So is there a bunch of SL political parties now?

I am sure this is somthing that has been answered 100 times.
I saw that socialist democratic party.
There other parties?

This is good entertainment to read while I am at work.

Well. There is the Cherub Reactionaries of the Capitalist Hemogeny AKA CROTCH.

There are also the Anarchists and the Leftist, Lesbians and something I forgot (and can't log in right now to check as SL is down for maintenance).

The Anarchists are by far the largest party so far, reflecting the views of a majority of SL population.

Probably there are a few more around but these have been most active in the forums at least.

- Gwyneth (member of the tiny minority represented by the Social Democratic Faction )

Sadly enough there is.....

Yeah... I found that, a lot of people, for stupid reasons, felt like bringing their political baggage into SL just for the sake of ruining another virtual world with RL issues, just so that they have another place to bitch about the government.

Dan, I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your minimalist and dismissive view on things.



So you think that "political baggage" is just STUPID? What you dismiss as "political baggage" is nothing more and nothing less than people's opinions and thoughts on how we should relate to each other in order to work as a community/society (be it in SL or RL...). Bringing these thoughts/opinions into SL is STUPID? So we shouldn't think about our relationships in SL at all?

You know, some of us actually care about other human beings... be they avatars or flesh and blood. Thinking about improving their SL experience is also a part of so-called "politics" (I personally dislike that word as it has such "bad vibes" about it...).

I don't think that's "stupid" at all. Of course, I respect your opinion! I just don't agree it's "stupid".

Likely-minded people just like to get together and express their views and opinions - together, we can voice those thoughts with more strength. In RL the "stregth of common opinion" has a name - association, OMG, think tank, faction, and, of course, "party". Stupid or not, it's part of our legacy of Humankind. It's natural to bring it with us wherever we go - real or virtual.



So this means that we can't enjoy the privileges of free thought, liberty of speech, and getting likely-minded people together to discuss RL issues like how to improve the game in order that everyone has a much better experience in SL?

Is this "ruining another virtual world"? So this means that we should leave our own selves - we are what we think, what we say, and what we stand for - and just do some role-playing, pretending that we are silly empty-headed computer animated graphics withought thoughts?

But for that I don't need to play SL at all! To create wonderful computer animated graphics I can use other tools - like 3D Studio or Poser or Blender or whatever - and enjoy myself a LOT just by doing pretty computer animations! It's a lot of FUN that way! No humans around! Even better, the tools we have in RL are much more sophisticated and realistic-looking than SL is right now. So why bother logging in?

What makes SL unique is that you SHARE this virtual world with fellow human beings, each one with his/her own views, thoughts and feelings. I don't agree at all that expressing our thoughts and emotions is "ruining a virtual world". I believe it's the human touch that makes a virtual world unique, and the more we can put our own selves into a virtual world, the more fulfilling is the experience. As I said, if you don't care at all about other people's feelings/thoughts/opinions, it's much more fun to create your own virtual worlds in the safety of your own PC. Let the people out of it if you think they interfere with your enjoyment of the virtual world!



WHAT government are you talking about?? In case you failed to notice it, SL has residents all over the (real) world, and fortunately for many of us, "bitching about the government" is not only something we don't really care about, but is not even at the top of our priorities. We really have much more to do than care about what RL governments are doing right now. And there is a place for that, too, on the Internet - forums, for example.

I think you're just missing the point here. As well as some people join together to create things like VERTU, or join together to create an environment for S&D just because they have fun doing so, or do debates like the Thinkers to discuss philosopy and religion, others (myself naturally included) like to discuss the basis for community development in SL. There ARE OMGs in the real world, and creating one in SL does not "ruin another virtual world". There ARE S&D clubs and communities in RL, and bringing them into RL also does not "ruin the virtual world". I guess that there ARE intellectual debating societies in RL (I sometimes host these types of events as a hobby in RL...). Similarly, I completely fail to understand why discussing the pillars of a community for the benefit of everyone does "ruin the virtual world"! What is the difference?

The way you put it, it sounds like there are a group of hackers trying to blow up the servers or something. THAT would "ruin the virtual world", if the Lindens didn't interfere. But discussing our opinions/views/thoughts...?

Well, the pen may be mightier than the sword, but I still think we should keep things in proportion...

Apologize me if I sound snappy (it happens with online communication a lot). No offense meant! I'm just exercizing my freedom of speech (while I still have it!) and pointing out why I don't agree at all with your opinion - nothing more and nothing less.

Devlin,

LOL


~L~

I am a very, very, very strong opinioned person in RL as far as politics goes. However, I don't feel like bringing this into a metaverse that is intended for exploring, communities, creativity, friendship, and talent. I understand how people could want to discuss politics if they had any relevance to Second Life. All I really intended by my first post was that I am just SICK of the "BUSH SUCKS" banners. Not because I am a Republican, but because it is really starting to ruin the game experience for me. In my opinion, if you want to talk poltiics in SL, that's fine, but at least draw a connection to how they relate to you in Second Life.

There's also The Furry Party, but I don't think it's quite the same thing...

1. Second Life is not a game like other games....some would even cringe at me describing it as a game.

2. Other than the landscape, the tools to build, the rules (physics, prim limits, land ownership, tier, TOS, etc), etc, it is a mostly user-built world. Although such actions are punished, we even have the tools available to us to create grid-smashing scripts, to cause significant downtime and make the world "ill".

3. The most significant, interesting part about SL is it's social component; or for some, it's ability to be totally non-social. The objects we build, the scripts that we create, could probably be individually accomplished in other media, quite possibly with greater control or greater detail. At the moment, SL is the best (my opinion) medium for doing all of these things together, and sharing them with others, to build, or simply interact, to "hang out", to create and leave your mark on a virtual landscape.

4. SL is growing. It's expanding at a very noticeable rate in terms of both population and land-mass.

5. The best way for Linden Research to ensure profitability for themselves is to find a way to allow the population and land-mass to continue to expand, without having to expand their payroll in matching amounts. Payroll, healthcare plans, benefits, overtime is probably Linden Research's biggest, and most controllable expense.

6. The biggest feat of this, long-term, will be in finding a way to make the social interactions of SL as self-managing as possible. To make the system self-sustaining, so that they can mostly concentrate on the technical side of Second Life....bugfixes, upgrades, extra features. To reduce the amount of involvement/interference in the everyday lives of SL residents, even those who are in disagreement, even those who violently dislike one another and act in an untoward manner. In effect, self-governance, of one sort or another.

7. The SL population is comprised of a huge variety of people, some of whom would want to bring their "political baggage" into this environment, some of whom would not, some who would love to be subject only to the basic TOS, some of whom thirst for a Kill-or-be-killed experience, some who would like to try something different, in terms of social management. Linden Research will profit best by being able to accommodate as many of these disparate population elements as possible, because "imposing" one system of self-governance will alienate any and all who did not want that particular system.

8. There are already Avatar Creation tools, Building tools, Scripting tools, Texturing tools, Streaming Music tools, XML-RPC tools, and Land-Editing tools. Why not allow for a new toolset, which can describe a different (up to a limit) TOS for each area? A Governance toolset. Why only Mature, or PG? Why only Damage-enabled, or Safe? Why not allow a land-area to determine what sorts of things (builds/actions/behavior/scripts/people) are and are-not permitted, and to enforce this up-to but not exceeding being banned from that land?

9. Since this will throw a major change into the fabric of SL, and since people who bought "public land" should not have the rules suddenly pulled out from under them, and since sim-wide seems the best way to promote such a new method of interaction (to prevent a situation where a person has the rules change on them from one 512m plot of land to the next); it seems that the best areas to manage this in is Private sims, not public ones. But, currently Private sims can only be owned by one person, not a group. In the end, private sims are currently all autocracies, although many of them are benevolent ones. The final decision for all things that happen therein must meet with approval of the person whose name is on the bills; and they can override anything that they don't agree with.

10. I believe that the best, most profitable way to ensure future growth of SL is to encourage expansion of Private sims, and to allow Private sims to be group-bought, as long as there is a toolset in place to allow these groups to self-manage their own land, and to deal with "problem guests". The metaverse, after all, will not be one wholly owned by a single company, but rather a means of interaction, with the end-nodes owned by individuals and groups; what can and can't be done there will be up to them when you visit the nodes. There will be some groups inevitably who attempt to model their areas after RL governments; their "political baggage" if you will. I think that the most successful ones will probably not particularly resemble any RL government; because the rules and standards of what works best in a Virtual World are different than in the physical Real World. Just because they resemble nothing like what you have seen before, however, if they are still making rules and enforcing them through any sort of power (group disapproval, banning, killing an av to be respawned at home), they are still forms of Virtual Governance/Governmant.

Hear, hear!

I agree a 100% with Unhygienix. Your text is so good that it should be adopted as a manifesto!

Dan, I also don't like to see either "Bush sucks" posters or "Vote for Kerry" lawn signs (of course, being an European, they have a lesser impact - I have my personal opinion what would be better for the world at large, but I can't express it through a vote ). But I think that the ones wanting to express their preferred choice in RL should be allowed to do so in SL, too. However, there should be rules for that. As a matter of fact, I believe that even in the US you can't put up posters wherever you want, but only on "approved" places. The same should apply to SL - I certainly agree with that. You should be allowed to agree on a community-wide base (say, at the sim level) if you allow RL political campaigning in SL or not. If you didn't, people would have to go to other sims instead. That's perfectly reasonable to "enforce" and there should be a way to do so.

After all, you have a similar "rule" in SL working like that: no selling/vending machines allowed in the public sandboxes, for instance. This rule is actively enforced by the Lindens. If you want to set up your vending machines, use a mall instead (or your own plot). Of course, this is Linden-enforced ruling - but I also have noticed several players "helping out" and telling newer residents what the rules are, so the community itself also self-regulates.

So Dan, what the "political-minded" groups in SL really want is not discuss is whether Bush or Kerry should govern the US and how they rule the RL world (for the 30% Europeans in SL that question is merely academic since we can't influence the voting), but be able to agree on rules for self-management, most likely on a sim-per-sim basis, just as Unhygienix throroughly explained. That's why there are "parties", "factions", and "discussion groups" in SL! And not for discussing the US internal affairs...