SWI's Declaration of Virtual World Policy

Ted's Synthetic Worlds Initiative at Indiana University convened the second Ludium Conference this past weekend in Bloomington. Attendees were charged with hammering out a well-considered platform to guide virtual world policy. We were successful, and the Declaration of Virtual World Policy [Edit: along with its wiki] has been posted by the conference's designers, Studio Cypher. Here it is for your perusal and comment (along with more details):

A Declaration of Virtual World Policy
made by representatives of law, industry, and academia, assembled in full and free convention as the first Synthetic Worlds Congress.

Whereas virtual worlds are places with untapped potential, providing new and positive experiences and effects, we resolve that:
-A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed
-A players’ bill of rights should be drafted and should include the right of free speech and the rights to assemble and organize.[Edit: FN1]
-A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users
-Virtual world designers should have freedom of expression
-Virtual worlds should include plain-language End-User License Agreements (EULA) to enable all individuals to understand their rights
-There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications
-Access is critical to virtual worlds, so net neutrality must be maintained
-Game developers shall not be liable for the actions taken by players
-Fair use may apply in virtual worlds that enable amateur creation of original works
-The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy

[Edit: FN1 Modified to reflect correct wording voted on at Ludium 2.]

SWI plans to send this platform to all major candidates for the presidency and for all contested congressional seats in the coming 2008 election. I'm sure these statements will prompt a lot of discussion and debate (I hope so), but I thought I would remind everyone that the congress is concluded, and these are SWI's policy recommendations, at least until the next Ludium ;-). I'm sure that registration for that one will be open, as it was for this one.

The Ludia are conferences structured as games, and this one was modeled on a political convention, the first Synthetic Worlds Congress. Studio Cypher deserves a lot of credit for creating a game that generated incentives to both compete and collaborate. All attendees began in districts (of three delegates), and started by forging platform planks, combining them regionally (3 districts to a region, 3 regions total) by the end of the first day. On the second day, all voted in multiple straw polls on 30 potential planks, with merging of planks and refinement of language prompted by the game design, the end goal being a list of 10 planks, as determined by a final vote. The list above is the result. In addition, the conference elected me as its Speaker, which basically puts me forward to direct the traffic of media and policy-maker inquiries about the declaration to the appropriate legal, industry, and academic experts. In the process of determining the speaker as well there was a greater interest amongst the nominees (Corey Bridges of Multiverse, Joshua Fairfield of Indiana University Law School and TN, and myself) in focusing on the platform, and the breadth of expertise in the room that would be able to speak to its specific planks, then on the race for the position.

We all know that well-designed games are good at generating incentives for their players, and in a way I took it as a sign of the success of this one that before the first day was even completed many players were eager to concentrate on the content of the planks rather than press for every advantage that the game mechanics gave them to accumulate "influence points" or the currency, gold coins. It quickly became apparent that the Ludium had sparked useful ideas and discussion about virtual world policy. The feeling that we were succeeding in hammering out a useful set of policy guidelines only grew over the course of day 2.

The Ludium was also the setting for related news from Ren Reynolds, who took the opportunity after final voting was completed to let us know about the Virtual Policy Network he is spearheading, and organization based in the UK that will tackle similar policy matters from a European as well as global perspective. Bravo, Ren!

[Edit: Some Ludium2 reports from attendees have appeared. Christian Renaud of Cisco has a post here, and Mia Consalvo has a post here. Ron Meiners has blogged about it at Virtual Cultures, Garrison LeHearst weighs in here, and Michelle Senderhauf of ARGNet posted during the conference. Richard, of course, blogged about it here, and Peter Jenkins has a post on his blog as well. Any I've missed? Drop a comment below and I'll add the link!]

Comments

[rikomatic]

I'm a bit unclear on the meaning of this clause:

"-There are different types of virtual worlds with different policy implications "

This seems to be a statement rather than an assertion or recommendations. Is there some text missing here?

[Morgan Hardy]

I was at the conference, and while I would've liked to have seen the statements have more declarative power (the first one in particular,) there was only one I had a real problem with: a player's bill of rights. The full reasoning is again too long, so it's in the linked blog.

Overall, I enjoyed it, though. Three suggestions:

* If we're going to do 8 a.m. on Friday again, let's have early registration and meet-and-greet on Thursday night.

* I don't like the spy thing. The meta-game of trying to figure out if someone's a spy, particularly if it's because they're pushing a given pet topic of theirs, is kind of distracting from the core mission.

* I'd actually like to see less benefit for collaboration through the merging system and how they divvy points. I think one reason we ended up with less powerful statements is because it was so much easier to merge statements, even if they were pretty far apart, to a very neutral and shallow common ground instead of standing your ground on them - you got the same points either way.

-MH

[Mike Sellers]

I did not attend Ludium II, and don't see a link to the full reasoning behind the points above (as Morgan references).

I have to say I'm boggled by some of the items in this Declaration. The first three certainly beg a lot more explanation at least:

1. A self-governance group of virtual world stakeholders should be formed
   Self-governance? By whom, and in what form? Why would commercial virtual world developers not just say, "Ha ha. No."? Are "stakeholders" demanding governance rights going to put up their share of multi-million dollar budgets for the development and operation of virtual worlds?
   
   
2. A players’ bill of rights should be drafted
   To what end? What rights are to be enshrined, and on what legal authority?
   
   
3. A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users
   In the abstract this would be terrific, but in practice it strains the imagination. Yes, you could specify a form of national (or international) ID card, vetted by world governments, but even then, how do you keep a kid from using his older brother's ID? I guess you could include biometric verification (which can still be subverted), but I have to ask: for people who tend to be very skittish about the slightest intrusions on personal privacy, how can you recommend a (necessarily government-sponsored) 'universal age-verification system' as a matter of virtual world policy?

The remainder of the policy elements are good, if perhaps redundant -- for example, which virtual worlds do not already have EULAs written in plain language? (Writing them plainly doesn't mean people will read them, or that they'll be legally defensible, as Second Life's TOS shows). Similarly, I have to wonder in what ways Fair Use of copyrighted items does not already apply to virtual worlds.

Overall, I'm left wondering what the purpose of this Declaration is, or even if it's meant to be taken seriously by developers, let alone by major political candidates. What changes are expected by those who drafted it as a result of its creation?

The first purpose might be found in the last bullet point ("The government should provide a comprehensive package of funding for educational games research, development, and literacy" -- though which government isn't specified), as funding is on anyone's mind who wants to do more in creating or exploring virtual worlds. But given the sweep of this Declaration and the group's self-enshrinement as the "first Synthetic Worlds Congress" (or is that not really serious, just a bit of the Ludium fiction leaking out into the real world?), I'm at a loss as to the larger purposes being pursued here. What behavior is expected to change as the result of these Declarations, and what larger goals to be achieved?

[Morgan Hardy]

My apologies - the link was my name, heh. sutrosez.blogspot.com

[Amarilla]

lol ! cmon Mike, let them have fun :) Who told you that was for " real ", for " serious " ?! They are just having fun ....of us ?! of themselves ?! or perhaps just fun , just like that ...rofl ! It remainds me of " Suppa Bombastic Fantastic " .

[Will Emigh]

There's no central discussion of the platform since people had a wide range of reasons for supporting the statements.

However, the Ludium 2 wiki is still up, so I encourage those who were there (or who weren't but support a statement) to use it to explain their reasonins. The wiki would also be a good place to ask questions about specific statements.

[Richard Bartle]

Mike Sellers>I have to say I'm boggled by some of the items in this Declaration.

Yes, aren't we all?

Here's what I saw the statements you mentioned to mean. Note this doesn't mean I agree or disagree with them, I'm just explaining what the consensus was.

>Self-governance? By whom, and in what form?

That's left open. Basically, it's saying that there should be some organisation that government can approach that represents virtual worlds' interests. This organisation should be independent. Beyond that is TBD.

>Why would commercial virtual world developers not just say, "Ha ha. No."?

Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.

>To what end? What rights are to be enshrined, and on what legal authority?

What the rights are is to be decided. They could be as short as "the right to leave without having to pay an exit fee". As to what end: clarity.

>Yes, you could specify a form of national (or international) ID card, vetted by world governments, but even then, how do you keep a kid from using his older brother's ID?

The idea wasn't to prevent people from using fake IDs. The idea was to protect virtual world developers from liability if they unwittingly offered adult content to people under age. Society says, "follow these instructions, and we'll let you show boobies". It's then up to society to decide on the nature of the instructions.

>Writing them plainly doesn't mean people will read them, or that they'll be legally defensible, as Second Life's TOS shows

The idea was to have a bullet-point summary of the rules, so people can see NO SELLING STUFF FOR REAL MONEY as being something important. There would still be a legalese version of the EULA (which would be what they "signed").

>What changes are expected by those who drafted it as a result of its creation?

Very little. The best we can hope for is that legislators remember there was some kind of declaration when it comes to making new laws, and they figure it might be worth asking for wider opinion.

Richard

[Thomas Malaby]

Richard says it all very well, as usual. The creation of policy recommendations is new to most of this crowd, to be sure, but I don't see that as any excuse to evaluate the platform on the wrong terms, and with an incredulous tone to boot. The important thing, to me, is that with the Ludium Ted took some steps toward doing what a lot of folks in this area regularly whine about as desperately needed -- beginning the creation of a consensus voice about distinctive, core issues oncerning virtual worlds that politicians need to at least understand might exist. Will this overwhelm the candidates it gets sent to like a wildfire, changing all of their opinions? Of course not. But it does get a statement out there, however limited, and that is far better than nothing.

[Thomas Malaby]

@rikomatic: To answer your question, the plank about different types of virtual worlds having different policy implications was spiritedly lobbied for by our own Dr. Bartle, so perhaps he would like to elaborate further, but the core idea is that, in developing virtual world policy, one size most definitely will not fit all; there are core differences between the WoWs, the Second Lifes, the Habbo Hotels, etc.

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

I think it sounds like a nice initiative, but I think players would be better off having their interests covered by a consumer-rights organization, informed by game oriented academics/law people if possible. By involving the industry, don't you just risk that they play a double game. Lobbying on one hand, pulling the breaks on this initiative on the other hand? Such an initiative could of course be used to inform consumer-rights organizations, but having the game makers speak on behalf of their players is somewhat problematic...

[Thomas Malaby]

@Ola: Ideally, as I understood the consensus in the room, industry wouldn't be put in a position to speak for players, as they would be represented in such a body as well, perhaps by any of the number of prominent scholars who are also participants in virtual worlds, or by prominent participants identified by some other means.

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Thomas, I understand. And I am sure such scholars would do their best, but they also have their own academic interests that isn't aligned with players (e.g. access to data about player behaviour). I think the releationship between game-makers and game-players is better suited seen through the frames of Marx than Hegel... Still, just having such discussions is a good thing by itself.

[Thomas Malaby]

Agreed (although this "access to data" thing is a bit overgeneralized and overstated, in my opinion, but that's another topic). I nominate Julian and Ren to represent the players! ;-)

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Ok, but there are lots of issues, don't get me started... (funding research: results/programs can both be used both for/against players (not neutral), ethical considerations: one day "neutral" interviewer -- next day politician informed by such intformation claiming to represent the respondent etc etc).

There is something to be learned from Free Software Foundation I think, programmers are the politicians, academics support them. Maybe.

[Mike Sellers]

Thomas: The creation of policy recommendations is new to most of this crowd, to be sure, but I don't see that as any excuse to evaluate the platform on the wrong terms, and with an incredulous tone to boot.

In my post above, I asked for greater explanation of the brief points presented in the Declaration, as well as for more about its purpose. My tone is a bit incredulous, but given the brevity and ambiguity of these statements -- a lack of available information, not wrong information -- combined with the pomp and formality of being a "Declaration of Virtual World Policy" by the "first Synthetic Worlds Congress" (unless as I said before, quite seriously, that pomp was not meant to be taken seriously, as being just a part of the Ludium-game), I don't think I'm alone in scratching my head on this.

I applaud Ted's efforts in leading the Ludium, though I would not place myself among one of those worrying excessively about what politicians think about virtual worlds. But, as I've said, those of us who did not attend this conference are left without any information about the meaning of the points announced above, the intent of this Declaration or what, if anything, the group who created this hope to have happen as a result. If this is much ado about nothing -- just a conference in the form of a mock-political game -- then what's the value in the output of the exercise itself? If OTOH this Declaration is meant to be taken seriously by politicians or others not conversant with virtual worlds, then it shouldn't be a surprise when those falling under its umbrella express concern at what appear to be ill-considered policy directives.

Then there's the question of industry involvement, which to my (perhaps jaundiced, capitalist, materialist) eye appears to be pretty significantly lacking here. I don't know for sure who attended Ludium II, but from the wiki page I could find that lists attendees, it looks like there were a few people representing the commercial side of virtual worlds -- Yahoo, Cisco, content developers for Second Life, and Multiverse. In other words some good folks, but not a current MMO or virtual world developer among them.

This is probably indicative (once again) of the unfortunate gap between commercial developers and academia (or academia-sponsored gatherings), but it also makes for a pretty significant gap for any group setting up policy statements that could, presumably, affect most directly the people who bring these worlds into being. I would hope that in the future any gathering calling itself a Congress covering virtual worlds might consider the need for appropriate representation from those actually creating these worlds.

Or like I said, maybe this is really all much ado about nothing.

[Thomas Malaby]

it shouldn't be a surprise when those falling under its umbrella express concern at what appear to be ill-considered policy directives

in the future any gathering calling itself a Congress covering virtual worlds might consider the need for appropriate representation from those actually creating these worlds

I'll say again: Registration was open -- there was no invite list -- so your chiding is again misplaced. My understanding is that Ted wanted this to be an open forum for those interested in the issue. If you're not interested in the political side of things, as you note here, then I am triply surprised by your comments and their tone.

In particular, to complain about the lack of representation of a *particular* industry point of view at an open event such as this one (and then disparaging its products, whatever their inevitable limitations) is simply perplexing. By your own count (in our offlist correspondence) there were 9 people of the 32 attendees that you could identify with industry, in one form or another. But yet you continue to find objections. First it was, "Where's industry?" Then it was, "Where's the commercial MMO industry?" (in an email to me). Now it's, "Where's the *current* commercial MMO industry representation?" Give me a break.

On top of that, you claim again not to understand what the aim of this declaration could be -- that has been answered for you, so I am again at a loss. I don't think these statements are perfect, but they are a place to start. The grousing is unwelcome -- participation going forward quite the opposite.

[Matt Mihaly]

Richard Bartle wrote:

Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.

I think the first part could be true in some countries (government-imposed trade body) but the latter part is speculative.

For instance, there are those who feel the film industry is worse off under the MPAA than they would have been under government regulation, since government regulation has to pass Supreme Court muster whereas the MPAA is a completely opaque organization that is accountable to no one and makes some incredibly inconsistent decisions.

--matt

[Matt Mihaly]

Thomas Malaby wrote:

In particular, to complain about the lack of representation of a *particular* industry point of view at an open event such as this one (and then disparaging its products, whatever their inevitable limitations) is simply perplexing.

I find this a little confusing. Mike's not complaining about a particular industry viewpoint that's missing.. Mike's pointing out that the viewpoints (as it's not as if all current MMO developers have similar viewpoints) represented are from a very very small part of the market. The Blizzards, Sulakes, NCSofts, Jagexs, MTVs, and so on (the commercial VW developers) make up 98% of the industry in any way I can think of to measure them. That last 2% (the exact numbers are obviously not the point) is from RMT, and nobody from that viewpoint was there either. Perhaps 1.999%, since everything else (hobbyists, academics etc) represent a rounding error.

I'm not trying to place myself on a pedestal either. My company represents only little more than a rounding error. Whether I'm there or not is pretty irrelevant from a market representation viewpoint, but a discussion that misses out on the viewpoints of the people actually making the VWs that absolutely define the market is not really capable of representing virtual worlds in general.

That's not to bag on the conference either. It sounded fun. Without the people who actually can represent the interests of the industry there though, I'm not sure how far it's possible to get.

--matt

[Thomas Malaby]

Well said, Matt. I hope more commercial MMO folks attend any similar events in the future; I just don't think the fact that they didn't choose to attend this one in substantial numbers is a solid reason to criticize the conference any more than to criticize them.

[kellyrued]

In the mainstream game industry the ESRB rates content in boxed retail titles (for a significant fee, paid by publishers themselves) to help avoid government regulation and to improve the pre-use information available to consumers (for example, you don't have to personally play GTA games to see what kind of experience/content is involved). Where is the equivalent self-regulating effort for virtual worlds and online interactive entertainment?

The ESRB has contributed to successful self-regulation in the boxed retail game industry, but the system's usefulness has deteriorated since widespread interactive entertainment on the web has evolved. They haven't updated the ESRB system to address current technologies, consumer behavior, or online distribution channels.

ESRB can't hold up the veneer of self-regulation in the games industry if it doesn't even affect the interactive media that parents and politicians most want regulated (online adult multiplayer games that kids can access with little more than a white lie and a free email account... such as the free unverified accounts on Second Life's adult grid). Most games online (including the huge volume of flash and hobbyist games online, all of the games inside virtual world platforms like SL, and every hardcore sex game on the market) are unrated and unregulated. The same thing is happening with music and movies as more content producers are publishing online in formats (with budgets) that don't fit with the old systems of self-regulation in those industries either.

Some of the above declarations from this conference don't seem to consider the role of a virtual world/online games version of the ESRB, which is what I think is sorely needed. Is that an intentional oversight?

Ideally, a free open content rating system could develop; like ICRA and others available for web sites to tag and rate their web content. Most publishers of adult-oriented content *are* responsible and very concerned with turning away minors and sensitive adults to avoid PR and legal problems. In SL, makers of "offensive" content have only one protection (the Mature land thing... which doesn't really cut it when you are showing content that could shock the white off paint). A self-labeling system would definitely be useful for professional and amature content creators but the people running virtual worlds are not savvy to this need yet. To be most effective, the system would need to be independent of any one virtual world and consistent between all of them. Even if SL content moves to private servers (protecting Linen Lab), content creators are screwed if they have no effective means of self-labeling content and creating an environment where consumers are informed enough to be held accountable for the content they purchase/experience. I really hope that future conferences will address content labeling as a practical tool that benefits industry and players.

And a more general point about the above recommendations as a whole: I'm unclear on how efforts at self-regulation would be incentivized for the people implementing and operating virtual worlds.

With the ESRB, the enforcing arm is actually the retail distribution chain which refuses to stock unrated (or AO) games (in many cases). Publishers pay for the self-regulation service in part to help give the industry a defensible position but mostly they just have to participate or they lose a ton of retail channels (Wal-Mart etc.). What incentive will there be for virtual world providers of all sizes to participate with self-regulation efforts?

What would be a natural consequence of non-participation be? If a lot of virtual worlds don't participate, doesn't that negate the positive effect of the effort above (and leave people vulnerable to government regulation if the voluntary efforts are just a spotty academic exercises that none of the commercial or hobbyist worlds are implementing)? Aren't consumers at greater risk if they are misled into thinking they have a universal "Bill of Rights" but really they are subject to the specific whims of virtual world operators? It seems that worlds would need a label of some sort to show players that the bill of rights applied in a given world, and then you are back to needing an organized legal entity overseeing the trademark and use of that label. ;p

[Mike Sellers]

Matt said: That's not to bag on the conference either. It sounded fun. Without the people who actually can represent the interests of the industry there though, I'm not sure how far it's possible to get.

Maybe that's along the lines of what I should have said: "Sounds like a fun gathering with good people. I bet with virtual world developers in attendance the results would be more balanced and go farther."

I still wish the Ludium II attendees had put together some kind of explanatory statement with their one-liners. Any chance of that happening or should we just move on?

[Peter S. Jenkins]

Richard Bartle said: What the rights are is to be decided. They could be as short as "the right to leave without having to pay an exit fee". As to what end: clarity.

That would be a rather impoverished vision of what a Bill of Rights should be. I recall that the actual platform statement (Sysland #9)agreed on at the Convention contained some examples of what the B of R might involve, e.g. free speech, right to assemble and to organize, but these seemed to disappear when the final "Declaration" document was edited on the wiki. I know there are concerns about FOS rights not being suitable for certain role-playing or "magic circle" environments, but I thought that was covered by the different worlds/different policy implications resolution.

[Thomas Malaby]

@Mike: The two days was barely enough time to agree and vote on the one liners, so no official accompanying paragraphs were written -- the suggestion was made, but we simply ran out of time. As Will helpfully pointed out, however, the wiki is still up; I think it would be great if those who were there would use it to elaborate on the planks they helped craft or feel strongly about supporting (Peter's comment about the bill of rights' original wording is a perfect example -- it'd be nice to see that language back in, at least in the extended material).

[Peter S. Jenkins]

@Thomas - Excellent idea! Maybe we could do a virtual world version of the Federalist Papers.

[Richard Bartle]

Me>Because they might get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them.
Matt Mihaly>I think the first part could be true in some countries (government-imposed trade body) but the latter part is speculative.

That's my bad wording. I meant: they might (get a government-imposed trade body instead that would be far, far worse for them). I didn't mean: they might get (a government-imposed trade body instead) that would be (far, far worse for them).

In other words, I wasn't saying that merely getting a government-imposed body would by definition be worse for them; rather, I was saying that there was a possibility that any government-imposed body would be worse for them.

Richard

[Richard Bartle]

Mike Sellers>those of us who did not attend this conference are left without any information about the meaning of the points announced above, the intent of this Declaration or what, if anything, the group who created this hope to have happen as a result.

Yes, I did suggest at the end that we needed a paragraph or so explaining what each of the statements meant, so that even if the politicians didn't read it their researchers might. This may come later.

I should mention that the actual declarations as finished at the end of the Ludium were a hotch-potch of different tenses and voices, and that Thomas has done a fine job of converting them all into something that makes coherent sense.

Richard

[Richard Bartle]

Peter S. Jenkins>That would be a rather impoverished vision of what a Bill of Rights should be.

It would indeed (although there's no necessity that a bill of rights has to be of a certain length). I was only giving an example, not actually proposing a bill of rights.

>I recall that the actual platform statement (Sysland #9)agreed on at the Convention contained some examples of what the B of R might involve, e.g. free speech, right to assemble and to organize, but these seemed to disappear when the final "Declaration" document was edited on the wiki.

That's right. In addition, many of the other propositions that didn't make it to the final slate were suggestions as to what these rights might be (I believe the Sysland categorisation project that Randy did on his laptop identified 6-8 of them).

>I know there are concerns about FOS rights not being suitable for certain role-playing or "magic circle" environments, but I thought that was covered by the different worlds/different policy implications resolution.

The problem with voting for individual statements means that there's no way to guarantee consistency among them. Yes, the Freedom of Speech rights would have been covered by the "different worlds need different policies" clause, but we didn't have any way of ensuring that both would get in, nor that the distinction would get priority (indeed, the bill of rights statement got more votes than the different policies one, so appears higher up the list and would therefore seem to have precedence).

Richard

[Thomas Malaby]

@Richard: Thank you, but the compliment is misplaced; while I did ask that the phrasing be made more coherent and consistent, it was the fine folks at Studio Cypher who put it into its present form.

@kellyrued: The ESRB was frequently raised as a useful model for the self-governance body, particularly early in the conference. All of your concerns about its implementation are spot-on, in my opinion; much work remains, and the incentive structure to participate is an especially thorny issue.

[Peter S. Jenkins]

Richard Bartle> That's right. In addition, many of the other propositions that didn't make it to the final slate were suggestions as to what these rights might be (I believe the Sysland categorisation project that Randy did on his laptop identified 6-8 of them).

Just to be clear - the statement agreed on by vote at the convention is the following: "Define players' bill of rights (free speech, right to assemble, to organize)". What appears in the final Declaration document on the wiki is this: "A players’ bill of rights should be drafted." This is more than just a clean-up or stylistic change - it is a substantive one. Where in the rules does it say that substantive changes to the wording of the resolutions can be made after the final votes are tallied? How is this democratic? We all signed a document at the end of the proceedings. Does that document reflect the wording we all voted on, or the bowdlerized version on the wiki? If it is the former, (which I assumed when I signed it),I think a correction to the wiki version of the Declaration would be required; if it is the latter, I would certainly concede the point.

Richard Bartle> (indeed, the bill of rights statement got more votes than the different policies one, so appears higher up the list and would therefore seem to have precedence).

In a list of 10 approved resolutions such as this, there is no presumption that any one has priority over the other. It's not the David Letterman show. We are doing something here that may have profound effects down the road not only in terms of MMORPG's but also in terms of the virtual worlds that we may all be spending most of our time in eventually.

[Nathan Mishler]

@Peter:

We made that change on this draft in an attempt at cleanliness and making sure that all the statements were at least somewhat similar in tone, hoping that specific bill of rights suggestions would appear on the long form to be created later.

The point you make is a good one though, and we might stick those words back in before we send the statements out. The "before cleaned up by SC" statments are still in the wiki under "final results" as well.

@Morgan:

The "spy" stuff worked better from a game designer standpoint than a player standpoint, at least in theory. It's good to have a bit of confederacty between GMs and some players, to stir up discussion or ensure that certain points are discussed. Future versions of Conference (the generico version of the L2 rules) will probably have a different mechanism to enable the above.

@Mike:

The "congress" bit is a bit of showmanship, that's true, but it is not designed to make us look superior to any members of academia / industry / individuals that did not attend L2. It's a bit of an allusion to the virginia declaration of rights, where they used "Congress" in the sense that people of similar interests have gotten together and discussed something important. It's a pretty good start, and hopefully we will have more virtual world / game 'congresses' over time.

However, the possibility of perception that we are using "Congress" in the other sense is a good thing. I'd much rather have a politician think "who do these people think they are?!" and actually remember us than have the expected response of "Academics and lawyers blah blah blah whatever."

[Mike Sellers]

Nathan, it's perhaps ironic that your last comment is exactly my concern: that this will be dismissed out of hand, or that anyone who digs into the florid and official-sounding "Declaration of Virtual World Policy made by representatives of law, industry, and academia, assembled in full and free convention as the first Synthetic Worlds Congress" will quickly discover that it is in fact a theatrical wrapper around a bunch of statements that evaporate into, as you say, "Academics and lawyers blah blah blah whatever."

I would be much happier with either an actual Congress -- a deliberative, passionate, considered and balanced gathering of stakeholders (not just those who were off for the summer or didn't have sufficiently pressing commitments that kept them from attending a weekend meeting) debating and carefully crafting statements intended to be taken seriously -- or overt recognition that this is a small beginning based on a single brief gathering of a few people, the output of which cannot purport to represent anyone actually creating virtual worlds or policy related to them.

What we have instead is the inverse of these: a brief gathering of a few people with at best an arms-length relationship to those building virtual worlds giving the appearance that they have slogged through the necessary efforts at representation, debate and consideration to produce weighty (if completely unexplained!) statements self-appointed as being useful as policy.

I'm sure the gathering was fun and that everyone worked hard. And I know that my comments here are going to come off as non-constructive to some. Nevertheless, given how the result has been presented here, and how it is being cast in statements sent to actual policy makers, I would rather this hadn't been done at all. I believe it would be better to hold back any policy statements until they can be made for real. Policy is playing with live ammunition; this is more like treating seriously the outcomes of a LARP. For all their good intentions and hard work, this "Congress" and its "Declaration" do not and cannot represent me -- or, I believe, the majority of stakeholders in virtual worlds.

[Thomas Malaby]

An understandable position, Mike, but I submit that without this kind of beginning, even if its self-presentation is perhaps a bit grandiose, then the process you express an interest in as important would never get started at all. I for one am pleased that it leads you to call for this very kind of meeting, but with more representation -- I couldn't agree more. By the same token, if it is so important a thing to do right, is finding two days in late June to attend too much of a burden? I again suggest that the criticism of non-participation from some quarters reflects more upon those who chose not to find time to attend then on the organizers, who sought to avoid direct invitations precisely so as to make it an open event.

[Mike Sellers]

As a beginning it's fine. But it's not presented as a beginning. As a platform for policy, this doesn't help us and may actually work against us. My advice and wish would be to hold it back until the policy statements are necessary and sufficiently prepared by an actual representative body.

But I see I'm falling into your trap, calling for a more substantive meeting. I'll get you yet, Malaby.

[ronmeiners]

First off, as an initial event, as a potential beginning to the formation of some sort of collective voice for this, our, constituency, I think the event was quite successful - though, Nathan, at this point I think the question of rewriting the platform statements should indeed fall to the Speaker, if at all - flawed, inconsistent, etc., those were the statements we put our names to...
Or, should a next step be a revisitation of those statements from the wider participation that an online format gives us? What about pulling in some of the other voices that, for whatever reason, weren't able to make the gathering? And in the process, perhaps taking the next exploratory steps of what such a representative body might look like?

I think these are serious questions - especially as this virtual world stuff is all new, so having some sort of representative voice, to accentuate the positive, as it were, seems like a good idea to me.

[Thomas Malaby]

I think the Studio Cypher folks did in general a good job of making the language consistent, but I agree that the dropping of the extension of the bill of rights statement might have gone against the grain of our expectations, so can I ask Nathan or someone else there to put that one back with its original ending? I think with that in place we'll be in a good starting position for elaborating on the wiki and looking forward.

[Thomas Malaby]

@Mike: Lol. As long as you get me at such a meeting, I'll be happy. :-)

@Ron: Second on all counts. If the virtue of the Ludium II was the face-to-face deliberations, its downside was the fact that, however open, it depended upon the ability (in expense and time) of interested folks to get there. I'm sure that pursuing this online will bring its own share of advantages (access in particular), but I hope we continue to think of this as the kind of process that may best advance through a mix of settings. Those interested in virtual worlds, perhaps more than any other group, ought to be able to appreciate the variety in affordances and constraints that they provide.

[Samantha LeCraft]

Thomas Malaby wrote, is finding two days in late June to attend too much of a burden?

As someone who considered but decided against attending Ludium I and II, let me put this plainly: Yes, flying to Bloomington Indiana in late June is too much of a burden for many game developers. Late June may be prime time for academics, but for anyone with a game to get out by Christmas, it's the beginning of crunch. For anyone preparing to speak at the Austin Game Conference, San Diego Comic Con, Dragon*Con, etc, it's a busy time. And even without an expansion or an upcoming conference, summer can hit virtual world live development teams hard, as the servers are suddenly filled with high school and college students.

Some virtual world developers, particularly those in the continuously revolving door of MMOG live development, can only set aside time (and money) for one conference per year. Do you go to GDC, with its hordes of game developers and talks given by the top minds in the industry? Or AGC, with its focus on MMOGs and the chance to talk to anyone who is anyone in MMOG development? Or the Ludium, with its 30 or so people, an hour drive from the airport, and lack of MMOG developers?

If you are truly interested in the opinions and participation of professional developers, you will need to go out of your way to make the Ludium both convenient and relevant to them. This may mean moving the location or changing the date. If that is not possible, then at least solicit insight from game and virtual world developers after the fact, rather than saying "this is what we decided, it's your own fault for not being there."

[Thomas Malaby]

Well, Samantha, let's be clear: It's not what *I* decided, it's what SWI decided; I wasn't involved in organizing this. And let's also be clear that there *were* developers there. Would it have been ideal to have more, and a more broadly representative set to boot? Sure. It's up to SWI (should they pursue this topic in the future) or some other sponsoring organization to take into consideration the scheduling challenges for all interested groups.

I really have to remark, however, that this discussion, thorny and at times contentious, actually leaves me feeling much better about the prospects for this kind of important initiative going forward than when I set about to write the OP. It's great to see that this has drawn folks into a discussion about how to do it better. As a consequence, this move on Ted's part may get more serious, broad, and effective discussions and organization off the ground on this issue, and that's all to the good. My mantra is, "This is the beginning, not the end."

[Susan]

A universal age verification system should be created to support the individual rights of all users

I'm puzzled by the word 'universal' in this one. Does it mean:

• For all ages?
• For all virtual worlds?
• For all countries in the world?
• Available to everyone within some jurisdiction? (e.g. a credit card would fail under this interpretation, because credit cards aren't available to people with bad credit).

[Nathan Mishler]

Okay, new wording of #2 is:

A players’ bill of rights should be drafted and should include the right of free speech and the rights to assemble and organize.

Sorry to all about the seemingly arbitrary change. I should point out that we didn't wake up two days after the conference thinking "Hey, we can totally write these better than the Ludium 2 attendees." Mr. Speaker asked us to try to give them all a consistant tone so it would seem less a hodge-podge. That's all we were trying to do, we didn't want to change the substance of the statements.

The wiki links for the statements themselves are pretty empty. Anyone that wants to start writing the "explanation" paragraphs is more than welcome to throw something up there.

[Thomas Malaby]

Thanks, Nathan!

@Susan: I took from the discussion at the Ludium that "universal" meant "for all virtual worlds" (or at least, available for all that might choose to opt in). Perhaps someone of a more technical bent might care to weigh in with more details.

[Amarilla]

@ Nathan : sure, me too, i had a terrorist pointing a gun at me : " Amarilla, if you don't post your opinions at TN - or at wiki - right now , and i mean NOW , you gonna regret it; well, you gonna regret it anyway...."

[Richard Bartle]

Peter S. Jenkins>Just to be clear - the statement agreed on by vote at the convention is the following: "Define players' bill of rights (free speech, right to assemble, to organize)".

When I voted, I was under the impression that this had been amended so as to remove any specific examples of what those "rights" may be. The particular ones mentioned, for example, would make an "Escape from Colditz" kind of game unviable, no matter how much people wanted to play it. Come to that, they'd render Ludium II itself unviable because I had to pay one gold coin to address the delegates, I couldn't just get on the microphone and do it.

>This is more than just a clean-up or stylistic change - it is a substantive one.

It's what I thought I was voting for.

>Where in the rules does it say that substantive changes to the wording of the resolutions can be made after the final votes are tallied?

You're right, it doesn't. One (perhaps both) of us has been given a false impression somewhere.

>In a list of 10 approved resolutions such as this, there is no presumption that any one has priority over the other.

When people find out how the list was obtained, we'll get such a presumption whether we want one or not. All of them have priority over the 11th-placed resolution, so the first one "should" have priority over the second.

Richard

[galiel]

Questions, answers to which might help rationally evaluate the statements included in this "Declaration"

1. What is the purpose of this effort - what specific need does it aim to fulfill, why is it necessary to have such a formal declaration in order to address that need, and what is to be the measure of its success or failure to address that need?

2. Who is the audience - both the intended recipients of the message underlying this effort, as well as the people/institutions meant to abide by its actual constraints?

3. Who were the authors, and what qualifies them/authorizes them to create such a document for whoever the intended target of #2 is? Why did they judge themselves to be the proper and sufficient group to make such declarations about the intended audience/constituents?

4. What values are deliberately embedded in the statements - and why those? What unconscious values may be unintentionally embedded in the statements, and what does that say about the authors/the need/the intended audience? And what critical value-principles that underly sustainable free and civil societies in the "real world" are absent here, and why?

[galiel]

Just to clarify #1, so the answer isn't simply restated "to guide virtual world policy" - by whom, for whom, in whose interest, to what end?

[Mike Sellers]

I've asked the same questions, Galiel. It's only been a few days, but their wiki hasn't been updated, and no answers have been posted here. I hope one or the other will happen soon.

[Thomas Malaby]

@Galiel: I'll try to answer the questions as best I can. As to whether the wiki takes off, or things get pursued via another route, only time will tell.

#1 - The specific need is to begin to develop a coherent voice to speak to policymakers (primarily in the United States government, but of course there are many in many places that can have an effect on virtual worlds). This meeting was made up of people from law, academia, and industry. The general idea (and it's not an unfamiliar one for anyone who has read this blog with some regularity, as well as other sources, of course) is that unless some of the thinking through of policy issues surrounding virtual worlds is done by those who know something about them, there is a very great risk that it will be done by those who know little or nothing about them. To what end? To form sensible policy, that, in short, doesn't stifle the potential of virtual worlds through the blunders of which new technologies too often run afoul.

As I have said above, I was not in charge of organizing the event, so you might want to direct the question as to the form of the declaration to Ted and SWI. My best guess would be -- again as I've said above -- that a move such as this is more likely to provoke action than a less grandiose one.

There are no precise measures in place to gauge success, at least none that I know of. I personally don't in any way think that a definite means to measure success is needed before action can be taken. If such were the case, little would ever get done in any human affairs (at least, little worthwhile), but I digress.

#2 - The audience was debated at the Ludium, and to me it seemed that the attendees, roughly speaking, could be said to fall into two groups on this issue: those that favored addressing these efforts to United States policymakers, and those that favored taking a more global approach from the outset. In any case, it is evident that Ted and SWI plan to pursue the former more than the latter in their sending of this platform to U.S. Congressional and Presidential candidates.

#3 - This one's easy. Nothing "qualifies" or "authorizes" them as a body (although their individual expertise in some aspect of virtual worlds was for many unquestionable). If we wait for authorization before doing anything public, I would submit that nothing would get done. :-) I'm a bit bemused (or amused -- I can't decide) at the reactions to this that seem to amount to a "How dare you?", or, at least, "Who do you think you are?" As I've said, it was an open event, and of course anyone is free to make such an event, produce such a declaration, and then mail them to political candidates. Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation. I quite agree. The sensible next step is to take it further, broaden access, get (at least somewhat organized), etc. Chris Sherman was an attendee at the Ludium, and I have hopes that, through his efforts to bring some coherence tot he virtual world community (at the Virtual Worlds Conference, for example), we might see some of this get off the ground.

#4 - If I could answer these questions, I would be able to do all my ethnographic research from my armchair. ;-) It is, as I have said, a place to start.

@Mike: You keep coming back, but I know it's just because you want to "get me" ;-). Please don't pretend that I (or Richard) haven't answered any of your questions, however. Of course there are open questions -- if there weren't, there wouldn't be anything to do. ;-D

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation.

Well, yes, because policy-makers might think that statements from a group of academics are neutral.

I think your list goes beyond ethics of virtual world operation which makes it more a matter of moral intervention than merely mild regulation.

That's ok, but you guys would look better to the cricital reader if you made a point out of it.

[Richard Bartle]

galiel>What values are deliberately embedded in the statements - and why those? What unconscious values may be unintentionally embedded in the statements, and what does that say about the authors/the need/the intended audience?

You'd have to ask individuals. Those statements are the result of a process of:
1) Members of a group of 3 propose ideas, to get a platform of 10 ideas in total. Ideas that didn't have the approval of at least 2 of the 3 people wouldn't get through unless the group was short of ideas.
2) Three groups of 3 debated which ideas to put forward as the group of 9's platform. Some sub-groups had similar ideas, which they merged together into a single idea. The practice by which statements made it to the final 10 is much as in 1) - discussion, votes if necessary, general consensus.
3) A preliminary round of horse-trading between the three groups of 9 to combine their statements into single ones acceptable to all. There was a lot of this, and ideas were often watered-down in the process.
4) The elected leader of each group of 9 got to add a new statement of their own. One group did this, the other two basically took on existing statements by each other's group.
5) A final round of voting to determine the 10 statements. There was some confusion here, as at least one last-minute combination didn't get put on the ballot sheet as it should have been, so that when we signed the piece of paper with the declarations on at the end it was being stuck over the original wording in an old-fashioned cut-and-paste fashion. Also, there were two statements about research that should really have been merged but weren't, because it was so close to the voting deadline that there wasn't time to negotiate. We would have lost at least one good statement because of doubling-up like that, except that in the end there was a tie for 10th place on the list so one of the two research statements was taken out and used as a preamble.

So, knowing this, you'll see how difficult it is for anyone to answer the question of what values were deliberately embedded in the statements.

>And what critical value-principles that underly sustainable free and civil societies in the "real world" are absent here, and why?

The ones that weren't in the statements aren't there because, presumably, they either weren't thought of or didn't have as much support as some of the other values.

Richard

[Mike Sellers]

Thomas: Part of the discomfort with this seems to be about representation. I quite agree. The sensible next step is to take it further, broaden access, get (at least somewhat organized), etc.

The primary issue that I have is the difference between the formality with which this group made statements of policy, implying some degree of officiality (not just anyone can make policy statements), and the follow-on statements found nowhere in the original set that "this is just a beginning"; "it's not official," etc.

In other words, if you want to get a small group of people together by open invitation, discuss and come up with a list of statements that you think people should consider, that's one thing. When you take those same statements, formally title them as A Declaration of Virtual World Policy, and assert that they have been made by representatives who further are assembled in full and free convention, well, you've gone beyond any humble beginning to something that purports to be quite a bit more.

Thus my questions above about whether this formal opening was meant to be taken seriously or was just part of the Ludium game that came along with the statements: saying "this is just a beginning" from a group with no more sway than any other group implies to me that the formality and official status is not intended. OTOH no one has replied as such, and the statements are, apparently, being sent off to political candidates in the US, so clearly someone in your group takes this pretty seriously.

The lack of actual representation and official status, to say nothing of the lack of explanation and self-contradictory nature of the statements themselves leads me to believe that this Declaration will not be taken seriously by anyone. Which is okay, except it's pretty clearly not what the SWI intends, and it may actually hamper real statements of policy coming out of actually representative groups (say, through the IGDA as one possibility, perhaps in concert with the SWI) from being taken seriously in the future.

Chris Sherman was an attendee at the Ludium, and I have hopes that, through his efforts to bring some coherence tot he virtual world community (at the Virtual Worlds Conference, for example), we might see some of this get off the ground.

I believe Chris's efforts are specifically focused on covering non-game worlds these days. Creating statements of policy about virtual worlds while ignoring game worlds would be like making policy statements about all cars while looking only at VW Beetles and Pintos.