LL Rejects Players' Bill of Rights

Unless power over other users is given to that player-run government, they're nothing more than lobbying groups anyway. If they are given power, I believe you'll see a lot of cancelled subscriptions. If they aren't given power, they're just playing house and are nothing more than a joke.

As for trusting LL to do the right thing.. I don't need to. They aren't a government that affects my way of life and my rights. I'm a paying customer. When SL stops being something I want to pay for, I will stop paying for it. I don't need to trust them any more than I trust Netflix.

No, it was an honest question. I'm not coming down on either side of the coin, really, just making an observation. I personally trust LL, especially based on the transcript of the MJW meeting with Philip where he told the group point blank that they needed public approval before LL would even consider their recommendations. But things change, and sometimes pretty quickly.

Will LL be able to resist the "suggestions" of a theoretical future player whose SL-based business income makes Anshe's look like a part-time hobby? Particularly if LL's org chart changes as well?

I guess the point I'm making is that there are degrees of power and influence. I would personally consider lobbying groups to be a sort of ad-hoc government system (perhaps more regional in nature than federal). And there is no guarantee we would even hear about the lobbying that goes on behind decisions LL might make in the future. Imagine them rolling out a client update with a lot of enhancements that benefit land barons, but we're still waiting for Havok 2. How can we even know how the priorities for these features were arrived at?

Inarguably true...the strongest "vote" you can have in SL is to vote with your feet. But...the scenario I'm imagining is not one where suddenly someone is crowned King of All Second Life, but rather one where certain groups with certain advantages, be they financial or whatever, insinuate themselves into the LL decision-making process over time. The changes are small and subtle, and accumulate gradually.

This is easily the most perceptive point anyone has brought up on this thread. And it was largely missed.

It shows how barren LL's collective thinking is in manufacturing a virtual world without giving necessary shrift to features like community, economic systems, social hierarchies, law and order (or the lack of), and customer-input beyond the rather narrow range of building things, conducting limited business, and forming individual or small-group social relationships. Some customers feel comfortable with such restrictions, and have been able to use them to carve a profitable niche out for themselves. Others chafe at the game-like bonds. But for as long as these limits exist, Second Life will never be anything more than a second-generation version of Will Wright's Sim City - a huge, cool-looking, temporarily-entertaining, somewhat-educational toy.

If that's what LL wants, great! Stop talking about "countries" and "worlds" and let part of the clientele move on, in terms of their thinking, dreams, and expectations.

But that's the problem, isn't it? Part of the clientele is attracted to SL because of it's game-like qualities - which offer an easy path to fun, affluence, and security that cannot be found in real life. But other clientele are attracted to SL's limitless possibilities - such as the idea of constructing a "truly alternative" virtual world, and perhaps seeing that world become "real" in the sense that it interacts with RL and sets new standards.

LL will not risk driving away one part of the clientele or the other. So it manages Second Life as though it were a game. And it speaks of Second Life as though it were a community on the verge of becoming a world. Which is, in one sense, crass and hypocritical, and in another sense, good business tactics. However, the issue of "goverment" or "politics" keeps coming up on the forums, because most of us - on all sides of the issue - instinctively understand the contradiction at "the very foundation" - both in SL, and in LL's developmental strategies.

Great point, and thanks for pointing out Cindy's earlier comment (nice job Cindy), which I did indeed miss and agree goes right to the heart of the matter.

Not to harp on Metaverse Justice Watch, but when I first heard of them on these forums, I did feel a bit of panic. Thinking back on it, I was probably reacting to this dichotomy you're outlining, as I perceive a vulnerability there. Somewhere between game and community there is a lot of blurriness in SL waiting for definition. And I was not enthusiastic to have a major land baron and an infamous crank do the defining.

No disagreement here with anything you stated. I do understand what you mean.

I suppose it comes down to individual lines in the sand, and each of us deciding where to draw them for ourselves. When has it become obvious that LL is looking out for Client A at the expense of Client B? The changes in land auctions were a huge leap in that direction for me personally. It won't take many more decisions like that before I just write SL off as a loss.

Yes! I'm surprised there wasn't more outrage at that change, as it basically signaled that LL was done with land parsing and was handing the whole thing over to the land barons on a silver platter. With a sprig of parsley on the side.

The idea that a virtual world product will become it's own world seems romantic to me. We think of the potential and it looks nice in each of our imaginations -- but ultimately one must realize that dreams are a self-involved machination. They're egotistical and tempestuous -- often forgoing realities and sometimes misguiding us with their delusions.

There has yet to be any practical example for which the proponents of a bill of rights can argue on. They just throw this necessity into the argument and it remains baseless. It's starting to sound like they just like arguing.

I know I'm risking offense as people's dreams are very personal -- but SL is not yours. It's LL's. They own it outright and you pay them money to use it. You have no rights to it -- you have a ToS and a CS document governing your behaviour and acceptable use of the system while you are logged in.

Is the whole point of the argument that we should have more than that? That we somehow occupy this virtual and immaterial space as citizens? Prove to me that your lively hood needs to be protected by a bill of rights in SL.

Convince me that you have an investment in SL. Prove to me that your human rights extend into SL. Show me how your rights are threatened in SL. Give me reason to need this ephemeral "Bill of Rights."

So far I have not seen a reasonable proclamation. It's vapour to me. I have not heard a single solid argument yet.

What's preventing them from pooling their resources and trying to achieve this now? If anything's holding them back it's not lack of freedom or rights, it's lack of adequate features.

I think Philip has it wrong when he says that SL is a country. SL is a planet. It's up to the residents to form the countries, and their ability to do that depends on practical things like infrastructure, tools, and a compelling enough reason to attract others to join them... all of which are lacking currently. LL should be concentrating on the infrastructure and tools, not spending too much time coddling everyone's idealism... not because idealism is bad, but because it's inherently myopic.

I don't want to be co-opted into what other residents choose to build, socially or virtually, unless I choose it. I think any resident bill of rights would do more to limit rights rather than expand them. Any such things should be created by residents to apply to their own nation-states and should be null and void within the sovereign borders of Chiplandia. Untill SL has evolved enough as a platform that people can truly realize their visions without having to get LL to make grid-wide policies, I see this as premature, and as other people trying to steer my second life, thereby ultimately limiting the future. I say hooray for things that are vague, undefined, and ambiguous.

In that case it wouldn't really be a Bill of Rights, would it?

Well, it would be in intent anyway. Bill of rights aside, to me this is more a matter of philosophy than practical application. The system we have now with LL free to change things as they see fit is what's most practical at this point in time. Philosophically I think people who are for this sort of thing (or player government in general) are being too nearsighted. Instead of lobbying LL for specific policies they should instead be helping to come up with and lobbying for the tools and environment that give them the most freedom to create those social policies themselves without needing to have them imposed on anyone who'd rather pursue a different vision.

Welcome to the Idealists and Complainers Club, Chip! We have a secret handshake, and nachos on Thursdays.

Well, if Linden Labs wants people to come and do businesses in Second Life, then it is in their interest to make Second Life a safer place to do business, isn't it?

In what way?

What technicalities would a Bill of Rights add to the way we do business in SL?

Are those rights above and beyond RL laws and regulations? Exempt from?

Absolutely. It is a well known fact that MMO players will spend years complaining before actually speaking with their wallets. So much so that the 2% Rule is considered null and void.

A corporation would lose more than it would gain to even consider such a thing. They would also gain a host of liability that they can happily not worry over at the moment as things are... there is nothing in the 'virtual citizenship' theme that even so much as begins to balance the mountain of liability such a thing would immediately present.

The view from the ivory tower is often nice, but I suspect mostly because those within it are suffering from oxygen deprivation... lofy heights, you know. (grin)

Remember GOM?

Things do change, including, I believe, that part where Philip said that the group needed "public approval" before they will listen to it. He no longer expects a group with suggestions for LL to have the approval of everybody in the world before the Lindens will listen to suggestions.

Which only makes sense - when you consider that the Lindens listen to individual suggestions, so why not suggestions that a bunch of individuals happen to agree on?

coco

Do you just mean Remember GOM? or do you mean REMEMBER GOM! like "Remember the Alamo" ?

You're being obtuse and I don't quite follow.

Thank you, this made me laugh out loud

Here's one.

As a virtual citizen I do not have the freedom to publicly discuss in-world events, if they involve other people -- even if those events are trivially verifiable.

Here's a real-life example, it was reported by Cristiano a while back that his sim had been terraformed by one of the sim's property owners. The extreme terraforming pushed the land surrounding the other residents property down many meters, leaving their plots suspended on plateaus of land. Naturally, everyone wanted to know who would make an entire sim so unlivable for the remaining residents but Cristiano was not able to say because of our "no naming names" policy in the forums. Because I knew that the identity of the individual who did this would be trivially verifiable, I simply flew there, found the name, and posted to the thread, despite the fact that I could have been disciplined.

Before I continue, I want to change gears and throw out a few philosophical tenets, since this really is a philosophical debate. Stated simply, it is one's Duty to not violate the freedom (autonomy) of another being. One should have complete freedom up until that freedom interferes with the freedom of another. For example, one should be allowed free speech (as restricting that speech is immoral), however that speech can not interfere with the freedom of another. Thus when people call for free speech they are not calling for unlimited speech, rather they want unrestricted speech up to the point where the speech can harm another person. That's why in the U.S. our broadly-interpreted First Amendment is overruled by laws which protect the greater good (inciting group violence or shouting "fire" in a theater is illegal). We have the freedom to speak up until the point it interferes with another's freedom.


Now, going back to the example in the first paragraph, the reason the naming of names is not allowed is to prevent damaging rumors and libel (both exceptions to free speech as they are damaging to another). However, this rule bans situations where individuals are involved in an acts which are trivially verifiable, where libel is not possible. In this case it should be permissible to report reality exactly like reporters do. However, we cannot! It is my argument, that we need to move from primitive black-and-white rules to inalienable rights which codify common-sense philosophy, allowing complete freedom, provided that freedom does no harm.

There's another lesson in that example as well. The act of radically terraforming that land was immoral, as the individual violated the freedom of all others in the sim. The terraforming limitations in SL allow too much freedom, specifically the freedom to harm. The solution again is common sense. We need to shift from primitive black-and-white rules to ones based on common sense philosophy that allow complete freedom, provided that freedom does no harm. We do this in Neualtenburg by imposing covenants that keep changes to land reasonable. The Lindens could do this by limiting the slope of the land at property lines, utilizing an automated method of preventing the harm of others through terraforming.


Apologies for this being so long. This is a philosophical issue that is as old as mankind itself. I tried to simplify it as much as possible by using real examples from our virtual world. For those with a deep understanding of the issue, please be kind with my simplifications. For those who are new to the subject, please give the post a good read, as it did take awhile to write.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika,

It is rather timely that you mention the destruction of Blue. I noticed just this week that they were kind enough to fuck up the sim even more, and take half of one of my plots of land with them, and there does not seem to be anything I can do. The crater is now surrounded on 3 sides by a giant sheer wall. You are right, the not naming names policy is complete and utter bullshit. It is probably the thing I like least about these forums, especially since the moderation of that rule seems only in place to protect people from legitimate public criticism.

I am particularly troubled by the recent disappearance of a thread about someone who felt defrauded by Anshe's land business. The forums represent an important part of SL. Many people use them to educate themselves about SL, including making financial decisions. As part of being an informed consumer, I would want to know that there have been complaints about a particular business. The business certainly has the ability to dispute them - but methinks where there is smoke, there is often fire. It is certainly true in this case.

Anyway, I am so disilllusioned with a lot of things about SL of late that I just do my thing with Snapzilla, pop into SL now and then, and play other things for now. Anyway, I leave you with a shot of what my lovely, thoughtful, selfless neighbor in Blue did to their land, and the land of others around them in the process.

I have no issue with anything you've said in the last couple of pages, because I kinda like things fluid, myself. The only difference I might have with you is that I think it could be possible to retain fluidity in formality - and have the benefits both of an ordered society and the current "corporate anarchy" at the same time. It's a challenge I can't resist thinking about.

I do have an issue with the above-quoted statement, however. In a virtual world, or planet, perhaps - there is no real difference between features and policies. Why? Because every feature results from policy since the "planet" is (or can be) completely under human control - something you cannot claim about the real world. To make a distinction between the two makes far less sense in SL than in RL. A different way of thinking is needed.

"The view from the ivory tower...?" Lord, I haven't heard that cliche in a long, long time. Comes from bygone era when the Ivory Tower was something more than a moldering pile of rubble, doesn't it?

Tell ya what, Cienna. Come on down from corporate fantasy-land, stop breathing that rarified mixture of champaign bubbles and industrial-strength executive washroom cleaner, and meet the masses on the suburban turf they mow themselves every weekend.

I suppose your point would be valid if LL didn't proclaim itself as something more than Boeing, Dow Chemical, or Electronic Arts. But I'm just a simple soul, and I take LL and its executives at their word.... They say they have a revolutionary technical and community-related product that will change the world, and I guess that means that they're a different kind of company, right?

Right....