Governance and Democracy in Second Life

[Persephone Emerald]

Maybe I missed a discussion of this article from January, but it's a good profile of how governance of sims works in SL, with a brief history of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators.

https://whyy.org/segments/lessons-from-second-life-democracy-in-the-metaverse/

[animats]

The Confederation of Democratic Simulators is, in real estate terms, a Planned Unit Development. That's like a condominium, but more than one building. Each resident owns their own space,  has a shared interest in common spaces, and gets a voting membership in the Home Owners Association.

It takes a lot of attention to keep such a thing going. People have to show up to make it work. That's a big reason it hasn't caught on in SL.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

50 minutes ago, animats said:

People have to show up to make it work.

THAT is the key, and the reason that I marvel at CDS's continued success. I speak from personal experience when I say that it can be a real struggle to keep engagement in groups that require community engagement.

Anyone can put together a successful one-time event: it's maintaining that engagement over the long term, even when it's not "fun" to be engaged, that is the hard part. I think it's wonderful that CDS has managed it, and wish I knew what their secret sauce was.

[Love Zhaoying]

If we just go ahead and use a plutocracy, meritocracy, or technocracy, then only the people in power have to show up!

 

[Sid Nagy]

The apartment complex where I live in RL is owned by a home owner association. Each apartment owner owns an equal part of the building.
Everything is decided at owner's meetings. Biggest problem every time: to get enough owners at the meeting to even be able to make decisions.
A certain quota is needed to be present by law.  And than we are not talking about peanut ownership of part of a sim, but 150 - 200K Euro apartments in RL.
A lot of owners could not care less, and only participate in gallery gossip talk about how things should be handled.

This is not a good idea for SL IMHO.

Edited March 18 by Sid Nagy

[Paul Hexem]

22 hours ago, animats said:

People have to show up to make it work. That's a big reason it hasn't caught on in SL.

 

21 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

wish I knew what their secret sauce was.

If you ever figure it out let me know. Gotta figure out how to get my Arma 3 group off life support.

[Aethelwine]

It depends on what you are doing, but often you can run and organise groups without much need for land. If what you are doing is successful and people are engaged with it then it will naturally evolve. The failures happen when you over reach or try to run before you are walking. Don't worry about writing constitutions unless you like doing them. Elections can be nice, but most of the time people should be happy to contribute to the group and empowered to do so without needing formal roles or titles. But be flexible and let the structures evolve to suit.

My experiences of successes include the sailing club I am annually elected as commodore because no one else daft enough to stand. Our marinas are collectively owned and paid for through donations and tier. That model has lasted successfully over 10 years.

My motorbike club doesn't have elections but no one else would want the president role anyway, it is a lot of work. The biking regions are paid for by 12 or so owners. There are weekly owners meetings and members meetings where decisions are discussed and made. The club started off with a constitution and elections but is now a more president decides thing, but those decisions and clubs continuance depends on retaining the support of those financially contributing.

They both work differently with different models that have evolved over time to suit circumstances. Both successes that have lasted more than  10 years that work through collective contributions and empowering those involved to do more than they could individually.

The CDS model works for them, but other models can work too.