Guilda: Emergency Shutdown

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:50 am

I just had a conversation with Rose where she threatened to report me to Lindon Labs for the creation of Guilda, the alt used to keep track of Guild assets. Guilda's password is known by Sudane and Moon which Rose claims is in violation of the Second Life TOS. To avoid the risk here, I will need to shut down Guilda immedeatly.

1. With her permission, I would like to transfer all assets to Sudane (money, and any objects) for safe keeping.

2. After the balance and all objects are transferred I will change Guilda's password.

I hope this is acceptable to other members of the Guild.

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:07 am

All of Guilda's funds, a total of $15,498 Lindon dollars have been transfered to Sudane Erato. The account password has been changed (due to my fumble fingers, apparently to something that I no longer know).

All of Guilda's skin, hair, and clothes, I think, were donated by Moon and myself. If I have this wrong, I will figure out how to return them.

Please, under no circumstances send any money to Guilda. I will have to figure out how to repay any payments.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:31 am

This is insane.

We need to have alts to serve as community chests unless and until LL provides us with an ability to hold money and property in a controlled way (not subject to the logic of "groups"). However, the TOS states "[a] single account may be used by a single legal entity." This means that an account can be owned by a corporate entity (a legal person) not jsut be a natural person.

Therefore, I will volunteer to create for us one or more legal nonprofit in the State of Washington to own corporate AVs. Passwords could then be shared among the officers of the corporation without violating LL's TOS.

However, I think that this step would actually be unnecessary. If our situation and uses were explained to LL, I am sure that they would bless us and our corporate alts.

That said, it is entirely inappropriate for one CDS citizen to threaten another TOS citizen with a report to the LL gestapo. This is ugly behavior at its worst. Whether I am in the RA or not, I will propose legislation to prohibit such threats under these circumstances -- and I will propose a remedy of freeze of offender's assets in the CDS pending trial, with banishment and forfeiture of assets in the CDS as punishment at trial.

Beathan

Sudane Erato · Post by **Sudane Erato** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:45 am

[quote="Beathan":3a973w78]
However, I think that this step would actually be unnecessary. If our situation and uses were explained to LL, I am sure that they would bless us and our corporate alts.[/quote:3a973w78]
I agree with this totally. LL has no reason whatsoever to enforce on us restrictions on the sharing of passwords when done for the intentions which we bring to this. Their justification for that proscription in the TOS relates to an entirely different issue.

Indeed, in the matter of community property, it is the *only* responsible thing to do. If something were to happen to me in RL, it would be the height of irresponsibility for me not to have made some provision with other members of the community for them to gain access to our community resources. That would be quite literally burying my head in the sand.

Quite frankly, I am extremely skeptical that Rose did indeed make such a threat. I should like to hear that from her.

Sudane........

Rose Springvale · Post by **Rose Springvale** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:46 am

Beathan, with all due respect, i would hope that under the circumstances you would at least listen to the other side of the conversation. Why jon insists on misrepresenting what i have said, i don't know. I never threatened this at all.

I did say that if he posted my private conversation with him, which is what he wanted to do, that i would report him. I did say that he could post the transcript of the last guild meeting so long as he posted it with the context of the last three meetings as well.
I did not consent to the posting of parts of the meeting because right now i do not trust him not to alter it. He said he wanted to prove that he brought up an issue before. I think he must be confusing his meetings or conversations, and that is why i insist that if anything is posted, it will be the verbatim transcripst, taken in context.

I don't understand why this man has chosen to single me out at this point in time. I'm trying desperately to get out of town, and would submit that nothing in this entire issue is time sensitive, other than as it relates to this election. I think we can all agree that this election doesn't need more anger and surely should not be manipulated by the whims of someone acting out of some malice i can't understand.

Guilda was mentioned because jon said he has never violated TOS. The letter of the law says he did. I was ...and am... in favor of that treatment.*CLARIFICATION... i am 100% in favor of using alts for this purpose. I named Guilda!

Banishment and freezing of assets? Where are we???

I told jon, i will reiterate here. I have NOTHING to gain here. I am not running for office. I do not take fees for legal services in SL. I sell nothing.

I've spent hundreds of dollars in the last six months to try to make this guild have the assets it needed to move forward. I spent thousands of dollars in billable hours. I believe that qualifies me as stupid, and i accept that tag. But i didn't make any threat to report Jon because of Guilda.

Please, give this a rest. It will be here next month. I'm leaving at noon tomorrow and have a lot to do before i go. If the issues are important enough to be discussed, they can wait at least until after the election.

I'm stupid, but i'm not the villain here.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:01 pm

Rose --

You are absolutely right. I don't know the facts. Even if I thought I knew the facts, I would expect a trial to test what I think I know before making final judgment.

I believe you when you say that you did not threaten Jon. My interaction with you makes me think that such threats would be out of character. You are not a litigator, after all.

That said, Jon has presented something I consider a nightmare scenario -- whether it happened or not.

Our project is a bit different -- more communal, more cooperative -- than many SL projects are. The nature of the project requires that we work together and share information -- even roles -- even avatars -- in ways that are unusual and that might technically violate the TOS if not done very carefully. I don't think that LL would actually oppose our project or our activities -- so I think that it is unlikely that a report of TOS violation would result in penalties from LL.

However, the threat of such report has two terrible effects. First, it makes us directly and specifically subject to anti-democratic intervention of LL as an overwhelming outside authority. We always face that possibility -- but facing the reality of it (especially if LL is brought down on us by one of our own) is very different. I don't want to see the CDS become a banana republic of LL.

Second, such threats would stifle legitimate CDS officals (governmental or NGO) from performing their offices. It would make office dangerous and therefore undesirable to hold. It would make acting as an officer dangerous, thus preventing innovative and active governmental officers. I believe that government officials should act with great care because it is wise to do so -- I don't want our officials to act with great care for fear of outside retribution.

Without passing judgment as to whether Jon properly described the situation, I believe that bringing in LL under circumstances as described by Jon is possible and is terrible. It is the SL/CDS equivalent of High Treason. As such, it warrants the SL/CDS equivalent of capital punishment. That punishment is freeze/forfeiture of assets and banishment from the CDS. Of course, such punishment requires due process and judicial care beyond our current capabilities -- but we are working to develop such capabilities. We will have them soon.

Thus emerges virtual criminal law -- not necessarily in response to a specific event, but in response to a real point of social danger.

Beathan

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:03 pm

[duplicate post deleted]

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:09 pm

Rose did indeed make that threat -- though it was to be executed only if I were to post the transcript of the last Guild meeting without posting all other transcripts. I don't have the transcripts of all the past meetings so I at a loss.

But contingent or not, the threat was made and could be executed for any other reason. I would be very very glad to post my conversation with Rose where she made this threat if she gives her permission.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:06 pm

I believe a tremendous misunderstanding occurred - I even let myself get pulled in. Rose was trying her best to do what "the Guild Wanted" and Jon was doing the same - and as sometimes happens in these regards it got ugly.

"Treason talk" aside* - I propose we table this - Jon keeps his post in all the orgs to which he belongs (meaning would not accept Guild resignation unless there was another compelling reason aside from this issue) - and the Guild figures out what needs to happen.

and the Guild should do this AFTER the election and we can have a rational discussion about the whole IP thing - without electoral politics clouding the issue. After all the Guild is supposed to be a non partisan affair - and it will be impossible to do this until the dust has settled - and it cannot be a political football and even have the appearance of conflict of interest if it is going to maintain its legitimacy

===
*We will have to be VERY careful about this sort of thing.

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:40 pm

Bromo, I think I like your solution.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3561bqai]I believe a tremendous misunderstanding occurred - I even let myself get pulled in. Rose was trying her best to do what "the Guild Wanted" and Jon was doing the same - and as sometimes happens in these regards it got ugly.[/quote:3561bqai]I still very much think there are issues here that are not so simple to work out.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3561bqai]"Treason talk" aside - I propose we table this - Jon keeps his post in all the orgs to which he belongs (meaning would not accept Guild resignation unless there was another compelling reason aside from this issue) - and the Guild figures out what needs to happen.[/quote:3561bqai]I am not sure I understand completely. As far as I know I am still a member of the Guild. I've been able to track down the three guild transcripts which I will post. The other guild members are welcome to check my copies against their own.. they are unchanged.

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3561bqai].. and the Guild should do this AFTER the election and we can have a rational discussion about the whole IP thing - without electoral politics clouding the issue. [/quote:3561bqai]Thank goodness! yes! I agree. The one thing I will do is post the transcripts.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:58 pm

As of the the last LL TOS revision, it is NOT against the TOS to share your password. However, LL does disclaim all responsibility against what happens if someone steals your account in such a case.

Sorry, Rose, your 'threat', if such, is void. (My group uses an alt to collect the monies for Suffugium; we made very sure that we were within the TOS when we did!)

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:25 pm

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":3qcpwrg1]Sorry, Rose, your 'threat', if such, is void. (My group uses an alt to collect the monies for Suffugium; we made very sure that we were within the TOS when we did!)[/quote:3qcpwrg1]
Thank goodness!
Bromo is right though, lets try to cool this down for now.