Catch this bomb!

We're being far too pleasant to each other in this forum, and that's a dangerous state of political affairs. So let me light the fuze on this little round black bomb I have and toss it at you.

Responding to Billy Grace's thread in the "Hotline" forum on world government, Robin Linden wrote the following -

Originally Posted by Robin Linden:
A much more likely scenario will be for Linden Lab to build the tools that people need to formalize agreements, settle disputes with mediation, and present ideas for consideration by the community and by LL. In that way we hope organization will emerge from within the community, but not in an exclusive way.

I decided to respond to Billy's thread in the only way one can in Hotline forum, by posting another thread. Here it is, along with Philip Linden's response. (I quoted Robin's response above at the beginning of my post.)

Posted by Seth Kanahoe:
I'm curious to know whether these tools will allow large groups or the total community to form a consensus and act on "administering" the SL economy in a global sense. Regulating inflation, controlling currency exchange, regulating the distribution of investment capital, seeding underdeveloped regions or commercial sectors, are examples - all of the things that, for example, the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and other "tool-like" RL organizations do today under the Bretton Woods accords. Two other alternatives would be to leave the SL economy as largely an open, "laissez faire" arrangement, over which the community has little means of exercising collective control; or to have the Lindens control key elements of the economy, thus directing and regulating it.

This is a serious question, by the way. Robin's original answer to Billy Grace largely settled matters of representative politics, but I think a far more important question has to do with organized player influence over the "global economy". That's where RL paradigms may have more relevance to SL.

Response posted by Philip Linden:
Seems like the economy should be treated no different than other issues of global community - so I think Robin's words apply here as well. We'd love feedback from everyone on different ways of managing the global economy. As with other things, we generally start with the assertion that less central control is better, and then minimally implement what seems absolutely necessary.

Fair enough, although I think the economy is the foundation of SL and the measure of its survival, and therefore a better case can be made for collective efforts to maximize order and prosperity.

So - is the global economy an area where the "Don't Tread on Me" crowd and the govy-wonkies can establish a common interest and a successful dialogue?

Or...not....?

Excellent question. The answer is "yes".

~Ulrika~

Absolutely not. The World Bank does objective harm to any number of developing countries. I could not possibly turn over to know-it-alls in SL those functions like setting currency rates or "seeding capital" -- anymore than I'm going to let them tell me what I can do or not do on my own land in my own sim.

It's a good thing only Ben and Xenon Linden can build the dams in SL...and not as many of them as the World Bank et. al. who have inflicted considerabel environmental and cultural damage with such Soviet-style gigantist projects.

It's a horror that leaves one breathless, all those "international institutions" that are so flawed, that do not even adhere to the very human rights documents that those same institutions produce, are to be governing our world and our globe, in a manner that will always be more clumsy and more oppressive or less effective than local and national governance which has accountability to people as its centerpiece.

Well, truthfully (he said, with an impish grin) I knew that referring to the World Bank, IMF, and the WTO would create a little heat. But, eliminating well-known international institutions from the equation, and assuming it were possible to build a fairly competent-looking system of global economic direction, what do y'all think about the above three alternatives? Are there others?

Tick, tick, tick, tick, BOOM!
Boom shake shake shake the room!
Boom shake shake shake the room!
Boom shake shake shake the room!
Tick, tick, tick, tick BOOM!

I'd need to know about the personal and sim-wide *consequences* of going in any one of these directions before I'd sign up for having any one of them prevail.

Why the hell do you people have such an urge to CONTROL what others are doing?

Player-based bodies should not have control over the actions of non-consenting players.

Why is that so hard to understand?

-Ghoti

You are way overreacting, considering that you have no idea what I, for one, think about political or economic issues in SL. This was posed as an intellectual debate, so that people could explore ideas and positions together. If you've taken it as an indication of a conspiracy or of personal messianic problems on the part of people who like to talk about both sides of interesting issues, you're mistaken.

Considering your second sentence above, let's try this: "Players of one opinion should not have control over the discussion of non-consenting players."

Fair enough?

Because (1) you are being rude; (2) you are not paying attention; and (3) you are not being consistent.

Let's start with (1): This doesn't really qualify as civil discussion.

(2): (emphasis mine)

(3):

Anyway, it's happening now, and you're not complaining. The (relatively small group of) people who care are voting on feature implementation priority. They are determining what features you will have, and when; and without your consent.

How is this any different from voting on when new land will be released, and how much?

I stumbled across your post in the hotline the other day before Philip had replied and my initial reaction was "is he out of his friggin mind?!" Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give me some examples of how organized player bodies could affect the economy in beneficial ways and what those would be? I really can't think of any, but perhaps I'm shortsighted. To me this would be like turning Alan Greenspans job over to middle americans voting on fiscal policies with their cable remotes while watching american idol. Tell me what I'm missing.

I was thinking the exact same thing but couldn't muster the energy last night to craft a real response. I too am curious about mechanisms that organized groups of players could use to affect the global economy.

What say you, Seth? Is this question even worth answering if it's impossible for groups to affect a federal monetary system?

~Ulrika~

You're not missing anything. You've got it. That's one alternative. Am I advocating it? No. Am I asking questions, trying to think outside the box? Well, sure, why not? Life is boring, asking about the teen grid over and over, right? Problem with these forums is, someone makes a point and a lot of people think, "ah-ha, what's he advocating?" I think I'm thinking.

Examples? Well, you gave one yourself. So did I - the RL global model first structured by Bretton Woods that I mentioned in my Hotline post. And I gave two other examples, besides: laissez faire, and Linden control.

But here's another, very different one. I've been told there's a lot of inworld talent here. So, an economic council, partly appointed by the Lindens, partly nominated and elected by the residents, the responsibilities of which are to set long-term economic goals, and recommend Linden and resident reactions to short-term economic issues. Call it the Federal Commerce Council, which should go nicely with Philip's "federal" concept.

Don't like that one? Structure the council any way you want. Or, go off in a completely different direction - how about an extraordinary convention of "groups" in SL, including Lindens, with the idea of structuring accords on contracts, inflation control, land release, and other issues. What would the accords lead to? Exactly with Robin and Philip called for: tools, organization, channels of communication, non-exclusivity, etc.

To say that groups in RL cannot affect American monetary policy, and then make an unspoken inference to a similar situation in SL doesn't fly with me. I'm not convinced that RL comparisons to SL are as valuable as many people seem to think. If anyone thinks otherwise, explain why.

Ultimately what I saying is this: limiting our discussion to politics and representative government does SL a disservice.

You're right. Excuse me for making assumptions about your motives.



Were you looking for an honest opinion, or looking for a 'too pleasant' reply?

You then go on and say:


Sounds to me like you were seeking exactly the type of reaction you got. Next time you are seeking intellectual debate perhaps it should be framed more carefully to avoid flames?



1) Correct
2) Incorrect
3) Incorrect


1) You're correct, that is not an example of civil discourse. Its the result of how talk of a global, player-based group for economic control/steering makes a "Don't tread on me" person feel.


I think your reading of that is different from mine. I read that and see, yes, the Lindens are saying 'not in an exclusive way'. Then I see:


Which to me reads, "Okay, the Linden's have put the kabosh on player-run government, lets see if we can sneak player-lead governance into SL through the economic door instead of the political door." Your own politics on the matter aside, since I am not assuming this position is yours.

I'd say I'm paying attention. To me it's plain as day what is being hinted at.



Wrong, what is going on with the current features voting is direct democratic participation in the Linden 'federal government'. It has nothing to do with player-run governance. I cast my votes just as the next person cast their votes. There is no player or group of players sitting at the head of that list picking and choosing policies to impliment. I think this form of player participation is excellent, and exactly what is needed. Each player is given a voice, if they choose to use it. The relatively small group of voters is the result of people not caring to educate themselves about the opportunities presented, or not understanding the opportunity the voting presents. I am not aware in what ways, beyond the forums, the Lindens may have used to try to get out the word on the voting system.



Is the decision and implimentation of the new land being prompted by voting that is open to all residents, or is the decision and implimentation placed in the hands of a player-based governance group? To me, its a big difference.

-Ghoti

But doesn't:
(which framed the discussion) sound more like "direct democratic participation" than "player-run governance"? I don't see any sneakiness here; and, if none was intended, then your question "Why is that so hard to understand?" seems to come out of left field.

Linden Labs has always talked about direct "electronic" democracy when discussing player participation in the governance of Second Life; and have always said that they would not make representative democracy mandatory. I welcome a discussion, in that context, of how we all might participate more actively in the SL economy.

Put that way, indeed. I jumped at shadows. I'm rolling on the dirty floor, wrestling with the bikers when I'm really here to see the poet. For being rude, I apologize.

As for the framing of the thread... I think if you reread it you will see plenty of memes there which baited a response. Next time I won't take the bait.

Direct democracy without intermediary players = Yay!
Player-run world trade monitory funds = Boo!

-Ghoti

Thanks for clarifying Seth. I have to say that I think this would be an extremely bad idea for a couple of reasons... we don't have access to the data that LL has so we can't see the big picture and would be unable as individuals to make truly informed choices. Also, since we are all participants in the economy, none of us can be objective about it. We would all vote for things in terms of self-interest rather than common good. I think LL has the right idea in hiring a full time economist (ala Greenspan) to watch over the economy and make adjustments such as rate of land release and adjusting money sinks. When major changes are made it should be opened up for public discussion or at least we should be given advance notice so that people can plan accordingly, but beyond that I think these kinds of decisions should be kept away from direct community influence.

Direct democracy? It's mob rule. I'd choose oligarchy, autocracy, and anarchy before I chose a pure democracy.

~Ulrika~

Sorry, Ghoti. You're reading a lot more into my posts than I do. Perhaps you're telling us more about yourself than we really need to know? Bar room brawls and poets? Apologies that aren't really apologies? Smells like a cloud of "pheromemes".

I stand on my original point. Assume nothing about people's motives, unless you know something about them. Express an opinion, and hopefully tell us why. Refrain from the ad hominem attacks, or blow.

No memes there. A simple, declarative statement.

I appreciate the tone and content of your response, Chip. And you make good points. But you're arguing that the community isn't informed, objective, and intelligent enough to make rational choices about economic directions. I think you might be right, and further I might argue the same holds true for representative government, or even in social relationships. Such arguments comprise a real criticism of classical liberalism and the present RL liberal capitalist paradigm in which LL and SL "swims" - that people are basically good, rational, and capable of self-rule, politically, socially, and economically. So we are saying that what most of us would not endure in RL, we will happily accept in SL.

In other words, in SL really is medieval town with a craft economy: the gods actually do benevolently watch over us, and we are not left to our own democratic and capitalist devices in a cruel and chaotic world. No agenda here; I think that's very interesting.

Seth, while an articulated and obviously well thought out post.
I do have a question of curiosity.

After all of the debates and alluding to why a government being run by players was not only detrimental.
But, also inconsistent to Linden Labs future goals of Second Life,
Why would you attempt to toy with the idea that those same individuals, that could not govern Second Life as a whole, would benefit our economy and be able to run it?

Just as a point of reminder to some of the reasons that lead to the decision that a player run government is not feasible.

1. Positions of power would inevitably be garnered through gaming.
2. Creativity lost due to implementing policy based on self-servitude.
3. Redundant positions of communication developed that we currently enjoy as individuals.

Many more can be listed but those are just some that kind of cap the Idea.

Shadow

Clearly.



No, I don't think so. I'm not telling you anything about myself other than the fact that I read the forums. The 'poet' and 'rolling on the floor getting dirty' lines are in reference to this poignant thread. I suggest reading it. It's insight is well worth the read.



My apology for being rude was genuine.




Yep, happens all the time. As I mentioned, it looks to me like the original post was full of pheromemes intended rile-up the "Don't Tread On Me" crowd.



I already apologized for making assumptions. Now, if you want to ignore or discount my statements, then fine, do so. You are the one that loaded the original message intending to draw fire:



So don't try to now say that you did not load the original post. You said it yourself.





Memes are inescapable.

-Ghoti

Ummmm Seth... you're starting to sound an awful lot like you're trolling here and trying to solicite answers you can twist into some sort of "gotcha!" You still haven't answered the question of what you have in mind... in what ways could community input aid the health and stability of the economy? LL should have only two concerns when it comes to economic matters... keeping the price of land fairly stable (because failure to do so has a big impact on their bottom line. If land is too expensive then new players are less likely to tier up and start paying monthly fees), and trying to curb inflation by making sure the rate at which new money is printed isn't too far above the rate at which it's leaving the system through auctions, uploads, directory fees, and other sinks. The need for that is a given since this is a real money economy, not a play money economy. Those are the only things LL needs to concern themselves with. As far as goods go, that already is completely in our hands. It's up to each person to determine the sweet spot for pricing their goods and services. Please be more specific about exactly what you're proposing, sans hyperbole.

On the contrary.

It's sad when you find places where intelligent people can interact, and yet the tone is so tense and divided that any statement - any statement at all - is subject to criticism that reflects on personality and cohort, rather than on substance and tolerance. I said this, therefore I must be supporting them.

Those who steer the middle courses, who are genuinely interested in new ideas they might not have thought of, friendly exchanges, and even productive debates, are driven off. Why? Because they do not fit on either side of the fault lines.

I'm reminded of Yeat's poem (sorry, Ghoti!), "The Second Coming", excerpted:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

For the record:

(1) I do not troll. Ever. Unfortunately, in these forums, there is confusion among some people about what constitutes trolling, what constitutes wry and self-deprecating humor, and what constitutes genuine setting-up-the-parameters for a good discussion. My original remark on "impishness" was a recognition of the hypersensitivity of the topic. I wanted to lower the possible temperature of responses by being self-deprecating about my possible motives. Usually it works. Here? *sigh....

(2) As difficult as it may be for some to believe, I don't have an agenda, and I don't have anything "in mind." Chip's comments crystalized an entirely different frame of mind for me. I've started to look at SL less as a modern economy based on modern networking and contractual relationships, and more as a "frontier economy". Chip's comments made me wonder whether instead of a frontier dynamic, we might be speaking of a medieval craft economy in a "small market town" setting. LL might serve the same role in such an environment as "God" did in a medieval market town - not literally, but figuratively - to keep things safe and ordered, a touchstone of permanence, perhaps. Which explains both how the SL economy behaves, how social hierachy in SL is structured (the Prokofian "techi-wiki", why so many oppose self-governance or economic control in SL, and what the Linden function is. And, as I said -- no memes, no agendas, no hyperbole, no trolling attached -- that's really interesting to me.

(3) So, Chip, to answer your question really, honestly, truthfully: I don't know. I wanted to know if anyone had ideas. Which is why I brought the matter of resident involvement in economic controls up in the hotline forum: to find out what the Linden consensus was. You've said: "There's no need." Fine, I respect your reasons. Are there people who believe there is a need? What might they say?

(4) Shadow, I don't know why discussions about SL political culture, or economic culture, as this one is, are detrimental. Perhaps I do have an agenda after all, and if so, it's this: that dialogue and advocation, especially if ordered by respect for those who may oppose you, cannot be dangerous. Your point about a lack of difference between political governance and economic direction is a good one, and is largely the same as the one I was making in my response to Chip's original post. And yet, I think that there may be some profound differences between a politically-oriented system of governance and an economically-oriented system of economic direction. All or most might agree, for example, on a general set of objectives, such as collating and distributing information, maximizing the efficiency of ingame tools, controlling inflation, etc. Again, I'm genuinely not sure, so I thought I'd throw the issue out there and see what people think.

If it is dangerous to do that, please tell me why. That's not a hostile question, it's a genuine one. I'm actually puzzled.

Sorry about the length of this post; I try for brevity. But I wanted to make sure I was very clear.

Hmm... missed this thread somehow.

One comment... well, maybe two.

1. If it ain’t broke, don't fix it.
2. It has been made very clear by Robin and Phillip that NO player will have power imposed involuntarily over another and this includes a global bank, trade regulation and any other regulation thingy you can think up. What you do voluntarily however is up to you.

End of discussion!

There, I am so glad I could clear that up for Y'all... hehe

It's not detrimental even though it is curious inquisition.
Discussion is never bad.
However, implimentation of said discussion never aggrigates to what the discussion outlined.
Noted cases in point were goverment elections in several south african countries in the past.
Leaders or factions seeking control of governmental and economic ramifications established false trust in thier supporters and summarly destroyed the economic systems of those countrys after being elected to office.
Although altruisticly the ideas and theorys they had were quite conceivable and well thought out.
Human nature and the greed factor of such took over when actually implimenting those policys.

This is why I asked the question and if it sounded in a sarcastic tone my sincere apologies. However, I was curious to find your train of thinking.
Thank you for being Civil in your reply.

Sincerely, Shadow