LL Rejects Players' Bill of Rights

It is really very simple, Seth... Linden Labs is not a country, but a corporation. It doesn't matter if they decide to proclaim themselves the first digital nation or not. I think this is the part you (and so many others) are missing -- no matter what they say or how they market themselves, they are still a corporation and what they can or cannot do is still subject to existing law.... and they are under no obligation whatever to give to their customers one iota more than that law requires.

My point is valid in spite of LL proclaiming itself something more precisely because saying something doesn't make it true, and saying they are more doesn't change the reality that they simply are not.

If you're having trouble with grasping reality, get help... because denying it exists has limited effect, benefit, or change-inducing properties, I assure you.

Way to dodge the point, but hey, whatever. I am sorry you have a trench mentality as a result of your "anti-intellectual poll" fallout.

If the N'berg site has the Bill of Rights, provide me with a concrete link. Your N'berg.org link DOES NOT contain this information. I have read the prospectus. I have clicked thru to the N'berg forums, but if you want people to buy into this concept, perhaps you can pony up the pertinent stuff as opposed to expecting them to sift thru a group forum.

Your TOS for N'berg is simply a modified LL TOS. I see no distinct bill of rights there. Your constitution merely establishes your N'berg government, not the actual BoR.

So I still put it to you, for the third time, how do you envision this actually working grid-wide given the legal considerations I put forth in previous posts? Moreover, who is the one to draft this Bill of Rights? What is it to contain? If your vision of a Bill of Rights is the N'berg constitution, I would rather not have a multi-branched government in SL with checks and balances.

I think it's a great experiment, but I see no empirical data that it would be a progressive step forward for the grid as a whole to implement such policy for every Resident.


Or am I being too anti-intellectual for you?

The ambiguity wasn't lost on me.

I hope you mean "oblique"! I thought I was just being concise.

This whole discussion began when LL changed the rules for currency conversion and effectively put GOM out of business.

Now you say:I don't think you mean "ephemeral" here, because an ephemeral Bill of Rights wouldn't be a problem (or of value) to anybody! Anyway, I responded:I guess I have a knack for obliqueness, because you then wrote:Do you mean "in what way" they could make SL a safer place to do business? Really, any way would serve their goal of encouraging people to come and do business here; but the reference to GOM was meant to suggest that a stable set of rules would work better than one which could change at any minute.It's too early to say what it "would" add, but you only asked what it "could" add. It could require LL to come to agreement with the community of business owners before changing the playing field in a way which would adversely affect them. It might specifically prevent LL from going into competition with player-run businesses.I'm having trouble following this, because you're comparing rights (liberties) to laws (restrictions). In any event the two sets of rules will clearly work in conjunction, since nothing we do here will exempt us from RL laws, and any restrictions placed on LL here will be in addition to the laws they must already follow.

Let me say that I think that the rights proposed in this thread were particularly dumb, and properly rejected by LL. (Though they weren't really rejected, were they? Just not enthusiastically embraced.) Proposing a "right to bear arms" clause for SL exposes the whole exercise as nothing more than role playing, mindlessly modelled on the US bill of rights. Guns in SL are just attachments, no different really than clothing, and a right to "bear arms" hardly needs to be defended any more than a right to "bare arms".

edited for grammar

Oblique/obtuse -- semantics and word use that might have gotten in the way of the meaning. I hope you understood that basically I was finding your responses broad... or "not very specific."

I believe the topic of this discussion and its related tangents have been brewing for a long time and are only now beginning to boil over. Whatever situations and cases there have been in SL history; some of them have been given to the idea that there is a problem which needs a solution (governance) or that there are unfair policies or inconsistent policy enforcement (liberties -- and also in a different way, another problem requiring a solution).

It is in my observance that many supporters of "governance" or this new idea of a "bill of rights," usually have an ulterior reason to do so -- being that they've fell under the bad side of policy. In essence, IMO (and this may or may not be universally true) I feel these users just want the policy changed so they can do whatever it is they wanted to in the first place before policy stepped in and stopped them from doing so.

My problem with this in the context of this thread's topic -- being a bill of rights (which deals with liberties) -- is that it is a baseless pursuit. It has to do with the fact that much of what happens in terms of law is governed by real-world laws -- which also indirectly affect policy. Policy on the other hand is the direct control LL enforces over the users of their system. The idea is that for users to log into the system, they must abide by the policies laid out before they log in.

The discrepancy might very well be that some view us as citizens while in the context that SL exists 'within' the real-world, we are defined not as citizens but users. We're already citizens of our existing countries (or not) and cannot claim citizenship within secondlife.

Therefore, to claim that a Bill of Rights will add any benefit or value to SecondLife has so far been left without any solid backing. I feel it's an "ephemeral" concept (as I hope it is), or at must insubstantial, because the arugments supporting it have been lofty and lack any precision. There hasn't been a single supporter of the idea who has laid out even an example of a proclamation for debate that could be included in this Bill of Rights.

Instead, many arguments are a lot of, "what ifs," "you don't understand," "you're ignorant," "because this happened to me," and other "hot air."

As far as business goes, I think you might be on to something and may be a more logical for discussion in a seperate topic (I also appreciate the fact that your counter points didn't try to purposely attack my intelligence or make note of my ignorance). I did mention actually, in a few posts how I could imagine that business concerns might actually be of import -- like extending SLA's to users who own entire sims.

Anyhow, this discussion has less to do with my ignorance, level of intelligence (or anti-intelligence) and more to do with a side of an argument that I believe is important.

Progress isn't about blindly following a single path forward. That's only the best way I know to walk right into a tree.

Yes, but we know all of this already, Cienna. It's been covered over and over again, and most of us who are interested in the "politics" of the thing have pretty much absorbed it, dealt with it, put it into the ideological context (wink wink), and moved on.

You need to catch up.

I thought Cienna made a valid point -- I don't think the specifics of the realities of our participation in SL were so concisely outlined.

Several points:

Different assumptions do not proceed from a level of "immersion". They proceed from the tension between a limited concept of SL as a game, versus an expansive concept of SL as a virtual world. It is possible for people to hold both points of view; in fact, I think most of us do.

Different assumptions also proceed from semantics and personal points of view. When Chip Midnight started talking about policy being a part of people's "creative canvas", I suddenly we were closely aligned in our POV's, in spite of the fact that Chip trusts in LL as a balanced benefactor more than I do. For the most part, these discussions aren't really arguments so much as attempts to communicate and find common ground on which to proceed with a civilized debate - civilized meaning "ordered and productive". Da's poleetiks and guvument, fokes.

And the tone and quality of this massive forum dialogue is exactly how political experiments and systems have been created in the RL past. Whether you like it or not, you're participating in something - whether it's successful or not is another novel to write. It seems to me that the real "enemy" is not so much those who would disagree with us - whichever side of the debate we're on - but those who would seek to shut the dialogue down, or try to make it meaningless.

To me, the biggest problem with civil goverment in Second Life is
not LL's ownership or intent, but the lack of two critical factors among the residents: compulsion and the need to survive. Of course both are here, but the impetus is not nearly so strong as in RL. You can always turn to damned thing off. Compulsion and survival force order on human behavior and force people to negotiate and compromise on collective solutions - and there is far less motivation to do that here. Most of us are here for purely idealistic purposes, or to have fun.

If, on the other hand, SL becomes a major vehicle for profit and livelihood for millions, I'd imagine that the "compulsion" and "survival" concepts would be greatly strengthened, and "civil government" of a kind would be an easier concept for residents to handle. However, SL is neither a mirror of RL, nor something entirely new. Politics and government in SL will evolve in response to necessities imposed by RL, both on LL and on residents. And it will be messy - like this debate.

I think - I hope - Cienna was pulling my leg. And I was pulling hers in return.

Of course she made a valid point. And so did I.

Ah -- the little things I had missed. Sorry.

A sensible observation!

I agree -- SL is not a place that we exist within, but a place that we participate in. So yes -- we can log out and that's the short and skinny.

There is a fundamental problem with the pro-governance side of the game -- SL is a closed, privately-owned computer system. It exists somewhere in the United States of America under the ownership of a corporation. And to get the the point that has already been made several times -- it is only subject to the laws of whatever state it exists in.

The rest is policy -- ToS and CS. Both are documents outlining the terms of access to this computer system. It guides our conduct while accessing the system and sets the rules and regulations for using the system. The power to change those policies lies with the owner of the system -- LL.

Now I don't really claim to know anything, but if I were LL -- I would not release any control over policy to my users. Nor would any other system administrators of various other network/community systems the world over. Not under any circumstance ever. Is that wrong?

I don't think so. Partly why I argue against the position that self-governance and the forging of a "bill of rights" are necessary (or even possible) is because of what I know about the subject as it pertains to virtual worlds. Do you honestly think this is the first virtual world where these concepts have come into existence?

Quite simply -- they aren't. LambdaMOO was the first documented virtual world to enact a player-controlled government in 1993 if I remember correctly. Since that time there have been numerous articles and studies conducted on its operation and effects. Whole university courses have been developed shearly around studying LambdaMOO and virtual-world law. I bet there will be many speakers at the upcoming SoP who will reference LambdaMOO -- and others -- without a doubt.

The point of contention does lay in the level of immersion. I, for example, don't interpret the meaning of "virtual world," the same way as other residents of SL. For me, a virtual world is one that simulates a reality with varying degrees of parallelism (or realism if you wouldn't be confused by the word). It is a 'something' I connect to and use. Like a shell account on a remote mainframe.

For others however, they seem to be more immersed in the idea that SL is a 'world.' It may be a tangible place for them rather than a thing. One might even go as far as to maintain a subtle delusion that they occupy that place when they are logged into SL.

This calls into question the way we perceive ourselves in relation to SL. Are we residents in a world or users of a system? It is my belief that while the perceptions are interchangeable and vary from person to person, the reality is that according to United States law, SL is a computer system. We are users of that system to that law. We cannot become citizens of a system, and therefore a "bill of rights" is not really a way to preserver inalieable human rights -- it's a way for avatars to gain immunity from policy.

Let's start a pool on how long it takes Barrister to find the Bill of Rights. My bet is later rather than sooner.

~Ulrika~

Instead of being a jerk, you could just point me to the right place since I am oh so mentally underequipped to find it.

Glad to see you're trying to foster healthy discussion. WTG on using personal attacks to forward the debate!

EDIT -- If you are referring to the UN document linked in the Constitution, way to go on drafting your OWN original document! Now explain how all of those can be implemented in SL by LL in an effective manner that somehow holds LL accountable for the enforcement thereof.

Or are you still dodging the original questions?

Most of you who are interested in politics and drama have handily ignored it, refused to face it, and pretend instead that by framing the 'discussion' as a hypothetical, everyone will magically forget the underlying agenda of anyone giving the matter any degree of legitimacy or thought is quite serious about making Linden Labs implement 'law' and 'rights' in Second Life.



Pretty hard to catch up when you're ahead of the game. (grin)

Now you're starting to sound like my favorite Neva....



Hmmm. Maybe it's a question of someone lapping someone while the second someone was too busy composing champaign-in-the-washroom rhetoric to notice?

It's ok, Seth. When you can't address the point, just evade it as usual.

A point perhaps too fine to address, and too fun to evade, but:

Why do they think up stories that link my name with yours?
Why do the neighbors chatter all day, behind their doors?
I know a way to prove what they say is quite untrue.
Here is the gist, a practical list of "don'ts" for you.

Don't throw bouquets at me
Don't please my folks too much
Don't laugh at my jokes too much

Don't praise my charm too much
Don't look so vain with me
Don't stand in the rain with me

Don't dance all night with me
Till the stars fade from above.
They'll see it's alright with me

(Corn being as high as an elephant's eye,)
People will say we're in love.

Every time I look at you I get a fierce desire to be lonesome.

In that, we are together.

While there is a lot of talk about this "Bill of Rights" thing, what was it intended to do? I can only think of two ways it could work...

A) Limit further what we the players can or can not do.
or
B) Limit what Linden Lab can do.

I know for a fact that B will never happen. Linden Lab is a privately held company. They can not be controlled by their clientele unless they go public and players buy lots of stock.

And A... Why the [explicative deleted] would I want to vote to PUT LIMITS ON MYSELF?


Documents of this proposed nature can not be anything BUT negative. Either they limit what the "people" can do, or they limit what the "government" can do (which includes limiting what the "government" can do to the "people" or to itself).


Attempts to create binding documents of a negative and limiting nature like this are a sure sign of self-righteousness and megalomania (to cover both extremes). These are the people who's best retaliation to attack is the "that you are against me shows you are stupid" mentality.

Sorry to ruffle feathers if you were in favor of this "Bill of Rights", but don't let yourself get caught up in something just because it "sounds good". Ask why. And even more important... ANSWER that question!

Thank you, Tiger. You boiled it right down to the practical truth of the matter (quite brilliantly). That's exactly how I see it.

Kind of an obvious point, really. A Bill of Rights would be a request for Linden Lab to concede something to the SL users. Would LL ever limit themselves for the sake of their customers? They already have...the reason creators own their creations in SL is because LL decided to buck the MMOG status quo, where the owner of the platform owns all of the content generated within the platform. They conceded ownership rights to the user-creators.


I hope that I haven't come across that way in these recent threads. My honest intention is to provoke discussion beyond the polarized jingoisms that accompany most forum discussions of this nature.

(snip)



Preach on. The amusing part is most who want this honestly delude themselves into thinking it would mean they get more control. I'd almost support it just to listen to how they wail and gnash their teeth to discover reality after the fact.

Almost.

Ya, I'm still searching for the "brilliance" in that post, myself. Basically it's a restatement of a point that's been made several hundred times in several dozen threads, and earlier in this one, besides.

But more importantly - I'm glad you brought up the events of the summer and fall of 2003 in SL, Pol. LL made a major concession to content-creators after a highly-politicized public protest that made some of the media outlets in RL - I first learned of SL by reading those articles. Paradoxically, some of those same protesters are are now disparaging a fair discussion on SL government, by making claims that LL will never "concede". And yet, Philip Linden and others made the point during that protest that LL could not afford to "behave" according mainstream corporate standards, merely because of the innovative and community-oriented product the company was developing. The "building a country" thing has been standard in LL's public image projection, and I see no reason why we can't take it - at least partly - seriously.

One can also refer to Kathy Yamamoto's campaign against the WWIIOLers in the "War of the Jessie Wall", in which LL was compelled to change policies regarding the Outlands. The point is, SL history is deep with examples of LL policy-related concessions to users and content-creators. The real issue here is whether we want to become "formal" and "systematic" in our negotiations with LL and with each other - not whether LL will "allow" it or not. My position is that there are advantages and disadvantages. But it deserves a good discussion and not a continual barrage of tired and hackneyed libertarian or leftist cliches.

Yeah, this says it all.

You really believe that? Do you really think when he faces his investors he speaks of SL as a country? I'm sure he has this utopic view of his own new world order but I am just as sure that the balance sheet is at the top of his in box. While so-called players' Bill of Rights keeps some people awake at night here I seriously doubt if he gives it more than a moments thought.