Comments on: James Miller’s Dispute Resolution Proposal

By: James Miller

James Miller — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 13:21:02 +0000

I agree. Overall, the plan was just too hard to implement, I think. Maybe they’ll reconsider one day.

By: urizenus

urizenus — Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:09:44 +0000

this strikes me as odd. if someone voluntarily gives up their “privacy” what is the objection. likewise it seems to me that if a banned person waves their privacy priviledges then it should be possible to post the reason for their banning.

By: James Miller

James Miller — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 21:44:45 +0000

Basically, I was told that they are concerned about privacy issues. They don’t like the idea of a jury receiving personal (real) info about someone.

By: urizenus

urizenus — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:59:37 +0000

what kind of feedback did you get from the Lindens?

By: James Miller

James Miller — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 16:55:08 +0000

Maria, you are correct. That is what I meant. I have absolutely no interest in allowing juries to delete random things from your inventory.

If you can’t pay a fine, I guess your stipend would be withheld until the debt is paid off. That would be up to the Lindens, since they’d be the ones enforcing the punishment.

The wording of the law is something that needs to be carefully considered, I agree. However, the final document, the ones the Lindens would (hypothetically) approve, would have the wording they think is fair.

One of the best features of this document (if I may say so myself), if that it’s not forced on you. You can simply say “I don’t want to use a jury, I want to have the Lindens judge the case” (as is done now).

And, finally, the Lindens have already read this, and commented on this. They did not laugh at me.

By: Maria LaVeaux

Maria LaVeaux — Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:21:29 +0000

Mr. Fairplay, I think you Misinterpret here,, It is my belief that this clause refers to Items that are at the centre of a dispute, such as items stolen, or fraudulently obtained. It seems to me Logical that the offending party Not be allowed to retain posession of fraudulently obtained items UNLESS full financial restitution is made.
I doubt it is the intent of this clause to delete your brand new Jet Boat just because you got into a dispute with someone, That would not be Justice in any way.
In the case of Fines,, It would be easy to work out Payment Plans.
As for the rest,, In it’s present form,, No,, not quite.
Just the fact that Mr. Fairplay COULD misinterpret the intent of that Clause means it was Not worded well enough. It leaves the door open for ejudicators or juries to ALSO misinterpret the intent of the clause. The Law is worded as it is for a reason, it’s precision is a protection from abuse, and for all it’s precision, It also is flawed.
As this stands,, Not quite there yet.

Maria.

By: Mr Fairplay

Mr Fairplay — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 02:33:47 +0000

Ok…I read till the point it said Punishment Type III – deleting an object out of someone’s inventory wtf are u on about dude have you been smoking crack? That’s just rude deleting other ppl’s shit. Not only that you have like 1 billion gaps that you didn’t cover like what if someone doesn’t have something in their inventory, or what if someone doesn’t have 9K. That’s just a few obvious ones there is billions more!
If Linden Lab reads this they well laugh to death it all sounds like something written by some spotty 16 year old with a brain degenerating condition. Dream on Cinderella!

By: JC Soprano

JC Soprano — Thu, 06 Jan 2005 20:01:28 +0000

This was tried in TSO many many times. Its basically what my group does only the “safer” approach lol. The only way this would work is if the Lindens or someone in-game was able to enforce the rulings that are decided. I think its a great idea otherwise though.

JC Soprano
http://www.thesimmafia.com
Let the frivalous in-game lawsuits begin lol