My Proposal for a Resident Dispute Resolution System

Well, I think its a good idea and all, but dont you think it's all a little... much?

And polls. Not polls. Whilst there is such a word as poles, it's the kind found in the clubs you frequent, not the kind you vote in.

James,

Well, I'm not sure it's possible to achieve 100% fairness in life, but I do agree that is something we should strive to attain.

The body I mentioned in my previous posting was composed of about five or six people. They would receive requests for mediation or appeals against banning, and would consider them over a period of time. They would contact witnesses and other interested paries as they saw fit.

The person 'in charge' of that particular case would arrive at their conclusions, and present their feelings about the case to the rest of the group, who would then vote on the various alternatives presented. The group would then present its findings.

This system actually worked very well. However the members were not selected at random, but were elected by popular vote.

Where the system finally broke down was when the owner of the site refused to accept their recommendations, and where people who had been cleared of charges were summarily banned from the site without explanation a few days later.

Should such a body ever come into being in second life, one of the condtions for its existence would have to be that the Lindens would agree that its decisions would be final and binding. I think that would be something very difficult to achieve, but in my view there would be no point in proceeding without it.

I played Lineage II. It sucked. Major haven for griefers.

Thanks for the correction.

I posted yes. I think overall it is a good idea, tho some things could be altered. I think 3 folks on the jury would be simpler. And a minimum of 60 minutes to make a final judgement is too long. Sometimes the problem is so obvious it can be decided immediately. Heh, I was on a RL jury once for a DUI case. We made our decision in 5 minutes. Then we sat and gabbed for another 20 minutes cause we didn't want for it to seem so short.

You are welcome, sweetie.

Devlin, you may have misread the document, or maybe I didn't make it clear...it's supposed to be a maximum of one hour.

EDIT...I just realized what you were referring to. If the jury uses their full interview time, they will have used up one hour already -- this doesn't include the time they took before the interviews to review the information provided to them, nor does it include the time they took to discuss the case. They have a maximum of one hour to discuss the case, and a maximum of one hour interview time, 30 minutes per party. Any cases that completely finish in less than one hour should be reviewed, IMO.

To those who disagree with my signature...I don't care. It has absolutely nothing to do with my idea. Feel free to stop reading & replying to my threads. Thanks.

I've decided to solve this by having a limit on appeals. After your appeal, you can appeal the appeal to the Lindens. It's basically how it works in real life...you have your case, you can then appeal, and you can appeal the appeal to the Supreme Court. Please see the newly added SECTION X.

Even if I don't agree with all of James's ideas -- I am of the thoughtline that I'd like to see these trials conducted for fun first, and they're quite complex -- his original post was thoughtfully laid out, even for dissenting views.

Furthermore, he is an honored and experienced member of the community -- not some griefer kin who wishes us ill. On the contrary, James Miller put a lot of work into this to share it with us, and wants to see it benefit the community.

There are a number of major things that were said to be, early on, unfeasable or outright undoable. Step by step, they proceeded. Speaking of, I bet RL judicial systems have been a real pain to set up over the millennia of human civilizations.

The train of progress may be a slug but it'll take a lot of salt to kill this mama. Even if I was against this proposal, I'd be curious to see how it would actually play out. Remember, it's just an idea blanket at this point, but if James-as-Hammurabi can venture out on a virtual jaunt and light our hearts afire, then we've got the gavel.

Or some such thing.

I voted no simply because I would feel in most disputes only LL is privy to information as to what really happened and I dont feel this info should be given to any players. If some people would want this jury thingy I have no problems with it in private land. But even then the jury shouldnt be given information on another player that only LL should have. And then without the information it will end up with the one the most eloquent winning, whether they are guilty or not.

Hello again, all! I've updated the document quite a bit. First, I made it easier to read on the forum. However, the more important updates were to the actual content...

First, I added Article I, Section II, Clause V & VI. Clause V basically states that in order to use the trial method, both parties need to agree to allow all information about the case to be given up by the Lindens to the jury members. Clause VI simply states that all parties need to be made aware of Clause V.

Next, I added Article I, Section III, Clause VI, which states that when agreeing to be a member of the jury, that person also agrees to allow the Lindens to release their disciplinary records to either party, on the request of that party.

I added Article I, Section X, which states that the loser of an appeal can appeal the appeal. That appeal will be automatically heard by Linden Lab.

I added Article I, Section XI, which states that Linden Lab may add amendments to this document. However, the amendments may only add new features to the document, not take away anything from the document. Also, the amendments may not contradict the document. Amendments may also void previous amendments.

I added Article I, Section XII, which states that it is Linden Lab's job to interpret and carry out the document. This Section also gives Linden Lab the right to use what it deems to be "necessary and proper" to execute the document "as fairly as possible".

I know there was some other stuff I forgot to add (I even noticed one right now, I forgot to add stuff about transcripts and released information being available on request after a case has been decided....I'll have to do that in a bit).

I really hope these additions and changes have addressed your concerns. If you'd like to discuss this in private, please feel free to IM me in-world. If I am offline, leave me an IM, they are e-mailed to me.

It's interesting...some more votes are being added, yet, you're not saying why you're voting the way you have.

I'd be very interested in hearing your ideas on how to make this document useable. Thanks.

James - I voted Yes even though I am against anything that even remotely smells like self-government in SL.

However after having read your well thought out solution, I would love to see it in action. Yes, it might indeed be akin to using a Jack Hammer on a walnut - but what other options are there? LL has been asked by everyone for some time to better identify transgressions and to more fairly apply punitive action and they have not responded.

The fact that someone could opt out of the jury process and go directly to the Lindens makes this a very good idea because it gives us more options.

Oh and for what it's worth - I think your signature is more "Patriotic" than a lot of the Flag Waving Ra Ra - Go American sentiment that I so frequently see. Blindly following any leader, moved by emotion and a false sense of loyalty as opposed to critical thought has lead to the destruction of entire nations.

Rose

After having a long talk with James IW I would change my vote to Yes. He addressed my concerns and doubts and acted on them

Thank you for the support, Rose & Toy.

Toy, it was great being able to speak with you in-world. I'm glad we were able to come up with ideas that helped settle some concerns of yours.

I'd LOVE to speak with more folks in-world on this subject.

Thanks!

I completely agree. Also, I don't like the idea of other players having any power over me, it just feels wrong...
And I think that the idea of a minimum of an hour to reach judgement or a right of appeal is granted doesn't work so well. There are some cases that are too simple to waste an hour of everyone's time.

For example:
Person A: "He shot me."
Person B: "Yeah, I shot him, it was really funny."

Pretty easy to reach a decision there, you don't need an hour to finish that up. Of course I understand that most disputes won't ever be that simple, but I'm still of the opinion that part should be taken out.

So while I'm completely against this whole idea 100%, I'm still voting yes. Because I do think the current system is lacking, and while I myself would never choose to go through a player jury, I do want people to have the choice to do so if they wish.

It looks like you put a lot of thought and work into this James, and I think you did an excellent job with it. I just hope you understand that I'm against the whole idea of this system, I'm not against your ideas for making it work, which I think are very well done.
Good show.

Just so you know, Aurens, the one hour thing is not a minimum. It's really just trying to protect the person found guilty. My thinking was that if a case was decided in less than one hour, the jury was most likely biased. You're right, it's not going to be true in every case, but, I'd say in the MAJORITY of cases.

The case is not automatically appealed if decided in less than one hour. It's just going to make it a lot easier to be appealed if it was decided in less than on hour.

Hello again, folks.

I'd like to point out that I have added another section, Section XIII, to the document. This section basically states that all data seen by the jury, and everything said in the Jury Meeting Room during the case, is to be made available to the public, via e-mail requests, at the time when the case is decided.

I also made some updates in Section IV, which now allows for no scripted objects EXCEPT those owned by the Linden that owns the island -- that allows Section XIII to be possible.

I'm also thinking about creating an Article II, which would give some basic outlines for the information that each party should be getting when they choose the Linden route. Would that be a good idea?

This would be my concern. How many players even read the forums? Are we going to send out jury duty emails to everyone? Who would even know a jury was needed? How to make these juries representative? Seems like a challenge in a world where participation is so multivariate.

Basically, what I envision is a check-box on everyone's profile, which is checked by default, and says "I wish to participate on a jury and be compensated in Linden Dollars for my time." When they are randomly called to serve on a jury, a dialog window would appear, informing them that it's their turn to serve on a jury. There will be 3 buttons. "Accept", "Decline", "Decline and Remove Me from List". The first would teleport them to the island (or, if the Lindens were to choose that idea of having special Juror accounts, the accept button would send an e-mail the person with the juror account information.). The "Decline" button would simple decline the opportunity. The third button would decline the opportunity, and uncheck the box in the person's profile.

Again, to expand on what I said earlier about how much fun it would be if this judicial system were first set up as a "mock trial" series, it would be nice -- and likely non-threatening too! -- if it evolved as a sort of performance art illustrating "the desire for justice within an online world". Sound odd? Yeah, it does, but that's what art is. I suspect any system like this suddenly introduced into the world would shock and cofound and anger some, but if it came about more gradually, like a smooth ramp leading up to its intended destination, we'd prolly have a more mellow acceptance.

One thing I am wondering about...


James, the real world very much has public courts with galleries, spectators and that sorta shiznit. Not to mention, news media covering trials which has helped bring attention to some trials in need of public consciousness -- by hurt others by way of taint. Why necessarily (as in, "always" make it such a closed system, far away from prying (virtual) eyes, on a private island in SL?


I know I'm missing something obvious here so please let me know, or reiterate if necessary. Thankya.

Hi James,

First, a suggestion. Could you "red-line" edits as updates are made to the original document? That will make it immediately apparent which sections have been updated -- along the lines of MS Word's track changes feature.

Second, as well thought-out as I think this plan is, my gut sense is that managing a complex dispute resolution system like this, within a gaming environment, will be very difficult to sustain. Applying a real-world institutional model, within this context, may be more challenging than we anticipate. You have done an excellent job of clarifying and streamlining the original document based on player input. However, my gut sense is that we need to make it as simple and non-burdensome as possible to ensure wide adoption. I'll certainly keep brainstorming myself, but if others have ideas about how to simplify the actual logistical processes, please post 'em.

Thanks!
Paolo

Torley...the reason I decided to make such a clsoed system was due to interference. Most of us have seen what goes on at Town Halls. People walking around, saying random things, etc. It's bad. Another reason is lag. Having 8 people (7 jurors, and one person being interviewed, if that's what is currently going on) in a very small space might create lag. Imagine if a well known person is one of the parties in a case...that could bring a lot of people. It'd lag that case, and the other cases going on in the sim.

I think I did what you wanted...let me know if that's what you meant. I hope I found all the things that I changed/added, lol.