No laws, no lawyers please. They're obsolete. Lets just have trust networks.

I would agree. But the reasons are different why they are not protecting sufficiently. This is because the concepts are not equal; they are like apples and oranges.

>> trust networks in their nature do not protect (other than the good ol' boys' trusted companions, which the weak simply do not have many of), they promote.

>> laws & contracts in their nature are built to protect (both the weak and the strong) but they do not function without actual punishment and a body to uphold / administer it.


I think the bottom line is that if Linden Inc. doesn't want to be a willing part/cog of the system to protect users beyond the TOS, there simply is no chance of building any real protection. They hold the key to all this protection in that they alone can enforce judgments. No one else can.. which, as an aside, it seems that having the sole power capable of enforcement would also make them liable for using it, abusing it, or abstaining from it.


finally, as it seems most agree, the title is fatally flawed in calling laws and lawyers obsolete; my feeling is this thread needs to die or be renamed.. if renamed, maybe something like "trust networks: a tool needed in SL?"

Trust networks seem to have limited applicability to SL. Mention was made of Friendster - if the "trust network" is simply "is this person my friend", then that will tell you nothing about whether they would be reliable or competent for some specific activity you may have in mind.

In eBay, the rating system works reasonably well, but that is because it is limited to those situations where people actually transact business. In addition, there are mechanisms to have blatantly unfair ratings withdrawn, or at least to post a response for all to see. It is unclear whether LL would be willing to invest the time to oversee this type of system, or what specific types of interaction would quality for accumulating ratings.

I know I have looked at eBay ratings closely where I was considering an expensive purchase or a purchase in an area with a lot of problems (e.g. PC components). I will discount neg ratings from members with low ratings (i.e. new members), because they are often unfamiliar with how eBay works and have unrealistic expectations. I am similarly suspicious of positive ratings from user id's with a very small number of ratings despite a long membership, because those are often shill accounts.

The main point here is that any ratings system has a lot of non-obvious aspects, and it won't help most members make the kind of decisions needed for business activity in SL.

I think you've hit the nail on the head for giving the reason why a system of contractual law is doomed before it's birth in SL. Any form of punishment requires LL's commitment to uphold it or provide a framework to support it - a level of involvement that will never come.

I don't think anyone involved in this thread can really doubt that this is the case, can they? If there is evidence to the contrary then please let me know - but as far as I can see LL seem to be trying to maintain their mantra in ALL areas these days - that all content of SL remain 100% user created. Their non-involvement policy removes any possibility that punishments resulting from breaking contractual law can be administered, thereby rendering a large portion of this proposal moot before any specifics can be looked at.

We know what isn't possible. What we now need to do is work within what is - We need to find a method of dealing with this exchange that can be entirely administered within the existing framework of SL, by us as users and content creators.

While a Trust Network is exactly suited to being run by those within it - I can also see that there are some unanswered questions and scenarios that we would need to work out. I do not however think that this invalidates the use of the Trust Network Model as a basic framework for what we're trying to achieve.

I'd like to see some suggestions for getting around these things and growing the idea rather than trying to shoehorn an already unworkable solution.

For instance - as in the case of Maxine above - I'd suggest we would probably need the ability for a member of the Trust Network to take on an apprentice for a period of training - then a period of work for the trainer. Only after this would the apprentice be considered for introduction to the Trust Network and they would have to be sponsored by two or more members to join. Once in the Trust Network they would be subject to the guidelines that are laid out on the web page I linked to earlier. However - I would also suggest the following: If a complaint is ever levelled against the member by one of their sponsors, and the complaint is proven, that person should be expelled from the Trust Network rather than just have their position within it adjusted. The Trust Network itself then becomes the #7 Hitting Stick I mentioned before.

Having two or more sponsors would also ensure that we never reach a position whereby one 'Trust Cheat' can bring more into the Network.

(Frank - does this answer the requirements you laid out before?)

I'm not putting this forward as the best solution - merely as my current best suggestion to think outside of the box and produce something that is tailored to the particular and unusual needs that SL creates.

Sable, first I thank you for addressing the hypothetical objectively.

I think you are on to something. In the comparable thread now ongoing in the Law Society group forum, I posed the possibility that a craft guild structure might help. Such guilds were self-organized entities formed by merchants and crafters in the Middle Ages to fill in the absence of governmental controls over such things as business practices, product quality standards and governance of apprentices. They had the power to admit and to exclude skilled artisans and apprentices. The carrot-and-stick approach enabled them to have significant power in their merchantile world.

I am not yet ready to conclude that "any system of contractual law is doomed before its birth," as you contend.

If a self-organized body (such as a craft guild) that gains sufficient market power (as by enrolling the principal "movers-n-shakers" in a field such as land development) can undertake the role of adjudicator, and if participants in the guild system are required to make a significant investment in the guild (via land or money), that investment can serve as the stake or "hostage" for the members' acceptance of the guild's rulings on contractual issues.

Once you have a mutually recognized adjudicator with some power to execute on judgments (e.g. by forfeiting the defaulting member's stake or hostage with the guild and paying damages to the wronged party), I suggest that you may have the foundation for enforcing express agreements involving members.

Such agreements could easily include a provision subjecting any disputes to the guild council for decision and submitting the party's full stake in the guild as a fund for award of damages if unpaid by the party within x days of judgment.

This is just one preliminary hypothesis that we are examining critically over in the Law Society Group Forum. It involves elements of a trust network, but not in the simple form that we've seen embodied in software. It does require human group involvement, with the inevitable complexities (and problem solving abilities) that human groups bring to challenges.

But I think it premature to flatly declare an impossibility or inevitable doom.

Others' thoughts?

Well, I think you need to avoid usage of such terms of "ironclad" because NDA's in the RW are anything *but* ironclad.

I know many peole who have signed NDAs and don't respect them for a second and for good reason - they are near impossible to enforce.

In this case, I think a trust network is far superior to that of an NDA.

If you meet someone and they start telling you secrets, you can put them on your trust list and therefore you and your friends are the sort of people that go around giving away secrets.

Or, you can keep him off your trust list and remember not to associate with such an individual in the future and develop a reputation as someone who can be trusted with secrets.

In fact, it would be cool, if you could set up such rules as "do not trust anyone who trusts this person".

This is a solution to the mediation gap that sits easier with me than current RL 'law court/government' solutions, and is different from the position you first argued from Frank.

I think there are elements of what we are all saying that are worthy of inclusion in the finalised 'whole' that we should be working towards. Perhaps, blaze, this argument would be better served if we were to join the law society?

I do think, however, that if what you've said above is true, that the title 'law society' is a bit of a misnomer (particularly from a PR point-of-view). If you truly are leaning towards a guild system (although a guild system stereotypically precludes interaction between the different disciplines - something that is equally undesireable) then a change of name to support the change in concept may be in order?

On this subject - there are pitfalls to a guild system too that I would be equally anxious to avoid - competing guilds and the associated price/power struggles are one of the defining advents of the Middle-ages. A mixed discipline co-operation is what I believe we're all striving for here - so that people can gain access to a trusted source of a particular skill to co-operate on an aspect of a project they don't themselves possess the ability to complete.

When I have a little more time I'll look through the discussion of the law society forum and see where things appear to be headed. As long as we are talking in terms of a modified Trust System, where Trust/Guild members as a whole are the highest authority (rather than a shoehorned 'governmental'-style legal system relying on the final say of LL), then I'd be excited to be involved with it's development.

Sable, my position may appear to change because I try to remain open to others' views and new information and experience. As I learn, I adjust my hypothesis and test it anew. Also, sometimes, I suggest angles in order to test them, without knowing in advance if they will test true or false.

Perhaps this is a result of my early training in the scientific method.

As to the Law Society, my personal vision is for it not to aim for any particular outcome, but to remain agnostic and to aim only for greater understanding of different modes of governing, contracting and resolving disputes in SL. I believe that like all complex systems, SL will evolve and from its growth and evolution will emerge multiple solutions for different circumstances. In that context, the name is less important than the process and the archives of scholarly exploration that I hope it will make.

But I am continually rewarded by faith in the ability of self-organization to emerge from sufficiently complex systems in which many actors repeatedly encounter common challenges together. So, like you (if I understand your positions so far) I have faith that cooperative solutions can be found without direct intervention by the LL "Leviathon."

Some folks will for their own reasons prefer one solution over another. My hope is the Law Society will provide resources and a forum for objective, civil exploration of as many possible solutions as our members and friends can propose. And leave to its members and friends to decide which they might wish to try or avoid.

This is admirable, and something I aspire to myself. Unfortunately conviction in my own beliefs is sometimes somewhat contradictory to this process.



I think I know what you're getting at here - but it comes across as mildy derisory - I do hope that wasn't the intention.

I fear that my original assumption of the purpose of the Law Society was flawed. A mistake I believe I have now rectified by finally being able to set aside the time to read through your forums. I apologise for my misplaced comments and suggestions in my previous post as these were founded on misconceptions and have obviously proved to be inflammatory judging by the general tone of your follow-up.



Purely from the discussion we've had in this thread I was under the impression that your intention was almost to provide a 'considered best practice' model for the interaction we have been discussing - I now realise that this isn't your goal.

From what I understand you aim to study and document the changing role and organisation of content creation and protection structures within SL? Yet you are also supplying and discussing various potential scenarios that these systems may face in the future - and how the society may feel is the best way of handling these?

How do these two activities sit together? Surely the fact that you are commenting on possibilities will eventually influence the systems you intend to study?

It had been my intention, I suppose, to take this work further and actually lay out what we felt was a 'best practice' solution to the problems we've seen laid out. A considered attempt to produce a workable, practical solution to the problems facing content creators, and their need for a framework for training apprentices, and co-collaboration between themselves and their apprentices, in a safe manner for all parties.

I would still like to reach this point and would welcome comments to this end. I have my own ideas of how this could work and will glady share them should this thread survive this minor misunderstanding and setback.

If my tone was received as being derisory, I apologize, as it was not my intention to be so.

While our study of processes and examples may lead to some conclusions about "best practices," what is best for one may not be best for all. What is "best" for the confirmed anarchist may not be "best" for the confirmed socialist and not "best" for the confirmed capitalist.

While I anticipate the Law Society will end up with a small collection of studies that might include some conclusions by their authors, I suspect that any attempt to put a Law Society "seal of approval" on a particular practice as "best" would be regarded as arrogant and overreaching.

As to proposing various scenarios to "test" hypotheses or particular assertions, this is simply a way of applying some Socratic method and some case study method. It often reveals flaws in logic to do "thought experiments" by coming up with hard cases and then seeing if the proposed solution will work in it. That was the reason for posing the Maxine Capitalist scenario, to hear the discussion over applying trust networks to a particular scenario that is of real concern to at least one real artisan in SL today.

Often folks will have a generic solution but have not thought through the implications in a particular fact situation. Presenting a fact situation tends to expose flaws that don't show when speaking generically. At least that's been my experience over the past years.

But in the end, we are feeling our way along in charting the Law Society's course. Ultimately, what it does and does not do will be a function of what its Observers choose to support.

Well, I think a lot of us do tend to think through our actual implementations. I generally like to use the forums for high level thinking that inspires me in the right direction and keeps me from going off in the wrong direction.

However, when I get to the nitty gritty, where the rubber meets the road (I'm a content developer) I think very very hard and do a lot of research (which I'd like to share, but then, there goes my competitive advantage) before I implement.

So, try not to confuse what you read in these forums with how much people are really thinking about these problems.

If you'd like, IM me, and I can share some of my resources with you as I suspect we'll never compete being in two completely different spheres.