People or Groups?

Should Linden Lab really engage in a policy of encouraging lobbying, special interest, or representative groups? To date, it's been an ad-hoc mixture of communication lines, including ones not accessible to the general public (such as focus groups), and ones not well-advertised or off the main grid (such as IRC).

But the important question remains: should groups get priority over individuals in relations with the Lindens? My concern is that the latest posts tend to leave me with the idea that the Lindens actually want Second Life to become a battleground between different special interest groups. I think if this occurs the vast majority of players and their feelings may get lost in the shouting.

What do you mean by "pay attention to" though?

I would say the policy of paying attention to lobby groups, and representative groups is already in place and they seem to have internal policies to deal with both situations. They also "pay attention" to individuals on a daily basis.

Do you mean "should they base future policy decisions on the opinions of one member" (as opposed to a group of members)? Why would they?

To listen to "individuals" properly (if I get your meaning), would entail a method or process for getting peoples opinions on things, i.e. - polls, or government (government by polls?). Almost any situation that way I can think of, would more rightly be referred to as a "government" than a simple consultative process.

As in, listen to, consult the opinions of, etc. Just as they do now. Prior to the suggestion by Philip that groups would be listened to if they put together a statement, there was no intimation (by the Lindens anyway) that membership in any particular group would get you more notice.

Secondly, I don't like the idea that my own concerns should be filtered through a group before it gets to the Lindens.

BTW, why did you put individuals in quotes? Is this some question of the existential status of a being in a virtual world? I don't get that.

I think the problem is, genuine communication is best if interactive, with Philip there, and one or two of his people. Such inworld meetings maybe work best if perhaps about eight or nine other residents are there, if everyone is to contribute. Certainly not more than fifteen.

I happen to believe that many people who would never push themselves forward to speak in fact have very valid concerns and viewpoints, which they are unlikely to express unless invited to do so.

Where am I going with this ? I think we need a mix. Such time as the boss is willing to spend inworld face-to-face with us (ie in small groups rather than in town halls, and with a selected henchman or two) should perhaps be shared four ways (ie four different types of separate meeting):

1. Special interest lobby groups, closed entry, no need for internal democracy

2. Elected representatives of representative, issue-based public-entry groups boasting internal democracy, but allowed to filter out by vote obvious disrupters, or those who do not espouse the declared issues. I'm not really sure if these can work.

3. Individuals who have requested to participate to raise specific isssues, and maybe submitted discussion papers. Those in the meeting group need have no relation to each other. They are simply together as a matter of convenience.

4. Randomly invited individuals, like a sort of voluntary jury duty. This to get the viewpoint of the more retiring, and therefore, perhaps, more typical member. A statistical approach would be neede to the number of invitations, to try to prevent over or under booking.

All four types of meeting should be closed as to physical attendance. Some should be broadcast live, some publically transcripted, all notified and the topics discussed summarised for the public. I'm not sure which, which.

Probably ought to be a fifth type, totally Linden organised, and handled anyway they think best. Likely, of course to end up the only type there is.

As you can see - I want this all organised, like I want lobby groups controlled and registered, not shoved under the carpet. Because I believe it forms the first stirrings of the Linden-free government the metaverse will eventually require. We've got to start learning, and we don't want to copy too closely the more or less disastrous RW structures we see around us.

We need to start thinking five years ahead.

And who knows, 25 years from now, the organisational structures developed by us in the metaverse might even begin to be copied in the RW, if they evolve to create new and advantageous forms.

Where else can such things be tried, and freely evolve, without damaging peoples real lives ?

And don't worry that we are all so puny and amateur. Sometime in the next few years all the big academics will start arriving. Lets have something up and running so we can make the collaboration with them fruitful and mutual, or else they'll cock it up all over again.

I am quote happy!

You are right, the quotes are a mistake.
I also use parenthesis waaay to much (really).

I understand what you mean now, but I dont agree. Philips statments along the lines of "listening to groups" do not (IMO), imply anything different from the previous state of affairs.

I think you are making an error when you equate "listening to groups" with "membership (in a group) would get you more notice." LL has said that they would listen to organised groups with open membership that had issues that had been discussed in public and at great length already, (or words to that effect).

This leaves out the kind of "special interest groups" that most are afraid MJW was, (it wasn't). It also makes the whole question moot in that such groups would be merely an organised extension of individual opinions. The groups would be us, not someone else, not special interest lobbies etc.

Also even if LL was to specifically allow non representative special interest groups to make presentations to them, that does not mean that those groups have any power to sway decisions.

In effect, it's not who LL listens to, but on what basis they make their decisions. They can listen to the "land barons" all they want, but if they decide something based on that input alone and ignore similar input from the rest of the polulation then there is a problem.

So far, I have seen no evidence of that myself.