New powers for a would-be dictator?

Apologies for the crosspost from a thread on Blumfield in Land and Economy, but we've wandered into the area of governance. Here is an excerpt from Gwyn's post in that thread:



This is a very interesting development, and certainly a risk by LL. During the initial period of trial and error we could easily have many failed experiments. Residents in those groups could end up at odds with each other, perhaps divided into factions, each appealing to LL to 'do something'. Meaning: 'do something against those who don't see things my way'.

On the plus side for LL, it would be the group that boots perceived sign extortionists, not LL.

One salient point must be factored into this picture: it's now very difficult to get rid of a group officer. According to the thread here only the group founder can get rid of a group officer, and only by calling a LL help number. This opens the door for founders to have dictatorial powers. Other people in the group cannot get rid of the founder nor the founder's alts, which might be the only other officers. However the founder can boot any member whenever he chooses for whatever reason or excuse.

It's a very asymmetrical relationship -- perhaps not a desirable one for the non-founders, who simply want to pool land as a community to get the benefit of zoning.

Periodically we see discussions of governance models for sims and groups, ranging from voluntary residents associations to complex structures like Neualtenburg. It makes sense to check these proposals from a skeptical perspective. SL doesn't need a new system that could be abused by some powerhungry new arrival who comes into our world armed with huge financial resources and a desire to be an authority over the rest of us.

Could this new system be abused like that? I claim that it could. Sometimes the way a system could be abused is not obvious. You have to figure out how that powerhungry individual could exploit fundamental human motivations like greed, fear and the desire for attention. Obtaining supporters by exploiting these factors, the powerhungry newcomer could use this system to extend dictatorial authority over one sim after another. The result would be a de facto SL-wide government.

The zoning by group covenant experiment is worth trying, but not with a group structure that allows the founder to be a dictator. I'm interested to see what others have to say on this.

As with any plan of governance, the key question is: what sanctions will be enforced to ensure compliance?

Should LL wish to act as the enforcement agent, they have a wide range of possible fines or punishments available. However, if enforcement is left with the group, what actually is available? Expulsion from the group is probably the only compulsory action that can be taken and forced on the malefactor. And that does not in any way force compliance with the covenant that was ignored. If membership in the group conveys some kind of advantage, like sharing tier, then there is at least some downside to being expelled. Otherwise, I can't really see that this brings anything new, without a specific role by LL in enforcement.

Should the group members be given the right to repossess land purchased under a covenant, then the whole issue of arbitration must be addressed. Is the action being taken for a valid reason, or as part of some underhanded ploy? Who will make that decision?

At some point, the whole issue of enforcement, legal structure and arbitration will have to be addressed by LL through addition of some additional functions in SL. Those could be managed by LL itself, or provided to citizens to run.

After I re-read this, I realised that I was far too harsh. The challenge and the nature of building something like SecondLife should be recognized as well.

I suspect if Linden Lab could provide a roadmap, they most certainly would, but they realise (much as many have) that a roadmap would destroy SecondLife by awkwardly forcing it down a narrow path that leads nowhere.

That being said - this fact should be well advertised so that not only are we all well prepared we avoid the inevitable frustration and the resulting blowback which causes so much destructive behaviour (witness, for example, the jolting shutdown of GOM).

After I re-read this, I realised that I was far too harsh. The challenge and the nature of building something like SecondLife should be recognized as well.

I suspect if Linden Lab could provide a roadmap, they most certainly would, but they realise (much as many have) that a roadmap would destroy SecondLife by awkwardly forcing it down a narrow path that leads nowhere.

That being said - this fact should be well advertised so that not only are we all well prepared we avoid the inevitable frustration but also the resulting blowback which causes so much destructive behaviour (witness, for example, the jolting shutdown of GOM).

Traxx, I hardly read this proposed change as "empowering dictators". That is a far-fetched conclusion, in my opinion, and one that does not reflect reality.

Remember, most of the data we have on the group changes always make reference to "new types" of group members. This means that the current structure of founder/officer/member is too weak to generate a working group; too many loopholes exist to make the whole system unworkable, to the point that currently you really can only create groups with people you know personally quite well — preferably iRL or your own alts.

Linden Lab is aware of this. Simply dropping the new covenants on the group structure, but keeping it as it is does not make any sense at all, and, as a matter of fact, has never been suggested, indirectly or not, by Linden Lab. What they have said, repeatedly, is that there must be new "types of memberships" — hierarchical or otherwise — that the group can set up and delegate powers to each "type".

I can imagine that you'll have land-owning groups with layers of people that have the power to access Land Group tools (the current ones we have) but cannot expell other users; and you will have "company-like" structures, where there is a Board, which runs the group while the members (shareholders) allow them to (but the Board will be rotated, not expelled).

It doesn't mean that all groups will have "Boards"; not all groups will have "power" over the members; not all groups will have just a "flat" membership (ie. no founders/officers); and, certainly, not all groups will have just one "owner" and the members are just "slaves" without a saying in the process.

All these kinds of groups will be able to dynamically set up their structure, and, in some cases, add a "covenant" to the land-owning bit. So this means that if someone is willing to join a community, they will read the covenant carefully and see what they are demanding as "basic rules". And they will also be able to look at the group structure. If the structure seems too "dictatorial" (ie. imagine a group with just one founder/officer and lots of "tenants", and absolutely no hierarchies in-between), they'll think twice and move towards differently-structured groups.

So, groups, with the flexibility given by the new tools and the new "group membership types", will compete among themselves in terms of balance and fairness. I expect there will be a quite large mix, but the prevalent group structure will probably be what Linden Lab envisions: "Groups should be more like companies".

The difference is that today you have absolutely no way to get a "different" structure. You just have ONE possible group structure for land ownership, subject to all the drama, confusion, bickering, and "gaming" aspects. There is no choice.

The new group structure will be completely different in concept: you (the resident) pick the group structure that reflects best the way you think groups should be run. Since SL is becoming more average in thought (ie. more moderate and liberal thinking) due to its growth (radicals and fundamentalists are becoming a smaller part of SL), I would seriously bet that the "average" group will go towards a moderate internal power structure — since they will have now the tools to do so.

Having the choice to join a dictatorial group ("you have no way to remove the One And Truly Superior Leader, who does with the land what he/she sees fit" or a moderate one ("this is a company, you're the shareholders; if you don't like what the Board is suggesting, vote them out; land belongs to the Company as long as all shareholders agree on keeping their land there", I would say that 90% of the current SL population would pick the second style of groups, and those will be in the majority of the upcoming "zoning communities".

I completely disagree that SL will become "more dictatorial" that way. Remember, even if new sims are rolled out with "zone covenants" that promote dictatorships, who will even think of buying land there? After severe financial loss by the ones trying to set up their tiny, narrow-minded empires which will never "fill up" with enough customers, do you seriously believe that this model will be predominant in SL? I hardly expect that to happen. Also remember that First Land will have no covenants, so even the newbies will happily stay there (and eventually start to create their own covenants on the First Land sims) instead of joining a "dictatorship zone".

Money talks, Traxx. And people, having a choice, will pay to stay in places where their investment is safe from petty dictators. The dictators' life will be extremely short-lived.

Thanks for posting both the full-text meeting and commentary. I hastily skimmed the former, and was reminded of the value of "virtual" meetings conducted in forums instead of "real time."

Gwen, one comment on your description of a company-style format with shareholders. In a normal shareholder-owned business (even a non-profit), decisions need not be unanimous. Sometimes a minority feels a majority decision is unacceptable, even though it is effectively the new "law" of the organization.

With stocks or land, one can escape by selling for what the market will bear, but there is never a guarantee that you will get your investment out. That may be a shock to those who expect some guarantee that their speculation in land won't be a losing proposition (witness the uproar over TP land).

The consequences of bad management may fall upon the people more than the manager or the majority. That's life, first or second. There are many historical examples of a majority decision causing horrible loss for a minority. In most cases, they simply had to bear the loss themselves without compensation.

I'm hoping that the new 'Covenant' option will be flexable enough to include dictators, providing that's a choice up front.

I'm still a little unclear on the implementation - whether it will be possible to enact a covenant on a parcel level (where one has not yet been enacted), or only on a whole-sim level.

My hope is the former, and if so, I would most definately go the dictator route.

There are so many benefits I could enjoy if I could group the land at the Shelter: the ability to delegate returning objects, using the security tools, the 10% land bonus for grouping land, etc.

However, the issue (for me) with grouping land today, is that once you group a parcel of land, you are no longer the owner of that land. If you are only grouping for the purposes of delegation of duties, the idea of a dictatorship makes perfect sense to me.

Grouping land today means running the risk of a Rogue officer selling the land independantly without the consent of the founder or other officers. In the interest of keeping the Shelter around indefinately, thats a risk I'm unwilling to take.

Creating a "Dictatorship" group type on a parcel level where officers had full tool authority, but only the founder had land sales authority could potentially neutralize this risk.

We really need more than one type of group. Not every group needs to be communal or democratic--some should be corporate, others propriatary.

Be careful with your wording, Travis. Some residents might react allergic to that choice of words ("dictator" ).

Besides that little issue: I hope that the new tools will be as flexible as possible. If, for example, it would be possible to delegate the executive powers to a group of people (by a voting process) you could easily implement a complete demoracy or a strict dictatorship and anything in between. And it would be very important that there would be many flexible options for this (and every other) voting process:

1. Majority vote with a fixed threshold
   
2. Unanimous vote
   
3. Weighted votings

It shpould be possible to define the quorum for a vote as

1. All group members
   
2. All group members voting this time
   
3. All officers
   
4. All officers voting this time
   
5. All group members who deeded some land
   
6. ...

Votes should be able to be weighted by

1. One resident one vote
   
2. Land deeded
   
3. Other way to define a "share"

If such a flexible system would be implemented, you could model nearly every form of First Life "group" from a simple club to a corporation with just one simple model by combining the options. Let's hope, we will get this flexibility. (And if even multistage votings would be implemented, one could even model "checks-and-balances" types of organisations. )

BTW: I expect this to happen on a "parcel level" as it will probably tied to land ownership. And as long as groups can own parcels and not only full sims, its would make not much sense to limit this new form of group to just "estate" ownership.

Travis, you're probably a good example of a well-intentioned person who would use the combination of dictatorship group structure plus covenant to protect your land from theft by rogue officers. I'm speculating that you would choose that combination even if LL offered a choice of group structures including some of the power-sharing ones mentioned in this thread. It's quite likely that most people in SL would make that same choice for a group with control over land.

Probable outcome: even if LL offers residents a choice of power-sharing type group structures as well as the dictatorship model, residents who found land groups wil overwhelmingly choose dictatorship.

This tendancy would make the dictatorship plus covenant choice common and unremarkable. No need for group founders to offer power sharing structures to entice others to join as members when dictatorship is just the way 'everybody' does it.

So if some powerhungry newcomer with deep pockets and a desire to exercise authority over the rest of us enters SL, there will be nothing remarkable about this individual's choice of dictatorship plus covenant for his/her land groups. Then this newcomer starts gaming the system.

Right now some landowners game the dwell/DI/popularity list system by spending their own money to buy visitor hours using money balls and camping chairs. I've seen the numbers, and it's clear that these owners are losing money every day they're in operation, just as main grid rental operators lose money. Perhaps these people are paying out of their own pockets for the entertainment value or satisfaction of running their SL enterprises. My worst-case scenario involves some newcomer whose preferred form of entertainment is exercising authority over the rest of us. One hypothetical example might be a rich RL politician who becomes disabled, and turns to SL to further his/her ambitions. (I do NOT have any specific individual in mind). This person has no compunction about paying supporters to build up his/her empire and no compunction about using intimidation, pressure and the other political operator's tools to spread that empire.

My own feeling, based on my own bias toward individual rights, freedoms and responsibilities toward other individuals, is that the choice of dictatorship and land covenant is a bad idea. LL cannot regulate the behavior of those who might use that choice to game the system, and set up a de facto SL-wide government.

Travis, we need more thoughts and suggestions here so we end up with a system that facilitates your vision, but rules out that worst-case scenario.

But wouldn't becoming a subject of such a group dictator be a voluntary act? An act which - contrary to most forms of dictatorship in First Life - I can easily reverse at any time?

And as soon as someone else would enter the market with a model where the same services or products (or land) are offered with an non-dictatoric group, all the freedom loving people should flock to this alternative business - which would leave the "dictator" at a great disadvantage, businesswise.

No offense intended, but this fear seems a bit exaggerated. As long as people have a free choice I don't see such a great risk of becoming willing subjects of a dictator. And if the do - well, there is a saying be the famous nineteenth-century French diplomat Talleyrand: "Every people has the government that it deserves" ...

The concern over a 'non-benevolent dictatiorship' emerging in SL is noted. But I'm still somewhat hung-up on Pham's comment: "wouldn't becoming a subject of such a group dictator be a voluntary act?"

If I'm understanding your position correctly, the concern is that if this system became pervasive, its possible folks could become a subject of such a group out of ignorance. If that's your stance, I completely see your point.

But I think there's a technological solution to that ignorance: Assuming the folks at risk would be those purchasing land under covenant, or those donating tier to a covenant group - popup a warning dialog before purchase/tier donation that explicitly states the benifits and pitfalls of joining such a group.

Much like the dialog box that was added to prevent folks from accidentally selling their land for $0, but a bit more wordy.

Thoughts?

You bet. I don't feel personally threatened by the worst-case scenario outlined in that previous post. After all, nobody can hold a gun to our heads, and force us to join their group. Even if SL becomes hopelessly politicized, nobody can force us to stay. This is just a discussion about potential policy changes affecting governance in SL. I'm interested in a policy that facilitates the aims of the good guys, while ruling out that worst-case scenario.



My premise is that the perceived advantages of the dictatorship plus covenant choice for the founder of a land group would make that choice pervasive. If a large percentage of the land for sale in SL is offered under the dictatorship plus covenant model there is little incentive for a new entrepreneur to give up some measure of control in order to offer a shared-power plus covenant choice to residents looking to buy land, and become part of a zoned community. After all, 'everybody else is doing it'....



I'm a big fan of technical solutions like that. : ) For this one to work well in practice the would-be land purchaser needs a choice. If nearly all the land for sale is being offered with the dictatorship plus covenant model, the potential purchaser may simply buy a lot that looks attractive, and hope that the group thing works out. Much as people buy main grid land these days, hoping to get good neighbors.

Hrm...

Another thing I may be misunderstanding...

In making the assumption that I'd potentially group my land under the 'dictatorship with covenant' model, I'm assuming I could delegate officers that had full control over the object return and ban tools, and I would enjoy the 10% group bonus.

Additionally, folks could donate tier to the group if they chose to support us, but this wouldn't give them any special privlideges unless specifically granted by making them an officer - and even then, only the founder would have the ability to put the land up for sale.

Here's where I may be confused...

Say we decided to relocate the Shelter at a later date to another sim. That of course, would involve me placing the current land (which I have under a dictator covenant) up for sale.

I'm assuming that when I put the land up for sale, the covenant would be wiped, as all land owned by the group is being put up for sale. By 'Wiped', I mean that the next buyer for the land would not be locked into whatever group choices I may have made. They could either puchase the land as an individual, or buy it for a group and create their own new covenant of any type they deemed appropriate.

If that's the case - I'm still missing how it would become pervasive. Someone like me wouldn't be leasing land to others; the group is intendined to be more of an organization or foundation rather than a micro-government, and where a 'dictatorship' (sorry for the term) would be most useful.

Under a residential association, where the group never really divests itself of its land holdings, and new members/officers frequently switch in & out - I'd think a dictatorship would be a gigantic red flag. I'd even go so far as to say that it would be a reason not to lease land owned by that group, making the concept of dictatorship for residential use a detractor. I couldn't imagine purchasing land that's intended to be my home, and then turning that land over to a group in which I had no rights or voting control.

Just trying to work this all out in my head here

General Bethlehem: "Do you know what system of government we have here, son? It's a Feudal system. Like the Middle Ages. With lords and vassals."

from 'The Postman' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119925/)

Yup, I'm not sure how you envisioned using the covenant, Travis.

My understanding was that it's a zoning tool. That may be why Gwyn mentioned it in the Blumfield residents thread initially. The covenant sounds like a way for neighbors to be able to take action if one member turns out to be a sign griefer. (Of course this opens other questions. Could the group actually take your land away if they disliked your build? Would you be compensated?) But the FL idea of a covenant on land for something like a utility right of way transfers the restriction to the new owner when the land is sold. This doesn't seem useful to you, although you've outlined a group structure that does sound useful for many residents who aren't land developers, but do run an enterprise.

I think experiments along these lines are a good idea, but when you try to figure out how the idea will work in practice, that founder-as-dictator scenario does come to mind. If I understand your counterexample, you feel that land offered for sale under the dictatorship plus covenant model would raise a red flag, turning away potential buyers. That's a reasonable prediction.

If we rewind the clock, I could be listening to somebody else making a reasonable prediction that Anshe would end up renting fewer sims than her competitors, because her extra charge to obtain a deed would act as a red flag, driving potential customers to rent from one of her competitors who does not require that extra charge. Well, that's not what happened in practice. Maybe her terraforming has more appeal? Who knows? This isn't Anshe-bashing of course; it's just an argument for not placing too much faith in our predictions. : )

While I understand your concerns and think its sensible to play out the different options - which we don't know about yet - in our minds to anticipate the consequences, I fail to see the point in the Anshe/Dreamland argument, Traxx.

This example just shows that people are comparing. They pay the upfront charge to Anshe even when some others are not asking for it. Yes, I think that has got to do some with her excellent terraforming abilities and the support structure she has created on Dreamland. I am all for even more differentiation in such offerings and would love it if land developers had more options available to differantiate pricewise without setting up their own billing systems (see A Modest Proposal for the Future of SL Land Development ).

But thats not a point pro or contra executive rights for select groupmembers (or against freedom to decide). Currently all land barons selling/renting parcels on private sims have the same rights with regard to the land on their sims. So there is nothing for the residents to decide between - in this regard.

I am concerned that LL may take the short cut approach of adding a covenant model to the existing group structure, which would enable the kind of dictatorial situation Traxx described.

Another issue will be the apparent intention of LL to move to more of a wholesale approach to sales of new maingrid sims they create. This would mean fewer initial buyers, who would have more of an interest and ability to attach restrictive covenants to most if not all of the land that becomes available for resale.

The kind of secondary sale market will also be important. If you can just take your land and leave the group, or force a sale process that leaves you whole, that will reduce the potential misuse of covenants. OTOH, if the group has powers that could work to the financial benefit of the group at the expense of one individual, there would inevitably be some groups where that would be abused.

Robin has stated explicitely that single-sim auctions will continue.

For this fear to come true, we would need a kind of cartel of land sellers to be functional. This cartel would have to make an agreement that all land developers never "sell" land but only allow residents to join there "dictatorial" groups. Forgive me, but this sounds like an absurd assumption to me.

As soon as there is one land developer who sells land without any strings attached, all the freedom lovers would flock too this business.

The new set of functions that the OP (and Gwyneth in the transcript) was talking about is one that works with group owned land. With group owned land there is no "your land", that you can take and leave the group. If you deed some sqm to a group, that is like having a share in a company. You can't say "OK, I leave" and take some machinery or furniture of that company. And that is a good thing because it would open up to many opportunities for blackmail.

Pham, note that the concept of "group ownership" may change with the new group tools — we still don't know if it's the case. Sometimes, it looks like Ferren is partially right in the sense that individual plots will be owned, but the covenant applies to all (thus the need to "empower" one of the members in order to, say, return prims). Other times, it looks that group owned land will work precisely how it works now, but group officers (or whatever they are going to be called) will have more or less powers as defined in the covenant.

Both situations may, in fact, be present at the same time — ie. existing "commons land", used by the group, and individual plots, tied to the group but not group-owned. How exactly this will be implemented is far from clear.

Thanks, Gwyn. Thats true. You got a point here - or better: Ferren has one. Apollogies!

I still would like to point out, that a group where all users can put in or take out land with their changing day to day moods might not lead to a very stable grouping. Having holes suddenly appear in the middle of a region that is used for a group project offers just too many opportunities for blackmail and griefing.

As usual, I would think its best, if both options will be available. Mixing and matching different options for different aspects of group and land managements will lead to a pleasant diversity of groups - with an evolutionary process weeding out those models not "fit for survival".

BTW: Forgive me, but I just now took the time to follow the link in your footer to your own blog. (I should have switched on footer display earlier.) Excellent stuff! Kudos.