GovernANCE, not GovernMENT

We need some simple rules, disseminated not by fiat, not by complicated structures, not by systems of government, but by culture, by consent, through open agreements, openly arrived at, with voluntary, not cooerced participation.

These rules just concern how you live in groups on sims. That's about it.

They concern issues like:

1. What happens in the public viewspace in the horizon
2. Prim-counting
3. FPS-watching
4. Draw on CPU resources, like scripted agents
5. Land-parcelling
6. Linden land policies
7. Group tools -- their need for improvement

It's all about how you make up a sim and live on it. What you do after you fix that substrate is your business. If you want, have a socialist democracy toy. If you want to play Dungeons and Dragons, play that. If you want to just play Dungeons or just play Dragons, do that.

But first, we just apply ourselves to the very simple substrate: a few notions of culture to help control what happens on sims.

What would these cultural norms -- voluntary notions of how you behave -- look like?

1. I try to be considerate of my neighbours by

--not building at the very build line of my property
--not blocking their access to their own property
--not lagging the sim with excessive scripts or light, etc.

2. I try to solve disputes by

--going to the community association created on my sim for that purpose
--asking the person in question directly and politely before agitating others

3. I try to provide for better builds and "looks" of sims by:

--helping newbies learn to build
--helping to disseminate good prefabs
--having public discussions of what works and doesn't work
--offering to build something for someone

OK, you get the idea. I am confident that there is a set of these precepts that could be developed.

I think those would work very well for a player-run 'homeowner association' type of governing body. I hate to use the word 'governing' though - it makes people prickly.

Anyway.. nice ideas Prokofy.

This is a wonderful post.

I agree with you up until the point where you describe governments as "toys" and "play". You see, the act of self organizing voluntarily through culture, consent, and agreement (to paraphrase your words) is in fact a method of organizing a government. The system of rules (whether formalized or not) which sets the guidelines for the interaction of individuals is government -- it's not something which is tacked on.

Variations in guidelines for the interaction of individuals and in the formalization of the rules is just what defines different governments. Thus, a highly formalized system is just as much a government as an ad-hoc tribal system, which is just as much a government as a zoning authority. They are formalized systems for implementing governance.


I agree. Cultural and religious norms are the foundation of law.

~Ulrika~

gah... i think homeonwer associations are some of the worst governing bodies on the face of the planet.

Yup. Definately not for me either. But, if someone wants to setup a voluntary HA in their own sim, so be it. I just won't be living there.

Voluntary being the essential word.

Juro,

What you have on your sim in fact is a voluntary homeowners' association. Maybe it doesn't hold meetings with fussy overbearing people and cook up fascistic ideas about how you can't paint your house fuschia. But...there is some kind of loose network, some kind of shared communication, some means of exchanging ideas to determine the set of criteria that equals this: "We're the intelligent people with the right aesthetic values who live in this sim and the others need to be kept out so we can maintain our standards."


Well, actually, no. I wouldn't say that vague things like self-organizing around the prim-counter is a governmental-type function, because RL systems have evolved enough so that there are specific types of activity like "a constituent assembly" or "let's take over the telegraph stations" or "let's pay homage to the king" which makes governments. Just counting prims on a sim doesn't make a government.

And you can't count prims, without having to agree as to whether they should be equitably distributed in a socialist system that might privilege the "advance guard" or whether the richest should seize them all or whether a smallholders' movement should get them or whether the king should dole them out to his loyal subjects. That is, you could have all those systems of government functioning on one sim, that says "let's have a commons where you can buy prims for $7.5/meter, held in common" and some people will buy those prims to keep their monarchy in power, others will buy those prims to circulate them by a formula "to each according to his work," still others will just seize them for their own use and keep others helplessly in bondage, etc. etc.

That is, the system for sharing the prims could be just some common system, which others then adapt to the systems of government or non-government that they wish on their corner of the sim.

But most people never get that complicated.

I like that! Your post has cleared up for me the boundaries between Politics - the rules set up for people to live by - and Government - an organization encharged with monitoring the adherence to these policies.

With a small group, you can have policies and people just sort it out themselves... Pure Athenian Democracy: the people discuss, the people decide, the people live by the decision.

With larger groups, the discussion and decison making is no longer directly feasible. So, a government is formed to do that stuff; and to ensure that the people abide by these decisions. This takes some rights from the people, and in exchange provides some order.

In an enlightened anarchy, where all individuals had respect and tolerance for each other, even policies would theoretically not be needed; the group would function purely on individual "wiseness"... SF author Van Vogt wrote on this, a very interesting story: The World of Null A, I think it was...

The problem is, of course, when governance becomes government... there is a critical group size when this is inevitable, I think ... or under urgent external threat... Historical examples are plentiful.

It think this forum is GREAT

Not really, Henry. I own most of the sim I'm in and there are very few neighbors who are inworld with any frequency. Each of us (there's really only 2 neighbors) does our own thing. I guess you could say there's a mutual respect for being aware of your neighbors but also being aware of their right to do what they please on land they own.

The voluntary homeowners association is something more rigid and defined - a set of rules and regulations that cover builds and activities. In my sim, none of that exists.

Hmm...then the moral I'm drawing from this story is:

1. Own most of the sim all by yourself if you want to control its look (especially if you want to put your own architecture out and have that be the look of the sim).

2. Have really only two neighbours.

3. Make sure they aren't online much.


OK, nice recipe.

Then...if that is the recipe, then...why is everybody always touting Taber as a great example of a zoned residential community?

It's not really that. One person got ahold of a sim, owns most of it, and not surprisingly, controls its look. They found a few neighbours, who shared their version, and thank God, they aren' online much so no friction there! Why is this a "residential community"?

It's not a community (or not much of one), if one person owns most of the sim, and has 2 neighbours who aren't even online much. Maybe that person reached an amitable relationship with those 2-other-neighbours-who-aren't-online-much about the kinds of architecture they'd like to see.

Well, that was easy. I'm glad. But I want to have some models, ideas, recipes, for how MORE THAN ONE person "owns most of the sim" and they have MORE THAN TWO neighbors, but like 8-10.

I remember when we first went out visiting to study all these "residential communities" that people were always touting and praising, and we discovered, they are just one person owning all the sim, paying all the tier, and having a few friends over that they either collect a bit of rent from, or sell land to at a huge discount. It's nice, but I wouldn't call it the grand zoned residential living experiment that we are after here.

You're proving the point I've seen in the other models, including the one introduced by Lefty. Sure, if I control the total management of the sim and have a veto vote, if I own most of it, or control its investments, and have only a couple people with me, sure, I can have a nice sim that looks like a model toy-train village.

But I could have stayed in RL and had my mode toy-train village in my RL basement. What I wanted to do was to come online and have it with other people I don't control. Isn't that more fun?

For one, it's not a recipe - it's a specific example. Henry specifically called out my situation and the sim where I live, so I responded to that comment. It was not a response of 'this is how to do it', but 'this is what it's like in my sim'. My sim shouldn't be considered a 'model' for player-run associations, because it's not. We have no association or rules or regulations.

I would never have controlling vote for the sim because I would never participate in a player-run government for the sim I live in. If my neighbors decided they wanted to have a 'government', so be it, but I won't be participating.

I respect my neighbors and realize what I build and do on my land could have an affect on them. I suspect they feel the same way. I'm not out to tell anyone how they should build or what they should do on thier own land and I expect the same in return.