Should Ostracism Be Used In SL?

Simple as a truck NO.. i pay for a service , this is one of the most expensive one i know.
all this ZEN does no good at all! Real money spent by real ppl i choose to be here to have fun.
Rl i face every day, when i come home after it is done, the last thing i want is this!
I been here awhile and i do ok.
Who all of a sudden decside what i do in sl?YOU?
Ive been full round here , name it i didt it. and yah know in the end, i just want to be in sl, nuf w. the what ifs, i payed my price to play!
Cant macro code me!

MI-RAGE

Geez, it's just a propsal, vote yah, or nah, it's not really that hard. Why are there so many agrumentive people here. It's simple, you like the idea, or you don't. Vote, and show how you feel.

HUGS, Barb

Sometimes people like to point out their objections to an idea, just in case other people might be interested, or have their opinions swayed. Although I'll agree that forum 'debates' tend to get out of hand.

Of course, that is why the mousewheel was invented... it's like the TV remote... if you don't like a post, you can scroll on by

It's called debate. It's a way by which people try to convince each other to support of a point of view. And it signifies the healthy exchange of ideas, which is a crucial check against hare-brained ideas becoming reality. And it's often times the difference between voting how you feel, and voting how you think.

kisses, Criss

Okie, Dokie... I voted.....

I have a question about this proposal... and my thoughts on my own answer to the same question.

The question:
Exactly whose standards would prevail for this?

My answer:
Only the accuser and that of people from his/her own cultural background.

My thoughts:
SL is populated by people from all over the world. We're not all Americans (and I include myself as not being an American [so the idea that I might be un-American really doesn't bother me]. I have never been, nor do I ever intend being, in the US), and nor do we all follow an American-isque culture, and I will present some RL examples.

Some of the things that are perfectly acceptable social behaviours in my country (New Zealand), such as openly cussing out our Executive Head of State or swearing loudly in public, is deeply offensive to Americans from the more conservative parts of the US... Does that make New Zealanders inherently worthy of having access to a service that they paid very real money for revoked?

For many (quite possibly more than the posited 10,000 quorum of SL Residents), the very idea of eating a dog is repugnant. Yet there are many places in the world where dogs are regarded as a food item rather than a pet. Are they inherently evil for not following the dietary norms of Western society, and therefore deserve to be ostracized from a place they have paid very real money to have access to?

And what about the American who had such a tender beef steak for their dinner last night that they want to tell their SL friends... hmmm... I can well imagine that an Indian Hindu would be greatly upset by hearing a conversation about the eating of an animal that is sacred to his religion... so he asks his religious advisor for guidance, who then, in outrage for this American's sacrilege, tells his devotees about it and they then decide to come into SL to deal with said heathen. India has enough people of the Hindu faith with enough money and internet access to form the 10,000 quorum a thousand times over...
So do we allow the removal from SL of the American who has paid very real money to have access to SL, or do we blanket-ban all Hindus and people from India who have all paid very real money for access to SL?

All I can say is that democracy is neither a stable, nor even a particularly good [from an objective point of view], way of deciding whether or not something is offensive, since different cultures have different viewpoints. The only alternative, and the one that we KNOW won't lead to problems, is the current status quo of taking the issue to the person involved and hope they are willing to come to an agreement.

I'm voting NO to this proposal where I can, and I hope the Lindens will take a note of the poll where a "No" vote is an option.

Firstly, Elspeth, the TOS is contradictory and generally supports my plan. The Community Standards cover the issue of rights, and you forget that the community standards does state this:

" * Harassment Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.

* Disturbing the Peace Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace."

Which means that:
THERE IS NOT AN ULTIMATE AND COMPLETE FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
THe limitation is based on the effect of the speech on others, and if the effect is negative, actions should be taken. This system provides a way to eliminate people, because the abuse system may or may not apply to this, and/or the evidence was not gathered at the time of offense, so there word is neccessary (and before you begin discrediting the word of others, may i remind you that isn the american legal system, someone's word is absolute unless proven wrong, and then that is a felony, which in SL, should translate false accusations to suspension) for a convincing sentence.
In the TOSthe related mentions are, for reference, in clauses 1.2, 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2 which i will repeat for those of us(myself included) have not memorized the TOS, although most of the behavoir guidelines are in the CS. Here are the TOS peices that are relavant:

"
1.2 Linden Lab is a service provider, which means, among other things, that Linden Lab does not control various aspects of the Service.

You acknowledge that Linden Lab is a service provider that may allow people to interact online regarding topics and content chosen by users of the service, and that users can alter the service environment on a real-time basis. Linden Lab generally does not regulate the content of communications between users or users' interactions with the Service. As a result, Linden Lab has very limited control, if any, over the quality, safety, morality, legality, truthfulness or accuracy of various aspects of the Service.


4.1 You agree to abide by certain rules of conduct, including the Community Standards and other rules prohibiting illegal and other practices that Linden Lab deems harmful.

You agree to read and comply with the Community Standards posted on the Websites, (for users 18 years of age and older, at http://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php; and for users of the Teen Area, at http://teen.secondlife.com/footer/cs), as currently posted and as amended from time to time in Linden Lab's sole discretion.

In addition to abiding at all times by the Community Standards, you agree that you shall not: (i) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that infringes or violates any third party rights; (ii) impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, a Linden Lab employee, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with a person or entity; (iii) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that violates any law or regulation; (iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; (v) take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information; (vi) take any action or upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any Content that would violate any right or duty under any law or under contractual or fiduciary relationships (such as inside information, proprietary and confidential information learned or disclosed as part of employment relationships or under nondisclosure agreements); (vii) upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, or promotional materials, that are in the nature of "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation that Linden Lab considers in its sole discretion to be of such nature; (viii) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service; (ix) attempt to gain access to any other user's Account or password; or (x) "stalk", abuse or attempt to abuse, or otherwise harass another user. Any violation by you of the terms of the foregoing sentence may result in immediate and permanent suspension or cancellation of your Account. You agree that Linden Lab may take whatever steps it deems necessary to abridge, or prevent behavior of any sort on the Service in its sole discretion, without notice to you.


5.1 You release Linden Lab from your claims relating to other users of Second Life. Linden Lab has the right but not the obligation to resolve disputes between users of Second Life.

As a condition of access to the Service, you release Linden Lab (and Linden Lab's shareholders, partners, affiliates, directors, officers, subsidiaries, employees, agents, suppliers, licensees, distributors) from claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected, disclosed and undisclosed, arising out of or in any way connected with any dispute you have or claim to have with one or more users of the Service. You further understand and agree that: (a) Linden Lab will have the right but not the obligation to resolve disputes between users relating to the Service, and Linden Lab's resolution of any particular dispute does not create an obligation to resolve any other dispute; (b) to the extent Linden Lab elects to resolve such disputes, it will do so in good faith based solely on the general rules and standards of the Service and will not make judgments regarding legal issues or claims; (c) Linden Lab's resolution of such disputes will be final with respect to the virtual world of the Service but will have no bearing on any real-world legal disputes in which users of the Service may become involved; and (d) you hereby release Linden Lab (and Linden Lab's shareholders, partners, affiliates, directors, officers, subsidiaries, employees, agents, suppliers, licensees, distributors) from claims, demands and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, suspected and unsuspected, disclosed and undisclosed, arising out of or in any way connected with Linden Lab's resolution of disputes relating to the Service.


5.2 All data on Linden Lab's servers are subject to deletion, alteration or transfer.

When using the Service, you may accumulate Content, Currency, objects, items, scripts, equipment, or other value or status indicators that reside as data on Linden Lab's servers. THESE DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA, ACCOUNT HISTORY AND ACCOUNT NAMES RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS, MAY BE DELETED, ALTERED, MOVED OR TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IN LINDEN LAB'S SOLE DISCRETION.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY COPYRIGHT OR OTHER RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS YOU CREATE USING THE SERVICE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH CONTENT OR OTHER DATA BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, LINDEN LAB DOES NOT PROVIDE OR GUARANTEE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS (SUBJECT TO ANY UNDERLYING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONTENT), ANY VALUE, CASH OR OTHERWISE, ATTRIBUTED TO ANY DATA RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS.

YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT LINDEN LAB HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOUR CONTENT) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND.
"
I doubt that they would modify the TOS, but then i see no reason. Clause 1.2 states that they "generally" do not regulate communications/content, but yet they have th abuse reports system, which is backed by Clause 4.1. THe measures neccessary to make this possible are stated in 5.1 and 5.2, which is purposely vague so that the method of punishment may be changed.
(and dont be hinting any FIC theories you may have).

Yes, aldo, i am intending it to be hard so that only a truely problematic person could be removed.
Also, the idea of gloating about failed ostracism would not happen because it would be completely annonymous, so no one would no untill the quorum was met and a ballot was cast against this person(yay or nay). And no, i will not be racist or sexist, but if we make it only for the premium account holders, then it becomes an elitist system, and that is what ive spent several repies explaining that it is not, i am striving for democracy.Also, according to the TOS, clause 5.2, they have no legal obligation to compensate for accidents or lost property/reputation.And thank you by the way, its a lovely challenge to have to reply to a post like yours instead of dealing with mindless banter tht repeats previously stated and disproven arguements.

Ranma, you must realize, terms like "stupid", "silly", and "rude" are relative, and generally lower the standard of your arguement. Also, if youve read my previous posts, you would know that ive already proven how it is not elitist...if you want to continue to call it that, you may by all means, but i would suggest, to help your arguement, to find a way to disprve me, instead of bantering.Also, if muting and land controls, worked, i would not be proposing this. Since even if you are a land owner, you dont own all the land. And you may say, "go elswhere" but why should you? why should you have to compromis for them? if anything, in a fair society, you should both compromise equally, but only if they are doing NOTHING wrong, which is usually no the case, usually its people in the "gray area" as Aldo referred to it. Also, as you say "one resident right is another residents wrong", but i think we can agreee that what is all residents wrong can be considered wrong, according to democracy. And no, ranma, i did not need to hear your supposed life story.

Leo, very few people care enough about culture in SL to make this an issue. As i am staing, the only people who would be ostracized would be those who cuase a serious problem all over SL. And if democracy is no good, why is it used in all but a handful of the leading economic and political nations in the world?

Ending with a question seems so improper, so i end with this self-referencing and self--flattering sentence, which is the greatest sentence of my reply.

Trevor, clearly you've missed the point of what I said. What I said was that Democracy is inherently unstable... if it wasn't, there would be no need for elections or voting at all except to replace dead leaders. But even that isn't the point of what I was saying.

Second Life has members from all over the world, that much is indisputable.
Whether they care to make a relative study of different cultures or not is immaterial. What people find to be offensive, whether or not they are aware of the reason behind it, is a direct result of their upbringing, which is governed by the prevalent culture of their society.

The very last thing SL needs is cultural imperialism. Ostracism might work, and work well, if everyone in SL had the same worldview, the same set of moral codes, whatever... but we're not all cut from the same cloth... and SL is so much richer for that fact.

Big issue here you make a new way for people to grief someone. Much of this is impossible to do in the confines of SL. This is due to the actuallity that if voted out and gotten kicked out on a residents say so without proof or thought process (which you cant prove without being that person) you have no real way to know if someone is truly greifing you or not. Most of the so called griefer things in SL are just people whining about asthethically displeasing things or things that lag the sim a little. Neither of which can be proved to be done on purpose.

I point out the fact that these people "ostrascized" could in fact press lawsuits against SL because they were unfairly terminated on their service. And if in fact they were ostrascized they are very likely to win that court case. This would all lead to a downward spiral give griefers in the community a bigger chance to hurt innocent people etc. Most people in SL just wouldnt bother with the absurdness of it. In fact there is this group of people that think there is some sorta "FIC" in SL. A group that controls everything. Some of these members do alot in the community and actually are quite helpful.

This would turn into a little childish bickering of I dont like you im gunna get you kicked out if this was in fact ever implemented. So you now see that its pretty much a bad system in its entirity.

In response to things made about the TOS fitting the means of your plan.... You forget one BIG issue. The fact of the matter that the TOS are in fact irrellivent to your own thought path. Its not your interpritation of them that matters, but rather what the lindens hold the TOS to. So again how do you state they suit your idea? They suit your idea by how you see them to be written but not how the lindens take them. Again an example would be comparing the TOS to the Bible and religion. What is written may come off differently to a different person. You gather the meaning in the manner in which you think they belong but religious figures have their own beliefs. Just like the Linden's have it set for them what the TOS means.

Its not for us to decide what they mean is all im getting at. And i can atest to that having worked as a GM in another MMORPG.

@Trevor

YES the TOS supports a form of ostracizing. However you overlook one VERY pivotal factor:

The one who evaluates cases of TOS violations is Linden Labs, not the residents of SL. The case evidence is submitted by a resident however the final say belongs to LL.

The important difference between resident-based ostracizing and LL-based ostracizing is that LL has no problems answering for use of their own processes. They should not be made answerable for a resident-based ostracizing, but mark my word, if ever it happens the affected party WILL make LL liable even if LL had nothing to do with the process.

It's a matter of LL protecting itself legally. They should not give that level of ostracizing power to the residents.

Which is why I prefer that LL continue to enforce the TOS rather than put that power in the hands of residents.

>>>>By all means people, if you have a better idea, and you can justify it on solid grounds, then please come forward and present it. It will be a much better thing than the constant "no" i read.<<<<

I'm against the idea of Ostracism. I don't feel that obligates me to come up with a more viable or cuddly version of Ostracism. I would disapprove of this in any form or permutation. Taking the idea of Ostracism to the Political Science forum and lofting it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes invites all manner of response, including negative. Your poll is currently running 2 to 1 negative...I'd say it's not much of a stretch to say the people who read your idea mostly don't like it.

I'm all for the protection of the minority from the whim of the majority. Whim is exactly the word to use...if it isn't covered by TOS, then it's your preference over someone else's.

I don't want to see an organized cadre of prudes deciding to hound porn or sex poseballs out of SL, or any other affronted group to gain the ability to "go after" any person or individual for a real or perceived slight/transgression/sin/etc.

SL is a place where you can, within the rules, be yourself, and let it all out, explore what you feel, live out your dreams or nightmares or problems bounded only by your imagination and creativity (and to some extent, your bank account.) I've only been around for a little while and have certainly not seen every sim or property, but if even my small sample is any indication, there are more expressions of individuality than I can well imagine or even wish to imagine. I certainly don't want anyone or myself to be able to stir up enough righteous indignation to eject someone from SL.

OK, I'll go back on what I said earlier. I would recoil from the idea less if it wasn't simply a matter of 10,000 people uniting in dislike...how about along with the votes for ostracism, there can be cancelling votes against.

So someone has a shrine to say, smelly sneaker fetishism. (apologies to any actual smelly sneaker fetishists in advance.) You are revolted by the idea, malodorous footwear turns your tummy, so you manage to find the required 500 people who read Compulsive Cleanfreak Magazine who might be similarly shocked, to qualify it for the big push for Ostracism.

For every sensitive-nosed voter for Ostracism, someone else could pass the ballot box, think, "meh, this is a non-issue, we all have our kinks" and casts a vote against.

But then there is voter apathy...no, never mind, there is no better form of Ostracism. Pretend you didn't read this suggestion.

It didn't take long in this thread for the "bush guy" to come up, but I submit to you that the "bush guy" has actually enhanced SL by inspiring spirited debate on the forums, and anyone who should be blamed for inconvenient "bush guy" signs would be whoever created 2 meter square parcels in the first place, not the "bush guy" for expressing himself on them.

Bottom line, if I'm a political gadfly, or an overbearing rich merchant, or an owner of a notorious sex club, or build on my property strangely or poorly, then don't read my stuff/don't buy my goods/don't cruise my club/look the other way.

Your choice to be offended is entirely up to you. Take responsibility for it. Own it. Don't expect some sort of game mechanic to be introduced to enable you to expand upon your offended state to the point that you are in effect creating and executed unofficial rules.

Wow. I guess I really don't like this idea after all.

In true democracy, there are no leaders, only a powerless figure-head to impplement the procedures and act as the arm of the will of the people. THe people tell him what to do and he does it. he need not have any abilities because his power comes from the people and the people aid in his enforcement and procedure. Also, what i meant is that very few people care about bringing there own entirely different cultrue, or care about hating those people. I, in my Eight months of life in Second Life(im a minority, when i started, there were only 50,000 people in SL) have encountered MAYBE 1000 people, if even close to that, and talked with maybe 200 of them. Obviously that is nowhere close to the quorum, even if i have offended all 1000 of them. Now think seriously about this... 10000 people, thats virtually impossible, which is my intentions, to prevent griefing, because what is 100 griefers votes, which is slim chance in itself,then it does no harm.I Say the same to Lina.


Many of you have expressed the issue of lawsuits against LL. But may i remind you that LL had EVERYONE of you agree to the TOS.



Many of you have expressed the issue of lawsuits against LL. But may i remind you that LL had EVERYONE of you agree to the TOS. In the TOS, you forget clauses 2.6, 5.5 and 5.2. Linden Lab has the right to eliminate(5.2) anything on there servers, including your account(2.6)(and as far as interpretation,i think this part is crystal clear, so that no problem would arise) AND you agreed to "indemnify Linden lab from claims arising from breach of this Agreement by you, from your use of Second Life, from loss of Content due to your actions, or from alleged infringement by you"5.5), eliminating the abiliyty for you to sue. THe work arround to a resident run system? the figure head mentioned above. in any action like this in SL, there is a Linden behind it, which is why i have suggested a Linden to preside as the finalverdict, with the power of veto, making his/her word PROTECTED under the TOS legal agreement.

"
2.6 Linden Lab may suspend or terminate your account at any time, without refund or obligation to you.

Linden Lab has the right at any time for any reason or no reason to suspend or terminate your Account, terminate this Agreement, and/or refuse any and all current or future use of the Service without notice or liability to you. In the event that Linden Lab suspends or terminates your Account or this Agreement, you understand and agree that you shall receive no refund or exchange for any unused time on a subscription, any license or subscription fees, any content or data associated with your Account, or for anything else.


5.5 You will indemnify Linden lab from claims arising from breach of this Agreement by you, from your use of Second Life, from loss of Content due to your actions, or from alleged infringement by you.

At Linden Lab's request, you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Linden Lab, its shareholders, partners, affiliates, directors, officers, subsidiaries, employees, agents, suppliers, licensees, distributors, Content Providers, and other users of the Service, from all damages, liabilities, claims and expenses, including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs, arising from any breach of this Agreement by you, or from your use of the Service. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Linden Lab, its shareholders, partners, affiliates, directors, officers, subsidiaries, employees, agents, suppliers, licensees, and distributors, from all damages, liabilities, claims and expenses, including without limitation attorneys' fees and costs, arising from: (a) any action or inaction by you in connection with the deletion, alteration, transfer or other loss of Content, status or other data held in connection with your Account, and (b) any claims by third parties that your activity or Content in the Service infringes upon, violates or misappropriates any of their intellectual property or proprietary rights.



5.2 All data on Linden Lab's servers are subject to deletion, alteration or transfer.

When using the Service, you may accumulate Content, Currency, objects, items, scripts, equipment, or other value or status indicators that reside as data on Linden Lab's servers. THESE DATA, AND ANY OTHER DATA, ACCOUNT HISTORY AND ACCOUNT NAMES RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS, MAY BE DELETED, ALTERED, MOVED OR TRANSFERRED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON IN LINDEN LAB'S SOLE DISCRETION.

YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY COPYRIGHT OR OTHER RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS YOU CREATE USING THE SERVICE, AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY VALUE ATTRIBUTED TO SUCH CONTENT OR OTHER DATA BY YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY, LINDEN LAB DOES NOT PROVIDE OR GUARANTEE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS (SUBJECT TO ANY UNDERLYING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONTENT), ANY VALUE, CASH OR OTHERWISE, ATTRIBUTED TO ANY DATA RESIDING ON LINDEN LAB'S SERVERS.

YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT LINDEN LAB HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOUR CONTENT) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND.

(people should actually read the TOS before quoting it ar arguing against my interpretation, because it is very clear and consise, and hard to argue with, the only interpretation the lindens may have is to what extent they use it, and I see no way in which the TOS is contradictory, in fact, i see it as the legal backing for such a system).
"

(really long parentheses!)

Also, Gretchen, If you have read my posts earlier, it takes the 10000 votes to initiate an ostracism, then a second set of votes, wihch can have a section for notecard disrtibutors in defense or prosection of the person in question. this second vote involves a "yay" or "nay" component and it would either most likely invovle a 2/3rds majority to ostracize. The final word would then come from the Linden in charge, and he/she woul be advised by the people and his/her own good judgement, to avoid legal reprocussion.
You also speak of a majority, but there is none. SL is in no way united. It is full of small independent factions, that could care less about each other.THose who persecute are, dispite common beliefs, a small but loud-minority, so because they voice there opinions, (which may i remind you, they do not have the right to do under the Community Standards because it infringes the tolerance policy)(...The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual preference is never allowed in Second Life...), they seem like a larger group. Even with the "bush guy" you could probably get a quorum, but i doubt a 2/3rds majority, because SL is so devided on the issue. however, this would also get people more involved, which would also increase the standard of the community as well(in my opinion).And i do agree that there is a positive side to the bush guy, and i personally stand neutral on the issue, i merely brought him up for the purpose of a common example of a person who many beleive should be removed.

The problem with this is that it inhibits individuality. it is either conform or be cast out. IMHO, this is not what democracy (in any form) is about. Democracy isn't about what the majority wants, its about protecting the liberties of all, otherwise it is just mob rule (and we see how well that worked for the Romans).

I don't really see a problem with banning an unwanted person from a region. Ostracising them on a large scale (eg an alliance of say 100 regions) would be a bit different. In order for a political model to work on that scale an unbias popular consensus would need to be achieved before enaction of such a decision (ie voting after reading un-edited and truthful submissions by the defendent and prosecutor).

If people want to think they've 'grown' since high school, then fine. Personally I don't really see what 'high school' has to do with this question. Ostracism is the foundation of the politics of difference. It's the creation of an "us" and "them" which is necessary for an alliance to further its ethos.

Basically what this questionaire, to me, seemed to be asking was "Should we impose a legal structure in Second Life?"

I answered "yes" because I believe that structure is necessary in sustaining a region's popularity amongst the group it was created for. There are already Mature and PG regions, which seek to divide the population in terms of behaviour classifications (eg nudity or a furry orgy will see you being ostricised from a PG zone). When builders actually build something, they want to see it go ahead and conform to the ideas of their innovation. Which is fair enough. They came up with the idea, so why should they stand back while people warp it for their own use? This is why builders are able to prevent non-group members or non-owners from entering a parcel space.

The thing we were all supposed to learn after getting out of high school and growing up in a mature world was that people are different. Difference is not a bad thing. We shouldn't be imposing our beliefs on everyone and limiting what they do. But if in the course of difference an individual decides that they don't like something (and it is reasonable), then they should be allowed to exercise their freedom of individuality by saying "I don't like this, and I don't want it near me, because..."

Second Life is a game, but I still think we should be able to discriminate against people. I like discrimination. It ensures that the people around me will be the people I like or are interesting in listening to (even if I don't agree with their lifestyle). However I do think that certain things should be a grounds for automatic ostricism from the game itself:

♥ Support for pedophilia
♥ Wanton and intentional abuse of game mechanics
♥ Violation of human rights without the victim's prior consent

I don't think that this is unreasonable at all.


Edit:
Democracy, by the way, isn't the support of the individual. I think you'll find (by perhaps reading) that democracy is the support for the majority, often by means of representation through popular vote for an elected individual. Under democracy, if you don't agree with the majority then you are unrepresented on that issue. If you want to look at support for the individual, by the individual, then you'd be wanting to check out "pluralism", which is not far off anarchy (anarchy being the current social model used for second life).



This is possibly the stupidest expression of 'intelligence' that i have read in a while now.

That's not quite true - most democracies have, and need to have, checks and balances to prevent too much discrimination occuring. (Look up "tyranny of the majority" That's why most democratic states IRL have human rights acts and anti-discrimination laws.

Trevor i think you miss the fact that if you made a resident run voting process to get rid of "certain residents" it would actually make the TOS you signed void. The sheer fact is LL reserves the right to ban people but when residents actually get involved in a voting process well then it becomes a matter that is different and is liable for LL to be sued. Its based on here say and popularity rather then LL actually proving anything. The prcoess that is currently in place to get rid of people is fine. The only people i have a problem with are the ones that greif bomb stuff to take down the grid and they are taken care of accordingly.

While we may not like the bush guy it is fully in his right to do what he does as he pays for it and doesnt do anything against the TOS. The problem with saying the word "griefer" is there isnt a proper term for it. Other then harassment or things done personally to you or to take down the grid you cant really prove something is greifing. We may of signed a TOS but we are only subject to it if the linden's are in full control of banning not residents. You can argue that fact all you want but if i was wrongfully terminated strictly on heresay because residents voted so i would try to get a suite against LL. The mere fact is they are subject to this. If they begin to change it to be controlled by a vast majority of people it causes problems. Saying LL run ostracism is just what is in place already and it is handled fine.

This system would strictly just cause problems. There is a reason its not used in society today. And i think you know very well why without me explaining it!! And a Side note to you Trevor SL isnt a democracy. SL doesnt have a government. No game has a government its simply rules enforced by gm's or in SL's case Lindens. Other then that there is no form of government. Its basically free market there is an economy but no governing body other then the lindens view of what the TOS means. And only by going agaisnt the TOS are we held responsible.!!!

What you're talking about here is the regulation of corruption resulting from a democratic system. Democracy isn't exactly the fairest model of government, at least not for everyone. But in nations where there is a large population it becomes necessary at some stage to ignore what everyone is trying to tell you all at once, and focus on what most people are agreeing on.

But democracy, as the model itself, does not come with those checks and balances. Those regulations come from the voices of interest groups made up by unrepresented groups of people. Lobbying government through interest groups is a method taken from a pluralistic structure, and was deemed to be necessary in western democratic nations with high populations. The reason why comes in at election time, when the citizens vote for the person they feel is best able to represent their interests. If an elected official wins 60% of the votes, then there is still 40% of the people who felt that that person was not the best person to uphold their interests. Of that 40% there may have even been a significant majority who felt that the newly elected official was the least favourable candidate.

Acts and laws, for whatever purpose they serve, are not actually part of democracy. They are merely agreements made by democratically elected officials for the purpose of keeping the nation in order. While some countries have human rights laws (and not every democractic state has them), they are there to ensure that democracy does not collapse in on itself from only favouring the majority. History shows us that when large numbers of people become ignored that they turn to violence and crime or even militant insurgence to get their point across. This undermines the governments standing and destroys industry that keeps the nation's economy churning. So in the interest of keeping a working model that favours very little input from ordinary citizens in the formation of actual laws, governments allow citizens to voice their opinions on the matter. In the USA this is called freedom of speech. But here in Australia we have no right to the freedom of speech, so often we are driven to street protests (which must be approved), media, and corruption of the public service in order to influence the decision making process.

If democracy was everything that people here are saying it is, then citizens wouldn't need to act covertly and corruptly in order to advance their interests. They would simply be allowed to voice them in the middle of parliament. But when was the last time you saw a citizen run into congress/parliament/whatever and start demanding recognition for a particlar issue? Probably the last time you saw someone dragged out of parliament and criminally charged for such a thing.

Democracy favours the majority.
Laws that ensure the protection of the minority are only there because they keep the peace.

@Trevor

The veto mechanic still does not address the fundamental problem of your proposal that given a democratic vote an innocent can still be ostracized.

The reason is that in order to do a veto LL will need information to judge the case. A lot of cases that don't fall explicitly under the TOS will be difficult to prove.

The resulting lack of evidence will lead to many cases either being dropped or misjudged, neither of which we want because a major case that gets dropped brings us back to square one and the griefer is still with us. A misjudged case will penalize an innocent and we don't want that either.

The most effective way of handling problem cases in MMOs remains to be a good rules of evidence structure coupled with a clearly stated enforcement/penalty system that is under the control of the game hosts. I was part of a group that made such a set of guidelines for an MMO hosted in my country and it has proven to be very effective in curbing undesirable behavior inside the game.

It gave the GMs of the game a much easier time enforcing because once the evidence conforms to the requirements, no judgement calls are needed and the penalties are meted out. As far as I know, no cases have been overturned and none were bad calls.

Given a good evidence acquisition/presentation structure you need only ONE report to get someone penalized. It's efficient, it's quick, and it's uncomplicated.

Instead of a voting system what we need is a more effective evidence structure.

The reason I advocate evidence is that in the real world evidence can be hidden, destroyed, or faked. Not so in an MMO where everything little we do passes through the servers. Nothing can be hidden from LL. This means that there are ways to record just about any kind of evidence.

You might then say that if nothing can be hidden from LL then they have everything they need to judge any case. Not true. This is because storage capacity is finite. If the case takes too long to be presented to LL then their evidence would have disappeared. Success of violation convictions in MMOs depend on timeliness so that GMs still have access to server logs that have a lifespan of only a few days. Furthermore we can't expect the GMs to be able to FIND what is needed to judge the case because they will have to search through terabytes of data for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Furthermore, our avatar movements are not recorded. All this effort will be for just one case, and I expect that at any one time there will be many cases on the table.

The MMO I helped out routinely had over 100 cases a week submitted (some are duplicates from different senders), usually 20 of them get the axe. The server population is about the same size as SL.

That's why you need a system that is clearly stated and can be done by a single user quickly.

As it stands I was never happy with the ROC of LL because it's too general. It's just a generalized list of behavior guidelines. They need to list specific offences and the required evidence to report such offences.

I dont like this thread and the concept. How will it be used. Will it be used to keep residents in like with popular thought or whatever popular thought is at the time?What about behavior or the lack of a action getting residents in trouble?

This is suppose to be Second Life, Your World Your Imagination.

This concept and too easily get perverted into something not intented by the makers. Let Linden Labs enforce the TOS!

Blows me away that this is the cream of the (political discussion) crop and gets five pages of ramblings when so many other threads below are virtually ignored (pun intended). So the consciousness of SL is challenged by a pop political order based on the ideology of a high school popularity contest?

And after all that I have read about the sophistication of the SL crowd compared to, say, WoW....

All I can say is, "WoW."

I feel bad for ostrices. They can't fly.

I'm confused here. Even if LL opened up such a program, the TOS throughly covers their backsides. Basically:

1. You own nothing. (This includes your access to SL)
2. It can disappear anytime for any or no reason
3. And you can't sue them if you don't like it.\
4. The TOS can change at any time
5. And you agree to it or you don't play.
-

The TOS can also change at any time. Should LL decide to implement a system like this, you get a little popup the next time you log in asking if you agree. If you agree, ok. If not, you can't login. So long.

I'm one of the few people who voted yes on this, with a * next to it.


* Don't show how many votes for or against there are for a person. Simply yes or no with a chance to add an explanation. People have a nasty tendency to follow the most popular answer.

* You'd have to organize a HELL of a lot of hate against someone for an innocent to get ostracized. even a majority with the thousands of residents is a few thousand people. Some deserve this. I bet that a few thousand people would gladly banhammer the bush guy given a chance. I don't see any possibility for abuse, theres just simply too much scale involved.

-
**edit


The TOS doesn't cover all the retarded things a person can do to you or society at large. See also the bush guy again. He's within the law, but that certainly doesn't make it right. LL said they won't do sh*t about it, but i'd wager my account on the fact that a majority of residents would like to see him and his signs gone. permanently.