« Virtual Democracy is...well...virtual! | Main | "A Sea of Concrete Sustaining an Archipelago of Egos" »

01/04/2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

HiroPendragon

The group is a not open because the group is not democratic. For the third time, "Democracy Island" is a group that aims to develop tools. Much like a voting machine company that makes tools that are used in democratic processes, it does not mean that the voting machine company is a democracy.

Your personal attacks in this sense border on harassment.

Bottom line is this: You have been too beligerant for any one of us to actually engage you in a reasonable discussion. You clearly have misunderstandings about just about every aspect of the Democracy Island project, and you are too stubborn to admit you don't have the information required to make any sort of judgement calls.

You do realize you're the only person in SL with a blog that constantly harasses and libels people? Maybe it's not everyone, Prok. Maybe it's you that needs to ... well, move on to something that's causing less frustration in your life.

Prokofy Neva

You know, that's the best quote I've heard all year, Hiro:

"Democracy Island is not open because Democracy Island is not democratic" is what you're saying.

I really have to be suspicious of people who tell that democracy has to be "built" or "established" but...by non-democratic methods.

Have you read any history of the 20th century, Hiro? Or literature? I dunno, stuff like "Darkness at Noon"? "Homage to Catalonia?" "1984"?

A company that makes a voting machine has to be accountable to the body politic and the elected government. It couldn't make a machine that could favour that company or make the tools be tamperable.

What you're suggesting -- hilariously -- uproariously -- is that you can get together and make tools without anyone commenting, then spring them loose on an unwitting body politic.

Why do you think that? People IN democracies help make the tools that serve the needs in that democracy. You can't strip the tools out from the context of people.

The zealotry around this Island is now really apparent to me, with Jade Lily's spamming of the town hall tonight inworld with infomercials about the new "social revolution in groups" "predicted" (manufactured?) by Beth Noveck.

When I fly up to a parcel and it says "can't enter parcel, not in group," I've got all I need to know, Hiro.

I've read Beth's article probably 5 times and will read it another 5.

I've talked for something like 2 hours to Jerry about this.

And I'm worried, and yes indeedy, I'll be belligerent about people like you taking over my free world, sure lol.

When DI can get over its secrecy and self-importance and communicate its goals and consult more with the wider community, then I can be more persuaded about it.

I hardly think that criticizing something is harassing and libel. That you think that is what is so chilling about this authoritarian world we live in called Second Life.

Erm, you haven't read the blog called the "forums"?

And if I'm the only critical person in all of Second Lifea, what of it? It's an impoverished political culture if it has no criticism, and only has me holding up the fort here. I hope more will come along!

I'm going to remain dedicated to the cause of freedom in virtual worlds for now, Hiro : )

Prokofy Neva

You labour under the tekkie illusion (belligerent hype) that tools are neutral, tools are just what arrogant types like yourself make "to serve the community".

Bullshit. Tools are rules. They contain inherent in them the fullblown nature of that society. That's why we have the idiocy and griefing we have in SL, the inadequacy of the tools. Imagine, leaving these hippie dope smoking communes to fester for more than 2 years! Awful!

There is hope, however, because they are working on fixing them. Except, you always have to worry when the Lindens begin fixing something. It's often not broken, or they break it worse.

Example: their justification of the bollox called "Nota Bene". After all the hullaboo we had for months, the forums fights, the community meetings, the Thinkers' meetings, their solution was to come up with...hiring one of the residents who made a notary, thereby completely eradicating the notion of the independent sector you even wanted to notarize in the first place.

Imagine, back in the day I called for an Ombudsman Linden to handle extra-TOS disputes. They wouldn't do that. But yet, they'd hire Zarf and thereby both deplete civil society's fledgling institutions, and co-opt its independence, and make themselves more suspect. It's boggling. These are all classic problems, repeated many times in history, which could have been avoided.

Cocoanut Koala

You should have named "Democracy Island" something else then.

The title is very misleading.

coco

jules

God you guys are right. SL sucks. So when can we expect your departure?

Hiro Pendragon

> I really have to be suspicious of people who tell that democracy has to be "built" or "established" but...by non-democratic methods.

I agree. But democracy island it's aiming to "build" or "establish" democracy. It's there to provide tools that support it. Democracies are built by communities, but those communities need tools.

Projects on the island are of a variety of outside sources. If they aren't qualified, Prok, to propose tools for democratic processes, then who is?

> Tools are rules. They contain inherent in them the fullblown nature of that society. That's why we have the idiocy and griefing we have in SL, the inadequacy of the tools.

You contradict yourself. You've also criticized me for suggesting the answer to the "Impeach Bush" guy is a tools answer.

Tools are rules, sure, but only if they catch on as popular and useful. If Democracy Island comes up with popular and useful tools, then people are choosing the tools by voting with their feet / wallets, right? That doesn't sound like it's being dictated to everyone. Instead, it sounds like choice.

> What you're suggesting -- hilariously -- uproariously -- is that you can get together and make tools without anyone commenting, then spring them loose on an unwitting body politic.

I don't see how you can claim that we expect no commentary. Tasters don't comment on the cake before it's baked. Prototypes on D.I. are being baked. Certainly, after the opening of the island, comments from people are going to guide the continued development of the tools.

> People IN democracies help make the tools that serve the needs in that democracy. You can't strip the tools out from the context of people.

Incorrect. Take a constitution as an example. Before a democracy exists, it needs a constitution. The constitution is a democratic tool - a tool that is literally the rule.

The fact is that we live in a democratic nation (sorta) and the people whose ideas are being made into tools already have a frameset of mind of which to understand what may be valuable in a democracy. Going back tot he voting machine analogy, a voting machine company can make a voting machine without knowing the specific organization that plans on voting, because there are widely understood standards of what voting is that most people understand.

> Jade Lily's spamming

As opposed to your spamming at that same meeting, that you were yelled at to stop? Pot. Kettle.

> I'll be belligerent about people like you taking over my free world

First of all, that statement fails because SL is hardly "free". Secondly, you've yet to come up with any sort of convincing evidence that "people like me" are "taking over" SL. What is "Taking over" SL, anyway? Being successful? having people like your products? Again, this is voting with wallet / feet - which is not a takeover, it's a natural capitalism.

> When DI can get over its secrecy and self-importance and communicate its goals and consult more with the wider community, then I can be more persuaded about it.

Fair enough. Again - I've said that your perception of DI is based on misunderstandings. I would invite you to propose a way that peoples' comments and suggestions can be best collected and analyzed - that would be a specific thing you could do to make sure that the consulting with the community happens.

> I hardly think that criticizing something is harassing and libel.

Me neither. But your verbal attacks, your misrepresenting facts, name-calling, and conspiracy-throwing is.

Coco > You should have named "Democracy Island" something else then. The title is very misleading.

Take that one up with Jerry. He named it. I happen to think "Democracy Island" is far easier rolling off the tongue than, "Democratic Tools, not trying to establish a government, so please chill out Prokofy island".

:)

Cocoanut Koala

Well, (a), you better get your PR into motion, because despite reading the various sites, and despite being a member of the group myself, I still have very little concrete idea of what it is you are trying to accomplish on Democracy Island.

(b) It better not be drafting a constitution.

This business of Philip saying that he will get us all into SL with promises of building and selling stuff and running our own businesses, then once we are "hooked" - we will be educated, connected up, and empowered - well, pardon me, but he can stuff that.

He must think just everybody in the game is outrageously malleable, or amazingly young and naive. And that there's nothing wrong with promising one thing, while actually planning to manipulate people in other ways.

People don't come into SL to be educated or empowered by ANYBODY else. Last I looked, the people playing this game were 18 and over. They probably consider themselves thinking adults on their own. It's outrageously arrogant to think of them or treat them as anything else.

Once in SL, those same people are not going to take lightly to someone else trying to educate them.

I don't think Philip has done much actual teaching, though he would enjoy it, and I would encourage it. I also don't think he has kids, or if he does, that they are very old.

I both have kids and have been a teacher, and I'm married to a teacher, and I will tell you that in both cases your idea of what you are going to teach and their idea of what they are going to learn are two vastly different things, lol.

Philip means well, I know - and so do many of the others, no doubt, who are involved in (the very ill-named, for a number of reasons) Democracy Island.

But boy, is he naive. Just try grabbing all those 100k players and telling them that the real mission of SL is to educate them, connect them up, and empower them.

To heck with that. Most don't need educating, would prefer to connect themselves up (and do), and don't consider "empowerment" as something another person bestows on you. That's kind of the antithesis of true empowerment, isn't it.

coco

Prokofy Neva

Hiro, this kind of statement: "Democracies are built by communities, but those communities need tools" -- is BEYOND arrogant. It's just ridiculous to assume that the tools can be generated in absentia without the community involved in shaping the tools.

We see a glaring example of that in our "no no vote" tools on the SL website.

Hiro, there are "uneducated" tribes in Africa with better democratic procedures and dispute resolutions procedures handled in huts, than are on the authoritarian virtual world of Second Life.

I don't believe that eggheads should be coming in here, stripped of any actual communities, developing tools for "social organizing" that they then spring on others -- develop in secret, without input, and an amplified context like this.

They certainly don't have any legitimacy in developing tools for the virtual world I live in, or the real world I live in. Not with the kinds of behaviours, attitudes, ideologies, and lack of transparency that I'm seeing now.

As I told SNOOPY, I'm not going to be pressed into some ancillary role, working as a free consultant for you devising some patronized, tertiary input process. It's insane.

What on earth qualifies YOU to work democracy tools, Hiro? You, who couldn't even hold a single open meeting for organizing SLCC beyond the first show-off brainstorming session at SL Future Salon with Lindens? Huh?

As for "taking over SL", it's not about products. I don't care if more people buy your swords.

What I do care is if you put out a well-funded thingie called Democracy Island that purports to create tools to run our world that we have no participation in. For example, if I were to find out that your little feted project advised the Lindens how to do reform of "group tools" and make these mysterious real-estate community covenants that Philip has very briefly alluded to, you would hear me complaining loudly that the people who really work with groups day in and day out are not included in the process of revamping them.

I'm going to really, really complain about a process that gets started in SL where LL has their little unofficial brain trust that gets free or discounted sims and makes up tools for the rest of us, whereas we have to sweat it out on commercial rates on sims with Lazarus all over the place.

Hell no.

I can see you are completely unschooled in how RL communities and democratic process works -- maybe because you are young, a tekkie, and don't have much reason to get out of the tri-state area.

Um, I got an idea:
1) Take "notecard taker"
2) Put it in a prim with a texture "Suggestions"
3) Take the island off "group only".

There, I won't charge you $500 a day for that, Hiro.

Regarding Jade's spamming, I spammed in order to provide an antidote to her spamming, because otherwise you'd have flocks of residents and Lindens blindly reading this stuff uncritically, without context.

No, I don't contradict myself when I say "tools are rules" -- that's what is wrong with them. People who make them undemocratically without any consent or input even get to rule with them. I don't like the idea of a tool that erases Lazarus or anyone else disliked through technical means without solving the larger problem of the rule of law, interpretation of that law, and precedent rulings.

What you are doing here with this is so wrong, so potentially influential, that I will fight it as hard as I possibly can. It has to be done. Once other people in the real world who don't represent a certain school of thought see what's up with this, I'll have a lot more company. But a lot of damage could be done by that time.

As I've often said, the groups ARE the government. The islands and models and prototypes and experiments ARE the government.

To say "we're not starting a government" but then to create and install a tool that forces us all to organize in a certain way IS the government, duh.

Example: tools that don't let us vote "no" -- the most deep and obvious flaw I've ever seen in my life.

I'm still trying to understand how SNOOPY, who runs a non-profit organization called accelerating.org, and this class, relate to each other, but I guess they just relate and that's it. And you just happen to live nearby and stuck your oar into it.

I haven't "misrepresented" anything and it's the oldest trick in the book for a secret society to complain about how it appears by saying you haven't been admitted to its arcane rituals.

Prokofy Neva

This kind of statement just reeks of arrogance, entitlement, and hypocrisy:

" would invite you to propose a way that peoples' comments and suggestions can be best collected and analyzed - that would be a specific thing you could do to make sure that the consulting with the community happens."

What it implies is that on sufferance, with you in charge (unelected, and unrepresentative) I'm supposed to come on bent knee and make up proposals of how we, the serfs, can have "buy-in" to this process.

When the entire thing itself is postulated on a premise that groups constitute a rights-bearing creature higher than the individual and higher than the state; when groups such as the FIC and the forums royals have malicious and undue influence on the whole intellectual society of SL; in a context when people are banned and censored and there really isn't a free press; and in a context where the group tools suck at many levels.

If there were no SL at all, and you had a project called "How to Revise Yahoo Messenger to Make Democracy in America" or something, I'd complain just as much. It arises in an ivory tower, cut off from any real social movements or real life, let alone virtual social movements and virtual life. It's developed just by this or that leftish academic circle with this or that school of thought brushing aside "corporations" or "politicians" in a sweeping Bolshevik manner as if they are "evil" and not merely institutions created by people, and institutions that work for a lot of people, whatever their shortcomings.

Prokofy Neva

If they aren't qualified, Prok, to propose tools for democratic processes, then who is?

Again, people outside of SL, who do not live and work in this world, who do not struggle with the real day-to-day issues of the indigenous peoples of this world, have no right to impose their eggheaded irrelevant tools on the world.

Prokofy Neva


"Tools are rules, sure, but only if they catch on as popular and useful. If Democracy Island comes up with popular and useful tools, then people are choosing the tools by voting with their feet / wallets, right? That doesn't sound like it's being dictated to everyone. Instead, it sounds like choice"

Tools developed in isolation of communities, without their participation and input, sprung on them like Bolsheviks or Nazis sprang the ideologies and tools of their day, can become "popular," sure, especially with a Goebbels or a Stalin at the helm, sure. There's nothing inherently "democratic" in the liberal sense by some mob popularity.

The idea that you can look at a constitution as a tool in isolation from the processes around it lets me know once again the horrid limitations of the youthful tekkie mind coming at these problems.

Hiro, *first* there is what we like to call "a constitutional assembly" or a "constituent assembly" or a "parliament" or a Duma or a Rada or Sejm or whatever indigenous term people use in that culture and that society to describe the thing that involves them gathering together to discuss things and find solutions together.

THAT comes first. As they develop, they write a constitution. They don't say, oh, let's have these foreigners write a constitution for us in absentia and spring it on us. (When USAID does this sort of thing with places like Iraq, you can be sure that the Iraqis scream bloody murder...and some Iraqis DO bloody murder.)

Tools are just tools -- they serve people, people are primary, and their institutions prevail over tools.

What you all are trying to do here with this tekkie stuff is privilege the tools first, privilege yourself as the tool makers, then tell everyone you've served the community and are helping democracy.

I'm here to tell you hell no, we won't go.

I'm putting these points in separate comments so they stand out better and are read.

Justice Soothsayer

I must correct one part of your post: courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, do indeed "do" dispute resolution. In fact, the Supreme Court requires that there be a "dispute" to be resolved (the technical term is a "case in controversy"), otherwise it will not hear the case. The Court only hears cases brought by others, it does not decide the constitutionality of statutes without there first being a challenge by an affected party.

Kyrah Abattoir

Hiro, there are "uneducated" tribes in Africa with better democratic procedures and dispute resolutions procedures handled in huts, than are on the authoritarian virtual world of Second Life.

why dont you go live with em prok and let the planet spin

Prokofy Neva

The Supreme Courts "do" dispute resolution after other courts exhaust them, as far as I know. And you are using "disputes" here in the specialized, legal sense. What I meant is that the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to take a case like Builder A claims that Developer B didn't pay him under a contract -- it would be dealt with by a lower court.

What I emphasized is that the Supreme Court decides constitutionality -- again the point is that it is a higher court.

Of course you may have *superior* knowledge about this. The point is, we have no three branches of government, no checks and balances, and no lower courts -- no process or procedures. So to drop a thing like "the US Supreme Court" unadulterated into the matrix of SL -- the world -- is hugely damaging. I'm sorry you don't see that. But it's because you think it's just your sandbox.

Justice, I'm not sure whether you are a law student, or a lawyer or judge in RL. I'm not a lawyer or judge. So I'm more than happy to have anyone come in and place any corrections to comments on this process that they like.

However, you're behaving in the typically tekkie narrow construction way -- the hallmark of the SIC, in fact. What you're doing is instead of addressing my larger points -- how anyone can have the temerity to install models and protypes in a world like this and imagine they have the authority over us or anyone else to trot out their prototyping.

You're completely ducking the larger issue of your own failure to back your legitimacy in this exercise, and your own illegitimacy in terms of my argumentation.

You've seized on some technical point, which in and of itself is correct, but misses what I was merely trying to emphasize: that what a world like SL needs are lower courts, arbitration courts, courts of first instance, mediation between lawyers, etc. --not an instant, full-blow Supreme Court.

If you are a lawyer or judge in RL, and not a student possibly engaged in some typical student utopian or moot exercise, then how on earth would you think you could just drop a Supreme Court and have that be the model for a world's "dispute resolutions"? Huh? Just because it's...supreme...and you wish to be, too? I can't think of any other reason.

I think it might give you a good dose of humility to consider what one of the law professors said at SOP III this year, after participating in a panel discussion. I told him that we had a "Metaverse Superior Court" and a notary office and even lawyers in SL, but it wasn't coming together at all because there was no original separation of powers or properly constituted government. I told him about the kinds of disputes there are -- fraud, libel, etc.

He commented that what SL needs is just a Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission is like a commnission is a state overseeing the gambling and gaming industry.

Indeed.

Jake Reitveld

Justice,
You are right courts do dispute resolution, thats their job, butthere are shades here that aren't in place.

The core form of dispute resolution in law is a trial. Two lawyers put on cases, a jury (or judge) decides facts-like who is lying and who to beleive and, in a civil case, the court produces a judgment. The Judgment is enforceable; it can be used to obtain payment, to levey on assets, take property-its a very powerful tool.

Most cases that settle, settle precisley because the outcome of a trial is so uncertain, and the cost is expensive to do it right.

Discovery pares down the facts, and the rules of evidence limit the manner and type of evidence that can be introduced, juries evaluate credibility and then they look at tow poeople who are both likely lying and say you win, and you lose. This result, in a civil trial, seldom makes either party completely happy,

Now here in California ADR in civil cases is mandatory (or was before the budget crunch). And almost universally an arbitration or mediation is a tactical tool to see where each sides evidence is.

How ever 95% of cases settle. Why, becaus trials are expensive and uncretain and final. YOu can sit at an arbitration, the abirtrator can say "this case is full of shit" and the losing party will denovo. Why? because noone beleives anything until somone in a black robe tells them they have to.
Dispute resolution is all about "you can't make me". Even in binding contractual arbitration, the hammer that ensures particpation is ultimately litigation and the judgment of the court.
As a matter of law the court can, in fact, make you. the court draws its legitimacy from the constitution which draws its legitamcy from the ratification of the people.

In SL, we can create play courts an offer to mediate disputes, be we have no recourse to the ultimate authority. There is no goverenment to enforce decrees, and ultimately these disputs boil down to "you can't make me."

If we want to give virtual democracy a tool we need to give it the hammer of some sort of soveriegnity, and the sovereign authority needs to participate in the administration of the society.

LL has said they are innovators and not administrators, and do not want the authority. That to me is where virtual democracy begins and ends.

Prokofy Neva

Thanks, Jake, I think it's so important in promoting the adversarial independent justice system we need for fairness and maximum transparency and objectivity to have lawyers like yourself respond early and often to justices like Justice Soothsayer who often forget that in our first world, they are not the only parties in the proceedings.

I can see where RL judges and prosecutors who hate pesky and annoying trial lawyers would love to set up a system where they never have to deal with them ever again.

No thanks. We need an independent bar and adversarial lawyers who can enlarge the space of protection for civil society and business and all manner of institutions, be they non-profit, trade, religious, educational, whatever.

A major function of the adversarial process is to have discovery.

How the hell can you have discovery in a virtual world where the godlike platform people hold all the discovery cards and can simply never yield them?

Indeed, as I've tirelessly explained to Philip (and I know he has no idea what I'm talking about), the TOS ban on notecarding and publicizing what is deemed a private convo means that the law of discovery is null and void in a virtual world.

I don't believe notecarding a private convo is in fact the moral or legal equivalent of an unauthorized wiretap. Indeed, sometimes it is.

But so often, the notecarded convo takes place in a public situation -- not in the privacy of one's virtual home, but in a business, on the street, in a club, in a public commons. Example: I'm in a club and some asswipe mafia tells me that if I come near his girlfriend, he will prim-firebomb my house because he knows where I live. Well, sorry, but if I notecard and turn in that convo to the police or the courts, it should stick. He shouldnl't be able to AR me -- as he can *and does* now -- and get the narrow code-bound Lindens to sideline me for 3 days just for copying his convo without his consent. See how it works?

Or let's say I'm in a store, and I confront some girl who paid my box that had just expired and tried to move in all her stuff into what had been my box for months, and was recognized as such by the owner -- rentomatic sniping is a real sport at telehubs (and now clubs). Lindens will do absolutely nothing. But if I can catch her threatening to bomb my store, if I can illustrate somewhere to some other impartial authority that she is a menace and violated the rental agent's rules (that say I have 12 hours or 24 hours to make good on my expired box), then my notecarded convo is vital to the process.

As we all know, taperecorded convos are vital in the political part of the judicial process and the judicial process itself, even when the tapes aren't admissible in court. Think of the confessions of the parade-day rapists in NY, etc.

The whole area of notecards and privacy needs to be discussed. But what we have now is a system in which the TOS itself and exigencies of the virtual world mean no impartial and tenable judicial process can take place.

As I've mentioned to Jake, the fact that I could be using invisible "illicit IMs" to be coaching a witness who is supposedly sequestered is one very big red flag impugning the impartiality and tamper-proof nature of this process.

I also am very glad that Jake brought up so many aspects of mediation and disputes from RL that point to what they are really all about: saving money and invoking the authority of a guy in a black robe. They aren't about all holding hands and singing Kumbayah and washing our sins in the River Jordan like all the Zen boys want you to be doing in the virtual soup. No way.

Some disputes could be handled -- in fact I see Lindens do more of this on the TG to preserve the peace than they'd ever be willing to do on the adult grid. The function of social advisors, the "complaints book" or "complaints window" or neighbourhood advice windows in some European and Eurasian societies would help a lot. In fact, Live Help probably has to do more dispute resolution than anyone would be willing to admit.

If the Lindens don't want the authority, Jake, will they leave power on the ground for Lenin to pick up? Who is the authority then, their mentors and helpers and the FIC? No thanks.

Jake Reitveld

I don't know where the soveriegn authority lies in SL. The problem is that you can't walk away from and expect somone to pick it up in SL. The only place, given the current structure of this enterprise that authoity can rest is with LL. Only they have the power of exclusion and enforcement. If they do not give it away, and they do not use it we are left with anarchy, not democracy.

In our age, democracy has become sysnonymous with freedom and liberty in the minds of many people, but there are subtle differences. In the case of SL we do not have a democractic society, though we do have a relative free society. I can see the enticement of having a virtual commuity and saying "Oh this is a great expereiment in democracy-there is a whole community here."

Superficially it sounds good, but every government, to some extent exists with the consent of the governed. When the goverened no longer consent, tacitly accept or acquiesce to the control of the governemnt, they have a revolution.

SL is formed from the culture of online gaming where we are used to Compnaies lie Sony having deadicated staff od GM's to address and police thier world. Many residents her have said they will leave if other residents become the administrators of SL.

On the other hand we have LL who has stated they are innovators and not administrators, so they do not want to participate in building the infrastructure necessary to policing the online world. We live in a power vacuum.

Smaller groups have formed-like the medeival holy roman empire we have robber barons holding sway over what land they directly control. A varity of group experinments and such have formed. Exach manifesting a difeerent take on how to get people to live together. But all these robber barons and tiny principalites are still, utlimately subject to the hammer of LL. Particpation in any of them is voluntary, and ther is no real way to punish a transgressor except to ban thme from your barony. Only LL can kick from Second Life. Only LL can force compliance, delete builds, inventory and ensure compliance.

In my mind any governemnt, but most especial democracy rests on a social contract implied by citizenship. It is not a top down thing, but a ground-up thing. It is easy to adopt a Utilitarian view of governement where we say the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of a few. It sounds reasonable.

But democractic society grows from the individual, and exists to foster the individual. The individual is not subject to the whims and capriciousness of the group, rather the group is a compromise in balanceing the interests of many indiviuals. Democracy is goverenment by compormise, and really only works as long as each participant has a voice. The sovereign authority are the individuals. Each part, is, in essence greater than the sum of the whole.

In SL, resident have no voice in the sovereign, and many do not want it. They will leave if player government is a reality. Thus you can have all the tools and trappings of the democracy duck, but no matter how much it looks, quacks and act like a duck. Its not there.

Cocoanut Koala

I think SL is anarchy, and the Lindens like that, and encourage it. I think they find it interesting to watch.

They abdicate their own role, yet we have no power = anarchy.

coco

Prokofy Neva

A world in which socialism, oligarchy, mercantalism, fascistic-type corporativism, scorched-earth capitalism, communardism and so forth all thrive isn't really anarchy. It's basically state capitalism that enables oligarchies and cronyism to thrive, and touts a socialism-on-one-sim model as part of its ideological placating of the intelligentsia. That sounds an awful lot like Sunday-night-at-the-Trots meeting, I realize, but I don't have a better idea of what to call it. Other than a game company.

Katt Kongo

FYI, the comments from Philip were from an interview that I had with him. If it were from another source, the article would have read (for example), "In a Dec. 27 interview with Wired, Linden was quoted as saying that..." It's not hard to tell where the info came from at all.

Prokofy Neva

Katt, here's what I wrote: "In today's Metaverse Messenger, there's an interview with Philip Linden (or perhaps these quotes were taken from some other statement of his, hard to tell)."

Most Linden quotes come from game conferences or RL media interviews that are then recycled on Clickable Culture or the Herald. So I guess I am conditioned to expect a Linden quote isn't necessarily from an exclusive interview.

I figured it *was* a quote from an interview that M2 had with Philip himself. But the reason I put in parenthesis the "hard to tell" comment was precisely because it *was* hard to tell. It didn't open with "In an exclusive interview with M2 today, Philip said..." or add "as Philip told the M2" or something to "frame" it.

Yes, I realize that if it were from another source, it might well have said, "On the Herald today etc" -- and it didn't. Still, I wouldn't have added it if it were clear -- and it wasn't, sorry.

I guess I was expecting more of a fanfare about what was clearly a personal and exclusive interview -- the Herald does'nt seem to have had an interview with Philip since June 04. A great thing about M2 is that it behaves like a "real newspaper" and doesn't take all the crabbing on the forums and blogs at face value, but goes and tries to get the Linden quote on every controversial story. That's the greatest strength of M2. In fact, a lot of interesting comments have been drawn out of "Kremlindenlab" that way that you don't get when you run a header "Kremlindenlab did this or that" and never go to any source within the Kremlinden camp to get their side of the story -- which is what a good journalist does.

If I didn't think it was clear, and felt I had to say so, don't take it as a slam on M2, it was merely to cover myself in case it was a quote from something else. It was indeed a matter of profound policy change with huge ramifications.

Katt Kongo

Thank you for clarifying, Prokofy.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)