I propose this forum be closed.

Ulrika's own poll shows a majority opposition to the creation of this forum. The success to date of Second LIfe without a special forum of this nature demonstrates the absence of a necessity for it. This forum is not needed and not wanted at this level. People wishing to discuss polysci can create a polysci group and discuss it in a polysci group forum with the other special interest groups.

I propose it stays open so I don't have to read about Polysci/Government stuff on the Genral forums.

Arr! I'm mixed on this forum.

a) I'm all against any overarching player-run government, period. I think it's silly and harmful.

b) I'd love to see player-run groups function as a local government. If they want to play congress, let 'em play.

I'm not really sure why a group can't be formed that functions as a small government RIGHT NOW in SL. Is there something that people want that doesn't exist? I think that's one of SL's high points --> being able to get creative and make something new.

If I cared enough about forming a government in-game, I think it's perfectly possible. But I'm too busy scripting to lobby or rule.

If I am paying for something that is suppossed to be relaxing after a hard day at work. the last thing I want is some other players playing "congress" telling me what I can and can't do after I have paid for a game. If this was a free game I might be more open.

I feel differently. First, the topic is popular - as seen by the number of relevant posts on the issue. Second, this is a very controversial issue, and one that has enough nuances and stipulations to warrant consolidating them. Finally, features that aid discussion need not be closed, and I feel this is a help rather than a hinderance.

I say leave it be for now. If it proves to be a problem in the future, then close it. Something like this, this early, is fittingly alarmist, and I don't think a reactive solution is a good call just yet.

Ditto

I'm all for closing the thread.

DONT TREAD ON ME!!!

I think most of the "Yes - close this forum" responses are to put the issue to rest as opposed to address the topic at hand. Lest I remind folks that the point of this forum is to hear both sides of the argument, not to enstate A new government, in any form, into Second Life.

That's the other thing that somewhat erks me about voting systems.

There are plenty of people (it hardly has to be a majority!) who are interested in talking about goverment. If you don't want to read about it, don't click into the forum.

If, on the other hand, what you really want is to discourage discussion of the subject then you're doing exactly the thing that most people seem to be concerned about. Invoking the "majority" to control the minority is the essence of government!

Ditto.

What Juro said ^^^^

there's something ironic about having a poll/vote about closing a polisci group

This is very true.

Even more disturbing is that the individual who started this thread was in the process of creating a group forum for the discussion of government in SL, despite being an opponent of its very discussion and existence. The goal being to prevent legitimizing the topic through its inclusion in the SL forum hierarchy. More insidious is that the discussion would be moderated and controlled by those who opposed its discussion. It reminded me of tactics used to segregate races in the south, where those in power would create and control a second set of subordinate public and government facilities.

For instance, many states expanded their segregation (Jim Crow) laws that originally had been limited primarily to passenger trains and schools. Segregation soon became expanded to residential areas, parks, hospitals, theatres, waiting rooms and bathrooms. Under President Wilson the federal government began to require segregation in government buildings; desks of black employees were curtained off; separate bathrooms and separate tables were provided; and even the galleries of the U.S. Congress were separated.

I believe this kind of behavior is a direct attack on freedom speech and thought. One should fear this type of ignorance above any vague threat of "government". Personally, I feel the creation of this forum is a victory for free speech and intelligent debate and that is always a good thing.

~Ulrika~

Well, Ulrika, you may find that's exactly what LL just did.

I am not really in favor of an online player run government, but I think the debate and the discussions will foster ideas about such things. Thre are issues, like land use planning and even crimes, that affect all of us, that are traditionally fucnctions of government. this is a good forum to debate the way in which our society works. Haveing a forum is not the same as having a government. If you don't want to participate in the government debate, well thats fine, you don't have to. Hell its hard enought to get people to participate in RL government.

so either ll is legitimizing government, or ll is stiffling government.

bwahahahaha...

an unscientific poll isn't very compelling evidence for a lack of support for a government forum.
a poll that an unpopular person like ulrika started is even less compelling.

I believe in freedom of expression. Although I voted that it should be closed, on reflection it should remain, as long as those pro government are not the only posters.

It would be all too easy for them to come to an agreement about resident government and with no anti's posting in the forum, I would be concerned that LL would not be aware of the majority view against and would introduce some form of government based only on the pro government supporters' posts.

Alexa

I prefer the forum remain open for two reasons:

1. Ideas in the forums tend to develop, to evolve, over time. It's simply easier to have all the ideas, pro or con, in a central location for reference and momentum -- as contrasted to a search through various threads filed under various other topic headings.

We should keep in mind that Phil has expressed interest in the concept of player governance. Depending on how that concept might evolve, I would not want objections to a player government strewn and buried within an array of otherworldly topics as they consider the question, presumably using the forums as a measure of resident opinion.

2. In other forums, advocates for government are often shouted down or summarily dismissed with sighs and pass-the-popcorn responses. Its advocates should have opportunity to raise the issue for clean debate, without need to first wade through arguments about raising the issue at all.

I would be delighted if the idea of an SL government meets a good death -- but let it die as a result of arguing the issues in a fair hearing, and not because it wasn't discussed seriously, or taken seriously, elsewhere.

This thread can stay. I will simply exercise my right to ignore it.

Perhaps the other threads will benefit from the lack of pro/con government rhetoric.

yea no shit!

At first I dismissed this thread and those similar to it as the public manifestation of an otherwise private pissing match between SuezanneC and Ulrika. And at first I thought, "If I vote at all in this poll it will probably be to keep it open. Discussion of topics, no matter how controversial, is usually good." But then I started to wonder.

Does SuezanneC have a valid point? Does this forum represent the elevation of a special interest group to an officially sanctioned stratum of SL players?

Ask yourself these questions:

1. Is everyone who plays SL a member of a "self-governed Sim?"

2. Does everyone who plays SL want to be part of one?

3. Are there any overarching issues that self-governed sims face that affect those who do not participate in them, and which do not already have perfectly valid fora?

4. Does this forum serve a community-wide purpose?

I really don't think any of these questions can be truthfully answered in the affirmative. Perhaps #3 is open to some debate -- I've already raised concerns about cohabitation with a multiplicity of "self-governed sims" and maintaining a positive user experience for all players. But this just as well could be a topic of "general conversation."

Note, there are many other special interest groups within SL who, if provided a forum, would be equally hard-pressed to provide affirmative answers to the questions posed above. If the government group gets one, why not the GLBT community? BDSM community? Christian community? Buddhist community? etc. etc. These are all communities in which participation is voluntary, not universal, yet have their own self-contained issues to discuss that are outside the interest of the SL community as a whole. I did a quick search and didn't see calls on their behalf to create fora however; references to GLBT fora, housed in other venues, did appear in that search.

Which leads me to my last overarching point in this post: "Triumph of free speech" this is not. This is a privately owned forum in which you do not have any rights, other than those which Linden Labs deems you may have the privilege of exercising. If you want free speech you can pay a few dollars to host your own forum, or even create one for free. That would be highly appropriate in this instance, I think -- just as it is for the other sub-communities present within SL.

Linden Labs, obviously it's your right to say "Screw that, we like the idea of a SL Polysci forum." May you exercise your right knowingly, and may you neither deceive yourself nor your customers into thinking that this forum is more than what it really is.

no

yes of course.

using the everyone criterion draw groups like the building, texture, animation, and scripting forums into question.

but what is this group?

I know no participant in SL that does not use, see, or otherwise interact with buildings, textures, animations, or scripts; does not in some form participate in SL's economy; or experience technical issues Events? Maybe a handful out of, egads, how many subscribers? That pretty much leaves the Gallery and LL's versioning and feature forums.



Uhm, sorry, I can't figure out what you meant to ask here. Please edit for intelligibility?

This forum is not about "self-governed sims". It is for the discussion of political science in SL.

Currently, there exists a formal government in SL at what I'll call the "federal level". It's a corporatist oligarchy (government by the few whose members are selected and ordered in a corporate fashion). From the definition of a government it, of course, has the power to make and enforce laws in our territory (SL). The laws are described in a legal document (ToS) and enforced by controlling access to property (temporary and permanent banning).

(Note that LL is not a dictatorship as we often hear in the forums. A dictatorship is a type of autocracy, which is government by a single person.)

Of course not, however as stated before, this forum is not for those who want to live in "self-governed sims". It's to discuss political science in SL, including whether or not someone wants to live in a self-governed sim.

Again, this forum is not dedicated to self-governed sims, it's dedicated to the discussion of political science in SL.

Absolutely. Aside from the fact that we live under a virtual government (and have no place to discuss it analytically until now), there are dozens of themed sims both new and old being created from the ground up (nonprofit themed sims) and from the top down (for-profit themed sims). (The fact that you can't name any right now is evidence how badly needed this forum is.)

Because residents will transition from LL "federal" rule to a local "state" rule, there are some critical issues that need to be discussed. For instance our project is a nonprofit cooperative, whose goal is to experiment with a government comprised of a hybrid democracy, meritocracy, and ergatocracy -- we're benevolent experimentalists. Yet other themed sims are true autocracies (literal dictatorships) that are owned and controlled by a single person operating a for-profit enterprise.

The fact that a for-profit corporate entity can simultaneously exist as a government should disturb you. Yet I've been unable to discuss this because the General forum is so hostile towards any form of political discussion.


Again, this forum has nothing to do with special interest groups. It exists to discuss SL political science in general. Given that we all live under a government, that new governments are appearing, and that their discussion and ramifications are important to all citizens, this forum should exist.


You are absolutely wrong. I have been able to discuss more sociopolitical topics in the last day than I have in the last six months in the General forum. As someone who has been plugging away at topics concerning political science for months, this is true liberty.

~Ulrika~