Where's my bill of rights?

The term "ship of fools" is an allegory stated with a sense of self-criticism, describing the world and all humans on it as a vessel whose deranged passengers neither know nor care where they are going.

In my usage I imply that this thread is a group of individuals who neither know nor care where they are going in their role as citizens in a virtual world. While they laugh about censorship and intrinsic rights, moderators remove posts right from under their nose. It is the quintessential ship of fools.

~Ulrika~

Well thanks for the show of support. I still have no idea why it's so important that I have these mystical rights.

IMO, SL is a service. It is a rack of servers hosted by a company like any of the other hundreds of thousands of computers connected to the Internet. Nothing else.

I pay for access to those servers -- nothing more. I can pay a fee to maintain a certain amount of shared space within the pool of resources on the server, of which I only in a way "lease" from LL.

I am in no way a "citizen" of this world. I have no delusions of that -- I exist there via my participation. When I log on or off, I am still sitting at my computer breathing real air in my rented apartment on leased land: none of which I own either.

However, I do have tenants rights which protect me to a degree... which basically amounts to an SLA (Service Level Agreement). So if you want protection if you rent say an entire sim -- yeah fine I can understand asking LL for SLA's. They probably have SLA's from their hosting provider that they may be able to extend to residents in some fashion.

So my question still goes unanswered -- what exactly are these rights that I need so desprately? How am I being intruded upon or opressed?

Quite frankly, some of us need to get our heads out of certain back areas and into the sunlight. We pay access fees -- LL has no way provided us with palpable investment. If they closed their doors tomorrow, you wouldn't see any dividends that's for sure.

So I stand by my trite satire and "ignorant" comments.

I don't think I'm all that alone, but I'll say for myself that this whole Bill of Rights/Players Rights/Govern-ourselves is a bunch of arm-chair theoretical gas-blowing.

Please don't fart in the elevator. It stinks.

While I am sure you feel slighted by icon's post, your condescending metaphor is a bit strong.

Within his satire (also on the heavy-handed side) and then genuine appeal for discussion, Icon makes some decent points.

Some of us are comfortable with moderators moving and removing posts, and even occasionally being inconsistent, because it is better than the alternative. Since LL owns the forums, they cannot allow 100% free speech. Since they haven't implemented a system which allows for bottom-up rating and thus democratic filtering, then having reasonably even-handed moderation is a useful evil.

Not that I deny your right to protest. While I think a lot of your concepts are a little early for Second Life, I think the causes you push for and the awareness you possibly bring are useful.


Now can't we talk about more useful stuff, like how the hell am I gonna baby-proof this apartment? Gates... must order gates.

*applause!* Well said Icon...

Now that's a good post.

I understand what you're saying. It seems as if SL is separating into two groups, one which sees SL as a game or service and another which see it as a virtual world filled with citizens who should be granted inalienable rights. The question I have for the game/service faction is, why is the concept of inalienable rights mocked? There is nothing about a government nor a company that intrinsically requires it to provide inalienable rights to anyone. It's something it chooses to do.

Speaking from the game/service paradigm, why couldn't a corporation choose to do this? If it could choose to do this, how would it be a bad thing for you as the customer? If it's not a bad thing, then why not support the movement for inalienable rights?

I suspect that most of the resistance is personal, folks like to oppose certain personalities; ideological, individuals do not want to see inalienable rights; and ignorance, individuals don't understand the concept of inalienable rights. These individuals group together and then use the "but it's a company/game/service" argument to sidestep the discussion. What are your thoughts?

~Ulrika~

You're forcing your opponents into a convenient category to enforce your bias upon the point of argument. Those of us who do not see the need for these undefined "rights" are no less ignorant than you claim to be. We are fully and completely aware of our side of the argument.

The problem is by dragging out the discourse, the discussion could continue on indefinitely. It seems to me that many proponents of this supposed government for virtual citizens seek to continually encourage the discussion. A very low strategy that makes "discussion" more of a contest of patience.

Essentially, let's keep yapping until our opponent throws their hands in the air in agony.

Let's get one thing straight -- SL is not its own little world. It doesn't exist on its own. It is a product developed by a corporation that extends you access rights for a service fee. Tonnes of other corporations offer the same thing for various other products. Ours happens to be a social/entertainment platform (and indirectly also has other uses, granted). So what?

I _still_ don't understand the opposition here. I _still_ don't have a clear definition about what we're arguing over. People say, "inaliable rights.." What rights? Why do we need them? Why do I have to access SL and abide by them? Who makes them up? Who contests them? Who, other than a small minority, wants to even go through that process?

Do I want to come home from work, log into SL, and be bombarded with proposals for this and that? No. I like it the way it is -- I log in and I build what I want, on my land or in sandboxes. I keep up with friends, try out new ideas, and fiddle.

Why does it have to be any more complicated than that?

I think I may love you Icon. Your post made me chuckle today, something that is often lacking in the forums and which I prize highly.

I also appreciate your willingness to continue stating the way it is. Many of us don't have the time anymore to do more than skim through the usual suspects, so anyone with the time, energy, and sheer bulldoggedness to continue cutting through the b.s. has my thanks.

If you seek an uncomplicated experience and don't care whether or not alienable rights exist or not, then their discussion and eventual presence shouldn't affect you. So why even make a post which exist only to mock others? It seems like you're creating exactly the kind of complication you wish to avoid.

~Ulrika~

I think it was Seth earlier who pointed out how the "it's not a game" and "it's a game" arguments get tossed around quickly depending on the issue at hand. I prefer to say "it's not a game, but it is primarily used for entertainment."

I think you are correct, Ulrika, in that LL could choose to spell out a bill of rights anytime. I see nothing wrong with that, if it is intelligently constructed. From one perspective we have an unspoken one already -- if you don't break the TOS, anything goes.

One of the WONDERFUL things about second life is its freedom. Freedom to walk if you are crippled. Freedom to dance and flirt if you are shy. Freedom to experiment with look, with personality, with gender, with species! Freedom to unleash hidden creativity.

It is not anarchy because we have the TOS. SO maybe not total freedom, but greater freedom than most people experience in the real world with it's pressures and norms.

I think one challenge you face is a fundamental distrust of authority and government and the corruption of power. There will be skepticism, fear, even hostility towards anything that *might* hinder that freedom.


I also believe that if people are reasonably satisfied with a current state, they are usually loathe to risk change. Take Australia -- they are still part of the commonwealth and recently voted to keep the queen, as ludicrous as that seems. One could argue (generalizing) that this was done not because they consider the current system ideal, or the queen the appropriate head of state, but because someone didn't present a coherant alternative with an appropriate level of risk.

Or I could just be expressing a loud opposition. I could remain ignorant and attempt some mild level of bliss, but that would just let things happen that I'm obviously not comfortable with.

Of course there still hasn't been any explanation as to what this "Bill of Rights' proposes... so we could just be puffing up over a bunch of hot air.

So instead of making any more wild assumptions of your character or taking your advice and feigning ignorance -- I'll just do what you do and keep posting my point of view. Wether we all want to hear it or not.

Yup. I'll just keep talking. Even if there's no reason for it. Just keep my own personal diatribe goin...

Or maybe they already know exactly where they are.

Why stop at SL! Big Macs and Freedom and equality in Worlds of Warcraft, City of Heroes, EverQuest etc!!! GROUP HUG TODAY!


And today the internet tomorrow the world! Soon all client / provider services will be run entirely by the consumer end! customers uber alles!!

Congratulations. You have beat the final boss and have won the Internet.

Be proud.

I've always found - always, as in without exception - that the people who make a big deal out of eschewing politics, rejecting intellectual discussions about politics, proclaiming their own ignorance of politics, and generally dealing out high DPS to those who are interested in politics - are the most political animals of all.

Yes, I'm aiming the +667 Finger of God Gun at certain arguments on this thread, and leveling the entire level. This was a political thread from the first post, designed to provoke a political debate, for a specific and "aforethoughtout" political purpose. Politics is the bitch you can't escape; and while most people here know it, few are willing to comment on the implications, or what it means for Second Life - beyond making fun, of course - which is, honestly, fun to do. But Ebony has already pointed out, rightly, that Philip Linden believes that Second Life is a "country" and a "community" with a formal economic and social structure, and sells it that way to investors... and the interaction between those two dimensions of SL structure is exactly what politics is about. Hard to ignore much longer, eh?

Tell you what. Let's talk about what implications are of not having collective representation to the Lindens, or certain inworld/inforum/account rights and privileges in Second Life, beyond what is manufactured by LL for their own interests in the ToS and CS. Let's see what the implications of that would be/are now. Let's turn it around and see if there's anything useful coming at the issue from another direction.

Oh, and Icon does have nice teeth. Big, flat, wonderful for masticating grass and shrubbery. Leaves no bite marks on the ankle....

Ok... so now that you've discovered my secret plan.

Let's put this argument to the test --

WHY do I need a Bill of Rights to enjoy SL?

What benefit will it have to aid my plagued experience in SL?

Will I get the right to wear phallic attachments in PG areas? Will I get the right to parade as a superior intellectual philanthropist and mock the unbelievers? Will the tyrannical LL stop censoring me everytime I try and type something (AH! ZIP IT!)?

Explain it to me.

The opponents in the argument have mainly been challenging my ignorance and intellectual capacity. So go ahead, challenge me. Convince me if you will.

As a future citizen of your SecondLife, why on Earth would I need your bill of rights to protect me?

Those are excellent questions, Icon, and they really need solid answers before I would be willing to consider virtual rights and government any further. I am, you see, on the knife edge, as far as this issue goes, and could fall either way - but I do strongly support discussion and will continue to do so. So I am thinking about the questions - but unfortunately, I have to go join a raid on Zul'Gurub in WoW, so democracy will have to wait while I kill trolls.

Here's something I posted in another thread. It does contain a justification for real discussion:

By the way - just to set the biblical record straight - these "government" conversations are not about whether "virtual world citizenship" exists. It doesn't. The concept has been invented, but not yet realized. These discussions are about whether "virtual world citizenship" would give us - the clientele - and LL - the producer/licenser - certain mutual advantages. Discussions; no threat there to anyone.

The threat seems to be generated by attitudes, expressions, assumptions, values, perceived status and hierarchal differences between players, etc. - in other words, it's just...well, politics. The kinds of politics that government can cut through to achieve the fragile unity necessary to reach specific goals. And that is one of the few good reasons for government in human affairs - one human affair being (why, of course!) Second Life.

Plus, it was International Talk Like Pirate Day yesterday.

While I agree that LL (as the company) could implement some sort of customer/'citizen' participation and a 'bill of rights', I think it doesn't because it sees no competetive advantage from it. On the contrary, at best it will most likely cost LL additional time and money implementing and executing such things and at worst alienate paying customers/'citizens'.

That being said, if LL perceives that large numbers of their customers leave SL (yes, you do have the RL right to terminate your service with them!!!) because they feel the world/service provided and the current TOS are too oppressive etc. they probably will change them to meet customer demand. At the moment, I don't see that happening and not for some time to come.

As has been stated before, I think the freedom in SL provides is very large and my perception of LL is much less that of a greedy capitalist corporation and more one of a concerned and open, highly customer oriented organization.