Why we don't need a bill of rights

1. The agreements every resident of SL has entered into with LL seem to work.

2. We're already afforded an exhaustive level of freedom.

3. It's not my world, I don't own anything in it, and my human needs are not affected by it.

1. Using whose yardstick?

2. Freedom is not afforded. Freedom is inalienable.

3. One could make the same argument about First Life I suppose.

Would you please give an example of what freedom SL is holding back from you? It would make my day if someone would just give me a simple example instead of saying how resticted we are.

And whos yardstick? Things that fall under common sense. Things you wouldn't {well, shouldn't} do in real life.

You know, Lenin worried himself to death over the inability of the peasants to recognize what seemed to be in their own best interests. He often remarked that their ignorance was defined by their arrogant pride in their own point of view, and their deliberate isolation from the larger issues of the world. It seemed, he said, as though they deliberately caused their own suffering, time and again, and took a perverse delight in it. And in doing so, he said, they dragged everybody down with them - all of society.

Trotsky said, paraphrasing, "Don't worry about it, V.I., it'll all work out in the end. They'll come around. I have faith in the popular genius of the masses." And tried to demonstrate his faith by having soldiers elect their own officers in the Red Army. That practise lasted for a couple of months....

And Stalin simply had the peasants shot. By the millions. Problem solved... until the Germans invaded in 1941 and he suddenly needed lots of live bodies to throw in front of Panzer tanks.

There's no good reason to have rights and privileges in Second Life. None at all. You should reject the notion completely, and take pride in your solution to the issue.

Unless - in principle - you believe that others should never have rights or privileges over you, for any reason, in any circumstance. And unless you would always question the necessity of throwing yourself in front of a Panzer tank - for a guy like Uncle Joe Stalin. In principle, of course.

But then, SL's just a game, right? And arguments over principle are a Linden$ a dozen.

My reply to this point has nothing to do with my post, but freedom is hardly inaliable.

Only in the views of a few progressive Western governments. Much of the world has always been - and still is - not free.

That said, you have the inalienable right to cancel your subscription.

oh christ here we go.

1. They obviously aren't or we wouldn't constantly be asking for rights.
2. see "yardstick argument"
3. a major selling point of SL is that you DO own things in that world. According to Maslow's heirarchy of needs, above the financial considerations that SL provides to many people, the emotional attachments are actually more important.

I envy your abilities to:

1. Define "works for me" as "works".

2. Decide how much freedom everyone should have.

3. Divorce any human needs from SL.

I think you might be a bot.

This is almost as funny as ducks and whales.

Oh dear god you are pissing off the Tren greatly. Can you give a gosh darn example of something in SL you want to do to, but can't do to restricted freedom?

not without making you read a 41 page thread

This would be extraordinary helpful. Any demand for "freedom" is going to arouse support. You could be omniscient and omnipotent and still hunger for freedom!

But if somebody could cite a concrete example of a freedom they hope an SL Bill of Rights will give them that they do not have now, that would really put in perspective the importance of this issue.

I had a dream, I saw a server rack with a slime drone symbol on it. It was designated the WildGrid... this is by the time LL opens up, and says, "Well aye, you wanna set up your own servers..."

So the WildGrid was separate but connected to what we know as the Main Grid, and yes, they have a bill of rights, and don't follow the same Community Standards since the whole setup isn't Linden overseen... only the base technology and encapsulating elements wrap things so they can be adjoined. Much like an extension of Jessie, there are signs to warn, some goodies at the front gate to get acquainted, and so on and soforth.

Someone from that grid was checking the future SL Forums and came across this thread.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what if a Bill of Rights was established now to guarantee that the freedoms we already have will continue on into the future?

The existence of idealists and complainers doesn't serve as proof of anything except the existence of idealists and complainers.

A victim of collision on the open sea
Nobody ever said that life was free
Sank, swam, go down with the ship
But use your freedom of choice

I’ll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Your freedom of choice

In ancient rome there was a poem
About a dog who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice!

Then if you got it you don’t want it
Seems to be the rule of thumb
Don’t be tricked by what you see
You got two ways to go

I’ll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice!

In ancient rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want

The freedoms we have now are protected by the fact that they are largely good for business and as long as that holds true, the freedoms will be protected by default. You don't need a Bill of Rights to prevent Philip from knowingly making a profit-cutting decision.

If, however, conditions change and it becomes clear that one or more of our freedoms becomes detrimental to Linden Lab's profits they will have to make an analysis, and choose the lesser of two evils. Will they lose more from allowing a particular freedom, or from the exodus created by removing that freedom? Once again our freedoms are protected as long as they remain profitable.

But what if the final analysis is that a certain freedom turns out to be harmful to Linden Lab's profits? If Philip, employees, and investors are to take a hit on profits over a certain policy, they need to be told why. I can't think of any other example where customers exert more power than their buying power over a privately owned company (barring actual legal limitations).

So the answer to your question is, I wouldn't want a Bill of Rights to protect my current freedoms. Instead, I want Linden Lab to do what it must do to ensure a prosperous future. I cannot see where I have the right to demand or where they have the obligation to do anything less.

The freedoms we have now are protected by the fact that they are largely good for business and as long as that holds true, the freedoms will be protected by default. You don't need a Bill of Rights to prevent Philip from knowingly making a profit-cutting decision.

If, however, conditions change and it becomes clear that one or more of our freedoms becomes detrimental to Linden Lab's profits they will have to make an analysis, and choose the lesser of two evils. Will they lose more from allowing a particular freedom, or from the exodus created by removing that freedom? Once again our freedoms are protected as long as they remain profitable.

But what if the final analysis is that a certain freedom turns out to be harmful to Linden Lab's profits? If Philip, employees, and investors are to take a hit on profits over a certain policy, they need to be told why. I can't think of any other example where customers exert more power than their buying power over a privately owned company (barring actual legal limitations).

So the answer to your question is, I wouldn't want a Bill of Rights to protect my current freedoms. Instead, I want Linden Lab to do what it must do to ensure a prosperous future.

The freedoms we have now are protected by the fact that they are largely good for business and as long as that holds true, the freedoms will be protected by default. You don't need a Bill of Rights to prevent Philip from knowingly making a profit-cutting decision.

If, however, conditions change and it becomes clear that one or more of our freedoms becomes detrimental to Linden Lab's profits they will have to make an analysis, and choose the lesser of two evils. Will they lose more from allowing a particular freedom, or from the exodus created by removing that freedom? Once again our freedoms are protected as long as they remain profitable.

But what if the final analysis is that a certain freedom turns out to be harmful to Linden Lab's profits? If Philip, employees, and investors are to take a hit on profits over a certain policy, they need to be told why. I can't think of any other example where customers exert more power than their buying power over a privately owned company (barring actual legal limitations).

So the answer to your question is, I wouldn't want a Bill of Rights to protect my current freedoms. Instead, I want Linden Lab to do what it must do to ensure a prosperous future. I cannot see where I have the right to demand or where they have the obligation to do anything less.

yesh!

Of course this is all hypothetical and highly improbably.

We don't even have a concrete definition of what rights we're talking about here.

A large platform of my argument is that there are no rights. There are Terms, Conditions, Clauses, and Standards.

You are not privelaged to be in SL. You pay for access to it.

You are hardly a citizen. You're a participant.

That's how I see it.

Whereas I wish them to ensure a preposterous future!

I hadn't considered that it would be an either/or proposition. I would expect a proper Bill of Rights to take LL's well-being into consideration.

I also would like to know what rights I do not have that a Bill Of Rights would give me. I can build whatever I want and make friends, thats what I signed up for and thats what I have.

I cant think of one time a Linden ever made me feel restricted.

We don't need another heeeeero.

Thank you.

*busts a move*