Caliandris

(Interjection - just realised I should have posted this to my blog and then directed people to it. I'm sorry... )



[3:45] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you not think it close to anarchy when people are free to default on their solemn promises without recourse?
[3:46] Ashcroft Burnham: When people are, in practical terms, free to harass others without recourse?
[3:46] Caliandris Pendragon: That isn't true
[3:46] Caliandris Pendragon: and even if it were, I might think it was worth the risk that it entails inorder to be free of the sort of idiocy that goes on i the real world in relation to government
[3:46] Ashcroft Burnham: The system of abuse reports does not deal with complicated situations (certainly not promises), and in most cases does not even work for harassment.
[3:47] Caliandris Pendragon: Promises aren't dealt wit in the real world either
[3:47] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that the same applies to the physical world? If not, what's the distinction?
[3:47] Caliandris Pendragon: Try going to a court and telling them someone promised you this or that
[3:47] Ashcroft Burnham: Of course they are - there is the law of contract.
[3:47] Ashcroft Burnham: That's why I said "solemn promise" - I was talking about transactional contracts, arrangements between providers and consumers of services and gods.
[3:47] Ashcroft Burnham: *goods
[3:48] Caliandris Pendragon: there are degrees and degrees... if a substantive promise is made in the virtual world it can be made as easily in the real world where it would be ubject to the legal tests current in the real word
[3:48] Ashcroft Burnham: Including land - it is a very common and really quite serious problem that landlords enter into agreements with tenants, and then breach those agreements, re-let the land, ban the tenants, and the tenants have no effective recourse.
[3:48] Ashcroft Burnham: The problem with that is, as I think is discussed in the FAQ (or perhaps an article on the webiste) is of cost - transaction values in SL are *far* smaller in comparison to their in-world worth than off-world.
[3:49] Caliandris Pendragon: ok... you ask how this could impinge on SL? Bringing real life legal issues into SL would kill a lot of the things people do as a matter of course at themoment
[3:49] Caliandris Pendragon: employing someone for 1000 lindens a week for example, would be absolutely illega in the real world
[3:49] Ashcroft Burnham: The cost of bringing an action to enforce an in-world contract is vastly greater than it could ever possibly be worth in all but the most gigantic of transactions.
[3:49] Ashcroft Burnham: The "ordinary people", as you put it, have no recourse in practical terms.
[3:49] Caliandris Pendragon: they have choices all the time and have to make those choices based upon the best information
[3:50] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, what do you mean by "real life legal issues" here? The idea is not that we impose a pre-existing legal system, but that we develop a novel legal system especially for virtual worlds.
[3:50] Ashcroft Burnham: From scratch.
[3:50] Caliandris Pendragon: there are a lot of people who learned valuable lessons from the Ginko disaster and who now know that if something seems too good to be true it probably is.
[3:50] Ashcroft Burnham: The point of the Metaverse Republic is to resist interference from outside agencies, not to encourage it.
[3:51] Ashcroft Burnham: I daresay - but the transactions to which I am referring are very often not "too good to be true" - they are just ordinary, market rate land rentals.
[3:51] Caliandris Pendragon: Personally, the freedom I have no to consider rules made up by a bunch of people I don't know is worth the risks which dealing with others in the virtual worlds entails
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: I dislike the whole idea of ringing the virtual world around with made up rules
[3:52] Ashcroft Burnham: Many, many people disagree, especially those who've been involved with such transactions.
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: and I dislike it particularly if it is done by self appointed people
[3:52] Ashcroft Burnham: The legislature will not be self-appointed.
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: I ee no difference between this and those people who run around with police badges
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: of course it will
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: self selecting electorate
[3:52] Caliandris Pendragon: self selecting judiciary
[3:53] Ashcroft Burnham: Do the people who run aroudn with police badges have a judicial system?
[3:53] Ashcroft Burnham: Anybody would be entitled to become a subscriber and vote in elections.
[3:53] Caliandris Pendragon: self selecting their court system and rules
[3:53] Ashcroft Burnham: It is simply false to state that a democratically elected legislature is "self-selecting".
[3:53] Caliandris Pendragon: I can be a member of all sorts of groups I wouldn't chooe to join
[3:53] Caliandris Pendragon: the fact that I can doesn't give them a mandate to say that I have made a choice by not joining
[3:54] Ashcroft Burnham: And you didn't answer my question above - do you think that the value of not having the rule of law in virtual worlds also extends to the physical world? If not, what, precisely, is the distinction?
[3:54] Caliandris Pendragon: it cannot be democratically elected... how can it?
[3:54] Ashcroft Burnham: Of course you've made a choice by not joining.
[3:54] Ashcroft Burnham: What do you mean "how can it?" We'll run elections using the STV voting system.
[3:54] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't want a vote I don't want a parliament
[3:54] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't think 98% of the population in the metaverse do either
[3:55] Ashcroft Burnham: No, that's not the issue - you stated that the legislature would be "self selected", which is false.
[3:55] Ashcroft Burnham: 98% is a figure plucked from the air.
[3:55] Caliandris Pendragon: of course it isn't
[3:55] Caliandris Pendragon: ok, lets pretend... pretend 20% vote for the parliament... is that a mandate to have one?
[3:55] Caliandris Pendragon: 80% don't vote?
[3:55] Ashcroft Burnham: And you *still* haven't answered my question about whether you see a distinction betwee the rule of law in virtual worlds and the physical world - do you see such a distinction? If so, precisely what is it?
[3:58] Caliandris Pendragon: Do I see a distinction... well of course. If I kill someone in RL they're dead. If I kill you in SL you go home. There is not the same need for law in a virtual world as in a real one. For serious issues of say theft then the real life courts should deal with it and no one else. For less serious issues of say abuse with a melon firing gun, then the abuse reporting system of the platform owner is necessary
[3:58] Caliandris Pendragon: I do not see the need for any other systems
[3:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that the only value of law is to protect people from being physically harmed?
[3:58] Caliandris Pendragon: no... se above
[3:58] Caliandris Pendragon: serious issues = real life law
[3:58] Caliandris Pendragon: less serious = abuse reporting
[3:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that there is no value in preventing fraud on such a small financial scale that it is never worth the extremely large amount of money involved in bringing an action?
[3:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that there is no value in enforcing contracts?
[3:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that there is no value in preventing the vast amount of harassment that falls through the abuse report net?
[3:59] Caliandris Pendragon: I think it is ahopeless aim... preventing small scale fraud... I don't think your court system will offer or deliver on that
[3:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you think that the system of abuse reports will survive in any event when everyone's using OpenSim?

Caliandris

[4:00] Ashcroft Burnham: That's not an answer to my quesiton :-)
[4:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you or don't you think that it's a valuable thing to attempt to achieve.
[4:00] Ashcroft Burnham: ?>
[4:00] Caliandris Pendragon: do I think there is any valuein it... yes, but not worth the cost
[4:00] Caliandris Pendragon: it isn't worth the cost in REAL life, or in the virtual world EITHER
[4:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Why do you assess the cost as greater than the value? What's the basis for the quantification?
[4:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Why do you assume that the cost in a virtual world would be the same?
[4:01] Ashcroft Burnham: (I was referring to cost in financial terms)
[4:01] Caliandris Pendragon: It's a different cost - my freedom to be without courts and government in the virtual world
[4:01] Caliandris Pendragon: my freedom not to have to express my vote in order to have a say in something that is being imposed on me
[4:01] Ashcroft Burnham: That's not a basis for the quantification - you haven't explained why the quantum of that value outweighs the va;ue of preventing the small-scale fraud of the sort of which I wrote above.
[4:02] Caliandris Pendragon: I do't have to explain, it's my opinion, that's all
[4:02] Ashcroft Burnham: So your opinion has no basis in reason?
[4:02] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't have to explain why I value my freedom higher han other people's ability to go play courts somewhere
[4:02] Ashcroft Burnham: No, that wasn't the question.
[4:02] Caliandris Pendragon: tha's a very insulting thing to say
[4:03] Ashcroft Burnham: Is it not equally insulting to suggest that our efforts to create a serious judicial system is somebody's "ability to go play courts somewhere"?
[4:03] Ashcroft Burnham: And if you won't state the basis in reason for your conclusions, what else can one deduce?
[4:04] Caliandris Pendragon: I consider the risks taken in Virtual worlds to be proportionate
[4:04] Ashcroft Burnham: Why?
[4:04] Ashcroft Burnham: What's the basis for the quantification?
[4:04] Caliandris Pendragon: and they are risks which people understand they are taking
[4:05] Ashcroft Burnham: That people understand that they are taking risks does not mean that it is not a better world in which they do not have to take those risks.
[4:05] Caliandris Pendragon: that being the case, I think that the current systems for redress work well enough not to be replaced by a hulking great system of government and judiciary imposed by a minority of people who think it is a good iea
[4:05] Caliandris Pendragon: better world? That's what you are offering?
[4:05] Ashcroft Burnham: Nor does it not mean that they are not undertaken grudgingly.
[4:05] Caliandris Pendragon: I come into the virtual world to get away from those sorts of realities... party politics, squabbling and arguing
[4:05] Ashcroft Burnham: Anything that seeks to make anything better is offering that. There'd be no point in undertaking what we are doing unless it made things better.
[4:05] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't want you or anyone else to drag them in after me
[4:06] Caliandris Pendragon: the road to hell is paved with good intention
[4:06] Ashcroft Burnham: That can equally be said about your "good intentions" to preserve anarchy, can it not?
[4:06] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't see anarchy here
[4:06] Caliandris Pendragon: so I can't help you with that
[4:07] Ashcroft Burnham: I shall leave you with this parting thought - what we are doing is something that the inherent freedom in the virtual world enables us to do. That is the freedom that you seek to defend. If you disagree with this exercise of that freedom, then you are accepting that that very freedom is of less value than you claim it to be. If you uphold that freedom, then you equally uphold our freedom to do what we seek to do.
[4:08] Caliandris Pendragon: people are stupid sometimes, trust that they are being told the truth, or that banks really can give 40% interest, you can't protect people from their own stupidity, which is what you are seeking to do it seems
[4:08] Caliandris Pendragon: no you are seeking to impose restrictions on me
[4:08] Caliandris Pendragon: I do not seek to restrict your freedom to operate your own way in your own land
[4:08] Caliandris Pendragon: but you do seek to restrict me
[4:08] Ashcroft Burnham: By exercising the very freedom that you seek to defend :-)
[4:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you not see that the freedom that you are seeking to defend includes the very freedom to "impose restrictions on others", as you put it?
[4:09] Caliandris Pendragon: nope
[4:09] Caliandris Pendragon: I do not
[4:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Explain.
[4:09] Ashcroft Burnham: How are we not free to do what we seek to do?
[4:09] Ashcroft Burnham: That you dislike it does not abrogate that freedom, does it?
[4:10] Caliandris Pendragon: YOu are asking for the right to impose restrictions on the whole of SL or the whole of the metaverse
[4:10] Caliandris Pendragon: whether or not I consent
[4:10] Ashcroft Burnham: We're not asking for a right that we don't already have. We already have the liberty to do that. That liberty comes from the very lack of rules of which you are so fond.
[4:11] Caliandris Pendragon: You have the right to do what you like on your land... what you are asking for is some sort of mandate to impose that on everyone
[4:12] Caliandris Pendragon: I haven't worked out how you propose to get that mandate without imposing your elections on me
[4:12] Ashcroft Burnham: We're not *asking for* anything. We already have what we need.
[4:12] Caliandris Pendragon: I see
[4:12] Ashcroft Burnham: All that is required is the exercise of our liberties by ourselves, and for enough landowners to exercise their liberties and join us.
[4:13] Caliandris Pendragon: so if only 20% of the possible electorate vote in favor of your parliament or for it, it will make no difference?
[4:13] Ashcroft Burnham: People will be voting about individual members of Parliament - there is not an election about Parliament itself, specifically.
[4:13] Caliandris Pendragon: no, because if there were, it would be dead in the water
[4:14] Ashcroft Burnham: But don't you see that you are objecting to the exericse of the very liberties that, by objecting, you are claiming that you are defending?
[4:14] Ashcroft Burnham: The very liberties of which you write - the liberty to do anything that the code makes possible - is what allows us to do what we're doing.
[4:14] Ashcroft Burnham: If you agree with that liberty, then you must agree that this is one of the things that we can do with it, and that it would be wrong for you to interfere with it.
[4:15] Ashcroft Burnham: If you accept that valid restrictions are imposed on that liberty by anything other than the general law (and what we are doing is certainly not illegal), then you accept a foundational premise of the Republic itself.
[4:15] Caliandris Pendragon: Interfere with it... how pray would one do that?
[4:15] Ashcroft Burnham: Interfere with what

Caliandris

[4:16] Caliandris Pendragon: [4:14] Ashcroft Burnham: If you agree with that liberty, then you must agree that this is one of the things that we can do with it, and that it would be wrong for you to interfere with it.
[4:16] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you believe that our liberty to do what we're planning to do should be interfered with?
[4:16] Caliandris Pendragon: how would I interefere with it?
[4:16] Caliandris Pendragon: How can it be said to be democratic if I cannot express opposition?
[4:16] Ashcroft Burnham: I've no idea. As things stand, you can't. Do you desire a world in which you can?
[4:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Expressing opposition is not the same as interfering with liberty.
[4:17] Ashcroft Burnham: You're expressing opposition now, but that's not stopping us :-)
[4:17] Caliandris Pendragon: Democracy allows for one to have one's views taken into account, does it not?
[4:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, in a structured way.
[4:17] Ashcroft Burnham: By voting for one's representatives in Parliament.
[4:18] Caliandris Pendragon: Well I'd like a vote one step back... do I want a parliament and accompanying judicial system in SL... yes or no
[4:18] Ashcroft Burnham: And you haven't answered my question - do you desire a world in which you can interfere with our liberty to establish the Metaverse Republic?
[4:18] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[4:19] Ashcroft Burnham: So you're happy for us to have the liberty to found the Republic?
[4:19] Caliandris Pendragon: I want a world where I can object to you setting up something that seeps over the borders of your land into SL
[4:19] Caliandris Pendragon: that's a different thing... and depends upon your point of view
[4:19] Ashcroft Burnham: You can object - you are objecting now :-)
[4:19] Caliandris Pendragon: mine is, that you wish to impose your views and system on me
[4:19] Caliandris Pendragon: and I do not wish to impose my views on anyone
[4:19] Ashcroft Burnham: But, in this world with few rules, your objection doesn't stop us from doing what we're doing. Do you think that that's a good thing or a bad thing?
[4:20] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't think in the lo term it will matter
[4:20] Ashcroft Burnham: You are wishing to impose your "no imposing views" view on everyone.
[4:20] Ashcroft Burnham: You don't think that what will matter?
[4:20] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't think it will matter whether I think it is a good thing or a bad thing
[4:20] Caliandris Pendragon: I think SL is infertile ground for such a scheme
[4:21] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm not asking you whether you think what you think will matter. I'm asking you what you think.
[4:21] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm asking you what you think because it goes to the very internal coherency of the basis of your objection.
[4:21] Ashcroft Burnham: As I'm sure that I've made abundantly clear already.
[4:24] Caliandris Pendragon: yes... as you would expect I do of course defend people's freedom to do what they want to do in SL... and I see that as a good andpositive thing, untill they start dictating what I may do in SL as laid down by their rules... in normal cases I can choose not to have anything to do with a group which does things I disagree with, but if successful your group will seek to curtail my activities according to their own system, impose upon me whether I join with you or not. That I would say is a bad thing. So the answer to your question is both. I see it as both good and bad
[4:24] Ashcroft Burnham: So you accept that your own view is contradictory?
[4:24] Caliandris Pendragon: No I don't
[4:24] Ashcroft Burnham: How can "I see it as both good and bad" not be accepting that?
[4:24] Caliandris Pendragon: I accept that you have tunnel vision about it
[4:25] Ashcroft Burnham: Peronsal insults do not advance understanding.
[4:25] Caliandris Pendragon: I have explained why it might be both goo and bad
[4:25] Caliandris Pendragon: there is no contradiction implicit in what I said
[4:25] Ashcroft Burnham: What I am asking you is whether you believe that it is right that we should have the liberty to do it.
[4:25] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you?
[4:25] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't accept that you do have the liberty to do it, actualy
[4:25] Ashcroft Burnham: How?
[4:26] Ashcroft Burnham: What is stopping us?
[4:26] Caliandris Pendragon: I think it would be quite easy for Linden Lab to decide to take exception to it if it caused a lot of disruption to the grid and a lot of antagonism
[4:26] Caliandris Pendragon: this isn't the real world, they can unplug you
[4:26] Ashcroft Burnham: If it is (1) techincally possible; and (2) not illegal, in what sense don't we ahve the liberty?
[4:26] Caliandris Pendragon: you sign the TOS
[4:27] Caliandris Pendragon: they could interpret a lot of the things that you propose in a variety of ays
[4:27] Ashcroft Burnham: The ToS does not prohibit the Metaverse Republic.
[4:27] Caliandris Pendragon: ways
[4:28] Ashcroft Burnham: That vague and generic argument does not support the specific proposition that we are not at liberty to establish the Metaverse Republic; in any event, you miss the long-term point: eventually, virtual worlds will run on an OpenSim model. There won't be central control by Linden Lab (or similar) as there is now.
[4:28] Ashcroft Burnham: Whatever Linden Lab decide about us won't apply then.
[4:28] Ashcroft Burnham: (In any event, Robin Linden is a member of our group; she's been most supportive)
[4:28] Ashcroft Burnham: It's overwhelmingly unlikely that Linden Lab will stop us from doing what we're doing - they haven't stopped BanLink, after all.
[4:29] Caliandris Pendragon: Perhaps she's a spy... they would tend to be supportive in order to maintain cover
[4:29] Ashcroft Burnham: You are now progressing into the land of absurdity.
[4:29] Caliandris Pendragon: lol
[4:29] Caliandris Pendragon: I am!
[4:29] Ashcroft Burnham: Do you still maintain that we don't have the liberty to found the Metaverse Republic?

Caliandris

[4:30] Caliandris Pendragon: I have already said that you are free to do it, in an earlier response. That you can doesn't mean you should. HOwever, we will have to agree to differ on it, as I can't argue all weekend I have work to do
[4:31] Ashcroft Burnham: I have work to do, too. But the point is simply this: the freedoms that you are defending include the freedom to do things, such as founding the Metaverse Republic, with which you disagree.
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: to a point... you seem to see everything in black and white
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that metaphors like that are helpful in a discussion of this nature - can you express what you mean without using that metaphor?
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: (Or, indeed, any metaphor).
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: I can, but you're a hopeless case
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't think that that's fair.
[4:32] Caliandris Pendragon: so I decline to really...
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Hopeless in the sense that I don't agree with you?
[4:32] Ashcroft Burnham: Or in some other sense?
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: Hopeless in the sense that you are stuck on your course and won't be waylaid
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: so there is very little point in my expending my remaining brain cells in arguing about it
[4:33] Ashcroft Burnham: I won't be waylaid by something that I believe to be wrong, of course not. It'd be stupid to do so.
[4:33] Caliandris Pendragon: I respect that
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: That I won't change my view on the basis of anything other than reasoning which I believe to be cogent does not make me irrational or intransigent - quite the converse, in fact.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: but it is possible to discuss things without taking a polarised view and being so literal in your arguments
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: things can be black and white, good and bad
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: I don't agree that being literal is a bad thing.
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Being non-literal simply obfuscates.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[4:34] Ashcroft Burnham: Clarity and precision is important.
[4:34] Caliandris Pendragon: it can illumnate
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Metaphor can illustrate, but can never describe a contentious claim on its own.
[4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: a number of important concepts are conveyed in story and symbolism
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The reason for that is that one has to understand and accept at least part of what the person is saying in order to decrypt the metaphor.
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: The metaphor requires more interpretation than non-metaphoric expression.
[4:35] Caliandris Pendragon: and cannot be reduced to literal arguments... many of the thins that you are talking about will be quite grey in their circumstances and in their outcome
[4:35] Ashcroft Burnham: Therefore, less is communicated, and more is left to be added by the recipient.
[4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: If the recipient does not have that information in the first place, clarity is not achieved.
[4:36] Ashcroft Burnham: The recipient will not have that information if that information is a conclusion that stems from a premise with which the recipient disagrees.
[4:36] Caliandris Pendragon: what I like about SL... is that it allows for exploration in a non linear non literal non disciplined wa
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: way*
[4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That's a sudden change of topic - do you accept the point about metaphors?
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: NO... you knew what I meant
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: asking for constant elucidation seems very hostile
[4:37] Ashcroft Burnham: That you enjoy using metaphors doesn't mean that the points that I make above have any less force.
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: that's true
[4:37] Caliandris Pendragon: and ore gentle
[4:38] Caliandris Pendragon: more*
[4:38] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm sorry that you find it hostile - it's not the intention (unless in "hostile" you include anything that might have the effect of enabling me to find errors in your arguments). The intention is to understand what you mean more precisely.
[4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: OK... I don't mean that I dislike being pulled up for a real explanation
[4:39] Ashcroft Burnham: Many people do, I find...
[4:39] Caliandris Pendragon: but you have asked me to explain myself more often in the last ew minutes of our discussion than I have encountered in the whole four and a half yearsI have been there
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: Perhaps you've been talking to the wrong people so far ;-)
[4:40] Caliandris Pendragon: it trips up communication and conversation to constantly be asking for definitions and explanations
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: I only ask for them when they are necessary.
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: If your style happens to call for many explanations, then it's no criticism of me that I ask for them,
[4:40] Ashcroft Burnham: .
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: My concern in particular when you refer to things being "grey" is that you might have fallen into the fallacy of the excluded middle.
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: if you want to know what people feel and think, you have to try not to jump on every word and ask them to explain it... well all I can say is that I haven't had anyone else ask for so much explanation...
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: you talk in political phrases and interpret wat I say in political terms
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: That isn't a valid criticism of me so asking :-)
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I have no interest in politics really
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: and I dislike it
[4:41] Ashcroft Burnham: I gathered that ;-)
[4:41] Caliandris Pendragon: I am interested in people, passionately
[4:42] Caliandris Pendragon: I think politics is mostly self-serving and boring
[4:43] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, that depends what you include in "politics". Party politics, perhaps, but the fact of government is not "mostly self-serving". (Whether it's boring is, of course, entirely subjective). The reality is that it's a better world in which we have a government than in which we have anarchy. We at the Metaverse Republic passionaltely believe in the rule of law in the same way that you are passionate about people. The rule of law benefits people. People are often prejudiced agianst government by bad experiences with particular governments, which is understandable, but that does not mean that one is better off overall in an anarchy.
[4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We are doing what we are doing because we genuinely believe that it will bring considerable benefits both to individuals and the virtual world economy as a whole.
[4:44] Caliandris Pendragon: If you wish me to express myself clearly, here you are: I acknowledge that you have the freedom to do what you want to do. That doesn't mean I am not entitled to an opinion about it. That I want an opinion about it does not mean necessarily that I intend to curtail your freedom or to assert mine and deny you yours
[4:44] Ashcroft Burnham: We know that not everyone agrees with us, but not everyone is going to agree on any one proposition about governance, so that's inevitable.

Caliandris

[4:45] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't think that the opposite of a structural system of government is anarhcy
[4:46] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, I understand that. My point was simply that the *reason* for your opinion in favour of us not doing what we seek to do appears to contradict the fact that such an opinion entails that we ought to be so free.
[4:46] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[4:46] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't agree
[4:46] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, the opposite of the rule of law is anarchy.
[4:46] Caliandris Pendragon: no
[4:46] Ashcroft Burnham: It's the rule of law that is of central concern.
[4:47] Caliandris Pendragon: I don't agree with that either... I think there is a small proprtion of the population - about 5-10 of males and far fewer of females, who do not respect the rule of law whatever system is imposed on them
[4:47] Ashcroft Burnham: That is enough.
[4:48] Caliandris Pendragon: I think it would be better to ask questions about why that five or ten per cent behave in that way than developing new ways to impose punishment on them
[4:48] Ashcroft Burnham: The economic impact of the practical unenforcability of small-value contracts is greater than superfically appears: people simply don't enter into all sorts of transactions because of it. That stifles the economy.
[4:48] Ashcroft Burnham: They're not mutually exclusive :-)
[4:48] Caliandris Pendragon: people want to make a fast buck - even law abiding ones
[4:49] Caliandris Pendragon: the only reason for taking risks with land or other things is in order to try to make money
[4:49] Ashcroft Burnham: Indeed. And isn't it easier to do that in a world where one can have some confidence that contracts will be enforced in a cost-effective way than one in which that is not so?
[4:49] Caliandris Pendragon: you aren't offering that even if I wer to agree with that statement
[4:49] Caliandris Pendragon: you cannot enforce redress
[4:49] Caliandris Pendragon: you can only ban people from the places which participat
[4:49] Caliandris Pendragon: participate
[4:50] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, no, that's not quite right.
[4:50] Ashcroft Burnham: What is proposed is a system where banishment is the punishment for failing to pay compensation, etc.
[4:50] Caliandris Pendragon: see above
[4:50] Ashcroft Burnham: Not for breaching the contract in the first place :-)
[4:50] Caliandris Pendragon: you cannot force redress
[4:50] Ashcroft Burnham: That depends what you mean.
[4:50] Caliandris Pendragon: if they could care less that your landowners ban them
[4:50] Caliandris Pendragon: then you cannot force any redress
[4:51] Ashcroft Burnham: There are many occasions in off-world legal systems in which people who have judgments against them do not pay them. No court can magically guaruntee that all judgment debts will be paid.
[4:51] Caliandris Pendragon: also: what stops anyone from starting another account to explore the places you ban them from?
[4:51] Ashcroft Burnham: What can be done is to provide a powerful disincentive to non-compliance that will cause compliance in enough cases to be useful.
[4:51] Ashcroft Burnham: That's answered in the FAQ :-)
[4:52] Caliandris Pendragon: erm I don't see it?
[4:53] Caliandris Pendragon: oh... nothing
[4:53] Ashcroft Burnham: You've found it? :-)
[4:53] Caliandris Pendragon: even less to be done with opensim
[4:53] Ashcroft Burnham: No, the same principle works there.
[4:54] Caliandris Pendragon: make another alt
[4:54] Ashcroft Burnham: See quesiton 11 in the FAQ.
[4:54] Caliandris Pendragon: the people who care about their reputation don't do these things in the firstplace
[4:54] Caliandris Pendragon: the people who don't care will jus make an alt
[4:54] Ashcroft Burnham: I think that that's far too simplistica way of looking at it.
[4:55] Ashcroft Burnham: People's reputation is relative to a large extent - reputation amongst some people, or some specific groups, can be different to that amongst others.
[4:55] Ashcroft Burnham: It's not true that nobody who ever does anything that involves a dispute has any interest whatsoever in reputation.
[4:55] Ashcroft Burnham: And the point is thoroughly addressed at q. 11 in any event.
[4:56] Caliandris Pendragon: OK... well I'd like your permission to share this argument and talk it over with people. If nothing else you have made me think about it
[4:56] Caliandris Pendragon: I shan't edit it in any way
[4:57] Ashcroft Burnham: Certainly :-)
[4:57] Caliandris Pendragon: thank you
[4:57] Ashcroft Burnham: Do show them the entire FAQ, though, please.
[4:57] Caliandris Pendragon: I was asking permission to share this conversation too, is that OK with you?
[4:57] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, certainly, provided that you send the FAQ to everyone with whom you share it :-)
[4:57] Caliandris Pendragon: ok, deal
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: :-)
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: It's been very interesting talking, but I have to go now...
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Have a lovely afternoon :-)
[4:58] Caliandris Pendragon: I wonder if the moster raving loony party has a branch in SL? OK :-)
[4:58] Caliandris Pendragon: thanks, you too
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Ohh, incidentally...
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: Have a look at some of the articles on our website.
[4:58] Ashcroft Burnham: The Metaverse Republic
[4:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Some of those may help to elicidate things further :-)
[4:59] Caliandris Pendragon: thanks
[4:59] Ashcroft Burnham: (There is one on function that you might find especially useful).

Caliandris

I'm SO sorry... I know I felt exhausted, but didn't realise just HOW long that convo was.

I promised to include the whole faq, so I am just going to get on a do it:

Metaverse Republic FAQ
2.2

1. What is the Metaverse Republic?

The Metaverse Republic is an independent, non-profitmaking organisation that will provide enforceable dispute resolution to SecondLife by means of a judicial system (in other words, courts) and a democratically elected Parliament.

2. Is the Metaverse Republic up and running yet?

No. We are still in the process of designing the constitution and technical systems. It will take quite some time before we are ready to go, since we must be very careful to get things right.

3. How will the Metaverse Republic work?

There will be courts, where anybody will be able to bring a case, and the outcomes will be decided by skilled, professional judges, and possibly also juries. The decisions of the court will ultimately be able to be enforced by the use of a banishment database. Anybody who, for example, fails to observe a court order, can have her or his avatar name(s) placed on the banishment database. Using sophisticated systems currently under design by our Techincal Team, landowners (both of individual parcels and whole estates) will be able to “subscribe” to the banishment database (for free), which will automatically eject/ban from that land all the avatars whose names are on the database.

All subscribers will be entitled to vote in regular elections to the Parliament (as well as the executive and a body called the Public Oversight Panel). The Parliament will, in turn, be able to pass laws binding on the courts. It will also be possible for entire local communities to subscribe en bloc by subscribing all of their land (such as a whole estate), and every citizen of that local community (whether directly a landowner or not) will be entitled to vote.

4. Will the courts only be able to deal with disputes between subscribers, or on subscribing land?

No: the courts will deal with all people who use the virtual worlds in which the Metaverse Republic operates. Creating artificial boundaries would serve only to undermine the effectiveness of the system and create unnecessary confusion.

5. Who are you to be making laws for other people?

Ultimately, we are not: because the democratic Parliament will, subject to some necessary constitutional limits, have the power to pass laws binding on all the courts, we are just setting up a structure within which people can make laws for themselves.

6. Why is a system like this necessary when just banning griefers ourselves or using BanLink is a faster way of dealing with problems? Isn’t it enough that there are real-life courts?

The main point of the Metaverse Republic is not to deal with griefers – it is to support enforceable contracts, and other behavior rules, by having a fair and inexpensive system for impartial dispute resolution. That could be used for griefing issues, and other land use or behavior disputes, but is also likely to help maintain a fair and efficient business environment for the micro-payment transactions that are becoming common in Second Life and other virtual worlds, as well as better enabling local communities to form and enforce their own rulesets.

Disputes about virtual world transactions and and in-world local rules often cannot be efficiently regulated or adjudicated in off-world legal systems, due to the transaction size, the nature of the parties or the subjectmatter of the dispute.

7. Are you just role-players?

No. This is a serious system for a serious commercial economy. SecondLife is not a game; we are not playing at running a judicio-political system any more than Anshe Cheung is playing at running a business.

(That is not to say that there are no role-play governments in SecondLife; there are no doubt quite a few, perhaps the most well known of which are the Goreans.)

8. Isn’t banishment too harsh a punishment for most cases?

Yes. That is why we will not use it in most cases. Banishment is the ultimate penalty, just like, in off-world legal systems, going to prison is the ultimate penalty. In both cases, it is, ultimately, the only thing that can be done effectively to a person against that person’s will; however, lesser penalties (or other orders, such as compensation, etc.) can be enforced by threat of invoking the greater penalty.

In off-world jurisdictions, for example, a criminal court will impose a fine or a civil court will make an order for damages. If the person refuses to pay the fine, he or she can ultimately go to prison. If he or she refuses to pay damages, the court can make a further order, for example, for seizure of assets. If the person then physically stops the bailiff taking the assets away, or takes them back after they have been taken, he or she can be convicted of assault or theft and, ultimately, go to prison.

In the Metaverse Republic, a person, for example, who is the beneficiary of an order against another person to pay compensation can bring another case against that person if the compensation is not paid, and if successful, the court would be likely to order that the person be banished until the payment is made.

9. Won’t people just be able to say that they’ve paid their compensation or whatever even when they haven’t, and nobody will know for sure whether they’re telling the truth or not?

We are in the process of developing an automated payment object that will automatically register any payments made pursuant to court orders. People will be presumed not to have satisfied the court order unless payment is made through the object.

10. Why is it important to have enforceable contracts in SecondLife anyway?

An economy can only flourish in so far as its transactions can adequately be safeguarded against exploitation or intractable dispute. For simple transactions, such as the purchase and sale of in-world objects, SecondLife provides such a means in the software code itself. However, no such system is available (or, without unimaginably huge advances in computer technology, possible) for more sophisticated arrangements, such as contracts of employment or for the provision of services. Unsurprisingly, therefore, most of the SecondLife economy is founded almost exclusively on simple transactions.

If more sophisticated transactions in the future become effectively enforceable in a way that they are not now, all this could very well change. Far greater collaboration will be possible, such that work could be carried out by large teams of individual specialists, rather than singular and personally trusted individuals slowly doing all of the work themselves. A wage-based economy could well come into being; think, for instance, of the World of Warcraft gold farmers, and how they were able to earn a better living farming virtual gold than they were by working in actual mines, and what benefit could be brought to SecondLife by legions of such people working as part of large SecondLife specific organisations to provide an ever increasingly sophisticated set of virtual goods and services.

If the SecondLife economy is to be anything more than a bubble, or is to be based on anything more than sex and gambling (not that we make any judgment as to the propriety of either of those activities), then enforceable contracts, amongst other incidents of a sophisticated judicial system, are essential.

11. How will the enforcement work if people can just come back as alts?

People who have built up reputations and large networks of friends and contacts have much to lose by switching to an alternate account. A reputation, often built over months or even years, would have to be built from scratch – entire networks of contacts would have to be re-accumulated. If the person simply told all her/his previous friends that he/she was returning as an alt, the friends may very well want to know (or guess) why, and having to tell all one’s friends (and business associates) that one has been banished by the Metaverse Republic might become embarassing. Furthermore, any one of them might report the alternate account to our enforcement people, resulting in that account being banned, too.

Of course, not everyone has an established reputation: just as with off-world legal systems, some people will be worth bringing actions against, and some will not. In off-world legal systems, it is the size of the person’s pool of assets that counts: in virtual worlds, it will be the investment in reputation and social networks.

There might also, in the future, be technical means of linking accounts, such as a better version of the credential verification system that Linden Lab uses to track who is an adult, or IP linking (possibly already used by Linden Lab).

12. Is there not potential for abuses of power in such a system?

We are working very hard to design the constitution to minimise the possibility of abuses of power by distributing power carefully amongst a series of quite independent institutions of state, in accordance with the principle of the separation of the powers. Further details of that can be found in our Founding Charter, or its executive summary.

However, in this system, unlike any first-life government, there is an additional, powerful check against abuses of power: market forces. Because subscription to the database is voluntary, and because the system cannot work unless a good number of people are subscribed, if the system becomes corrupt or abuses its power, people will simply unsubscribe, and its power would collapse. Conversely, if it acted fairly and justly, more people would be inclined to subscribe, and its power would increase.

Caliandris

13. However well you design your constitution, how can you stop the people who actually have their hands on the tools (the database, the land, etc.) from ignoring the constitution and laws?

Although we have not yet finalised our techincal systems, our preferred solution to this issue at this stage is to use a cobination of open-source software (so that everybody can see how the code works), reqire approval of the code by our democratic institutions, and require automated logging of each use of the systems in question.

Other options under consideration for resource management include registering as a real-life non-profit organisation, and having the people on the executive (which will be partly elected) on the board of that organisation, or alternatively, using an external service to manage the non-profit under the direction of our executive; and using a bot account to hold all of our land.

14. How will the system pay for the land that it will need for the courts and Parliament, and pay its judges and other officers?

This is not something on which we have made any final decisions yet, as the system is still under design. One possibility currently being considered is renting an island, letting out much of the land, and using the revenue from that to pay for the remaining land on which we will house our public buildings. Some income will be generated through fines, although we do not expect that it will be substantial.

The judiciary will have its own, separate, finance, although might be subsidised by the general treasury to some extent. Its finances will largely derive from court fees and costs, which will ultimately be born by the losing party in every case, and will be enforced in the same way as other orders of the court. The court costs will be based on a fixed scale, determined in advance of each case.

In the early days of the system, it might well be that it is not possible to pay any office holders. If and when the system becomes more successful, that position will no doubt be reviewed. Ultimately, we would like to be able to pay whatever it takes to recruit and retain the best people for the job (assuming a SecondLife-scaled income). If the system flourishes, we believe that we will be able to do that in time.

15. What will I be able to do if somebody brings a case against me?

At this stage, the judicial procedure has not been finalised, so this answer is provisional. However, it is envisaged that an official organ of the court (either a scripted object or a member of the judiciary) will always have to notify the defendant(s) so that they can be sure that the action is real, and not fictitious. The notice will contain a link to information about what the Metaverse Republic is, and the procedure for defending a case, as well as Metaverse Republic law generally. It is also envisaged that it will link to a directory of SecondLife lawyers, who will be able to advise as to the prospects of success of any prospective or pending action.

To respond, a person, we envisage, would reply with a notice (either a SecondLife notecard, or using a web interface) setting out what is admitted and what is denied and why, and generally how the party responds to the claim. Based on the answer, the judicial system would then either schedule a hearing to resolve any dispute, or make an order if there appeared to be no dispute.

16. How will the court be able to make decisions in cases where there are no official records of what happened?

There is nothing special about SecondLife or other virtual worlds such that it is uniquely difficult to resolve disputed issues of fact without the sort of conclusive evidence to which Linden Lab (and other creators of virtual worlds) potentially (but probably not in the least practically) has access: in the physical world, there are no server logs: conversation between people evaporates into the ether as soon as the words are uttered, remembered often only by those disputants at least one of whom is often either lying, mistaken or both. Money is often represented by fungible cash, every coin and banknote being, to all intents and purposes, identical to every other of the same denomination. Especially in the days before modern forensic evidence and closed-circuit television, criminal trials relied exclusively on the evidence of eyewitnesses, often combined with circumstantial evidence and some scant obvious physical evidence. Civil trials relied on witness testimony and a few documents (which were sometimes alleged to be, and sometimes were, forgeries). Despite that, however, the justice systems of the age before modern technology served their purpose, and, although were not perfect, were infinitely better than having no justice system at all. There is nothing special about virtual worlds that means that the very same sort of justice system cannot exist for them, too.

However, it certainly is possible to have a system of notarised documents with electronic signatures to make proving the contents of a contract easier than it might otherwise be. Although, in the physical world, oral contracts are, contrary to popular myth, upheld and enforced all the time, electronic notarisation undoubtedly reduces a potential source of uncertainty. There is already a notary service in SecondLife called nota bene, although that only works for quite short documents. We will be considering creating our own tools to allow the notarisation of longer documents. Another possibility is a registered payment system, whereby a scripted object securely records that a payment in a particular amount has been made by one avatar to another, through the object, on a particular date, to avoid disputes as to whether any particular person has received any particular amount of money.

17. If a court in the Metaverse Republic makes a decision against me that I disagree with, what will I be able to do?

In most cases, where the original case is heard in a lower court, it will be possible to appeal to the High Court (consisting of at least three judges) on the basis that the lower court has made an error of law. If one disagrees with the substantive law that the courts have applied, one will also be able to lobby Parliament to change the law, vote for a different set of members of Parliament at the next elections, or stand for election to Parliament oneself.

18. How often will elections be held?

Elections for the Parliament, Executive and Public Oversight Panel will be held every six months, using a single transferable vote system.

19. Isn’t this the same as the SecondLife Superior Court thing from 2005? Didn’t that fail?

The Metaverse Republic is similar in the sense that it involves an in-world court, and the SecondLife Superior Court did, indeed, fail. However, the reason that the SecondLife Superior Court failed was because it had no means of enforcement, which will inevitably doom any legal system to instant failure. In that respect, the Metaverse Republic is dissimilar. The Metaverse Republic is also dissimilar in that it, but not, as far as we are aware, the SecondLife superior court has a democratic Parliament capable of making laws binding on the courts.

20. Does the Metaverse Republic have a presence in-world?

We have a headquarters in Tabula Rasa, part of the Avalon Town estate:
􀀁

21. How do I become involved in the Metaverse Republic?

While we are working to build the Metaverse Republic, we have three teams: (1) the Constitutional Team, charged with creating the constitution of the Metaverse Republic, and associated details; (2) the Management Team, charged with overall project management and resource administration; and (3) the Technical Team, charged with creating the tools necessary to enable the Metaverse Republic to work effectively.

To join the Constitutional Team, contact Ashcroft Burnham. To join the Management Team, contact Colleen Kesey. To join the Technical Team, contact Chase Marellan. See below for more details:
􀀀

Caliandris

Really sorry that I posted such a lot of text. I should have thought of pasting it to my blog and directing people there, sorry. Once I had a couple of sections posted there seemed to be nothing to do except carry on....

Look at it this way - I have also been a lurker more than a poster on the SLU forums, and so although there have been a few times when I have thought about posting I haven't. I'm just makig up for that!
Cali

Joshua Nightshade

Adam Zaius

Dear god.

I just read through that, wow. What a tard.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Ignore Adam, he's just a troll.

armozel

It should be noted that market anarchists are not anarcho-capitalists as we believe that the market is neither capitalistic nor collectivistic. [State] Capitalism depends on monopolies, but a free market does not. For me, the reason why I'm firmly an anarchist as well is that it is how the real world works by and for consent.

It's only when individuals want to visit evil upon another do they seek to violate consent for whatever 'reason.'

Then again, I could be totally wrong. *shrugs*

armozel

Also, I'd like to point out to the Metaverse "Republic" folks is that the only contract I agreed to is that pesky shrinkwrapped one offered by LL. Whatever they want to do is only on their group and sims. And not me. LL is the only enforceable party in all contracts in SL with respect to in-grid operations (the rating system, permissions, content concerns/theft, and etc). Unless Ass...I mean Ashcroft wants to usurp the rightful property and services of others I'm keen to hear how he's going to do that (Does he think anyone in their right mind will nationalize such a clusterfuck like LL and SL?).

Verkin Raven

*Promptly moves out to 0.0 space.*

No, really. I can't see this applying to most of the grid. An island? Griefers? Kick/ban. Problem solved. The day they govern my island is the day I finish moving to OpenGrid.

All this shit gives me a headache. SL already has it's own special brand of politics, it doesn't need more.

armozel

BoB or Goonie? Or ex-MC?

Joshua Nightshade

(There's no such thing as OpenGrid.)

CaleVinson

I haven't read the recent walls-of-text, my apologies for that.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only punishment that the Republic is proposing to deliver is banning from Republic lands.

And since you seem to have no problem with people doing what they want on their land, you should have no problem with the Republic guys doing what they want on theirs.

Its not like they'll be the first guys on the grid with people banned unnecessarily.

CaleVinson

Atheist !!!!1111!!!!

armozel

Then that's okay, but anyone that has the Republic Group tag will not get my business.

Charlemagne Allen

The Great Duchy of Darkmere will always stand strong! All invaders shall be turned into next week's gruel!

__________________
Charlemagne Allen: YOU'RE A RACIST!
Charlemagne Allen: I HAVE CHATLOGS!
smokergirl Lowenhar: HOMOPHOBE
smokergirl Lowenhar: CONTENT THIEF
Charlemagne Allen: RELIGION SUCKS DONKEY BALLS!
smokergirl Lowenhar: KISS MY ASS YOU CLOSE MINDED HYPOCRIT
Charlemagne Allen: YOU WERE AN ESCORT FOR BARN ANIMALS!
Charlemagne Allen: ZOMG BIG SIG!

Pretty things:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlemagneallen/

Oclee Hornet

Mmm... this seem to point in another direction (emphasis mine)

Can't be arsed to read it all... Gits like this guy raise my blood pressure...

CaleVinson

Thanks for that quote Oclee.

Its not an entirely simple task, unravelling all that text.

They also wrote .....

It makes the point that although a Republic court can order compensation (and presumably fines too), it can't make people pay it directly. At the end of the day, they are simply SL residents like us, and like us, banning is one of the precious few "powers" they hold.

Vengence Opus

too late, people. too late.

you could have had one of the best judges in the metaverse...but no. you dragged your feet, and i've accepted another position.

i've been hired as supreme court justice of entropia.

i move to china on monday.

i'm not sure if they have watermelon guns, but i shall do my best to bring down the banhammer universally. (i hope my lindens transfer.)

__________________


“If you're losing your soul and you know it, then you've still got a soul left to lose.” ~ Charles Bukowski

Desmond Shang

Kendra, it will be great to see you return. I look forward to the day Neualtenburg rises again!

* * * * *

Though the Republic idea is almost certainly going to crash and burn, I have to respect Ashcroft for at least sticking to his principles and going for it.

I seem to find myself almost immediately in trouble with the 'law' in such regions, though the Confederation of Democratic Simulators didn't quite have the nerve to take me to trial.

Perhaps the Republic will be different?

Prokofy has a standing invitation to be my defence counsel. Bring popcorn.

__________________

Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon:secondlife://caledon/190/190
West Trade Imports LTD Architecture & Antiques:secondlife://alice/89/114

armozel

I can 1-up this Ashcroft moron right now by forming a corporation and getting County Notary rights here in Sedgwick County of the State of Kansas. I have a real world connection that he could never have, therefore any contracts notarized by SL users would be enforceable and it doesn't need a virtual government to set it up. And it can be profitable. :-P

Edit: And everyone else can form their own notary services where they feel that mine is inadequate or find RL notary services that would be keen on it if both parties are available.

CrystalShard

So basically, this is a distributed banning system with a "court of law" - where only "Judges" may add/remove people to its (immense) ban list after reviewing each case.

The way this works, the moment you add a Ban node to your parcel, its under the jurisdiction of this "court" system.

In a way that actually makes it more dangerous and easy to influence then the existing distributed banning systems (which I dislike as well) - because with the existing Group Oriented ones, every moderator may ban you from multiple places on a whim - but any other moderator at the same level may unban you on a different whim.

The "damage" is fixable.

On the other hand, here we're expected to accept that every decision made by this panel of "judges" is "final and true", ran by a bunch of uncertified people who by some manner got picked as "trusted authority" to decide on whats going on on your parcel. I dont think so.

In the end, I think that this may end up being installed in a couple of places - possibly popular ones - but it will not succeed in the long run, due to one simple fact: We're all a bunch of twisted control freaks.

When it comes to access controls, people love to have all the power in their own hands. Especially the drama queens who tend to run the clubs. Thats all it is, really. We're all control freaks. It may "sound" good when you present it as "preemptively ban griefers and 'criminals' from multiple parcels at once", but after awhile, it'll get to people that they cant really choose if this person will be banned by default or not.

Now, some may argue that this is not the chief purpose of the system. Its main purpose is to serve as a -threat-. A force of enforcement to bend people's arms into being good and following the rules. But again, we face the core issue: If this system is supposed to be the biggest threat... nay, the biggest weapon in SecondLife... can we really trust it in the hands of fellow users? Who is going to control the server that hosts the ban list? The answer: Not someone accountable. Not someone that I could review. Not someone that i'd like to make any sort of decision at all.