is about.

Well, I feel that I should post some things as a follow-up, just to clarify things.

Firstly, I'm fully aware that there is not one, but at least three similar projects going on at the moment (and Prokofy may be right - there may be an additional 10 going on). One of them - the oldest I've know - is RATE. Eight months ago, I exchanged some ideas with some of the members of RATE (both for my personal reasons as a tiny merchant, and, of course, because it didn't make sense to have Neualtenburg outside RATE, so, an agreement had to be found). I understood that due to several restrictions - mostly, time - some projects are very hard to mantain.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in having more than a Trader's Association, Guild, Better Business Bureau, or whatever. The more, the merrier. That's the best example we can give the SL community: try different things, see what happens. Better still: let mechants' associations "compete" between themselves. The winner will be the consumer - he'll be able to pick the one he/she likes most and stick with it.

I must also confess that I'm using my own country's trade & professional associations as a model. I guess that even this thread's name gives the impression I have studied the US BBB or something, and that I'm endorsing its model. I have not studied it, and I have no idea on how it works (beyond what is publicly available at their web site). I apologise for misusing the name in the wrong context - that's entirely my fault.

Although I like the US BBB's "Advertising Pledge Program" and I think it's a good, solid framework upon which a trade association could build a similar program. Of course, again, I'm just referring to what I read online - I don't have the slightest idea on how it works in the field, I can only talk about the experience I had with organizations which have similar programs.

Secondly, accountability (an issue which Prokofy raised which I failed to enhance a bit more). I was in a rush to finish the first post, because I had a meeting in RL (weirdly enough, also about defining guidelines and rules for a consulting body for a non-profit organization) and had no time to review things properly.

While there is no way that you can use to enforce total transparency about all the processes, the point is, you should try and make sure you have thought out all possible ways to have all information available, to all the people, all the time. This is much more important in SL than in RL, I think, so, any group designed to deal with these kind of issues in SL, will have to put as a top priority on their requirements transparency and accountability. If they don't make an effort to do so, I think the project will be doomed from the beginning. I'm pretty adamant on that.

Thirdly, this is not "my project" - rather the contrary, I'm just voicing a mix of my own thoughts and in-world discussions with some people that are actually planning to do a new group. They asked me kindly to post my opinions publicly, in one of the Discussion Forums, although at first I was reluctant to do so.

Although it's not "my project" I'll be certainly willing to participate in helping out with te guidelines and the promotion of it. There is only one catch - I obviously need to understand if this project (like any others) is actually reflecting the things I believe in. But I'm very open-minded in terms of reaching compromises.

Next point - who will "watch" the trade association? There is really just one very large group which is able to do that: the consumers and customers. It's pretty simple, really. Either you build up a serious reputation, and consumers will prefer to buy products and services from you, or you cannot achieve that reputation, and you'll be avoided like the plague. It's tough, but incredibly fair. As I originally said - there is only need for a single person to stain publicly the credibility and reputation of this sort of group. SL is absolutely ruthless in that respect. I'm pretty confident that the consumers/customers will definitely be the best panel of judgement upon the trade association.

The recent threads I read about the subject were concentrated mostly on how to avoid the FIC taking over the world and why the status quo is hard to break apart. Personally, I'm not interested in discussing that - there are enough discussions on the subject, and I don't have anything interesting to say on the subject. My purpose was to define the genesis and the rough proceedings in setting up a trade association, that people are comfortable with, and believe that have a chance of success.

Quoting Prokofy from another thread: 'A "Chamber of Commerce" is not the same thing as a "Better Business Bureau" is not the same thing as a "Consumer Rights Association".' That's quite right! I don't propose a "Consumer Rights Association", but something in the lines of a trade association. If it should be called "Trade Association", "Chamber of Commerce", "Better Business Bureau", "Council of Ethical Practices", "Seal of Quality Approval" or something else, I feel that's up to the group to decide, so long as they make clear what they're advocating.

In my opinion, I was defining a "Trade Association" (with an associated Ethical Committee), and I understand now where I was unclear. I'm not suggesting a "policing" system, with an associated "Complaints Bureau", and judges or something being appointed to "control" what other players are doing.

No, what I advocate is rather the reverse: a trade association. Members are merchants/service providers. They willingly commit themselves to ethical business practices, which are proposed and approved among themselves. As long as they're part of the group, they'll abide by their rulings. The purpose of the Ethical Committee inside this group is to take care with complains filed against members of the group - and not to "pass judgment" about other merchants which are not part of the group! So, if you have something against merchant X, and X is part of the group, the group will investigate; if X is not part of the group, the trade association cannot do anything about it except give the customer a pat in the back and feel sorry for him/her. But legally that's not their juridisction - they only have "juridisction" about their own members.

I liked the many suggestions about the form of submitting complains against the group members - I understand the need for some anonymity in some cases. I'm not sure how this can work well in SL. Ideally, I thought that you could simply file your complain by dropping a notecard inside a scripted object. Of course, that's hardly anonymous - any script can detect your avatar's name. So, there could be an off-world site, but then there wouldn't be any "transparency" in the process. I understand that this can be a serious problem. The only solution I have is that people get a warning on the web site about what data gets collected (if you file the complain by email, don't use your own email address; if you use the Web, use an anonymizer; etc.). Basically, you either trust the complains system, or you don't - and if trust is lost, the group is worthless anyway.

On the other hand, dealing anonymously with complains is something very, very hard to do - I certainly wouldn't recommend a charter where you would guarantee anonymity. I'd propose the contrary - full disclosure of all (SL) details, and transparency in the process.

In this thread, a suggestion was made to involve Lindens in the process. I'm very against it for a single reason - Lindens do not sell products and services in-world. So they shouldn't be members of a trade association. I could agree that some of them would eventually have a status as observers (without vote); and, of course, they would always be a last court of appeal (say, a resident who files a complain about a member of the trade association, and which gets ignored, or even worse - harassed - should definitely file an abuse report). I think, again, whenever the group comes to that point, it has lost all respectability and credibility in-world, and it's too late to pretend that it's worth anything. This is just common sense.

I also have not really anything against consumer rights advocates. However, let others create those groups. As I said, they are much harder to set up, and I personally am not up to the challenge. I may agree that they may be more important than trade associations. So, let's have them - and have them discuss formally ethical proceedings with the trade associations, group-to-group. I only stated why I'm not interested - personally - in helping out that as well. Also, unlike trade associations, I think that consumers' associations are the right place to have direct Linden assistance and participation.

Finally, it's almost next to impossible having any sort of system that rules out completely "lobbies", "gaming", "manipulation", whatever. The best intentions are not enough to rule them out, so, the best you can do is to understand the consequences of how things work, and build fail-safe mechanisms to deal with them when they occur. Perfect systems do not exist - a good enough system is one that can recognize where its flaws are, and that has ways to deal with them.

All said and done, the most valuable input I have had so far was: keep it simple - make it too complex, and people will never join it. And since without some "critical mass" this will never go beyond the planning stages, I'll definitely pass that message along to the group's proposers.



Having said this, I wonder if we could concentrate on the three-person model suggested by Prokofy instead. I haven't seen anyone commenting on that on this thread, which is a shame, because I like the simplicity of the model. I think it's perfectly suited for a "dispute resolution board": it's simple, it's easy to set up, no need for complex rules, it can be based mostly on common sense (and not on complex, ethical guidelines), it can be set up in almost no time, and it's hard to manipulate due to the rotativity. Of course, finding "a new player with a good reputation" will be the hardest thing to do - how is a "new player" defined, and what is "good reputation"? That's the only problem I see with the suggestion. Prokofy suggested "just pick up someone in Dore", which I think that is not completely unreasonable (although the new resident probably would be very surprised!). I mean, people bring their common sense with them in-world, and that's all you need to participate in an arbitration board.

An alternative would be just to pick a random person which happens to be online at the moment. From what I understood, Prokofy's proposal is much more about dealing with complains about unethical behaviour overall (and not limited to one group of merchants or service providers), and, thus, something which should be strictly tied to Linden Lab. So, it will be easy for them to incorporate a mechanism where a dialog box pops up randomly asking you to "join a review board on ethical business" or something - if you decline the invitation, it goes to someone else. This could be a better alternative to defining what a "new player with a good reputation" is.

And I certainly think that this should definitely be proposed to the Lindens (I know - they'll say to put it on the feature request list ).

Thanks for your thought Akane Any attempt at establishing a BBB is hampered by a few simple truths... it can have no real teeth. If it attempts to make up for that by public shaming, boycotting, or other similar measures then it is too easily manipulated by individuals with an axe to grind and could seriously damage the reputation or business of someone who is actually innocent. It would not have the necessary tools to verify certain claims of wrongdoing. Only the Lindens have those tools. We tried to work with what was left after you take those things out. A BBB that becomes reactionary or vindictive will quickly be written off by most as simply an anti-competition old boy network and a cure that's possibly worse than the disease. Prokofy isn't wrong to be concerned about those things. We were/are too. Our solutions were by no means perfect or complete but there's a lot of groundwork there to chew on. Without specific dispute resolution tools which LL is only in early stages of development on there's not much anyone can do except evangelize a well thought out code of ethics and try to provide some benefit to those willing to abide by it. There's no infrastructure in place in SL for much of anything beyond a grass roots movement at this point.

They all look like shady characters to ME.

Some excellent points being made in this thread. Here's a few thoughts I have on this topic:

Merchants' associations in RL will often be limited to particular industries - the companies operating in the same market will have common interests. However, the objection that these organizations tend to operate in restraint of trade has some validity. So the first question for this proposed body is whether it is open to all businesses, or would focus on one or a few business areas. If all businesses are eligible, it becomes more difficult to write rules and procedures that apply to everyone. In RL, there are more stringent rules around accountants and investment counsellors than around car salesmen.

Second, there would be some thought required to define "who is a merchant". In RL, government regulations such as business licenses make it very easy to determine who is a legitimate business. In SL, this is much more casual. It would be overwhelming, and likely counterproductive, to get involved in disputes between two players just because some object or money traded hands as part of some entirely different reason for disagreement.

The very simplest model of dispute resolution is often found in contract arbitration language. Each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two jointly select a third. In some cases, provision is made that if the two can't agree, an arbitrator will be assigned from a recognized arbitration association. A very simple first step in SL might be to form an arbitration association, with some rules of evidence and conduct. People would be trained and follow these procedures to assist in disputes.

The question of whether to have open or closed proceedings is a little more complex. The arguments have been given about transparency. OTOH, if the dispute involves aspects like pricing or special conditions in a transaction, the merchant could end up at a great competitive disadvantage if these terms were made public. Consider how desperately Microsoft tried to prevent release of its licensing agreements with PC manufacturers.

One weakness in the argument around the reputation of a merchants' association lies in the fact that there is not an independent/unbiased media in SL. What goes on the forums is very much a "he said", "she said" kind of mess when it gets into disputes. That doesn't carry the weight media coverage would in the case of some blatant failure in business ethics or an unbalanced decision.

Another minor factor which would assist the operation of this kind of structure would be a more permanent, archive or library-like place in SL to post lists of members, dispute decisions, rules and procedures, etc. The transient nature of the forums is not suited to this.

Finally, the question we need to consider is, "Is there a demand among players for this kind of body or process?" With the exception of a very few malcontents, I don't see a lot of agonizing and complaining over business deals gone wrong or people being cheated. This may mean that players would largely ignore anything that was set up.

Really, Gwyn, I know you mean well, but look at this paragraph:



Do you not see how this looks? Who *are* these shadowy people? Why must they put *you* up to floating a proposal like a stalking horse on the forums? Why are you posting on their behalf if you are not part of the group and won't work on it as your project? If they are forming a new group to perform this function, why can't they say who they are and what they are doing? Do Lindens know about this and have they already blessed this group? And why were you reluctant to discuss this? Are you feigning to have a "democratic dialogue" about this when it is already set in stone? I'm sorry, but those are the questions any reasonable person would have looking on at this effort.

Such a trade association has to be able to stand up to scrutiny. So far, it has not.

Gwyn, your first post talked most about dispute resolution. That implies investigations, panels, criteria, testimony, findings, rulings -- to one extent or another. In the first Thinkers discussion on the BBB, and in the later thread here a few weeks ago, the emphasis was on conducting investigations. Those interested in such a group appearing have among their concerns the problem of the Lindens then having to face Abuse Reports against the very people conducting the investigation. They'll be accused of harassment, or verbal abuse, or libel, or worse, and the Lindens will have to sort out all those frivolous reports. (I don't know how good they've gotten at that, frankly).

In RL, the BBB's website and data base can be searched, or you can get printed bulletins, to show businesses that have complaints against them or investigations under way. That means if you file a complaint about Joe's Garage and you find 10 other people are also complaining, you'll see maybe yours has merit. If you are a consumer chosing between Joe's and Stan's Garage, you'll see Stan has no complaints and you will go to him -- even before knowing the merits of the complaints. The doctors' review boards and consumer complaint systems for doctors works the same way -- the very presence of a complaint can be a cautionary tale for a consumer, but one case won't a caution make. 10 might. The ebay reputation system works a bit like this but because it is so anonymous on the Internet, I just don't know how reliable it really is. People also tend to not want to buck a trend when they arrive at a person's reputation board and they see there is already a five-star plus great reputation. They can fall into line then and rave with the rest of them. The BBB is different is that it doesn't ask ALL consumers to rate Joe's Garage it asks only those consumers whose carborateur didn't get repaired right to complain about Joe.

Now you're talking about a trade association who burnishes their own reputation first and foremost by appearing to be open to complaints. You've now added that they can't investigate others, only themselves. Hmm, that's a relief, but I'm still quite concerned because I believe this is just the latest power grab bid, nothing more, so I've got a keen weather eye on it.

It sounds good -- except that under the SL framework, with no free media, no independent judiciary, no solid landowners' rights, etc. -- that means one group of people -- like Jauani's "ideal board" -- can make themselves out to be on the "sterling list" and everyone else to be shit. Then de facto everyone else who didn't knuckle under or pony up or whatever process will be involved with these people (and some have used downright thuggish methods in their zeal to keep others out) will be out of luck.

Imagine a world in which the top clothing designer, the top animations designer, the top eyeglasses designer all get to be on the Sterling Board of the Sterling Merchants Association. No. 2 in clothes design who competes against no. 1 might get the boot -- maybe no. 2 once swore in a PG zone and has a "blemished record". You can see how this will go.

SL can be harsh to people who "make mistakes" -- I'll go you one better, they can declare a person has "made a mistake" even when they have not and that person has no recourse. Recently a player got a pack of Lindens and older players swooping down on him, declaring he was "uncool" for "selling free things" and the Lindens even forcibly returned his for-sale items back into his inventory. Yet all he did, according to his side of the story, is put out for sale items he himself had bought from another, established player who wanted pride of place with yard sales. That person had some kind of terms saying no one could resell from his yardsale even sold items. Yet he had resell/transfer clicked off on the object. Anybody who has resell-transfer clicked off on the object, and a price on his object, cannot by rights claim that someone is doing something wrong, whatever his own "terms". Lindens forcibly removing objects like that without an investigation is a very, very troublesome precedent. A post in Hotline went nowhere.

Let's say a person in that situation who is "nailed" and "accused" wants to apply to be in this Sterling Trade Association. The powers that be could blackball him and keep him out forever. Well, then his recourse would be to make a new one, I suppose, whereupon the Sterling folks will declare that the others are "shit" -- and they'll have the power with "the community" and "the Lindens" to make such a charge stick. That's why this entire situatoin is so horridly rigged.

Now, all of a sudden, Gwyn, you're talking about lots of trade groups appearing, not just a BBB. But a BBB all along, in the first Thinker's meeting, in the later threads was *about investigations of complaints* not setting up sterling business practices that a select sterling list would then say they fulfilled, dubbing themselves The Sterling Ones. I noticed a lot of confusion between Americans and Europeans on this notion of a BBB -- I think some believe it is a Chamber of Commerce that blesses businesses who join it. In fact, a BBB is NOT a business group. It's a group seeking better businesses. Good businesses suport it, but it is run as a non-profit organization with paid, professional staff and a board with person of repute -- not an automatic Chinese menu with each major business sector pre-set as a board member.

If this "just one" trade/merchants society gets set up -- whose to stop them from declaring themselves The Sterling Ones. Not me, because I advocate freedom of association and freedom of assembly as the basis of any civil society. Let them form a group, even with the most Sterling List. Let the work out criteria, put out special prim seals that people can attach to their products, whatever.

What I'd oppose, then, is a Linden blessing of such a Sterling Assemblage. The Lindens should not be in the business of blessing this or that player group. They need to stay out of it completely if they are even to feign that "federal government" role they claim to have.
Frankly, I have my doubts they'll do that for lots of reasons but I do have confidence that in time, they'll see why it pays not to control society to such an extent.

So why did I put a Linden in my three-person panel? Because I find that nobody really trusts any player enough to pronounce on their fate. They believe the Lindens to be impartial, even given various anecdotal problems that have emerged of late in that regard. By contrast, they are impartial, of course. So I suggest them being one of the panel members just to give it weigh and balance. I suspect they wouldn't agree to it. But I'd ask anyway.

My notion of the "new player with respect but not a mentor" was somebody of 1 or 6 months or something just as a weight against the old player -- again, for balance. I'd have a rough straw poll or nominations process right here on the forums to pick those 3 people. It's not a pretty process, given it's 5 percent of players, but I believe you have to start somewhere, and learn by doing and be open about taking input.

The pick-up in Dore was the *fourth* member of a panel, that's all. I'd have the Linden present ex officio with no consultative voice not decisive vote. So the fourth player is the tie-breaker of the 3-man panel.

You could have a scripted or built-in device that resolves disputes serving like a jury system. But just as really professional, "briefed-up" juries start to develop in some countries, that would happen in SL where the random picks would lkely turn up 75 percent who said they had a doctor's excuse in RL and couldn't make it.

I'd rather have the 3-person panel be a known quantity for that reason, so you know who is working on the cases. The first meeting would be an open hearing open to the public. Their second meeting might be a deliberation behind closed doors. The next appearance is also to the public.

I don't want to spend a lot of time making up rules or thoughts for such a thing when no one was willing to step forward and serve on that 3-person panel when I asked that it be formed some weeks ago.

Bad cases make bad law. I'd like to know what is *really* driving this renewed surge of interest in a BBB or structure that declares itself to be sterling. What's up with this?

Lots of good organizational ideas in your initial post, Gwyn; you're now forgiven for being LATE for that Thinkers meeting at my sandbox in Windermere. : ) I'll continue to share the Thursday hosting duties with Neal while Eloise takes her well-deserved break.

Hah -- Ferren posted! It's like pulling teeth to get that guy to post. He always says the thread's going to be hijacked so why bother? But most thoughtful people know how to use the ignore feature or skip certain posts. Ferren, this is the idea I particularly liked:


Your concluding thought probably sums up the majority view:

Yup, could be. But a dispute resolution mechanism would be welcomed by anyone trying to shake off a griefer. My somewhat entertaining experience involves being targetted by mass negrating with many alts and weeks of IM-stalking with one alt after another as I put one after another on mute and ban. It's not a huge inconvenience...not worth an AR when I hear about a different situation involving actual death threats being made against a player. Still, I think of dispute resolution as possibly more effective than losing my temper, and typing: QUIT IM-STALKING ME. I NEVER IM YOU.

Having received encouragement from one Linden about having a Thinkers meeting on the topic of dispute resolution, and getting attendance at the meeting by two more Lindens, I've concluded that LL is genuinely interested in having the players take on some form of dispute resolution.

However, dispute resolution seemed to mean different things to different people at the meeting. Gwyn's current focus is the structure and organization of a BBB. Our newest Thinkers member described the advantage of arbitration/mediation in a certain ongoing dispute involving three business professionals. I introduced the subject from the perspective of my neighbor who made an honest mistake in setting land for sale, and someone (apparently with a land scanner) swooped in and bought her land at a ridiculously low price.

Chip, we didn't have anyone from RATE at the Thinkers meeting (you're all welcome to attend the next one on this topic), but I've read the RATE group forum, and concluded that it concerns the retail sector (where I'm not knowledgeable). If that's wrong, please correct me. I like Jauani's suggestion about a group of veteran SL contributors, because you have to start from a position of earned trust. I've earned my good reputation during a year in TSO, plus a much shorter time here, so I'd be happy to help when I hit some threshold age determined by the founders of the group.

I'm much more interested in a whitelist than a blacklist. The idea of 'investigations' sounds like a gift to ill-tempered people who have tried and failed to manipulate others by mass negrating, then pulling off all the negrates, complete with little messages (a way to get around being put on mute). I'm sure all those negrates will now get put on again, complete with more messages. Silly stuff!

Here's a pic of Khamon's FREE particle grapevine plants seen against the dark blue ocean at the edge of the pavilion where that Thinkers meeting was held. You can get them at Fate Gardens. You can also get a FREE Thinkers soapbox (like the one I'm sitting on) at any Thinkers meeting, but you have to think good thoughts on it. : )

thought i would pipe up with one comment re: chip's saying running the BBB would be a thankless job:

a corporation pays its board of directors for their time in advising and shaping the direction of the business. If a workable, pragmatic, reasonable BBB was actually put together, with an electable and trusted board, I would certainly join and contribute funds as a member (membership dues) to keep it operational and efficient and make the role of being on the board a little less thankless

To nail Forseti's point a little harder, you pay people to do this in order to attract and reward talent and dedication. And since you're paying them, and they have a sensitive job, and they need to be fairly objective, understand what works in such situations, and know procedure, you don't recruit the same old "trusted cast of familiars" that people including LL generally include on their lists. You recruit professionals who have experience IRL in correlating fields. They may not necessarily be the kind of people who generally "succeed" in SL, as success is defined here - in programming, graphic arts, internet small business, or social gaming, say.

You can elect a board to satisfy the democratic urge, perhaps, but the people who actually run endeavor need to be real, and they need to be isolated from popular pressure. Otherwise there's little chance of success, and probably no point.

so how do you do this?

i don't understand the resistance to this idea. it's obvious to anyone that such an organization will not hold any real disciplinary power, only the power of perception, which can only be maintained by transparency and fair and judicious dealings.

aimee, how can you attack my list! it's the cream of the crop! in fact YOU are on my list! i put you there specifically as a political maneuver to help push the BBB through the FIC channels that control SL ASAP. WYSIWYG

Traxx, could you publish the transcript of the Thinkers meeting with two Lindens who attended? This was an alleged open meeting that many people didn't see on the events schedule -- maybe there was too much Tringo.

Your "mass negrates" amounted to 10 on new and old accounts over time. Nobody "stalked" you, but IM'd you and endured hours of intensely abusive, suspicious, and condescending harangues in an effort to preserve a friendship with you. And why were you negrated? Because you falsely, libelously, accused a business person of scamming newbies -- something designed to kill a business quick given all the concern for newbies in this game. The claim was false, the witnesses were coached, the story was a non-starter, but you kept it up in forums and in-game for weeks and months and still won't let it go. It has absolutely no basis and no merit. Indeed, the target of the libel again and again, in private and in public, urged older players, Lindens, anybody to convene a panel to hear the facts so that the matter could be closed.

When one resident asks the Lindens what to do about another resident slandering and libeling them, the Linden replies "They're just expressing their opinion". Except when it is a business the Lindens are more partial to, in which they say, "Criticizing a business is a serious matter."

Criticizing a business *is* a serious matter. And that's why I advocate dispute resolutions mechanisms, finding the facts, transparency, and openness.

I personally have no investigations I'm interested in mounting on some alleged fraudulent business. So characterizing any call I have for fact-finding as a desire for revenge against some business is silly -- I don't have any complaints about any businesss except when they slander my reputation -- but that's the reverse of the usual situation with which a BBB is faced, a consumer with a complaint about a product.

What I'd like to see, however, is the capacity of some reputable group being able to mount such fact-finding merely to present my own case where I'm being slandered. I think a fresh pair of eyes on this type of situation does wonders -- sunlight is the best disinfectant. I'm confident that anyone looking at the facts will realize what's going on here -- personal baggage. I think many high-profile business people would only welcome some sane, unbiased, examination of stories sometimes reaching epid hysterical proportions in the emotional world of SL. I find from RL experience that the mere documenting and writing down of a story can sometimes solve it instantly where there are complaints of violations.

Creating a "whitelist" (ugh!) is a handy way to put people you don't like beyond the pale, people you call "trolls" in public meetings, people you call "stalkers" or "abusers". Everyone is going to see right through that. Many will see the whitelist as preordained, as Jauani's definitely tongue-in-cheek presentation proves.

Negrates were no doubt merely removed because accounts were canceled so as to not get stuck being able to not remove them later. It was also onerous to see that nasty, tendentious attack against another player on your profile. If someone sent "little messages" while undoing a negrate -- what of it? Abuse report it to the Lindens, don't make an entire BBB around it to try to pursue a vendetta.

That's exactly why any one of us has to be leery of any attempt to make a BBB that grows out of current, actual disputes that a few players want to arm themselves to the teeth to fight. They want older players, Lindens, anything they can grab to help run other people out of the game.

What is needed is neither a blacklist or a whitelist but a dispute resolution mechanism to stop these disputes from so escalating that they pour battery acid everywhere in the game and on the forums. Dispute resolution, not witch-hunting. Fact-finding, not vendettas.

I really have serious, serious doubts about any entity, player-run or even Linden-run, having the high degree of impartiality required to make a "whitelist". If it is automatized to be like the ratings system, it will be gamed. What's required is merely a dispute resolution mechanism. The reputation is seen to be good when there is a low number of complaints or disputes resolved very successfully.