Neaultenberg is Necessary

After the basics of the constitution and government is established, the focus will be primarily on issues dealing directly with a virtual environment. This is not something we have ignored at all. And is actually at the heart of why some of us joined in the first place. Everything has a starting point, and for a variety of reasons this is where we had to start.

I do not know if it is because I am involved with the project and that is why I am seeing and hearing and understanding things differently. But honestly, why waste this effort telling us how we will fail because of this or that. If you would like to test the limits, or show some errors, or show ways that can work. Why not join the project?

EDIT to add: Many things dealing with a virtual community are already being addressed. The examples are within various threads on our forum as well as in world.

I couldn't agree more --but I also don't think you are right when stating we aren't trying to address the special reality of life in SL. I encourage you to look at my thread "Das Gildehaus" in the Neualtenburg forum. I'm working at creating a system that supports what I feel is a very important component of SL life -- how does one answer the needs for creating and creators?

My goal here is to create an environment that both fosters growth of skills and monetary compensation for quality work in an immersive community.

This would be my stab at it anyways. let me know what you think

I was in the village project and withdrew. I am wasting no effort in what I do and negating someones thoughts and ideals as 'wasting time' is rather condescending. I do not post in the villages group threads simply because I wont interfer in whats being done but I'll be damned if any group will silence me on any general threads.

I could ask the same, why are you wasting your time posting here? There's much that needs to be accomplished in the village threads.

Yes. I know you were involved. And I know you withdrew. I actually almost withdrew around the same time but instead stuck around to see if some changes could be made and/or issues could be clarrified. I have since decided to stay.

And yes, telling someone they are wasting their time is rather condescending. Why then do *you* continue to do it? Because in essense, you continue to post things in the forums that allude to the fact that we are going to fail, and to that we continue to refute. You seem to have an agenda, and that is fine. But I will also continue to defend the project from false allegations no matter how often someone brings them up. The project however is not a waste of time for me.

And I am in the projekt threads. I have been all day. For about three days straight now. I personally am very involved with the SL community, both on the forums and in world. And have been throughout the year+ that I have been here. When I can't be in world, I'm on the forums. And trust me, much is being accomplished.

Whydo I post? simply because I am interested. Your assuming from my posts I wish it to fail. Untrue but if you think so, so be it, I will continue to post what I consider to be wrong and perhaps be the devils advocate. I have no agenda, nor do I need one, I simply state my concerns. No where have I presented 'false allegations' so claiming that defense of them there's nothing there.
Perhaps you should go back and read the initial post for this thread. It claimed that Neaultenburg was necessary. I disagree and my posts have stated as such, nothing more, nothing less.

Ditto.

I went back and re-read this thread and your posts Toy. And you are correct. Aside from one comment where you stated "It simply appears me that the government is already a parasitic bureaucracy.", none of your other comments were really *directed* at the Neaultenberg project, but more in general your stance was anti-government neccessity in SL as a whole. Of which I agree with you and apologize for my accusations. I should not have lumped you in with some others that have spoken (on this topic and other topics recently that involved the Neaultenberg project directly or indirectly), and misunderstood your stance until I re-read. Again I apologize.

Thanx Pendari, perhaps we are much alike and just have different paths to follow

awww this is what i like to see. You both showed a prime example on how to settle your differences in a mature manner. Kudos!

Pendari, with great respect to you and the others involved in the project -- my point, and Shadow's now, I think -- is that the issues of a virtual environment must define the constitution and the government. The basic issues of life in Second Life first, because they will determine what the constitution and the government must look like, and how they will function.

Trying to do it backward -- constitution and government first, issues later -- will likely insure the failure of your experiment, because your constitution and government will not anticipate the rights and responsibilities that citizens will need, nor the issues they will encounter in a virtual world.

On the other hand, do not mistake me for a critic who wishes your experiment to fail. On the contrary, I'd like to see it succeed. And I'm arguing that perhaps the only way to insure success is to fairly radically reinvent politics and government for a virtual world.

*sigh.... But then -- everything looks so clear, from a second story veranda overlooking the harbor, a full moon in the sky and its reflection rippling on the water, three margaritas knocked back, and a husky-voiced senorita from Laredo, Texas, in the chair next to me, whispering silly things in my ear ....

Let's see.. Neualtenburg is necessary?

1. Will my "game" change in any material way if it fails as a project? No.
2. Will my "game" change in any material way if it succeeds as a project? Possibly.
Considering 1, and ignoring 2, for a moment, the project IS unnecessary by definition.

That said.. and I will repeat... I have no stake in its failure or success, only a passing interest like many on a roadway "gawking" at a car wreck as we drive slowly by....

I think that Donovan said it pretty well... the "starting point" seems to have been chosen in a strange manner, the cart before the horse, so to speak. However, as has been also said by others, you have to start somewhere. Both of those being dispensed with as arguments now, what I see happening, from the "outside" where my knowledge of the project is what is posted on the forums - and only that - it seems antithetical to begin a project with no well-defined goal as a finish line. And I HAVE read all of the projects forum posts.

"But we have goals" I hear bantered about. Guess what? "Equality for all" is not a very specific goal. "Profit" for artisans is not a specific goal. "Encouraging creativity" is not a specific goal. None of these have any real benchmark-type measurements. How will "success" be defined if you can't benchmark it?

If the project leads or originators don't feel that a certain benchmark is relevant but the group does, what effect will that have on the project and its direction? What if the reverse is true - as has already been suggested HAS HAPPENED?

I have to say that the idea of a nice little Bavarian build is semi-appealing due to its quaintness - but only as a build benchmark. The meat of the project, so the originators have publicly argued, is not the mere architecture, but the structuring of a "mini-society" within SL, specifically within the bounds of N-berg (a quaint little hypocrisy if you ask me --- a "new" old-city that tries once again to institute by-gone standards for llife, outlook, etc... but I am not meaning to troll here, just stating the "meaning of the city name" to me). IF, as so many of us suspect is true, the ultimate plan of at least some people in the project is to move the "successes" of the prject out of the insulated little world of the project sim, then this project does concern and affect those not already in it.

All groups can be expected to have interpersonal challenges, a certain level of "defections", a certain percentage of self-designated "project defenders", etc. What is strange about this project, to me as an academic watching this unfold, is the self-defeating rhetorical stances and argument of the participants. It's definitely an "us against the world" perspective and stance that has been taken - even when no attack has been made.

Like I said in another thread, without drahma there would be no reason for the forums... N-berg certainly brings its share to the table. But it is certainly NOT A NECESSITY for SL, for any resident, for LL, or for anything else I can imagine.

Ok, assuming LL doesn't want to get into the p2p dispute resolution business, how do you propose that we solve this as SL scales up to 1M users?

The eff did a declaration of independence for the internet and I will always say that was a big mistake as it proposed no government was good government, it even says not to have a democracy.

It just created a big power void which RL governments are now moving into.

Heck, even RL governments didn't want to but the internet didn't want to govern itself, so what choice did they have?

Cyberspace can be a very dangerous, contentious place. It needs a government. The question is not if, but who.

LL? Who have already declared that they are looking for a ground-up dispute resolution system? Who are not democratically ellected and really are more interested in building (and I guess hosting) great software than getting in the middle of silly disputes?

If not a player government, then how is dispute resolution going to be solved?

That does not mean I have to abide by that. So, in the disputes such as: I don't like your build because it blocks my view from the river; or your club is making a menace of the sim and I'm wanting you to take it down because it's eating up the resources.

Any player of Second Life cannot tell another player what they can and cannot do unless its within Linden Sponsored land or on their own land. Play by the rules of the owner of the land or deal with it within reason.

Our own little parcels are our own governments, if someone said to be rude on your land, simply ban them, harassment?: Mute. We each have the tools to handle these things, but give a player 'God like powers' to replace the Linden is an insane and illogical idea.

Simple answer.... as they are handled now.
What authority would you want to give a player ran dispute settlement, authority, to ban?
This would never be acceptable. I pay LL for a service, they are the only authority I could obey.
I agreed to the TOS and CS. If I couldnt agree with the TOS and CS I simply wouldnt be here. If anyone feels this isnt acceptable, they can go to the My Account page and simply cancel their account.

Blaze, if you think there are player disputes now, can you possibly imagine how that number would increase if the disputes were left up to players? Nothing in SL would be accomplished, everyones time would revolve around disputes. Not a pretty picture for some ill thought out concepts of what SL needs.

Ok, if it was that easy .. why the article in wired about player feuds? Why the workshop at the state of play conference?

What solution do you see as an alternative? How do you settle disputes between players that do not enter into contracts?

It *IS* that easy. You're implying things to make things more difficult than they really are.

I will try one more time.... disputes in SL should be handled as they are now.

This involves trust.... I trust LL to be fair. I couldn not trust some player commitee to solve any disputes I may have.

Power breeds Abuse.

Did you read this article:

http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2...tw=wn_tophead_5





The experts thinks there are no easy solutions. Why do you?

Because the alternatives you have stated in this thread are totaly unacceptable.

Agreed.

There have been articles like that since the onset of MMOGs. About ones with a MUCH larger subscription base. Is UO still around? EQ? Lineage? TSO? SWG? Yes all of them are - and believe me, MUCH more greifing goes on in those games then you will EVER see here. I have played them all. You want to make this out to be too much like real life. No matter how hard you try it will never be, no one can reach through the monitor and punch me, steal my land, kill me, etc., etc. Hell, in a one year period in Lineage 22,000 RL complaints were filed with South Korean police that pertained to disputes within Lineage, yet the game still flourishes and has 4 million plus users, and if you talk to it's members they love it.

As SL grows, so too will LL's staff. If it doesn't, then it's an incredibly poor business plan and doomed to failure. With that growth things at LL will likely become more departmentalized. Hopefully Customer Service will become it's own dept. and will be large enough to deal with player disputes.

Here is a quote from Robin Linden:"it isn't our intention to make governing a 'game' or requirement of Second Life." Kind of contradicts what you are stating.

blaze, you said earlier in this thread you didn't intend that this ideal of yours could be or should be applied to all of SL. Which is it?

I have, as a matter of fact, I posted the initial link to that article. I see no where that it says it will be a player run system.

Ahhhh, Nolan I remeber UO well Most disputes were settled in Felluca

Neither do I.

My assumption (backed up by these experts) was that it is a problem. My hypothesis was that NBerg was the necessary solution.

This hypothesis has been challenged, reasonably so, but I think in order to do this you have to either a) claim that the experts are wrong, that it's not a problem. b) propose an alternative solution which would make NBerg not necessary. or c) explain how players can not resolve the disputes of others, without resorting to hyperbole or ad hominen.

I think a couple of posts have attempted 'c', however I didn't see anything particularly deep or compelling as to why democratically elected players couldn't resolve the disputes of others.

one simple word again TRUST


Disputes will always be a problem, they always have been. Posting that Neualtenburg is the solution is not only irresponsible but in itelf would cause more disputes than it could solve. Nuealtenburg is a small portion of SL and wil remain so, the only power it has is an agreement when people join it. How is this what SL needs, afterall this was what this thread was started by saying as such.

The thread wasnt about "How can we solve disputes among ourselves". It was clearly made saying "Neualtenberg is necessary".