Generally speaking, if LL enforced their TOS...

... we would not need to build a government. The only times that I hear the need for LL intervention are those occasions wherein someone has (repeatedly) violated TOS. Against this, we have no control or power and by all rights, LL should be the ones to 'set the example' they wish US to follow by demonstrating the rules MEAN SOMETHING.

With this said, an in-world government would only be as effective as LL support for it... so other than peer pressure enforcement for things like zoning, I really cannot see a use for it.

I see this false statement over and over in posts about opt-in government. I'm actually curious if this same fallacy is arrived upon independently or is something people hear and spread about without critically analyzing it.

Here are counter examples to both your statements.

Opt-in governments and organizations can have laws and rules which are enforced. These rules can be enforced the same way LL enforces rules, by controlling access and assets. For instance, a user- or government-controlled sim can ban an individual and confiscate their land, if they were violating laws or rules (such as engaging in griefing). Further, just like in real life, deposits can be taken and forfeited just like in RL in retribution for contract violation.

Beyond zoning, opt-in government can be used to determine collectively the future of a sim, to develop new rules dynamically to meet demands imposed by a changing environment, and perform public service such as conflict resolution and budgeting. In essence an SL opt-in government can provide exactly the same benefits as an RL government.

~Ulrika~

Sorry, your rebuttal fails because it relies upon LL for enforcement and action -- two areas in which they have demonstrated repeatedly an unwillingness to perform and an inconsistancy in performance. That was my point, since you seem to have missed it.

The view from the ivory tower is splendid, I agree, but until those rarified thoughts can survive in action as well as in ideology, it is a rather pointless exercise in speculation.

You are wrong. My examples show unambiguously how an opt-in player government or organization could use control over land access and user assets as a tool for enforcing law. Please quote the portion of my rebuttal that requires LL enforcement and action and explain why.

~Ulrika~

Opt-in is fine. I am for local communities (sims) creating build or behavior practices, as long as moving there is voluntary and and community standards and clearly known. This type of local community would be great for those involved.

But the fear is that these micro-communities will find the need to impose their values on SL at large. I love trees and nature and would like to see more of it, but I also respect and value the need for people to build strip malls and research labs.

As long as these communities involve themselves on a voluntary basis, knock yourself out.

Yeah, I worry about this stuff sometimes as well. When I signed up, I didn't give my credit card number to other players. I would never permit my account to be tagged just because some other player decided to enforce something upon me.

A player-run government is a nice bit of fun for people who are into that, and the organization can be really helpful and fun for those who choose to be a part of it. But I need to be comfortable in the idea that my land is still mine, even if a government is formed next-door.

Ulrika, how do you handle that, anyway? Are you actually suggesting that players elected to office should have ban powers and the ability to hit my credit card? Or are you referring to a sort of sign-up deposit in Linden bucks as a condition of joining? It's late, maybe I'm reading your post wrong...

Good question. For the next phase of our project, the government will posses power over the land. Power over citizens is therefore exercised through control over their land access and their land assets.

For instance, in our new sim it will cost US$30 down and US$5 per month to own a 1024 m^2 lot (one is actually paying a share of the server cost and monthly land-use fees). If a user commits a crime (griefing or harassing) after a hearing they could be fined, punished with a temporary ban (required to pay land-use fees without access), or even a permanent ban (forfeiture of the US$30 payment). If a user values their relationships and investment, they will be motivated to follow the sim rules.

In my case I'll own 6144 m^2 of land amounting to US$180 down and US$30 per month. Just think what an angel I'll be.

~Ulrika~

which is what frightens most people, as well it should.

enforcing the tos/cs gets more and more difficult as the ll employee to sl resident ratio gets smaller and smaller.

andrew linden writes a little about land, and what that entitles you to.

/invalid_link.html

aside from the land, there is the commons which everyone in sl parttakes in. how much say should everyone have?

You are wrong.

Your ideas (reminder: not reality, speculative thoughts) are predicated upon an assumption of full player cooperation and the requirement that LL will enforce for you those things you cannot enforce for yourself (be it through coding changes or protocol/policy) OR that LL will hand you full administrative rights to their intellectual property.

If you cannot see why that is speculative (at best) and niave (at worst), I doubt there is much I can say that will get through to you.

They would have to have more than just a (perceived) need, they would have to have a mechanism.

There are hundreds of people in SL now that feel the need to impose their values on the broader community. I guess I'd be afraid too if I understood what it was about these micro-communities which would make them more of a threat than exists right now.

this isn't fear, as it is certain knowledge that people will feel the need to impose their values on sl at large. just look at the general forums where a few vocal people will speak up about preservation, research, sex, teens, and even government. these are impositions, and even worse sometimes they get imposed.

the problem is that the current system of imposition is rather haphazard, if you ask me.

Let's do this again with feeling.

I'll describe again in detail how a virtual government can enforce its rules by giving a description, theoretical implementation, and actual real-world examples of the various methods. I'm hoping the actual real-world examples will provide sufficient proof of principle for you. If not, you'll just have to wait a few weeks for the inevitable I-told-you-so post (I so love those).


Opt-in governments and organizations can have laws and rules which are enforced. They can have "teeth". Rules are enforced the same way rules are enforced by LL and RL governments, by controlling land access and land assets. For instance, a user- or government-controlled sim can ban an individual and confiscate their land, if they were violating laws or rules (such as engaging in griefing).

The way this works is that users living on land within an opt-in governmental sim do not own the land (in the sense of the LL meaning of the word). Instead the group owns the land and the user is given that land to live on (the government recognizes that they own the deed to the land and no one else can live on that group-owned spot unless they own the deed). If the user is found guilty of a crime

1. they can be given a fine in L$,
   
2. they can be temporarily banned from the sim by the group officers, or
   
3. they can be permanently banned and the deed is seized and placed back on the market.

Given that the user paid money for the land (the cost of the land or sim), it provides them an incentive to adhere to rules. They don't even have to be cooperative.

This is exactly how things work in RL too. If a user violates a contract (fails to pay on their mortgage) the bank (which actually owns the house) has a right to take possession of the property. It's a tremendous incentive for one to pay their mortgage! Another RL example is how deposits on a transaction (say a deposit for a trip) can be forfeited if the user violates the agreement (pulls out at the last minute). Another example in real life is how hotels will charge users a fee if they cancel with less than a 24-hour notice. Another is how storage facilities will lock up a person's belongings, if they are late on their payments.

Financial (and removal-of-access) penalties are effective. They work in RL, they work for LL, and they'll work in SL opt-in governments.

If you disagree with my description, theoretical implementation, or actual real-world examples, please point out which one and state why.

~Ulrika~

When you can comprehend that you can do nothing to effect what you wish until LL grants you permission to do so, let me know. Until then, you're pointless as you refuse to accept the base reality that what you 'would like', 'think would work', or 'plan' are all completely dependent upon LL.

Once you accept this reality, then we'll work on you grasping the concept that, considering LL will not enforce their own TOS with any degree of consistancy, the chances that they will support your plan or enforce things as you wish is as likely to be inconsistant in the same ways.

Good luck with it.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika,

Okay, so I just won't give you any of my money, and your SimGov will leave my plot alone. I don't see a problem here.


Gydeon.

Exactly! It's just the same as LL. If you want the benefit, you join and pay. If you don't want the benefit, you don't join and pay.

~Ulrika~