the close the government forum poll

52 for 62 against

say that the poll had gone 100 for 10 against.

should ll have closed the forum?
would you have expected it?

would keeping it open for the 10 have harmed the 100?
would keeping it open for 10 been a bad business decision?

would any of those results been government in action?
it has a vote, lobbying (trying to influence the decisions of those in power), and a decision.

was a decisions even made?

no. the government dicussions likely entertain them more than anything else we talk about in the forums. this centralized despository makes it easy for them to read without having to filter through other topics. oh i see, you're thinking that they implemented this for the poster's convenience. i tell you stone; i wonder about you sometimes.

if ll were ever going to back off and be the host, they'd let us handle our own affairs now. as long as we have to rely on them to handle griefers and zoning issues i.e. teleporter locations, we won't even formulate the roots of a governmental system. we can play at it for their amusmenet and graduate credit. we can enjoy it too of course. but it's feudal, and only going to be, at best because there has to be land and somebody's gotta pay the tier.

anyway the answer is no. in the context of its purpose, they shouldn't remove this forum unless they have their own internal reason to move it. it's not for us, so it doesn't matter what we think.

I don't think a centralized player government is viable (or desirable), but I'm all for the forum. The mere fact of its existance doesn't harm anybody save the chronically insecure.

In the eyes of many, it harms Linden Labs actually by making them appear less than impartial as to which special interest groups within SL they officially espouse. And it would be just as easy for those within LL to bookmark another forum site and check that periodically, so the argument that "it's really for LL" seems quite moot.

If people think that this forum exists because LL plays to "officially-sanctioned special interest groups" (so Random "Prokofy" Unsung was right! There is an FIC in SL! Can't have it both ways, you know), then they need to think again.

LL is, I'm speculating, interested in player-participation governance for three reasons:

(1) To reduce the overhead of having to build significant corporate "social and customer services" as SL grows, while...

(2) Maintaining the philosophy of resident independence in SL ("This is not a game, it's a real virtual community," etc.). And...

(3) As a part of the experimental schema of SL (virtual capitalism, etc.) that LL officers often publish about in Terra Nova and other outlets.

Fine. For LL, these are all legitimate reasons to encourage debate.

Debate, mind you, not necessarily implementation.

Hoo boy.

Fortunately, all I need to do is copy-and-paste on this one.





And:


To add, a lot of what's going on in this forum... to use others' terms for it - the "class-baiting," the "fearmongering," and even "the Holy Grail" - all of this is politics!

And if this catters to a simple, special interest, why are we posting to this forum in the first place? Why has it generated so many relevant and pointless posts? Because it's new? Or because it's actually a more important issue to people than they give it credit?

Furthermore, let me quote Jeska for a moment:


Does that strike you as a singular special interest to discuss? It looks to me like it's about all special, organizational and government interests. And, last I looked... 99% of all residents are in at least one group, whereas 100% fall prey to being a part of Second Life as well.

Please stop beating the horse, it is dead and the flies are annoyed by your constant pounding on the corpse.

Who cares about the horse I'm trying to Kill the damn flies.

Actually, I think this forum has become a whole new unexpected center of entertainment. People are even more fucking loony in their assertions and opinions here than they are in the other forums. I vote we keep it for comedy value alone.

Calamari anyone?

there are actions that people want ll to take.

the important questions to this end are:
- why does ll listen to some wants and not others?
- who does ll listen to?
- if one has a want, does one need the support of the sl residents, or just take it up with ll?
- why should ll listen to one person or group over another person?

sl residents clearly affect ll decisions:
- the creation of the government forum
- the non-closure of the government forum
- the research policy
- the telehub issue for the northern continent

sl residents also want ll to do certain things that ll hasn't done (yet?)
- copyright issues
- deal with hate crimes
- deal with death threats
- fix the rating system (again)

all that indicates that there is a decision making process (that is very vaguely defined) that has affects on sl in small and big ways.

an sl government is an excellent lightning rod. but focusing (i.e. arguing about it) on the forms around how decisions are made obfuscate what's happening. always pay attention to what's going on. decisions that affect sl as a whole are being made, and sl residents are indeed contributing to those decisions.

this may or may not be government, but it's certainly politics, lobbying, and/or brown-nosing.

maybe the right thing to do is form lobbying groups. these groups could be:
- the lindens are always right party
- the lindens are always wrong pac
- the "i have money" faction
- the "i pay fees, too" counter-faction
- the "listen to me, but don't listen to them" caucus
- the "i like pie" bakery club

Funny that you say this as by your support of a world wide government you are in fact asking for Linden Lab to be biased and "Listen" to the "Government" over "another person!".

Irony isnt it?

Shadow

no wonder you have a problem understanding me.
you dimwit. i haven't said anything.

i'm asking a question.

i very rarely ask rhetorical questions. and when i do i usually regret them.

rest assure that if i wanted to make a point, i would make it very sharp and very clear. i don't have much need for oblique rhetoric.

i ask the questions i ask, to see what people are thinking. there is a good deal of kneejerk responses to certain words. words that vary in meaning according to the person using them. so i want to know what people mean by their words. this requires asking very simple, very basic, and often seemingly obvious questions, but it seems that the answers aren't as obvious as people think they are, especially depending on which side one might take in the debate.

When you resort to calling names you have thereby lost your ability to debate.

At no point have I ever done that in any conversation or debate with you in anyway.
I have merely questioned your methods and your words.

Thank you for proving my point.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

namecalling it much more honest than your innuendo. just because something isn't said, doesn't mean it isn't intended. innuendo is just harder to prove.

i notice that you don't address the actual points i corrected. but i wouldn't expect that of you.

my methods and my words have mostly achieved what i've wanted. for me that is sufficient.

i don't want people to consider what i say because i have capital, admiration, sympathy, or liking. getting people to agree with me when i'm being articulate, polite, and likeable is much easier. but agreement isn't what i'm working toward.

rhetoric is a means to winning an agrument. and while there are a few points i've presented through rhetorical means, there isn't an argument here i'm trying to win. the circularity of rhetoric you detect is because i'm not trying to win an argument, so naturally things will go around if you force things to be a debate.

and yes, i think this relevant to the decision making process in sl.

any form of goverance or government will run across these very issues.