A call to LL to publicly take a stance on a Game-wide Player Run Government in SL

I for one am sick of all the drama that surrounds this issue. Bottom line, LL knows that a large number of its citizens will NEVER adhere to a game-wide, player run government and they would loose a ton of customers. They are a business out to make money for their shareholders plain and simple and a game-wide player run government will do the opposite. Sorry for those of you who believe otherwise but it will NEVER happen.

What a small group of SL citizens want to do on their own with their own land and money is irrelevant as long as it affects only those who willingly participate. The day that a small group of people have any power over a game-wide player run government will be the day I close my account as will many many many others.

How about it LL? The reason that this is still being discussed is because you have not come out and taken a stance. Finally put to bed all of this incessant, irrelevant chatter that continues on these forums and openly coming out and saying that a game-wide player run government is not going to happen so we can all put it to rest for good!

I am posting Shadow’s thread below because there is no use in discussing the same ole stuff again here. I agree with practically everything Shadow said. I think that we are all very tired of rehashing this stuff over and over and over again ad-nausea. LL please take a stand so we can give it a rest.

Shadow’s Government Thread.

This thread is also a pretty good compass as to what people think: A Single Line Thread.

At the suggestion of Stone and Paolo I have posted this question in the “Hotline to Linden” Forum. I will post any response here in the event the poster doesn’t do so. Here is the link:

Hotline To Linden Thread.

you might get better results posting to the hotline. i don't think the lindens read this forum.

They are "supposed" to read every forum and this is the logical place to make a public statement. Worth a try at least.

Maybe a hotline cross-post with a link to this thread?

At any rate, I agree that the time is ripe for LL to step in and settle the argument, once and for all. Given that Philip's past statements indicate an eventual game-wide, player-run government, I imagine there will be controversy whether they come out for or against SL-wide governance.

Ok, lt's see if we can get a response. Done: Hotline To Linden Thread.

Hi, we are in fact reading this forum very closely and monitoring these threads. Robin Linden will post a specific response to your question shortly in the 'Hotline to Linden' forum. Thanks!

- Jesse

TY Jesse, we all look forward to hearing Ronin's response. It will be nice to finally settle this once and for all.

As someone who's been around since the inception of this forum both posting and lurking, I should mention there is no one (save one or two transient voices) who are advocating a single game-wide player-run government. I believe we all support the Linden concept of creating a framework with as few restrictions as possible, leaving the creation of content up to the players.

I for one, feel that government is just another form of content. I feel a game-wide government would actually interfere with our opt-in player-run governmental experiments, much in the same way a mandatory dress code could affect the work of clothiers.

With that said, I appreciate Billy starting this thread. It feels like we spend as much time here trying to calm the fears of those, who are afraid that our experimentation will lead to a game-wide player-run government, as we do discussing political science. An official stance would do much to quell fears and reduce resistance to our political-science-oriented content.

~Ulrika~

This is a perfect example of the consistent desire of "Forums" as we're called to simplify everything to a yes no, on off, black white issue.

There are always compromises, there are always options, there are always different levels of government.

For example, we already have player government (they're called groups) who govern for different reasons (vendors, zoning, games, etc). We also have groups of people who decide whether people get banned permanently or not. LL has been doing this for quite awhile.

So, it's a bit late to say we don't want player government, now isn't it?

Now as for "world-wide" government:

Is one person (or even a group of people) going to be telling LL how to run their grid like some kind of dictator?

Now.. really. As much as that thought experiment would amuse me, I don't think anyone here with any amount of sanity expects that to happen.

So why do we need to post these threads? Why do we need to take an idea and boil it down into straw men and impossibilties without considering the various options and compromises that are possible (and, in fact, are already implemented).

Why can't we simply propose a position and our evidence and open up the discussion to rebuttals and then try to moderate our particular world views given the evidence shared by other residents.

Is discourse so impossible here? Do the Linden's really need to make these forums so sluggish that we don't want to post anymore because we simply aren't, as a community, able to communicate with one another?

I am in complete agreement with your post. The players of SL swim in politics and government like fish in the sea. However, I believe that there are a group of people who for whatever reason either cannot or will not understand the rational arguments which state why their fears will not come to pass. Instead, they need to be comforted by an authority figure.

I accept this and actually look forward to their pacification so we can start discussing the shades of grey in peace.

~Ulrika~

I think the fact that they created a government forum clearly shows that they are interested in what player-run governments have to offer.

Besides that, who cares?

governments of all types bring the abuse of power as one of the dangers.

many people care deeply about that danger.

i think it's worth keeping an eye on.

Billy: Once and for all? Only death does that, and not always. SL without debate over government? Not for as long as those who reject government politicize the issue so much.

blaze: We aren't a community. That's why we can't communicate with each other. We are, to use Ulrika's allegory, lots of schools of fish in the sea. There is no commonweal. And government will not create one. It did not in RL; other factors did.

Ulrika: "Swim in politics like fish in the sea"? And, "they need to be comforted with an authority figure"? You've been reading Mao Zedong, haven't you? Is N-burg the Sanctuary in Mao's "six steps to revolutionary success"? When did the Long March begin?

StoneSelf: Buddha on a hill with an enigmatic smile. Such statements could mean a lot. Or they might mean about as much as "Life is a bowl of cherries...."

Absolutely, but I refuse to believe that Linden Labs would really subject anyone who wasn't interested in player-run government to have to abide by player-made laws. The ToS will and always have the last say. I myself am interested in seeing what these people come up with but personally I would not wish to participate.

Therefore, I think it's irrelevant to have LL to come out and say "We think there should be player-run governments" or the opposite. As I said before, they are obviously interested as evidenced by the existence of this certain forum. But I definitely do not think all players will be subject.

Lo, it certainly is not irrelevant because comments in the past by LL have suggested that this indeed IS a real possibility. I for one am sick of reading people argue about this issue that LL has helped create by not squelching.

Wouldn't it be nice if they finally took a strong stance so this issue would kindly go away getting rid of at least a little of the constant drama? I think so. I am not sure why you seem to be afraid of LL doing so. Maybe you could elaborate.

Oh, and blaze, this is a black or white issue. Either they are still considering it in which case we DO need to discuss it or they are not still considering it in which case I see no point whatsoever in ever talking about this again.



This has been done over and over and over and over and over again blaze. Surely even you can see that. What really is the point in this ongoing drivel if they are not still considering it and if they are then it should be something EVERYONE knows about and yes, our opinions should be voiced yet again.

Already is happening.

1. The rating problem
2. the bonus situation
3. The event calandar
4. Hosting events on other peoples land


I will leave it at that.

In my opinion, this has already happened. And this is all I will say on the subject.

This was posted on the "Hotline to Linden" Forum in reference to this issue:



And there you have it!!!

*Watches the bubble burst, the cookie crumble, the dreams go up in flames*

WOO HOOOOO!!! Topic closed, no game-wide player run government, time to move on. TY Robin for helping clear the air surrounding this issue. Sounds great to me,

Volunteer government can do whatever they want with their time and money, it will never have any power over me. WOO HOOOOO!!!

the problem with robin's statement, as in prior iterations, is that it's not unambiguous. the pro-government faction will not see it as a closed door. and the anti-government faction will see it as a closed door. that's just going to continue the polarized disucsion.

a few point on your analysis billy:
- "no respresentative government" != "player run government"
- representatives != bureaucrats, public servents
- "no player should have power over another" is not a context free statement, and robin doesn't clarify the context. there are situations where players have some powers over others (e.g. banning, llteleporthome, objects, etc.) using the word "power" without explaining what one means by it is just obfuscating. the hypothetical nature of "should" hides a world of "real" actuality.
- "present ideas for consideration by the community and by LL" that begs the question of what impact the "consideration by the community" has on sl.

Excellent. This clarification will pacify those who fear a game-wide player run government and permit meaningful discussions on the future of political science in SL. I have to say that this announcement was perfectly timed.

The questions now are

1. as bottom-up growth of opt-in player-run communities with governments begins, what are the tools they will need from LL to facilitate their governance?
   
2. is there something intrinsically bad about for-profit sim owners, who are selling land and acting simultaneously as autocrats and landlords?
   
3. what is the best form of government for opt-in communities in SL?
   
4. Do democratic republics have a chance in SL or will autocracy and oligarchy continue to be the standard form or rule?
   
5. What are those little hats that chef put on the end of turkey legs called?
   

Answers to these and many more coming to the SL In-World Political Science forum near you!

~Ulrika~

I guess that's just about as close to a "thank you" I will ever get from you Ulrika, you are welcome.

I agree with your post, hopefully this is the end of the constant drama that surrounds this stuff. You can carry on with your volunteer govt, which I have no problem with since there officially is no possibility it will ever eventually be imposed upon anyone.

Thanks again Robin.

This is true generally not just with respect to player-run governments but with all forms of player-created content. LL has never imposed a single player's or group's content upon all members of SL simultaneously. Think about how absurd it would be if they forced all of us to wear the same single outfit.

To me their statement is logical and expected. However, for those who were unable to see it or required assurance from an authority figure, I recognize the significance of their statement.

~Ulrika~