Could the Lindens block SL from stabilising as a goldrush economy?

I really do not understand where you are coming from are what you are talking about.

I guess that none of those people performing live in SL are one of those that dream of being a singer, and or musician. And if they did, SL certainly hasn't allowed them to explore this dream. I guess that is what you are saying.

You have to understand Yumi, the market is never wrong. It doesn't matter if there is churn or not. We don't need LL to protect us from the market, we need to protect the market from LL.

Chris, the problem is that "the market" doesn't exist in a vacuum. In the real world, the context the market exists in is largely fixed, by the properties of the real world. But in the virtual world it isn't - all of that context is under the control of creators and the Lindens. In SL, it's _impossible_ not to manipulate the market, because just by writing the server the way they did, the Lindens influenced the market. There's no "just the way it is" in SL, every line of that code is the product of a decision made by a human. Even the fact that we, the users, cannot change it does not mean it is a law of nature.

And the market can be "wrong" in the sense that it can result in an undesirable conclusion. For example, if the market drives SL in a direction that ultimately leads to SL being closed down, then it would be wrong for all intents and purposes in SL. (I'm not saying it's doing that right now - just that the existence of that example shows that the _possibility_ of the market being wrong does exist.)

And that context, is so critical in determining "value", that to try and judge the market independently of it doesn't make sense. The problem is that, thanks to LL's removal of most of the rewards for creating context independently, nowadays context is largely being determined by the same people who create the products that are sold in the market. My concern is that this is way, way too much of a perverse incentive. They're rewarded for creating a context that _sells_ more and more products, not one that leads to a good experience after the sale. After you buy your guitar, the creator isn't rewarded if they ensure you have a place to play it; they're rewarded if you're back buying a piano the following week... so far better if you're _not_ satisfied by the guitar.

A while ago I posted a message here where I asked if it was right that people were selling "booby-traps" to put into houses, on the grounds that what would you do with them apart from dropping your friends into them and laughing, and then how long before you didn't have any friends? The response I got back was that the creator "shouldn't worry about" that. Not that there was nothing to worry about, but that the creator should turn a blind eye.

That bothered me. I don't think that creators _should_ turn a blind eye. That's just asking for a situation where creators throw out all kinds of items without worrying about the context, and they're bought by people who aren't familiar with the context yet and wrongly apply the values from RL. Now you can say "well, if that's the people who are in the market then that's who the market should cater for" but saying that because the market has a high proportion of potential suckers therefore naturally it should evolve to cheat them is a bit excessive I think.

Now, in Second Life Experience Holidays: the chance to be a singer, provided you can sing!

Also, the chance to drive a Porsche, as long as you own one...

And the Lindens have decided that the context they will use is for Second Life to be a part of the real world economy. Every decision they have made has been in this direction, and while I personally think they have gone too far in some areas (I think some parts of the real world economy don't automatically map into SL, nor do they transfer into SL using the tools LL have provided, and really need to be explicitly modeled) this has nothing to do with the fact that I think "fish mining" games are themselves valuable, or that LL has any responsibility for creating them.
That's quite possible, but the market itself is the solution to that problem. SL is not *the* market, it's *part of* a market, and that market will soon include clones of SecondLife that can implement all the different kinds of market systems that you could care to see.
No, it's not right, and it's not right that people are building and selling griefer weapons. The market doesn't only reward the good. It often rewards the bad. You need mechanisms to counter that and if you were to argue that LL needs to put more effort into dealing with people who deliberately build malicious tools, I would agree. But griefer weapons are not part of the "goldrush economy". Griefer weapons DO get repeat sales, because they're selling something that really DOES provide the customer with the rewards and experience they desire.

Griefer weapons are, in fact, a counterexample to your whole thesis here.

The Lindens have _said_ that, but the far greater control that the Lindens have over the market context comes from their programming of the server, and that hasn't changed a great deal. The market context is _everything_ that might affect how people value a product - even people's opinions can be part of it (fashion).



Right, and it's sad that people could actually be driven into griefing by that. It's not always griefer tools, Bloodlines was another example of this (I know some people did consider that griefing, though); and there are even some people who are driven into BDSM for that reason, so that they can have a "sub" who supports their role (unfortunately there are many now who know this and mercilessly exploit it). The questoin is how that can be expanded onto other things, without griefing people - and I don't think it necessarily requires "fish mining".

Thats why you lean & twist to the side, so when you mess up they can just unscrew you from the ground

They have also consistently behaved that way. THey have the option of imposing more control, but they have said they won't, and they haven't, and the FACT that they haven't is pretty much essential to making SL what it is. Where they have failed to do so, in relatively small ways (compared to systems with the kind of central control you seem to want) they have been castigated for it.

If they behaved differently, Second Life would be a completely different kind of product.

It would be like There, or ActiveWorlds, or even World of Warcraft. There's a market for that kind of world, too. But there's also a market for what Second Life is. Why do you want to deny the market niche that SL fills? If there's a niche for something using SL's kind of technology but the kind of strong controls you want to see, it WILL happen, but let the market provide it.

TANSTAGI

And those systems have not resulted in SL becoming part of the real world economy - most of the commercial companies are leaving or going quiet, remember? For consumers, SL already _is_ nearly equivalent to There.



Because SL is taking the consumers who would be interested in that product and jading them. The problem is, everyone _thinks_ they can be the rockstar in a completely free world, even though 99% can't. By the time they've accepted that the world needs controls for that to happen, they've already spent their money and been caught!

Please provide any evidence to back up your "99%" claim. My experience and the experiences of the people I know say otherwise. No need for controls of any kind.

Well, perhaps 99% is too high, but it's still 70-80% or more. I don't know if there are firm statistics on the incidence of musical talent, but it would be irrational to suggest that the majority of people could be rock stars.

Um, wrong, it absolutely is part of the RL economy.
Which has absolutely squat to do with whether SL is part of the RL economy.
Asserting this doesn't make it true.
You're giving people far too little credit. Most people don't think any such thing.

True. But your previous statement implied that with the proper controls, EVERYBODY (or some much higher percentage) could be rock stars. My mind cringes at the thought of a nation of would-be, off-key, government-supported and ecouraged singers. With mandatory attendance at their concerts.

Talent rises to the top, in any society. A free and open society imposes fewer barriers to that happening.

Welcome to the world of people's dreams.



No-one said mandatory attendance. However, one method would be - every concert you attend scores you a Fantasy Point, and once you have 10 Fantasy Points, you can give a concert, on the same terms. That way, all the wannabee rock stars support each others' fantasies.

(Of course, if you're worried about disrupting the real singers, you can rule that anyone can give a concert, but if they don't pay Fantasy Points for it, the attendees don't recieve Fantasy Points for coming.)



But, unlike an RL society, SL needs to keep the untalented people around to survive. Deal With It Online isn't a popular virtual world.

That wouldn't work. Fake enjoyment is empty. They would only be there to get their turn. Who'd feel like a rock star that way? Though I suppose having people shout, "you suck!" while you pour your heart out (off key - and you read about rhythm but decided it wasn't for you) is part of the real life rock star experience?

Content creation is constantly identified as SL's factor distinguishing it from There, etc. Consumer users, by definition, don't use it.



It's a documented phenomenon - Scott Jennings and Raph Koster have both written about it. It's why newly released "game" MMORPGs always advertise being "skill based" even though all MMORPG designers agree that skill-based games will never expand; because people over-estimate their own skills.

Then you could use the system I suggested for Ferret Central, where to earn their Fantasy Points, people have to volunteer to have their chat logged and judged for how well they supported the star on stage.

And hey, I'm not talking about people who "read about rhythm but decided it wasn't for them". I'm talking about the people who decided it WAS for them, but then, like Carol Beer's computer, "talent sez no..."

Sure they do. They routinely take advantage of the fact that content creation is so easy. They happily pay real money for the products of content creators that are simply impossible in any other virtual world.

As for your out-of-context quote, if SL was a "skill based MMORPG" it might be vaguely relevant, but it's not. I spent ten years sailing when the closest I *ever* came to winning a race was second place. Because the point of sailing isn't "winning", and the point of SL isn't "winning". You don't get a really cool cut scene for beating M Linden.
A society of rockstars wouldn't last long in the real world. SOme people are groupies, some people are roadies, some people are in the audience, and they all need to be around for the society (whether it's the concert, the township, or the country) to survive.
Why the hell does a ferret want to win points. They're not being a ferret to win the ferret game, they're a ferret because being a ferret is cool.

Quit thinking of SL as being that kind of game. It isn't.

But that wouldn't work either. Because that means actually doing RL work to gain my SL rockstar-dom. Which is, bringing in my RL self's skillset, which as you said before, isn't going to fly for this to all work. Besides, I want a virtual rockstar-dom, not a real one. Real ones take work, and I want it handed to me without effort!

There is nothing in SL that couldn't be reproduced by another virtual world's design team. Now, true, SL has a "long tail" of content which means it would be very hard for a single design team to duplicate the variety available. But there's no single impossible item.



Gee, isn't having to be able to sing in order to get to be a rock star "skill based"?



They want to win points because that way they get to be treated as a ferret by other people, instead of just going to fancy dress parties in a ferret suit and being treated the same as everyone else.

Because obviously all the people cheering at a *real* rock concert have had to be trained and do work in order to learn how to cheer. Sheesh

Also, no one said you can't be asked to do WORK to earn rockstardom. You just mustn't be made to do work that can be blocked by "talent sez no".

But it won't, because there aren't enough people on the design team, and they frankly don't give a shit about someone's desire to be a ferret. There might be no single impossible item (though a ferret avatar that can do the weasel war dance is pretty damn improbable), but there's no way, in any possible universe, even if you summon Schrodinger's ghost and make him craft them as fast as his little ectoplasmic fingers can manage, that you'd get anything like the bredth and depth of content that you would have in SL without resident creators. None. Zero. Zip. No matter how much you put down creation, you're still wrong, wrong, wrong.

And, no, you don't nee a bleeding "ferret game" to find people who are more than happy to join in the role play. It's the people who CLAIM they want role play and then ignore it when it happens to them that boggle me.

Having to win at being a rockstar to "win the game" is "skills based". Being able to have fun even if you suck is "karaoke". SL is virtual karaoke, not a skills-based MMORPG.
Not until you can download talents from wetware jacks will that change.

No no. It's the writing good RP you suggested that's work. And yes, cheering an utterly crap performance (I mean, the performer doesn't have any talent for f's sake!) enthusiastically takes tons of work! Work work work! I want my talentless rockstar-dom without all that, or my imagination isn't being "your"'d, and my world certainly isn't!!



But writing good RP is a talent. I can't do it to save my life. Unless you were particularly compelled by my broken string earlier.

In fact, the very idea of having to earn merit of any sort (fantasy points indeed) offends my imagination! It hates your idea.