My Proposal for a Resident Dispute Resolution System

Individual groups dictating in a world where one person can belong to multiple groups and roam (and harrass) freely will not solve the problems. I do not believe that James is offering up an SL government, instead he is offering a solution for the mediation of conflicts. He never said that the whole of SL would vote for a leader or a representative faction (which would denote government) whose purpose is to carry out the rules and orders of the society at large, only that 7 jurors would be picked at random from a pool to discuss and validate or invalidate the offense according to the information at hand. In other words giving both sides thier say and letting a jury of thier peers decide whether it is a valid offense or not.

If you want a SL wide government, this is the solution to go for.

It is basically a central power (LL) dictating how dispute resolution will occur and is 0% bottom up.

A 100% bottom up solution would be to say "People - come together and resolve your disputes"

This solution is "People - this is how you will resolve disputes amongst yourselves"

If you really like this solution, I advise you to start your own group and use it as the dispute resolution system within your own group.

Advocating it as a world-wide solution is tantamount to telling everyone else what to do and how to solve their problems.

I voted Yes. However, My faith that LL would even support this idea is very low. I will be very surprised if they even take this into consideration.

This is exactly the sort of thing LL would support.

Their faith, and I can understand this, in the idea that players are going to come together is probably at a monumental low.

After all, with the constant complaining about "player governments", LL probably thinks that people have absolutely zero desire to cooperate and the best idea is to propose, top down, a system for them to resolve their disputes.

I would be surprised that James Miller isn't a Linden himself and this isn't merely a trial balloon.

Blaze,

No offense, but your post are no longer of interest to me as they are always so negative.

MJ

Some points:

- I'm slightly dubious about the ease with which you can get 9 people (7 jurors + defendent + prosecution) to all be present in-world at the same time during a contiguous time-segment. "Sorry, phonecall!", "Ack, boss is back, got to go to work", "Oh, gf is here ", etc.

- The Linden system *does* scale because they merely have to scale up the number of staff. More players = more revenue. That the scaling of Support staff tends not to happen in reality is a strategic decision by Upper Management, not pre-ordained, because reducing Support keeps costs down, and Upper Management perceive that they can get away with this to a certain extent.

- The main complaints I've heard with the system to date are lack of explanation of why someone was banned, though I suspect this isnt as easy to correct as one might suppose because of the possibility of people retaliating against their in-world accusers.

However, a jury system requires that the defendent meets the accuser in-world anyway, so the problem stands.

- The cost of a jury system seems very high. 7 people for 3 hours + the defendent + the accuser. Who's going to foot the bill? Both parties? Linden? The loser?

- One other possibility, off the top of my head: have a system of nominating judges who will hear a case fairly rapidly (5-10 minutes), and make a quick decision there and then.

The devil is in the details of course.

Details could possibly be:

1. anyone can nominate themselves as a judge
   
2. they need to find at least 10 people who will second them.
   
3. The defendent and accuser can each select the judges who they're ok with being judged by (they can chat with each other to reach an agreement over this if they want).
   
4. If they cant agree over a judge, it defaults to LindenLab.
   
5. Judge receives L$250 per case (~15 minutes).
   

The advantages of this being: quick, for all concerned, low-cost, easy to get people together since only 3 parties involved.

Azelda

MrsJakal,

What is negative about having faith in people coming together and solving problems over a central power dictating solutions?

Another problem with a jury is that we'd have to agree upon world wide rules of conduct.

Who creates these rules? Lindens?

Having a Jury just arbitrarily banning or not banning someone is far more negative than MrsJakal thinks I'm being. That would completely open the door to witch hunts and lynch mobs. Each 'crime' would become an appeal to popularity.

People should only be banned if they do not follow clear rules that have been clearly stated.

To enforce this requires judges, lawyers who can ensure that the 'trial' stays on track and only addresses the facts of the case.. workable in the real world, not so workable in the second one.

Better yet would be to have groups which get to know who you are and have rules which you agree upon before entering.

For example, a lesbian group for women might have completely different rules of conduct than the WWII group that hangs out in Jessie.

Kudos on the effort that went into this James -- it's a lot more thought than some people are willing to give the subject.

However, I'd like to know your reasoning for the "jury" system. Not a lot of people get really excited about serving on a jury IRL, so I'm wondering how a system like this would work if not enough jury members are willing to participate (or is jury duty somehow going to be mandatory in SL?).

This also doesn't really address the idea of "player-bias" that so many skeptics are paranoid of... and really in any system that isn't wholly anonymous, the potential for bias can be a factor as it is IRL -- even all the checks in the world can't stop a jury from being completely impartial.

Is there a way we can anonymize and distribute the jury system effectively? I think there'd be greater participation if being on some sort of randomly selected "jury" didn't mean being in a jury and having to take time out of your SL experience to deal with someone else's problem. Let's face it -- we have a limited amount of time on planet earth and therefore are a little selfish with it. Rightfully so, of course.

I think it's a start however -- I'm also surprised at the number of positive responses so far. I was expecting a slew of 's. wtg.

Pfft. I clicked on NO. I meant to click on YES, with some reservations.

James, most excellent work. This is so well thought-out and I'm happy to see how you have considered so many voices from the community, including counter-arguments, to put this together.

I would be curious to see preliminary testing of this, a sort of prototype run for fun. As in, not seriously punishing anyone, but just seeing how it goes. Kinda like "the court game" in social studies class!

After all, "Theory" leads to, but is existentially different (whatever that means) from "practice". I am fair but extremely biased, so I doubt I personally would be a juror for this. Also, my bouncing attention span and the fact I like to hop from place to place, a compulsion to rez giant watermelons, along with learning to multitask better and juggle IMs while being interrupted by RL, disqualifies me.

I would actually like to see several sorts of legal systems tried out in SL -- not necessarily in a serious context, but for fun as I described. Like playing house. A good example would be the futuristic Confucian doling out employed by Judge Fang in The Diamond Age.

I voted no.

Firstly, I am totally against any player-inclusive system such as juries. For anything, ever.

And frankly, I don't think we should be looking to make the abuse resolution system any more complex, I just think that (a) the Lindens need to be remotely consistent in their dealing with people - and that's in all aspects of SL, not just abuse or dispute resolution, and (b) they need to get off their high horses about not telling you what you did for reasons of privacy - which is complete bullshit - and be a lot more transparent about the process.

Oh, and stop condescending the paying customers and branding them probable liars in the forums.

Oh, and actually bother to address the supposed right to appeal we have. Which they conveniently don't until after the suspension is over most of the time. But again, thats a generalised criticism of LL. They simply ignore support requests time and time again.

i voted yes infavour of giving people choice.

for myself i would always choose LL arbitrators.

Having been part of a similar body in another virtual world, I have to say that the model presented here seems to me to be full of holes, some of which have been pointed out by contributors to this thread.

But it seems to me to be using a sledgehammer to crush a nut. To give seven people full details of the transgressions in order for them to make a decision seems to me to be a long way of going about it. The main reason people appeal suspensions is that they don't know why they've been suspended, because the Lindens choose not to tell them. By letting one person know why they have been suspended would, in my opinion, remove 90% of the appeals.

Wouldn't that be the simpler alternative?

Maybe. However, it's still not fair...




How do we ensure that this happens?

Blaze...how on earth do you see this as any sort of government? It's absolutely NOT a government. It doesn't lead to a government. There is a very fine line between abuse reports/disputes and government.

Also, I'd like to make it clear that I am not a Linden.

Just remember, this document is no where near complete. This thread is meant to be the place where we find ways to make it better.

With respect, not our problem. It's up to the Lindens to recognise it's an area for concern and improvement that their paying customers are unhappy with, and do something about it. At the moment all I see is them consistently blanking us on the issue, which is just wrong, but I still firmly believe it should be left in their hands.

I'm losing faith in the Lindens fast.. but I still have way more faith in them to be fair than I do in other residents

Interesting Signature..."Bush hates America"..I won't even read anything you have to propose with that kind of propaganda on your signature. Disrpecting The President is disrepecting America in my opinion..I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican. Id like to see his quote quoting that. If you want a voice in policy..learn to be political..not even Kerry has said anything of that manner. I didn't vote for Bush..but he is Commander and Chief..and will be construed as the entire Military hates America because they obey his orders along with Congress. I don't agree with everything any Politician does..there are more tactful ways of expressing your concerns. I don't agree with paying Real Estate Taxes either..as you never own your own home..the government does.

And Blake, some people would find your signature and what it implies equally as offending. Do you want everyone to judge you by your sig? If so, many are going to dismiss anything you have to say because they figure you are just meat for hire. Something to think about.

A fantasy can be many things...you're the one labeling it a piece of meat. It isn't a direct implication like the signature in discussion for example "Helping make your Sexual Fantasies come alive". I prefer more of the Neverland assumption.

No I'm not. I'm saying others *could*. Your profession in SL is not something that everyone would approve of. I am only stating that it is not really fair to totally dismiss someone's thoughts on an issue simply because there is another part of their life you may not agree with.

I understand your outlook..I am only posting this for his own good..I am not a hate monger..and I don't hate anyone..but you catch more Bees with Honey..that is the lesson Grasshopper.

I voted NO because I don't want to see resident run government or judicial system in SL, ever.

Latonia

Ok I stand corrected..you did not label it..you only brought up an intentional negative that some may label it "A Piece of Meat". Which is speculation. The Signature in question I cannot see it any other way other than a negative..on a Majority Vote of America's Election.

James,

Only a select few people will serve on these juries. These people will become the 'defacto' player government. Look at who's in Live Help. There will be fewer people in the Jury system.

Lindens will most likely start enforcing the TOS in a brutal manner to encourage people to select the juries.

Oh btw..this must be Poll Month..I've seen alot of Polls lately..speaking of which. lol.

... And Blake,

'Fantasies' is how it should be spelled. There is no such word as 'Fantasys'