Philip Linden Says NO to Player Government

From Town Hall meeting tonight:

Jeska Linden: Shadey Koala: I've read on the forums about people wanting to start some form of SL-wide, player-run government. This concerns me, and I'm curious. Will you allow such a thing?
Philip Linden: Please email me directly with any complaints about the concierge service.
Philip Linden: I want it to work well.
Philip Linden: OK one more question.
Philip Linden: Ah... there it was soory.
Philip Linden: Player government...
Philip Linden: We do not want to impose many global restrictions on behavior beyond those needed to
Philip Linden: preserve people's basic freedoms to create and live here.
Philip Linden: So,
Philip Linden: we don't think that forms of government in which folks vote to impose more restrictive global properties
Philip Linden: are the way to go.
Philip Linden: We don't want that.
Philip Linden: However, I suspect that local government,
Philip Linden: again in the form of extended land rights, etc,
Philip Linden: is a better direction.
Philip Linden: Again I'd point to the idea of the 'federal' government...
Philip Linden: which is basically what LL is.
Philip Linden: It doesn't seem that we should be involved in issues which are inherently local.
Philip Linden: So I'd really like to push more in the direction of adding features that allow
Philip Linden: landowners to govern as they like.
Philip Linden: But not do much more at our level.
Philip Linden: I agree ejection stuff is a problem, as I said before.


Now, judging from the comments at my repeater event, here's what people think of this:

WOOT to no player government.

YAY from some to his nod to land rights being the proper basis for a free, liberal, democratic local governance.

BAH from some who hate the idea of more rights extended to those with land than those without -- to them it seems like making landless second-class citizens.

This is the age old battle with Marxism/communism/leftwing ideologies and liberal or right/wing ideologies that place land ownership at the center of the system.

I am for placing land ownership at the center of the system of how sims are managed.

In other words, if landowners on a sim want a telehub, they should get a telehub, without treehuggers on another sim telling them to keep an area "pristine".

Huzzah!!! The benevolent monarchy has been preserved!!!

MAY PHILIP LINDEN RULE A THOUSAND YEARS!!

Prok is any of this your responses or just something your throwing out for debate?

I am for placing land ownership at the center of the system of how sims are managed.

SEE!

I'm NOT an Alt! lol

I agree (and apparently Philip Linden does too). I believe in micro-federalism, and I am glad to see that principle upheld somewhere, even if in a virtual world. If you want to have Social Democracy Sim, or Rotating Junta Sim, you can buy the land and hopefully, be able to implement it.

But don't tread on me, on my land.

I share your belief and our group is doing just that!

Remember, political science is just another form of content in SL...

~Ulrika~

While I share the belief that Landowners have the controlling powers to run their land as they see fit.

I do disagree to a point that Political Science is a form of content.

Political Science is an ideology or topic of debate. It becomes content when edified by being applied to a texture or note card.

So thusly I argue that Political Science is not content but a mere fleeting thought on the wings of ....<<<insert favorite words here.

Shadow.

Yay for Phil's comments!!!



Sure, if its a private island not connected to the mainland. A new telehub in a given location infringes upon other's by imposing a new, acknowledged source of lag.

Instead, when land is introduced it should have all infrastructure (roads, hubs, etc) in place so that people that want to buy land one sim over from a telehub can do so, while others that want land as far away from a telehub as possible can do that as well.

-Ghoti

I'm thinking that makes sense.

But I don't think that people who do not own a stick of land on the New Continent, who have not bought there, who do not have residences or businesses there, should be in the business of clamoring to have all of those peoples' expectations of a telehub taken away, just to satisfy their tree-huggery.

I'm wondering why the Lindens don't just have a more normal and less coquettish approach with telehubs. Why do they keep everybody guessing?

And I guess the answer is, to drive up land speculation, which, however much you hate it, drives up value.

If they announce in advance where the telehub will be, everyone will scramble to buy the land up around it with more lead time to position themselves to bid up prices. It means telehub land will become more scarce and cost more.

It will be a boon for people who want to be far away. It will be a bane for those who'd like to see more competition at telehubs.

As Philip Linden put down the horde amassed to try control all free men and women, war was averted. The world is safe again. But for how long???

IMO, so long as land is public, everyone has a stake in what is there. Some folks may be waiting for the telehubs to be laid before investing in new land up there. Could be they are waiting for the telehub so they can buy land near it, could be they are waiting so they can by land away from it. Treehuggery aside (you make it sound like a bad thing to try to preserve some of the pre-existing nice look of the sim), its bass-ackwards to sell the land without having the infrastructure in place. My feeling is that it would be wrong for LL to just start plopping telehubs down now in the parts of the north continent that have been settled. Some folks may be eagerly awaiting them, others awaiting them with dread.



My thinking is, the north continent 'storyline' is why they did not lay out telehubs (though we got roads and a railroad, so I dunno). Still, the telehubs should have been placed before land went up for sale.



I'm all for increased value. I'd pay more for a guarentee that I wont have to suddenly be living in a telehub sim though.



But isn't this howland is sold on the old continent? The land appears, is pristine for a day or three, then the telehub network and roads are added, then the sim is placed on auction. Seems to be the pattern I saw with all the 'new' land on the southeast of the grid.



How does knowing the location ahead of time cause a problem for competition? I would think the opposite would be true... if I am a mawl operator or independant business person and I see a map of sims waiting to be rolled out, I can see where the telehubs will be and I know for which land I want to compete to purchase. Maybe I'm not understanding your statement.

-Ghoti

Now I see. Philip Linden is one of those stinking Alliance do-gooders. Probably a paladin, for gawd's sake, saving the world for all those hairless, tuskless, hornless, fangless types.

All right-thinking people understand that the world must bow in thralldom to the will of Ogrimmar.

For the Horde!

Well, where are they? The people yammering the loudest on these forums were people who didn't buy land.

They just yammered from the perch of their socialist utopian ideals, where they'd like Daddy to keep paying for their socialism.

Meanwhile, 2 landowners told Robin Linden they wanted telehubs.

And I rallied 7 other landowners into New Continent Pioneers who all wanted at least ONE telehub in the moth temple (we'll see if they want more).

Meanwhile, nobody made a treehugging group out of *property owners*.

I'm all for keeping sims nice and hugging trees, when I've paid for those trees myself or rented them to others to hug. I'm not for landless non-payers getting in my face and telling me I have to tree-hug.

There is always a place for national parks in any world. Let it be paid for then by every player having to make a mandatory 16m contribution of tier out of their tier allocation they pay for. Geez, that will make Friends of the Forest-type activity dry up fast because everyone will scream bloody-murder at even a 16m tax.

actually I'm just a capitalist pig who wants fewer telehubs so people will buy my vehicles to fly around in . Tree huggers be damned.

I would hardly call this resolved... perhaps they are taking a wait and see attitude? Maybe they gave up waiting and bought other land near or away from a hub? I dunno. I am not making excuses for 'tree-hugging socialists', I'm speculating.



Don't get me started on socialism.



Seven out of how many? I'm not opposed to telehubs, since we apparently 'need' them as commercial magnets. Personally I'd rather have point-to-point teleports and do away with the telehubs. So long as their location is known ahead of time, so be it. These folks bought land without a telehub in place and IMO knew what they were buying... land that is not near a telehub. If they really wanted telehubs, they should have bought land near an existing telehub. But no. They wanted land in the new world, where there were no telehubs. Seems to me calls for a telehub after the fact are a day late and a dollar short. Again, LL fucked up by not placing the telehubs before sale of the land. Its not the resident's fault, but there should be no expectation of telehubs being placed in land that is already for sale. I'm not opposed to telehubs up north, so long as they are placed ahead of the auctions so people can know what they are buying into.

I also have to wonder how many people want a telehub because of the current inconvenience of travel to and from the north continent. How many of them would NOT want a telehub, given the option of point-to-point teleportation?



I applaud your efforts to organize your fellow land owners. Clearly the treehugging socialists are too lazy to do the same.



Personally I feel there is nothing wrong with leaving some areas of a sim (or indeed whole sims) 'pristine'. The Moth Goddess Temple will not be the same surrounded by mawls.



I might be the wrong one for you to argue at about players owning the parkland. After all, you know mine and Leena's property in Pimushe... over 1/3 sim, almost all forested. I put my tier where my mouth is, so to speak.

Any tax of this nature would be an artificial cost. I don't see harm in the Linden's setting aside land with natural features or builds that should be preserved. They already do this with roads and other LL land that never goes to auction. I don't see why residents should have to 'taxed' to do this. Why should they be? We're not getting taxed for every new telehub... ohhhh, there's an idea. Make the residents that want a telehub where one does not exist dedicate their own tier allotment to a telehub slush fund. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

-Ghoti

Yes. Please don't.

~Ulrika~

/me grrrrrs and snarls at the nasty socialist! *bark! bark! bark!*



-Ghoti

Oh, but DO get started on socialism Ghoti!

And yes, it's precisely because you and Leena put your money where your mouth is on Pimushe, etc. that I respect what you say.

And the answer is, I guess, the tree-hugging socialists didn't get their act together.

I flew around IM'ing literally a hundred or something landowners in the new continent. God, what a chore that was. I didn't even get answers from but 7.

well, some are just there to flip land and don't care.

But people don't like to organize and do stuff, they want to just play their game so LET THEM lol. I'm cool with that.

I think we had a reasonable expectation to have a telehub given past performance.

I'm not whining, because I offer personal TPs to my properties and still have fun trying to make a go of it.

/me continues to playfully banter with Ghoti while the attention-seeking forum troll yaps and nips at our heels.

~Ulrika~

Nah, I think I'll keep my blood pressure down today.



Folks are often willing to organize when they see a need for a change, but are less likely to organize to keep the status quo unless there is a direct and evident threat to it.



Sadly true.



Amen.



I agree. Since the rest of the world is subjected to telehubs, there could be an expectation of telehubs on the north continent. Again I say, LL should put those in place before they put the land up for auction.

Personally I would not make a land purchase and then expect LL to alter the infrastructure later, in the same way that I have no real hope of telehubs being removed from the southlands, no matter how much I think that would improve the world, and no matter how many local residents I get to sign onto a 'Nuke The Telehubs!" group.



Point-to-point teleport would really help there, eh?

-Ghoti

This is old news Prok. See the thread below:

Game-wide Player Run Government Thread.

It was brought up at last night's town hall. It is not old news. It might be a new iteration of previous discussion, but its certainly topical.

Also, I missed where in the thread you indicate does Phil give a definative answer to the question? Well, he did last night.

-Ghoti

Robin answered Billy in a third thread whose link can be found in the thread Billy linked to. Philip essentially echoed what Robin stated, although Robin's reply was more detailed.

In summary both Philip and Robin said no to global government and yes to local government, mentioning that they are working to implement tools for facilitating local governance.

It's interesting to see that they are also adopting "federal/local" nomenclature, where LL is the federal government and groups are the local government. It's the first time I've seen them acknowledge government and speak of themselves as a government.

~Ulrika~

Here is the quote Ulrika references:
Phillip did say that LL was "like" a federal government, not that he in fact believes that it is. If he believed that he would not have used the word "like" at all. The reference is most likely used simply in response to all of the govt. questions within the government forum. IMO LL is not a government at all.