Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

My Proposal for a Resident Dispute Resolution System

James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 17:48
Hello, folks. I haven't really said anything regarding government and dispute resolution on the forums, so, I figured I'd post a little idea of mine. Basically, this is my idea for a new method of resolving resident disputes & abuse reports. It's not meant to be a goverment -- I am against a grid-wide government. This is meant to be a fair, OPTIONAL way of resolving disputes & abuse reports.

I tried to take a lot of coutner-arguments into account when creating this. I hope I did a good job. I'm TOTALLY willing to add things, edit things, and make this document much better than it currently is. Please, post constructive criticism. Just don't flame me. Thanks. :)

Oh, also, after voting, please reply with why you voted the way you did. Thanks. :)

I have been updating this, so, if you already read it, please read again. Thanks. :)

Proposal for Second Life Resident Dispute Resolution System

ARTICLE I
SECTION I
The power to resolve Disputes between Residents in Second Life shall be shared between Residents and Employees of Linden Lab. The choice between these two options is to be made by the parties in each individual case.

SECTION II
CLAUSE I
By default, all dispute cases (aside from those mentioned in Article I, Section II, Clause IV) will go to a jury. If either party in the case requests to have their case heard instead by Linden Lab, Linden Lab will hear the case and decide the outcome of the dispute.

CLAUSE II
When an Abuse Report is sent by a Resident of Second Life, the Accuser and the Accused may both choose between two forms of Dispute Resolution.

CLAUSE III
The Choices made available to the Accuser and the Accused are either using the current Dispute Resolution method, by which the Lindens (Employees of Linden Lab) decide how to handle the dispute, or by having a jury of Second Life Residents decide how to handle the dispute.

CLAUSE IV
Only members with "basic" or "premium" accounts (or their equivalents at the time of this reading) will have a choice between the two methods of Dispute Resolution. If either party in a dispute is using a "trial" account, the dispute will automatically be reviewed by a Linden, not by a jury.

CLAUSE V
In order for a dispute/abuse report to be decided by a jury, both parties must agree to allow Linden Lab to release information to the jury. By not choosing to have Linden hear their case, they are automatically agreeing. This information would include (but is not limited to) the original abuse report, any relevant chat/IM logs, any relevant screen shots, etc.


CLAUSE VI
When given the option of having Linden or having a jury decide the case, both parties must be made aware of Article I, Section II, Clause V.


SECTION III
The jury will consist of 7 Second Life Residents who fit the listed Requirements.
CLAUSE I
In order to serve on a jury, you must have been in Second Life for at least one month (30 days), have an active subscription for the next month (next 30 days), have logged in at least 5 times in the last month, have not requested to be excluded from random jury selection, and have a clean "record" with Linden Lab for the past 30 days.

CLAUSE II
No alternative account (alt) of a jury member or either party in the dispute may serve on the jury.

CLAUSE III
All members of the jury must agree to give at least 2 hours of their time to hear all evidence in a dispute and make fair and unbiased decisions regarding guilt & punishment.

CLAUSE IV
A Resident is not eligible to serve on a jury if he or she has served on another jury in the past month (30 days).

CLAUSE V
Each jury member will be compensated for their time with L$250 per hour. This will be paid at the end of the proceedings.

CLAUSE VI
By agreeing to be a member of the jury, each jury member also agrees to allow Linden Lab to provide his or her past disciplinary records, on request, to either party involved in that juror’s case.


SECTION IV
A jury will meet on a hidden, off-world island, owned and maintained by Linden Lab. The island will be equipped with a number of simple Jury Meeting Rooms, suitable for a jury of 7 to meet, as well as interview parties in disputes.
CLAUSE I
Each island should be equipped with at least four Jury Meeting Rooms, which can be used simultaneously.

CLAUSE II
No Jury Meeting Room shall be within 20 meters of another, in order to give jury members and avatars being interviewed by the jury the ability to speak freely, without being heard by an outside party.

CLAUSE III
No one shall be allowed inside a 20 meter radius of the Jury Meeting Room while discussions are in session, in order to ensure that no outside parties can hear anything being said inside the Meeting Room.

CLAUSE IV
No scripted object, including (but not limited to) chat recording/retransmitting devices shall be allowed anywhere on the island. This does not include Linden owned objects, as detailed in Section XIII. Anyone on the island must not wear any scripted attachments at any time. This does not include Linden employees. In addition, the entire island must be set to No Build/No Script at all times. The island must be owned by the Linden which owns the objects as detailed in Section XIII.

CLAUSE V
Upon arriving at the Jury Meeting Room, a leader will be picked for the jury. The only tasks the leader has are to keep the discussions and interviews on track, to propose any non-binding or binding votes to the other jury members, and to submit the final decision for distribution to the parties involved. The jury leader will be picked randomly from the 7 jury members.


SECTION V
When both parties are using Second Life at the same time, a jury of 7 will be randomly selected from the pool of eligible Residents. Both parties in the case will be notified via an automated dialog window that a jury is now reviewing their case, and teleported to the same island as the jury. They will be kept in a separate waiting room, incase the jury requests to speak to either of them.

SECTION VI
While the jury’s discussions are taking place, the jury must follow a set of rules.
CLAUSE I
Upon entering the Jury Meeting Room and taking their seats around the center table, the jury will receive a Notecard, prepared by a Linden, complete with a copy of the original Abuse Report, a copy of any relevant chat logs and IM logs between the two parties, and relevant screen shots.

CLAUSE II
If a member of the jury leaves the Jury Meeting Room, or is disconnected from Second Life before the interviews of the parties involved take place, that jury member will be replaced with a new, randomly chosen Resident. If the juror leaves or is disconnected after the interviews start, the entire proceeding is voided and must be restarted at a later date with an entirely new jury.

CLAUSE III
The jury may request any additional materials from Linden Lab, however, Linden Lab is not obligated to provide all requested materials.

CLAUSE IV
The jury must interview each party involved in the dispute for at least five minutes. If the jury has no questions for the party, the jury must hear the person’s argument. The jury may spend up to 30 minutes speaking to each party. Each party must be interviewed individually.

CLAUSE V
If a party does not show up for their interview, or if a party walks out of the Jury Meeting Room, or if a party disconnects from Second Life during or before their interview, they will no longer be allowed to speak to the jury. They can, however, use this as grounds for an appeal.

CLAUSE VI
After completing their interviews, the jury should discuss the case for at most one hour (60 minutes). During this discussion, they may take non-binding votes to see how they feel as a group.

CLAUSE VII
This entire process should take between 2 to 3 hours. Any case which was decided in less than one hour (60 minutes) is grounds for an appeal.


SECTION VII
After the jury’s discussion has ended, the jury needs to take a series of binding votes.

CLAUSE I
All voting will take place via public chat. Members of the jury will, one at a time, indicate if they are voting “yes” or “no” to the topic they are voting on.

CLAUSE II
In order for a vote to pass, at least 4 of the members must vote “yes”.

CLAUSE III
The first vote will be on the issue of guilt. The leader will first propose a vote on the issue of guilt of the accused party, and then, if that vote does not pass, a vote on the issue of guilt of the accusing party will be held. If neither vote passes, the case is automatically given to Linden Lab.

CLAUSE IV
The next vote is on punishment. Based on previous discussions, the jury leader will propose punishments for each party. Votes will take place until punishments can be agreed on for each party. The first punishment vote for each party must be for “No Punishment”. If a punishment cannot be decided on for a party, that party’s punishment will be put as “No Punishment”.


SECTION VIII
The jury may give a punishment to either party, but, is not required to do so.

CLAUSE I
Only three types of punishments may be given out by a jury.

CLAUSE II
Punishment type one: A fine in Linden Dollars (L$). This fine may not exceed L$9,000.

CLAUSE III
Punishment type two: Suspension/banishment from Second Life. A suspension may range from 1 hour to 1 month. Any suspension longer than 2 weeks (14 days) & banishment causes the case to be automatically appealed by the party that received that punishment.

CLAUSE IV
Punishment type three: An order forcing one party to return to the other party and/or delete from inventory a specific object, script, image, texture, animation, landmark, notecard, etc.

CLAUSE V
A punishment may consist of any combination of Article I, Section VII, Clauses II, III and IV.


SECTION IX
After a jury makes its final decision, the losing party of the case may file an appeal.

CLAUSE I
Only the losing party in a case may file an appeal.

CLAUSE II
In order for an appeal to be accepted, the losing party must have grounds.

CLAUSE III
In order to find any possible evidence of bias by one or more jury members of the original jury, either party may request the disciplinary records of any of the 7 original jury members. These records should only include those accusations that the person was convicted of.

CLAUSE IV
The newly selected jury will, at the start of their meeting, review all materials related to the case, as well as interview both parties in the case. At that point, the jury will determine if the losing party has grounds for an appeal by taking a vote.

CLAUSE V
If the majority of the jury of 7 agrees that the losing party did in fact have grounds for an appeal, the process described in Section V will be followed by this new jury.

CLAUSE VI
If the majority of the jury of 7 does not believe that the losing party had grounds for an appeal, the case will be thrown out by the jury and automatically given to Linden Lab for review.

CLAUSE VII
In the event of a mandatory appeal, such as in a case where one of the parties received the punishment of a suspension of more than 2 weeks (14 days) or banishment from Second Life, the interviews and votes as described in Article I, Section VIII, Clause III will not take place. Instead, Section I, Article VIII, Clause IV will automatically be followed.


SECTION X
The losing party of an appeal may make an appeal to the Lindens. In this case, the dispute will go to the Lindens, and their decision is final.


SECTION XI
Linden Lab may, at any time, add amendments to this document.

CLAUSE I
The amendments that Linden Lab adds may not remove or contradict anything in this original document.

CLAUSE II
An amendment may be used to remove a previous amendment.


SECTION XII
The job of interpreting and carrying out this document is the job of Linden Lab. This document gives Linden Lab the responsibility of doing what it deems necessary and proper to execute this document as fairly as possible.


SECTION XIII
All transcripts from cases, as well as all data viewed by the jury, shall be available upon e-mail request, after a case has been decided. Linden Lab is responsible for setting up the e-mail address to accept requests, and is responsible for giving the data requested in a timely fashion.
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
Talen Morgan
Amused
Join date: 2 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,097
12-01-2004 17:59
Excellent. I would love to see this implemented.
Pendari Lorentz
Senior Member
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,372
12-01-2004 18:17
I for one think this is an excellent idea! It gives compromise and choices. It takes nothing away from what we already have, but it does add a choice that currently does not exist. In time, I could even imagine there being 3 options as a choice. LL only, Player Trial with LL overseeing, or Player Trial no LL at all.

This is a good transition that takes nothing away, yet could introduce a system that is much more fair than what we already have in place. I say that with no disrespect to the Lindens. I just know they have their plate full. And from their goals for the SL world, this could fit right in as an *option*.

Great work James!! :D
_____________________
*hugs everyone*
Rysidian Rubio
Ruby Red Head
Join date: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 263
12-01-2004 18:21
Wow James, this is a well thought out and detailed Proposal.

The only problems I could see is the time this will take, and whether there will be enough residents with the time to serve on a jury and who actually want to. Jury duty is mandatory in RL because most people don't want to do it. Of course the L$ rewards will help that.
Khamon Fate
fategardens.net
Join date: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 4,177
12-01-2004 18:33
i voted not sure because i don't yet see what all the fuss is about. are there real, existing past examples of situations in which something like this was needed?
_____________________
Visit the Fate Gardens Website @ fategardens.net
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 18:36
Oh, I totally think so, Khamon. Just look at the forums...people are constantly posting threads complaining that they don't know why they were suspended/banned. There are constantly disputes between individuals that are posted to the forums, and eventually locked by the Lindens.

With a jury system, people would know why they are being banned, and they'd know it's FAIR. That's why I wrote this entire thing -- to protect the rights of the accused.

Here are some links I found after a few minutes of searching on the forums...notice a few of these are locked.

/120/4b/28791/1.html
/120/6e/28759/1.html
/120/55/28624/1.html
/120/33/27755/1.html
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
Princess Medici
sad panda
Join date: 1 Mar 2004
Posts: 416
12-01-2004 18:48
Nice work, James!

This is a great solution because if gives options, and it not manditory. The only addition I might consider making would be to have the jury be anonymos to the accused and accusor. This would only serve to save the jurors from future harassment. Maybe the Lindens could make 28 alt avs (7 for each of the 4 jury rooms), named Jury 1, Jury 2, and so on; when you are chosen for jury duty, you are sent an email with the name and password to the account. These accounts would not be allowed to leave the 'jury island' and would have the password automatically reset after the jurors log out. This would also help the problem of jurors not getting along because of past dealings with each other, or going against the vote because they don't like one of the other jurors.
_____________________
Please cease and desist from your derogatory use of Elmo. :D
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 18:50
That's a great idea! If the Lindens would be willing to do that, sure, that'd be cool. However, on the topic of retaliation...if the person does try and make your second life hell, just report the person and let the justice system take care of him or her all over again. :)
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
Khamon Fate
fategardens.net
Join date: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 4,177
12-01-2004 19:00
From: James Miller
With a jury system, people would know why they are being banned, and they'd know it's FAIR. That's why I wrote this entire thing -- to protect the rights of the accused.


i can see informing and trying to protect the accused. i also see why people think that a jury system is more "fair." i just think it would be a lot simpler if ll told people what why they were being suspended and assured them that if they retaliated, they would be permanently banned.

you've done a lot of work and designed a good system. it's just too much responsibility for me to put into a game i pay to play. if the lindens suspend me with no explanation, they'll be chucking an annual account and $40 a month down the drain. my life won't end the day i stop logging into second life. maybe i'm simplistic and naive, but i just don't see them doing that unless i'm really a danger to the community.

y'alls efforts to morph our benevolent oligarchy into a democratic system are honourable. how can it really work on a single grid maintained by a corporate entity though? seriously? when we operate our own worlds like we do our own websites, forums and chatrooms, we'll be self governed by the groups that we support. i'll just wait for that.
_____________________
Visit the Fate Gardens Website @ fategardens.net
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 19:06
If the Lindens want to do that, that'd be a great step in the right direction. I'd love for them to start giving more information with abuse reports. However, as the population grows, I think the only real way to hand the number of abuse reports and the like will be a democratic system, like the one I proposed.
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
12-01-2004 19:55
Hats off to you James!! Thought out to the inth degree. The only thing that I would suggest is that maybe all appeals default to linden lab and maybe a bit of fleshing out as to what offenses require monitary punishments and what offenses are better served by a suspension.
This, though, is likely the most succinct and fair document I have ever read in regards to resolving in world conflict without trying to duplicate real world politics.

ohh so I voted yes :)
_____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell

As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them.
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 20:01
Thanks for the kind words, Isis! (And everyone else!!) I'm interested to hear your reasoning as to why you'd like to see it default to Linden Lab.

Also, so far, 5 people have voted no, and I don't see a single reply to this thread as to why you voted no...so, please folks, reply! :)
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
StoneSelf Karuna
His Grace
Join date: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,955
12-01-2004 20:01
From: James Miller
With a jury system, people would know why they are being banned, and they'd know it's FAIR. That's why I wrote this entire thing -- to protect the rights of the accused.

i don't think a jury is fair. people are swayed by presentation (read: good lawyering).

i do think letting people know in a clear and detailed fashion about what they might have done wrong would be useful.
_____________________
AIDS IS NOT OVER. people are still getting aids. people are still living with aids. people are still dying from aids. please help me raise money for hiv/aids services and research. you can help by making a donation here: http://www.aidslifecycle.org/1409 .
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 20:03
Hiya, SelfStone. :)

This system will have no lawyers. No one may represent you in front of the jury, because, this is not really a true trial. The jury is simply asking you questions. You don't have to answer, but, it probably won't help your case if you don't. You don't have to meet with the jury at all, if you don't want, but, you are guaranteed at least 5 minutes of time to speak.

I think a jury is more fair than the current sysetm. It may not be 100% fair, but, nothing is perfect. We're only humans. :)
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
StoneSelf Karuna
His Grace
Join date: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1,955
12-01-2004 20:05
From: James Miller
Hiya, SelfStone. :)

This system will have no lawyers. No one may represent you in front of the jury, because, this is not really a true trial. The jury is simply asking you questions. You don't have to answer, but, it probably won't help your case if you don't. You don't have to meet with the jury at all, if you don't want, but, you are guaranteed at least 5 minutes of time to speak.

I think a jury is more fair than the current sysetm. It may not be 100% fair, but, nothing is perfect. We're only humans. :)

the eloquence with which people speak varies. it amounts to lawyering. people with honeyed tongues would win more often.
_____________________
AIDS IS NOT OVER. people are still getting aids. people are still living with aids. people are still dying from aids. please help me raise money for hiv/aids services and research. you can help by making a donation here: http://www.aidslifecycle.org/1409 .
Prokofy Neva
Virtualtor
Join date: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 3,698
Suggestions
12-01-2004 20:07
It's good that you have the witnesses segregated, out of earshot, etc. but you forgot that in the game, people can communciate via IMs undetected, or use Yahoo outside the game. You can't control this. People will be able to make side communications and deals, gather testimony, etc.

Too much burden of administration is placed on LL. They have to monitor how many times a person logs in per month, what kind of account they pay for, etc. It's intrusive to players' privacy, and it's a nuisance.

Jurors should not be compensated with such a high fee, as IRL.

The premise built into the juror system is that the state (the game owner/the players collective will) must make its case against an individual (a player). They must be able to make that case to any reasonably functional citizen -- regardless of their financial, education, etc. status. That means if they read about the case in the newspaper, or they have a 12-year-old's reading level, it doesn't matter, because the state still must make its case in a coherent case under the law.

Jurors should be pulled in at random from a pool of those expressing willingness to serve jury duty possibly, or simply randomly. There might be a combination of lay assessors, or a panel of some kind, that serves as the core of the judicial process with possibly tie-breakers of votes achieved through random jurors.

Is there a means for making a transcript of the proceedings or minutes available to the public? This seems crucial.
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 20:09
Compared to, right now, where we have absolutely no clue what is the deciding factor in the Linden's decisions. *shrug* I'd rather have 7 fellow residents decide my fate than one employee.

Besides, if this system were to be implemented, and you really felt you had a better shot at winning your case with the Lindens, see Article I, Section II, Clause I. :)
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
James Miller
Village Idiot
Join date: 9 Jan 2003
Posts: 1,500
12-01-2004 20:12
From: Prokofy Neva
It's good that you have the witnesses segregated, out of earshot, etc. but you forgot that in the game, people can communciate via IMs undetected, or use Yahoo outside the game. You can't control this. People will be able to make side communications and deals, gather testimony, etc.

Too much burden of administration is placed on LL. They have to monitor how many times a person logs in per month, what kind of account they pay for, etc. It's intrusive to players' privacy, and it's a nuisance.

Jurors should not be compensated with such a high fee, as IRL.

The premise built into the juror system is that the state (the game owner/the players collective will) must make its case against an individual (a player). They must be able to make that case to any reasonably functional citizen -- regardless of their financial, education, etc. status. That means if they read about the case in the newspaper, or they have a 12-year-old's reading level, it doesn't matter, because the state still must make its case in a coherent case under the law.

Jurors should be pulled in at random from a pool of those expressing willingness to serve jury duty possibly, or simply randomly. There might be a combination of lay assessors, or a panel of some kind, that serves as the core of the judicial process with possibly tie-breakers of votes achieved through random jurors.

Is there a means for making a transcript of the proceedings or minutes available to the public? This seems crucial.


Regarding the outside chat things, yes it's possible. Also, if the Lindens went ahead with the idea of creating "1 Juror", "2 Juror", "3 Juror" accounts, etc (accounts that could not send IMs), it'd be almost impossible to coordinate something like this. The only way to say your Yahoo ID would be outloud, in front of everyone else.

I didn't add this in the document, but, yes, the transcript will have to be released by the Lindens. I should add that, I know.
_____________________
George W. Bush hates America.
Darko Cellardoor
Cannabinoid Addict
Join date: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,307
12-01-2004 20:19
I also think this is a very good idea. I for one would dedicate time to helping implement a system of this nature. Thank you James!
Paolo Portocarrero
Puritanical Hedonist
Join date: 28 Apr 2004
Posts: 2,393
12-01-2004 20:37
I voted "not sure," primarily due to this clause:

CLAUSE V
If a party does not show up for their interview, or if a party walks out of the Jury Meeting Room, or if a party disconnects from Second Life during or before their interview, they will no longer be allowed to speak to the jury. They can, however, use this as grounds for an appeal.


I think a loophole such as this would be egregiously exploited, resulting in frustration and a lack of faith in the "system." I am very much in favor of the general concept. I just think that some of the finer points and protocols need some further refinement, especially to plug as many loopholes as humanly possible.

Great job!
_____________________
Facades by Paolo - Photo-Realistic Skins for Doods
> Flagship store, Santo Paolo's Lofts & Boutiques
> SLBoutique
Isis Becquerel
Ferine Strumpet
Join date: 1 Sep 2004
Posts: 971
12-01-2004 20:45
From: Paolo Portocarrero
I voted "not sure," primarily due to this clause:

CLAUSE V
If a party does not show up for their interview, or if a party walks out of the Jury Meeting Room, or if a party disconnects from Second Life during or before their interview, they will no longer be allowed to speak to the jury. They can, however, use this as grounds for an appeal.


I think a loophole such as this would be egregiously exploited, resulting in frustration and a lack of faith in the "system." I am very much in favor of the general concept. I just think that some of the finer points and protocols need some further refinement, especially to plug as many loopholes as humanly possible.

Great job!


I agree with your point as well. My concern was more with the appeals system in that it would be a bit of a loop hole and that LL should be the appellate court. But I do see a bit of a problem with the disconnect equals grounds for appeal clause. If someone doesn't like the jury they just pull the plug on SL and get a new one. I say no appeals what-so-ever unless the appeal is sent to LL for adjudication and that any decisions made by LL cannot be remanded to the judicial bodies decision. In other words if you appeal to LL it is final regardless of what the jury stated.
_____________________
One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances.
Thomas Sowell

As long as the bottle of wine costs more than 50 bucks, I'm not an alcoholic...even if I did drink 3 of them.
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
12-01-2004 20:50
Jury trials for all dispute resolution in an exponentially growing system is impractical and impossible.

Maybe if it were limited in cases of banning or suspension longer than 3 days, it'd be more reasonable.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Aestival Cohen
half pint half drunk up
Join date: 2 Sep 2004
Posts: 311
12-01-2004 21:07
I voted no just because it seems like so much work to be on a jury that I'm not sure I trust the folks who would be willing to do so...

Does that make sense?
_____________________
=^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^=
Luverly FLICKR photos!
=^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^= =^.^=
Khamon Fate
fategardens.net
Join date: 21 Nov 2003
Posts: 4,177
12-01-2004 21:17
From: StoneSelf Karuna
i don't think a jury is fair. people are swayed by presentation (read: good lawyering).


From: James Miller
I think a jury is more fair than the current sysetm. It may not be 100% fair, but, nothing is perfect. We're only humans. :)


From: StoneSelf Karuna
the eloquence with which people speak varies. it amounts to lawyering. people with honeyed tongues would win more often.


this is not an arguable point. in respect of people being able to charm their way out of trouble or being graced with the protective support of a jury member or linden, the systems are equally fair.

From: James Miller
If the Lindens want to do that, that'd be a great step in the right direction. I'd love for them to start giving more information with abuse reports. However, as the population grows, I think the only real way to hand the number of abuse reports and the like will be a democratic system, like the one I proposed.


i misunderstood the problem. i've only heard people complain about two things:

not being told what they did wrong - this is easily fixed by the lindens telling people what they did wrong,

and the regulations not being evenly enforced across the player base. a jury system will not fix that problem at all. there will be just as much talk, and as many postings, of "guilty" people "getting off" and "innocent" people "getting shafted." people who vote no don't have to explain themselves. they simply aren't buying the argument that this system will change the perception of justice on the grid. that's not bad, it's just their opinion.

you no voters feel free to correct me if i'm speaking out of turn.

your statement that this formal legal system will handle the ever growing number of abuse reports better than the royal linden court system is absolutely true. that's been proven time and again. so i suppose i can change my vote from dunno to yes if that's the point.
_____________________
Visit the Fate Gardens Website @ fategardens.net
blaze Spinnaker
1/2 Serious
Join date: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 5,898
12-01-2004 22:17
This is completely moving in the wrong direction as it is a general solution and is 'system wide'.

We need to be focusing on encouraging groups to come together to develop their own individual solutions. As they coalesce we can determine what it is they want to do in order to handle dispute resolution.

We need to develop more group tools and the groups themselves, once they have more power, will find innovative ways to dealing with these problems.

People keep saying no SL wide player governments. This is an SL wide player government.

One of the most popular MMOGs is Lineage. A very popular and central feature is that it is group based. A system like this goes outside the group.

It also is a slippery slope into linden sanctioned player government, which is a very big mistake as it is not bottom up and takes power away from players.
_____________________
Taken from The last paragraph on pg. 16 of Cory Ondrejka's paper "Changing Realities: User Creation, Communication, and Innovation in Digital Worlds :

"User-created content takes the idea of leveraging player opinions a step further by allowing them to effectively prototype new ideas and features. Developers can then measure which new concepts most improve the products and incorporate them into the game in future patches."
1 2 3 4