Presentation transcript - Q&A - Metaverse Republic Marc 1.

------- QUESTIONS and ANSWERS SECTION

[11:58] Ashcroft Burnham: In the meantime - any questions? :-)

-------- Q1 - Timeframe:
[11:59] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, that's rather hard to tell, I'm afraid - the number of volunteers that we have at present means that it's hard to tell how long that things will take.
[12:00] Ashcroft Burnham: Any feedback on how this might best interact with local governance, incidentally?

------- Q2 - Hosting requirements
[12:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The other question, of course, will be.... when the system is finished, who will be hosting the required application servers for it?...
[12:01] Ashcroft Burnham: That's one of the things that the we haven't been able to decide yet because the volunteers on the management team haven't been numerous enough :-)
[12:01] Ashcroft Burnham: We have had some preliminary ideas, including forming some non-profit corporation that will then rent server space, but that's not finalised.
[12:01] Ashcroft Burnham: If anyone here has expertise in that area and would like to help us out, please do volunteer :-)

------- Q3 - Members of board
[12:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, yes, I was thinking along those roles.... and then the question would be, if there is a non-profit running the servers,
[12:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: who will be allowed to be a member, to decide on who gets elected to the non-profit's Board?
[12:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sorry, Gavin!
[12:02] Ashcroft Burnham: I'll take Gwyneth again then Gavin :-)
[12:03] Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyneth, again, that's not finally decided, but one idea is to have the board of the non-profit made up of our elected executive, or, alternatively, answerable to the executive.


------- Q4 - Banishment process
[12:02] Gavin Hird: I have a question of the banishment process
[12:02] Gavin Hird: you seem to rely on that the courts will issue banishment
[12:02] Gavin Hird: but often there is a need for immediate ban by griefers
[12:03] Gavin Hird: what is your thinking on this issue?
[12:03] Ashcroft Burnham: Now, Gavin's question...
[12:04] Ashcroft Burnham: Well, the Metaverse Republic doesn't intend to *displace* existing security systems.
[12:04] Ashcroft Burnham: The banishment system used by the MR is intended to be a deterrance, not a containment measure.
[12:04] Ashcroft Burnham: There's nothing to stop the MR's system being used alongside existing security systems, because they serve different functions.
[12:04] Gavin Hird: thanks
[12:05] Ashcroft Burnham: You're welcome :-)
[12:05] Ashcroft Burnham: (Further on Gavin's point, the idea is to add features, rather than to replace them)


------- Q5 - National borders and location of servers
[12:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then you have the issue of trans.national borders.... oh sorry
[12:04] Ashcroft Burnham: Gwyneth again - what was that about national borders? :-)
[12:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhhh yes. Well, this is the old issue about having a non-profit running external things that affect *all* users.
[12:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It's a philosophical thing
[12:05] Ashcroft Burnham: Can you elaborate, Gwyn? :-)
[12:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let's assume Model A: the Board of the non-profit is made up of the MR Executive.
[12:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thats the easier model.
[12:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Problem...
[12:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If you aren't interested in revealing RL data; or can't attend the Board meetings in the flesh because they're on a different continent, that's a problem. Model B: The non-profit is NOT the Exec of the MR; in that case, the enforcement is *outsourced* to a third party. Problem: how can SL residents *affect* what a third party does?
[12:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe sorry. My questions are always complex; if they weren't, they would have been already answered in the FAQ
[12:07] Ashcroft Burnham: All right, Gwyneth first.
[12:08] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, indeed, that is a complicated issue.
[12:08] Ashcroft Burnham: We'll have to have some of our executive members reveal real identifying data in any case, because they'll have to handle finances.
[12:08] Ashcroft Burnham: We can't have anonymous people handling finances.
[12:08] Ashcroft Burnham: Now, as to attending board meetings in the flesh - I'm not convinced that that's necessary, although I have to confess that I'm not an expert in that field.
[12:09] Ashcroft Burnham: As to the third party system, well, we'd have to *pay* a professioanl third party company to do that. And we could only do that if we had enough of a revenue stream.
[12:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Depends on the country where the non-profit is founded.
[12:09] Ashcroft Burnham: Yes, indeed - so we'd have to choose our country well.
[12:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn *nods* but... some mght doit for free/cheap, in return for PR
[12:09] Ashcroft Burnham: But, as I said, that's not finalised yet. Anyone with any good ideas on that, do get in touch.
[12:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Model C: Let Linden Lab run the servers?
[12:09] Ashcroft Burnham: And, Gwyn, if you know of anyone like that - let me know!
[12:10] Cindy Ecksol: /notes that Gwyn's "Model C" is essentially in force now.....but without the bureaucracy
[12:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn notes that Cindy's actually right...
[12:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, but it's not very democratic, is it (sorry, Blondin )
[12:11] Ashcroft Burnham: And model C won't work in a distributed system :-)
[12:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: True


------- Q6 - Ban database / Banlink
[12:05] Blondin Linden: / So, when a sim signs up to join, their ban list will be added to a database and applied to the other sims who have already opted-in? Is this correct?
[12:05] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, no... you're thinking of BanLink, Blondin :-)
[12:06] Ashcroft Burnham: In the Metaverse Republic, only the *courts* will decide who goes on the MR-wide banishment list.
[12:06] Ashcroft Burnham: Individual landowners will, of course, remain free to add people to their own local ban lists for any reason at all.
[12:07] Blondin Linden: so what is it that MR does with these ban lists?
[12:07] Cindy Ecksol wonders how that idea of a "local ban list" fits into the concept of a "fair" court system
[12:12] Ashcroft Burnham: Now, Blondin :-)
[12:13] Ashcroft Burnham: What we'll do with these ban lists is set up a system such that every piece of subscribing land automatically ejects anyone on them.
[12:13] Ashcroft Burnham: So, to get the vote, one has to help us to enforce our rules using the distributed system: quid pro quo :-)


------- Q7 - Restraining order / speed of ban
[12:06] Gavin Hird: so you have to go to the court to get a "restraining order"?
[12:10] Ashcroft Burnham: Now, to Gavin again.
[12:10] Ashcroft Burnham: I'm not sure what you mean by a "restraining order" here - do you care to elaborate?
[12:11] Gavin Hird: what I mean if there is a need to issue a grid wide ban
[12:11] Gavin Hird: can you go the court to get an order to do so
[12:11] Gavin Hird: fast
[12:11] Ashcroft Burnham: Ahh, the difference is that there's no generalised system for the making of rules by residents.
[12:12] Ashcroft Burnham: Gavin - that would be a possibility, although, as stated before, the MR ban database isn't so much of a security system as a means of enforcing rules - the ban is a deterrant, not a preventative measure. It's more like sentencing someone to imprisonment than taking somebody into police custody.
[12:12] Gavin Hird: understand




------- Q8 - Fit of Local ban list in Universal ban list
[12:12] Cindy Ecksol wonders if Ash forgot about her question
[12:12] Ashcroft Burnham: No, I'm coming to you, Cindy :-)
[12:13] Ashcroft Burnham: Now Cindy.
[12:14] Cindy Ecksol: so how DOES the idea of a local "ban list" fit in with your idea of a universal list?
[12:14] Cindy Ecksol: doesn't that imply a different system for each community?
[12:14] Cindy Ecksol: unequal standards?
[12:14] Ashcroft Burnham: The local ban list doesn't specifically fit into the idea of a fair court system: the local ban list is possible now, and, whether we want to or not, we can't make it go away. Indeed, it's hard to see why we'd want to: people have a right, after all, to control who goes onto thier own land.
[12:14] Ashcroft Burnham: One can't really call land one's own unless one can decide to exclude anyone from it for any reason or no reason at all.
[12:15] Cindy Ecksol: what if my local community does not agree that someone banned by MR court is really someone who they want to ban?
[12:15] Cindy Ecksol: what if MR court bans my community leader, for instance?
[12:15] Ashcroft Burnham: But the universal ban list is a far more powerful deterrant than a local list: "If you do X, you'll be banned from Ashcroft's Hatstand Shop" is not much of a disincentive to do X.
[12:15] Ashcroft Burnham: "If you do X, you'll be banned from a large part of the grid" is :-)
[12:16] Cindy Ecksol: conceivably I could b ebanned from my own property!
[12:16] Ashcroft Burnham: (Ahh, Cindy, the system specifically excludes people being banned from their *own* land).
[12:16] Cindy Ecksol: violate the TOS I think in some way.....assuming that I have not violated any LL rules of course


------- Q9 - Process before court not modelled
[12:15] Gavin Hird: I have a follow up question
[12:15] Ashcroft Burnham: Gavin then Cindy again.
[12:16] Gavin Hird: ok
[12:16] Gavin Hird: does what you say mean that the entire process of arrest /restraining before a case gets to the court has not been modelled?
[12:17] Ashcroft Burnham: Gavin - yes, more or less. It's hard to make that work effectively with a ban list model. The basic idea, if it could be made to work, is not incompatible with the MR - but it's not something yet that we have been able to implement.
[12:17] Ashcroft Burnham: One of the reasons for that is that it'd need professional people immediately available at any time of day or night to operate the systems.
[12:17] Ashcroft Burnham: I doubt that we'll be able to get enough volunteers for that.
[12:18] Ashcroft Burnham: So, we separate, on the one hand, security, and, on the other, deterrance and enforcement of the laws.
[12:18] Ashcroft Burnham: All right, Cindy again.

------- RECORDER CRASH -------------------

[12:18] Temporal Gadgets Meeting Recorder 25-1.0 [script:data_holder2]: Script run-time error
[12:18] Temporal Gadgets Meeting Recorder 25-1.0 [script:data_holder2]: Stack-Heap Collision

----- END OF TRANSCRIPT ------------------------------

So, there was a whole lot of talk, and in the end, it's still just self-important people trying to make up the rules for everyone else to follow, even though they have no authority to make rules and even less authority to enforce them.

I think I'll pass.

Adding to Argos' comments, it seems that what talk there was centred round issues of arrest, restraint and banishment. What is wrong with everyone??? Why are you seriously giving such air-time to the insane concept of running a police state? Bay City is not YOURS to run.

And can someone please enlighten me as to what governance systems Ashcroft was referring to when he said this....

[11:09] Ashcroft Burnham: I know that there was a presentation a week or two ago about Bay City's specific governance systems

Wait! I've changed my mind. I don't want to know!!!

For one tiny glimmer of a moment I thought that there was some interest by a presumably sensible minority of people in discussing the concepts of governance and mayoral duties on this web forum. I note that no-one who champions the idea of a mayor has contributed to the discussion. Case closed I think (to use a judicial phrase!!!) I'm going to go back to ignoring discussion on the subject like the very large majority of Bay City residents seem to be already doing