LL Rejects Players' Bill of Rights

Please enlighten me for one thing, what was it that you (178 voters who voted) really wanted to "say", "express", "write about SL" that you couldn't which prompted you to request this rather comical bill of rights?

Here is the response from Lindens on this that apparently is omitted:

"Second Life is based on the values of tolerance and free expression. Residents are asked to adhere to community standards that are based on the golden rule, but beyond those standards, there are few to no restrictions. "

As long as they (Lindens) do that and stay away from unfair favoritism, why is there a need for this bill of rights, besides providing an endless talking point for certain individuals to babble day and night?

There seems to be confusion about the rights we are given here in Second Life. It really is a simple concept. I will spell them out for you.


1) You have the right to pay LL to access this world.

2)You have the right to build what you want as long as you are not offending other residents.

3)You have the right to sign off when ever you wish.

4)You have the right to quite if you don't like thier policies

Please see the 9/13 issue of the Metaverse Messenger, page 6, for more on this topic. We had the opportunity to interview Robin Linden specifically in regards to the idea of an SL bill of rights.

www.metaversemessenger.com

P2

I'm curious about this too.

Frankly, I'm glad this got rejected. I'd take moderation favoring protecting people from harassment and prejudice over "free speech" any day in a game. I need to deal with enough jerks "exercizing their right to free speech" at my expense in real life, I'd rather not deal with the same sort of BS in SL.

EDIT: Also props to Clickable Culture for managing to write an intelligent coverage of the event without constant snipes and digs at LL. If anyone is going to claim to be a journalist they should have the decency of impartially reporting events, or at least attempt to do so. Digs like "Kremlinden Lab" really smack of "welcome to my side of the story".

'tis amazing how much one can say with emoticons.

What? Its limited just like its limited in real life. If you started making a hate speech infront a busy residential area, your gonna get in some doo-doo. Same thing if you do it in SL. By "limit", I ment use your damn common sense. "The lindens banned me because of my 'baby rape build' that I put up in the middle of the sandbox! It's not fair!"

What I want to know is what freedoms of speech or build are we lacking that brought up this bill or rights idea. Name an example of something you wanted to say or build, but couldn't.

The constant repetition of "it's just a game," "LL is a company (stupid)," and "the only law is the TOS" has a quality of whistling in the dark to my mind. As if by saying it over and over we will make it true, pasting a simplistic solution onto what is actually a more complicated situation.

I still believe in the idea of the virtual world that is not a game. At least I think it is worth trying for even if it seems ultimately impossible. This proposal is poorly worded and not well thought out, but it seems to me that something similar is inevitable in the long run if we are to live in a virtual world that it also democratic (or at least fair.)

Despite what the company say in their official response, there are some fairly arbitrary (or Linden directed), barriers to our "freedom" in SL. It is not quite the free spirited place they like to paintit as. There are restrictions that revolve around the company image they want to portray and the profitability of the company, as well as ways in which the Lindens actually direct the evolution of our suposedly "user created" world.

Maybe it is a game and maybe it wont eventually live up to the dream, but if SL ever is to be a "real" virtual world, these issues pretty much have to come up again and again until they are solved.

While I agree with you, to a point, that SL is more than "just a game", I'm not sure why it's stupid to point out that LL is a company. They are profit driven, just as you say in your post.


Until the world is run by the players, it will never be "democratic". And in order for that to happen, we must have a form of representation, a governing body, laws, and a police force to enforce those laws. Until that happens, we're only deluding ourselves thinking there's anything democratic about SL. Maybe "benevolent junta" would be more descriptive.


Bing and go.


The nature of SL has attracted a large concentration of very intelligent, creative, idealistic people. Because of that, and the fact that LL will continue to own the servers and require profitability in order to keep those servers, I don't think the issue will ever lay to rest. The very foundation of the place is at odds with itself.

I have never felt passionately for or against a player run government in SL. Mostly because I feel that the best possible incarnation of it would be a highly formalized "customer suggestion box."

Remember that Linden Lab is going to do whatever they consider to be good for business. Often times the desires of the majority of users is INDEED what is best for business and therefore Philip would naturally review and seriously consider any proposal that wins the majority vote. But rather than some sort of mandate, the majority vote would serve as a planning tool to help the Lindens prioritize.

However if the majority of users pass a proposal that the Lindens consider a poor business decision the Lindens are going to ignore it, or at the very least make some symbolic gesture that never actually fulfills the proposal. A formalized player government featuring delegates, and bully pulpits, and Bill of Rights, and votes on Tuesday, and civic duty and all that other good stuff will eventually be revealed as an illusion. A highly complex distraction.

If players are seriously interested in a player run government in Second Life, the first order of business will not be a Bill or Rights. It will be figuring out how to make the will of the majority of players trump all the other factors that go into running a successful business. Along with customer satisfaction, LL must consider budget, staffing and human resources, technical limitations/capabilities, marketing/public relations, and Philip's long term strategy/vision for his company. Customer Service and Satisfaction must not only rise to the top of this list, its importance must exceed the sum of all other factors before a democratic mandate will actually have any teeth.

Perhaps a player government could punish Linden Lab's failure to comply by organizing some sort of boycott. This option could be profoundly difficult to organize as player dissatisfaction would need to reach a MUCH higher level than it is now before any useful participation could be expected. While I hear plenty of fury in the forums over bad LL decisions, I have yet to see them do anything that has motivated any desire for a mass walk-out.

So there you have it. A player-run democracy would essentially amount to players letting Philip know what they want, and Philip deciding if he agrees or not. It's pretty much what we have now.

If people want to go off and roleplay government, I have no problem with that. But please stop trying to force everyone else to play with you.

I signed LL's user agreement. I don't need some mock-up bill of rights.

Phillip said they think of SL as a country and thus as a country it needs to have its own currency. So in the minds of LL, SL is a country.

This summarizes very well the fundamental flaw in the bill of rights debate. While it is unlikely to stop our pundits from keep pushing their illusionary ideals, it provides a rational framework of the reality for those who are interested.

I'm sorry that you think this, but the fact remains that despite this "constant repetition" you dislike, it is exactly correct. People who continue to point out the OBVIOUS are not "trying" to make anything "true". They are highlighting that which is ALREADY TRUE.

There is nothing complicated here. The only complications come from those who wish to impose their politics and political idea and political desires on the rest of us.

Here's an idea:

All of you "Bill Of Rights" proponents should create a community in SL where you can draft and adhere to whatever things you agree to. That way the rest of us won't be affect by this bullsh*t.

Y'know PACs piss me off in RL, and there's little I can do about it. I'll be gobsmacked if I'm gonna sit by and let a bunch of people with their own little agendas f*ck up my SL _entertainment_.



"illusionary ideals". Well said.

If they are really serious about thinking of SL as a country, they ought to accept their own currency as payment against debts (at an appropriate exchange rate). Until they do, it's just flowery PR talk.

In the minds of LL, SL can be a pretty pretty princess for all the difference it makes. Bottom line is that LL IS a company, and SL is NOT a country, and until LL is ready to hand over its power to its users, it won't be a country. They would be stupid to do that, and I doubt very seriously if they will do it.

LL likes to talk about a lot of lofty ideals for SL, but until they're ready to put their money and coding where their mouths are, that's all a bunch of hooey and lip service.

Since it's their servers and they set the rules, they can think of it in any way they want. They can even think of it as a mango.

If LL ever goes bankrupt or gives up this little experiment, SL will become nothing more than a bunch of CPU boxes for sale on ebay.

I like killing gnomes.


I don't agree with it. I just posted what Phillip said. SL seems to be whatever is convenient to the person trying to sell SL at that moment.

You misunderstood me there. The "stupid" in the brackets was meant to make explicit the (usually unspoken) implication in those sorts of statements as they are generally made. I dont think it's stupid that LL is a company, or stuupid to point it out, just that arguments that use that fact as some kind of "final word" (like yours) are common.


Have no idea what that means.


Is it an insult? Like, "Why dont you go then?" or something?

The rest of your post I found kind of insulting and condesecending a bit, but I know that's your opinion, so whatever.

I was trying to describe what I see as the "real situation" which is kind of complex and open ended. We are not one thing or the other, and we are nothing if not changing all the time and evolving into other things. Your attempt to describe this as a "case closed" kind of static situation doesn't really help anything or explain anything in my view.

I *do* agree with your last idea about the company ideals being at odds with the actuality, or the ideals of the participants (having swallowed the Linden propoganda) being at odds with the actual SL reality.

Things *can* change though, and if enough people want to live in a "real" virtual world that actualy expouses the ideals that the Lindens only give lip service to, like user creation and freedom of expression, it will happen.

It might even happen here eventually.

I think that's understandable, frankly. The argument is based on facts that, in my opinion, trump the idealism (and sense of entitlement) of the opposing view. LL is a for-profit company who will "govern" their product as they see fit. As Aimee pointed out, meeting the demands of any given subset of the userbase won't necessarily be at the top of the priority list. That just seems like common sense to me and makes 99% of the debate about government meaningless.

I have nothing against those who want politics and government as long as it's strictly opt-in, but that doesn't change the fact that I think there's a snowball's chance in hell that LL would ever put themself in the position of being beholden to SL's residents in any formal policy making way... at least beyond adoptiing suggestions they think are beneficial without hurting the bottom line or draining manpower. If ever there was a topic that justified the cliche of "be careful what you wish for" it would be this one, but the odds are so long, why bother?

We know that LL plans to make it possible for people to host their own sims on their own hardware a few years down the road. At that point it will make sense for individual hosts to be able to set their own rules, and undoubtedly new lands will spring up with their own sovereign governments, some of which may be participatory beyond what we have here. I think LL's grid will always be governed by LL. They may be influenced by our debates when they make new policies but they'd be insane to give away any decision making power. I find it silly to ask them to, but that's just me.

Oh darn.

There you go using big ideas I don't understand.

Poop.

I'm kind of surprised at your sarcastic, flippant, and sophomoric attitude. I've always had the impression that you were a good person and solid poster but your recent behavior has me questioning that.

What's up Icon? Why the aggressive mockery of this subject?

~Ulrika~

This sums up my feelings exactly ... so instead of just repeating something like them ... I'd like to borrow the words and repeat them just as they are. (Thanks, JN )