LL Rejects Players' Bill of Rights

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.

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.

As much as we might rail against the establishment of player-run government(s) in SL, the very openness of Linden Lab to player input may well make some kind of government structure inevitable. As SL continues to evolve and change, groups are going to form that will try to influence LL to make those changes which benefit their interests. Metaverse Justice Watch was hilariously clumsy...expect future attempts at "citizen action committees" to go about their business in a much quieter and more strategic fashion.

(How many people here were aware that LL recently held an in-world, invitation-only black tie gala for private sim owners, where we were encouraged to speak with the Lindens in attendence, ask questions, and make suggestions? A perfectly sensible move on the company's part, taking care of their most lucrative customers, but also an indication of class division within our li'l utopia, where the haves potentially have more influence then the have-not-as-much's in the direction LL takes SL.)

The question just might come down to whether we want to keep these kinds of discussions with LL in the public domain, or let a system of backroom negotiations develop. Either way, there will always be citizens in our world who will band together and try to make things go their way. Do you trust LL to always do the right thing?

How many people here were aware that LL recently held an in-world, invitation-only black tie gala for private sim owners, where we were encouraged to speak with the Lindens in attendence, ask questions, and make suggestions? A perfectly sensible move on the company's part, taking care of their most lucrative customers, but also an indication of class division within our li'l utopia, where the haves potentially have more influence then the have-not-as-much's in the direction LL takes SL.

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.

Anybody can do the defining. You can join a group or form your own to do your own lobbying for your own desires. The fact that so many people got so upset about people forming groups to achieve goals floored me. I mean, it's like they are saying, "Sure, go talk to a Linden. Just don't get together about it or get any strength in numbers." Talk about limiting free speech.

And I don't care for your description one of the individuals involved as a "notorious crank." I might as well call you a "notorious badmouther." I have a broader view of both you and him than that. And what is so wrong about being a land baron? Did LL not ENCOURAGE businesses here? Is dealing in land not a business? So what's the problem?

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.

This is one of the most interesting threads I've ever read I think. What it seems to be boiling down to, is people's level of immersion.

If I am a business boy making six figures in SL, I don't give a damn about your need for LL to improve SL at their discretion. What I want are guarantees that LL will continue to support and improve the infrastructure that makes me money, and I will work diligently behind the scenes to get those assurances. I will gather other business boys and girls to my cause. I will submit well-written proposals supporting my ideas. I will shmooz with the Lindens. And because the rights of SL's citizens are vague, undefined, and ambiguous, it may actually make my task easier.

. They'll adopt policies and make changes based on their own practical concerns. Given that, does it matter if those ideas came from the forum or a lobbying group or their own internal discussions? Not to me.

By not aggressively defining and defending our own rights, are we setting ourselves up to be taken advantage of? If we are not specific about how we go about getting things done on a global level, are we letting others (whose motives may not be as benevolent as we might hope) specify the process for us?

My first take on the MJW (it has since change substantially) was that it was a group of land barons (our burgeoning plutocracy) lobbying for greater freedoms to prevent Linden investigations into and control of their in-world businesses.

~Ulrika~

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~

So I'll still wait for someone to explain to me the value and benefit of this Bill of Rights. I await the explanation of how this government will work, what it will do, and how it will add value to SL. I still want to know what makes it such a great idea... cause it's still fluff.

I just did.

I wrote a post on how a bill of rights would expand freedom where it is beneficial, retract freedom where it is detrimental and applied it to two examples showing clear common-sense benefits. We were even so lucky as to have Cristiano (used in the example) provide his opinion along with a wonderful picture in a following post.


I would suggest that the problem is not in people's ability to explain the issue to you rather it's in your ability to understand the issue.

~Ulrika~

How insightful.

I've often felt that I'm spinning my wheels at the grass-roots level, trying to educate SL's middle-class players, while SL's plutocracy has learned to lobby and is already making changes to our system.

I personally was quite concerned when the land-auction policy was changed. It was clearly a benefit to a small group of rich land barons and a detriment to the rest.

I just did.

I wrote a post on how a bill of rights would expand freedom where it is beneficial, retract freedom where it is detrimental and applied it to two examples showing clear common-sense benefits. We were even so lucky as to have Cristiano (used in the example) provide his opinion along with a wonderful picture in a following post.

Whether or not you find the above scenario threatening depends entirely on how maleable (or corruptible) you believe LL's decision making process to be. Personally, beyond public relations (ie making people feel listened to and heard), I don't think LL's policies are very maleable at all. I think common sense dictates that LL make decisions based on what they feel best suits both their bottom line and the long term success of their product. They're always going to look at it in those terms no matter how much lip service they pay to being open to the concerns of special interests. They'll adopt policies and make changes based on their own practical concerns. Given that, does it matter if those ideas came from the forum or a lobbying group or their own internal discussions? Not to me.

I am looking at this from the perspective of a bill of rights -- which IMU is a document which binds the government to recognize certain inaliable rights and freedoms of its citizens.

Requests for policy changes are not a matter of governments or bills of rights. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

What bothered me about MJW was not the fact that they organized to achieve their goals, but that they were in the process of defining how we go about getting things done in SL. Others may disagree, but I saw in it the stirrings a governmental process tailored to special interest groups. I did not want to see that system succeed. Additionally, and this is pure politics, I did not want to see a group succeed whose member's beliefs were ideologically opposed to my own values.

You can call me a notorious badmouther, I don't mind. People may or may not get Pol Tabla out of that description. I know if I say "notorious crank," people familiar with the forums will understand who I'm talking about, and how I feel about them. Efficient, no?

As for land barons, I dislike the role they play in SL...it's parasitic. I do not value their contribution to SL.

A bill of rights directly affects policies. Policies directly affect citizens. In other words, the bill of rights would affect citizens by changing the policies (laws) which the Lindens could enact.

If a bill of rights were adopted, it would (among many things) allow true reporting in the forums. In the case of the griefing incident where I named names in a trivially verifiable situation, I would have been a "reporter" instead of a "vigilante". You see, the difference between someone being a criminal and someone being a professional can be as simple as having a bill of rights.

~Ulrika~

While it's some fascinating pseudo-intellectual wanking, I really haven't seen much of substance that specifically addresses 1) what is to be codified in an enforceable contract between LL and the Residents 2) who is to draft this document 3) what recourse, besides spending the money to engage in ADR with LL or file a lawsuit or just cancelling their accounts, Residents would have if LL was to be in material breach of the new, modified, Bill of Rightsy TOS?

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.

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.

The integration of a ToS with a bill of rights and a constitution has been done here. Let me know if you have any questions.

~Ulrika~

As far as the specific enumerated rights, I never did see those. But thanks for pointing me to the N'berg page. Where I found no bill of rights. Closest I found were two links to your pseudo-wiki with deeds, the constitution and a few other things. There was no bill of rights that I saw. So WHAT, exactly, besides the exact same right to speak as we have now, except with the ability to post names on the forums, do you propose for this bill of rights?