Government Forum

Ok then, you didn't quote anyone so I was unsure. Just shoot me.

The argument for having a player government in SL because it is growing is unfounded, Lineage and UO are HUGE compared to SL yet they have no need for palyer ran governments. It's just another way of crying wolf to me.

You know Ryen, if you read my posts you'll probably find that I'm probably in agreement with everything you think.

I suspect you agree with me that

a) players should be allowed to form groups
b) groups should be allowed to buy sims
c) in their *own* sim, groups should be allowed to have rules which when people join the group and agree with full knowledge of those rules that they have to obey, or..
d) groups should be allowed to kick people from their groups
e) groups should be allowed to ban people from their group owned sim
f) these seperate sims should never be confused with SL
g) linden labs should never, under any circumstances, give any of these groups or the individuals leading these groups any extra influence over policies and procedures of SL

If there is something here you disagree with, please let me know I'd be interested in your perspective.

I should point out that it appears that the Neualtenburg forums is a place for discussion, provided nothing is suggested that might be contrary to the vision of a select few who seem to have co-opted N-burg as their own little play toy.

For those that don't want anything to do with self-government, then by all means stay away. This is not a compulsory agenda for ANY resident of Second Life, so people need not fear that somehow what comes out of N-burg will affect them in the least.

However, for those that do have an interest in such things, I would strongly suggest that you take advantage of Ulrika's offer and share your visions of how you feel such a player run government should look.

The Costume Party of Neualtenburg offers a clear alternative to what is being offered, and welcomes others who might feel that what is happening in the city needs to be addressed by a wider body of Second Life residents.

- Ace

Ok, let's look a little closer at these two posts:

Philip Linden: "There are more people available in SL than at LL, and people who are closer to the issues,"
Philip Linden: "so I can't see how LL's system could beat a good resident system"

Did he say "We believe that a resident system is inevitable and we are going to demand that one is implemented"?

No, he used conjecture: "I can't see how.." Now some folks want to take that as "Government is coming."

His statement is vague at best, and I think it was probably intended to tell us that they are tossing around ideas. Phillip has used vagueries in the past, one notable one in which he claimed L$ was real money, yet the ToS states clearly that it has zero real world value. There are other, probably more pertinent examples.


Now Robin's:

Robin Linden: "it isn't our intention to make governing a 'game' or requirement of Second Life."

Take note of the last part: "or requirement of Second Life"

I.e, they are not going to require it. How can that be read into? It's very clear to me.

I'll once again note that wether government in SL is good or bad, the choice to discuss it should be allowed in a public forum. Economics got moved to it's own and is actively discussed even though some people (which might be a minority or not) believe that there is no economy in SL -- nevertheless, it is discussed.

So yes, perhaps we might have to wait for clarity from LL before they'll assign the topic it's own forum. However, that doesn't address this new issue of what people are allowed to discuss. Suddenly I'm hearing that if it's not popular opinion, it's not allowed to be discussed in public.

While I empathize with those who find the subject annoying or pointless, my point is that it could be the last thing on earth that you want to hear about -- but since this is a public forum open to the discussion of general topics relating to SL, then it should be allowed to be discussed with impunity.

As for the RL media -- it does constantly pump headlines I don't want to hear about. Often over and over again... and it's because my opinions are the minority that all I can do is not pay attention to it. Hence why I do not watch television or subscribe to articles or papers that espouse what I care nothing for. Even if I was the majority, in a free society I can't tell people not to talk about what they want to talk about. Even minority topics in RL have public venues to share their ideas in, but I think it's commonly accepted that not everyone will listen.

But allowing for that minority idea to be discussed publicly is important... because who knows, it could grow and become the majority idea. If it's a public forum and LL is allowing us to excercise freedom of speech, why should the topic of governance be shoved off elsewhere?

I suspect that I'm not a member of the group that you're concerned about (unless you're talking about Anarchism!), so if you're directing the "you"s here at me, they're misdirected.

I also think that Neualtenberg has the horse before the cart (though I am watching with interest), and I would not be comfortable laying a foundation for discussion of government issues in their group, where construction has already begun.

Except that they've repeatedly denied it and never done anything of the sort.

And here's an interesting question, which is off-topic in this thread, but would be good for a Government forum: is the TOS the perfect set of restrictions to live under, or are there additions (or deletions) which would improve it?

Again, you are reading incorrectly between the lines. All I'm asking for is a civil, thorough, and creative debate, which to me seems to have a ways to go before it has run its course.

Now I'm reading between the lines, and may have got it wrong, but it seems as if you want us to stop talking about it (Ryen has been explicit). Maybe if I ask nicely: Please?

This is the reason I guess. These threads aren't created to discuss, it's a recruitment drive?

Sigh.

We had a simple yes/no poll. some 80% said no. I highly doubt that a majority, pro-government, is going to be culled from that. I guess that is the real reason behind it, the minority wanting as much visibilty as possible, so that they can drive a campaign.

Maybe the newspaper analogy wasn't the best but I do notice that my point about the economics threads being giving a home is going to be ignored. For me, it's about categorization. This is the general forum, not the Government forum. It replaced the *New in Second Life* forum. I for one do not see this subject as new.

I guess here is where I am going to voluntarily remove myself from this, and any other discussions on this topic because it's clear to me it's all in vain. It will just keep popping up until the dogs get tired or they get their way.

Ryen,

When I hear STFU, what I hear is that my opinion is worthless. That hurts (yes, I know Nolan, sticks and stones, but it's easier said than digested). It hurts because I like you and I respect your opinion. I know you were taking to blaze, but I think his idea is a good one and I might have made the post myself.

Do you really need to have this elephant gun in your rhetorical arsenal?

It take an extraordinary person to stand on their rock when everyone is pelting them with abuse, and though I agree with blaze (or Ulrika) maybe half the time I have to admire his commitment. He is the kind of person that is responsible for moving the world forward.

How many people who agree with him haven't seen fit to post because they don't want to deal with your contempt? You don't know.

So I have to come down on the side of "griefer". Just because you have a point doesn't mean that it's okay to bully people.

But, the good news is, it's still two to one in favor of "constructive engagement"!

And they have always been interested in our input. Government is coming? I suspect so, but what I am sure of is that LL's vision will bring change.

Suppose the Linden's support the implementation of player dispute resolution, but allow people a check-box to opt out of it; and allow everyone to see how you've checked the box. When you're hiring a builder, or thinking about consulting for a Land Baron, you're going to have to wonder why they haven't got the box checked...

Do you want this change, or not? Isn't it worth discussing?

I am in favor of a new forum for discussing government. Just to be clear.

Nolan -- I really didn't want this to become something personal to you.

All I'm saying is that it's a free discussion which means even if 80% of the population doesn't want to hear about it -- 20% do and should be allowed to do so openly.

I made the back of the bus analogy because the principles are similar. The rights of a minority were segregated from the population as a whole. The fundamental principle being that a minority of SLers are different from the majority... based on that it has been suggested that the ideas of this minority should be taken to a seperate area where they can discuss their ideas "with their own kind --" essentially "segregating" them from the majority who disagree with them. In times of Segregation -- caucasian peoples believed that negro peoples didn't have the same rights as them, and since at the time caucasians were of the majority -- they segregated the minority and made them, "sit at the back of the bus."

The idea of free and equal discussion is simple: people can discuss it. If you or anyone wants to offer contrasting opinions -- that is part of the discussion and always invited. However, to say that it cannot be discussed suggests that it isn't a free and equal forum.

This thread is about giving the idea of discussing governance all it's related topics a public home seperate from this general thread... for now all we have is the general forum. I'm sorry you're tired of seeing it, and I guess its obvious you're doing what you could've done all along and just not participate. However, I'm pretty sure that discussion on the topic of governance will continue anyway.

Got it, so the folks that were *segregated* to the economics forum are "negroes". I guess we should have scripting, textures, animations and the rest all lumped into General as well.

It's not personal to me. (It will become personal however the day I am told I have to be subject to a minority ruling class, we can draw all kinds of racial analogies then. I just find that if you're going to apply this type of reasoning to one facet of SL it should then be applied across the board.

All that said, I feel I have said all that I can on this issue and surprisingly enough we aren't even talking about the issue, we're debating whether or not the category deserves it's own forum.

That's a bit of an irrational leap. I've said what I wanted to say and now I have nothing more to say as now it's apparently becoming personal to me.



Which is the point of discussion of this particular thread. I think governance is obviously becoming something not-so-general... so it should be given it's own forum and not hooved off into a an obscure group forum. Economics wasn't... so what's your stance on this? It seems to have become unclear to me.

How is it obscure? It would be accessed throught the same exact page as the General thread, with the same font. Given the fact that Land, Economics and Government are very close and inextricably linked, I don't agree. Cristiano suggested it be added to the Land and Economy thread and I certainly wouldn't be against that. What I am starting to believe is that you are against segregating it because you believe that the General section gets more traffic and for no other reason.

What exactly makes the Government issue worthy of special treatment?

What I read into Philip's comments is that LL wants to stop babysitting us! Sure, there's going to be player governments that are opt-in, and it seems that those opting in will be the minority.

However, I think that there will be changes for those that do not opt in to a government part of SL. And that will be that eventually, LL will stop enforcing a TOS document. They don't want to be the police any more. And that's what we need to discuss. What happens then?

Unlike RL, there are limitations on how things can be enforced. Currently, only LL has the power to prevent people from being in-world, or to check and review transaction histories. Technological limitations prevent a player-run anything from having the power it would need to be run.

We have to live with the reality that LL will not always be there to govern our behavior. So - the question is - what will?

Well since your assuming what my motivations are, let me clarify for you:

I think it should be given a seperate forum.

This way it gets removed from the "general" banter as it seems that the topic of governance has taken a life of it's own.

If given it's own forum, you and anyone else who doesn't want to see it included in the general forum, won't have to. Which I think is an equitable solution.

As for your accusations of starting some sort of "recruitment drive" -- that's something else. It's becoming a popular topic -- so what?

Economics became popular enough to warrant its own forum and so perhaps government has as well. Things change and if there are people who do not want to participate in it -- fine. If they have different opinions on it (ie: no form of governance period), they are welcome to express them. Either way, wether for or not, yay or nay, complacent or apathetic entirely; it has become a matter of some discussion.

So it should be discussed... and if it's clogging up a forum that has no more room for it; then let's move it to it's own forum.

This is kind of weird, to me. I mean, most groups, when they get their own forum for their topic, are all like "Yay! We got our own forum!" This seems to be an exception for some reason.

I find it funny that people have such fabulous insight to what LL is thinking. So much so they can actually put words in their mouths. Babysitting what? What are they currently babysitting? Please folks, all these assumptions about their motives from one sentence answered off the cuff at a town hall is starting to become simply frustrating. Let's wait until THEY tell us what their plan is. Right now all we have is a couple of off the cuff statements that are somewhat contradictory and vague. Conjecture derived from a few words isn't going to solve this.

WHO will govern our behavior? US just like we do now.

We agree?

What was the point of all this? The racial analogies, et al? *Shakes head*.

It's time to go get pizza and beer, man cannot live on Governmental Debate alone.

I think that the ToS may actually be of more value to the griefers (by giving them a place to run and hide) than to the population in general. Would things necessarily be worse in a no-ToS world?

An excellent question to discuss in a government forum!

What group are you talking about?

Ok ok ok. SO. Let me put in a hypothesis here. Say for example you do get your government. And say for example, you only wanted to be in charge of player disputes. So.. No player disputes come to you at all or very little. Then what? You going to try and push for more? I hardly would think so.

Agreed!

Mayhaps we got sidetracked and lost contexts. Someone had earlier suggested that the topic of governance be something a group should be made for and then obscured into the group forums.

My reasoning for the analogy was it suggested that mode of thinking by the reasoning behind the group-forum idea: the majority doesn't want to hear it and would rather just segregate the minority -- restricting their right to a public forum of discussion.

So I think we got side-stepped and lost the point of the original idea for the thread.

But now that we've found it.. do we agree?

Deniability! Bravo!