Poll: Do you object to seeing public analyses of the finances of big business ?

What the poll asks. Explanation in a moment.

May I ask you if you believe a small resident run business is any less open to analysis than a larger one? If so why, and where do you draw the line?

I have set up this poll because two people have objected to my thread at
/130/27/62367/1.html

My personal positiion :

a) I believe that gathering and collating openly available data on any business big enough, or requiring any continuing trust, is a perfectly ok activity.

b) Even a small private business, if it posted publically complaining about financial mistreatment by LL on our behalf, and posted financial figures to influence sympathy, has opened the door on the fullest possible public debate.

GOM come in both these categories. On this basis I justify my thread.

But I would also like to do the same in the future for LL itself, based on (a). I don't think it would be right to attempt it for even AC (for example), unless they come to fulfil (b) or something like it.

I have decided to obey what I interpret to be the opinion expressed in this poll.

If there is a substantial majority showing disapproval, I will desist further analysis in my thread, and take the analysis private. And not post another similar.

Apologies for the early post, I expected the explanation to be in the first.

You are missing a valid response in your survey: "OK in all cases". By not including this, your question does not respresent the entire range of opinions and invalidates the survey before it even gets going.

Added on edit: You should also have a "no opinion" response if you want valid results.

So far the vote is going in the way of its ok in all but small businesses. I am interested in hearing the reasoning behind this from those who voted that way. Why do you believe a small business deserves more finanacial privacy than a larger resident business? I am going purely on size of business here. Scrutiny of those which enter the subject of their own businesses finances is another matter.

I thought all you capitalist types believe that companies have all the rights that individuals have?

In that light a post about a company is a "personal attack," even more so in SL because almost all SL "companies" are one person affairs, i.e. - inseperable from the individuals.

Seems like squishy ground to be treading...

No only the commie types believe that capitalist types have those views

Yeh it is very messy. I guess it's how you view them, as a company or an individual. More importantly, how they put themselves across. I really need to think more about this one.

You are right, Templar. I suggest those who think "ok in all cases" vote for option 4, but note this qualification in a post.
Can't people with no opinion just not vote ?

Only my second poll, I think. I'll do better next time.

Kind of confuses me too. I'm a small business. I don't see how it would be intrusive if someone looked at my group information, or they looked at the information about a website I pointed to as being mine. I wouldn't mind people guessing at my costs and income based off of the land they can see me buying and selling and the fees that everyone pays.

Now if they broke into my house, and stole my disks of graphs and tables. If they broke into my account just to look at my transactions. That I would consider intrusive. If the information is public, it is public. What is intrusive about looking at it. It is like a person walking around with a T-Shirt that says their name, and then the person getting mad that people are looking at his T-Shirt and learning the name.

OK first let me say I am undecided, its more of an uncomfortable feeling about it all. But its also worth pointing out that I think there is a big difference between looking thru all this information, and thrashing it out in a public forum as tho the resident is not there.

Yep - I'm sorry guys. I guess I'm using "size" as a loose term pointing to "in the public interest". Since a business trading with few people wouldn't usually raise such issues. Can't edit it now, once people have voted. We'll just have to stumble through I'm afraid.

Another whole factor I've ignored is investigation in the wake of accusations of wrongdoing.

Just keeps on ramifying doesn't it ?

Yup, not an easy subject to poll on.

well i see nothing wrong with it as long as it's not slanderous. I do think Robin and crew need to think carefully about how forums discuss businesses vs. individuals because it could get messy.

my message to you wasn't objecting to the GOM thread so much as wondering about the utility of such a thing

I object, I am not a "commie" I am a "pinko."
Commies are waaay more serious. Yeah, I dont agree with that crap about corporations having "rights" myself, but if ever there was an argument for it, then SL is it, due to the close association of (usually) a single individual with said "company."

I think that if the company puts the information out there, then it is fair game to discuss. It is always fair game to speculate. GOM is the one who put the number out there, on more than one occasion. Once you open up that bottle, you can't put the cork back in it.

Yeh I agree there. I was not aware that was the case when I first posted my concerns. I still feel uneasy about it tho.

Why wasn't there an option for "I make all my ethical decisions by polling the SL forums"? But I think the poller could probably expect that I'd say something like that.

Oh come now, you never posted anything that upon later consideration you wish you hadn't? I'll even answer that question for you. I know you have, and you know I have, and we both know that each other knows that.

Jamie is a human as the rest of us and was clearly upset. Could you call it unprofessional? Sure. Have you ever done something unprofessional due to passion? I have. I imagine that if Jamie could have wind back the clock and not have posted that he would have. GOM isn't some faceless mega-corporation, it's just a couple of guys. Just how long do you really think it is Right to pick him or them apart over it.

If you wish to hold this stance, then I imagine that you would not object to someone going back through every thing you ever posted regarding your SL enterprises and scrutinizing them endlessly. I have less than zero interest in doing so, but are you beginning to see my point?

I am not Ricky nor can I speak for him. But I know that were I in his shoes and subject to this crap, I'd likely give notice to the community that I was shutting down in 30 days, refund all L$ on deposit - as he has clearly said he would - and get out of such a petty and picayune community. I actually have reason to believe that Ricky is more tolerant of this crap than I'd be.

But damn, folks.

So if I am reading you correctly you are claiming that Linden Lab is subject to your public scrutiny, but could - by definition - not meet criterion (b) as they are LL. This would seem to indicate that (a) is a sufficient condition for your microscope.

However you are also claiming that AnsheCorp is exempt because even they fulfill the sufficient condition (a) they get a special pass by not meeting criterion (b). Well, in fact AnsheCorp has in fact publicly complained that LL's intentions toward implementing point-to-point teleporting would adversely impact their "investment" in telehub land and indeed obtained what they'd lobbied for. And they most certainly had made posts to influence sympathy but wait, they didn't post "financial figures" but merely alluded to them.

This is beginning to look like massive rationalization to support a personal agenda not rationality, and rather unseemly at that. But my appeals to you to be a tad more sensitive to others have been poorly argued away. If you want to proceed, please continue. You hardly need our permission, but expecting approbation for it is sorta creepy.

Actually, Ellie, as you have stated in these forums that you are an alt, I should like to ask, are you in the employ of AnsheCorp? Seeing as how much attention you are drawing to the non-issue of GOM and your stated desire to not turn your investigative eye on one of the third-pary sites with easily the largest impact on the in-game economy that - coincidentally - happens to also be a competitor to GOM and would likely benfit from GOM's demise, is it not reasonable to question whether you have a material interest in the matter? Are you a shill for AnsheCorp? I certainly have no entitlement to an answer, nor have you any obligation to reply. But I think the question a valid one. Please note I am not saying you have any connection at all, but it would explain an awful lot if you did. Please forgive me should I find that my recreation winds up being a disection of every post you have ever made and trying it together with a lot of speculation; if I do so it will be purely motivated by the community's need to know.

say what? "big business?"

I belive UK law is quite correct on this one. The gist of it says you can speculate what you like. You can express an opinion. But you can't present anything as fact, except where you can prove it.

As for do you have a right to look into the finances of a business? Well, I'm not sure.

Any UK company has to send their summary accounts (Balance sheet, profit and loss) to companies house each year to be filed. These records are then open to public scrutiny. So in theory you can view the records of any UK company. But is that right? I'm not sure. I don't think companies or businesses should have to give any information whatsoever to any individuals except that required by law, as it's the company's matters.

I think the law generall says "You have a right to see the gist of how a company is doing financially, without getting into any real detail, and you have the right to see any information a company holds on you, but that's your lot". And I think that's a good stance to take.

Just so you know, Jsecure, in the US there is a huge distinction between privately held firms and publicly held (stock selling) corporations. Publicly held corporations in the US have to file quarterly "open books" accountings of their actiivities for public record. Here is a firm that specializes in putting these public records online. Warning: not safe for the easily bored. This isn't to say that there isn't a whole lot of "creative accounting" in the various filings, but they are public record.

Privately held firms have no such reporting requirements in the US. I have no idea what Canadian law is on the matter.