RL regulation of SL attorneys

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Pel --

Good thoughts, but I think insufficient. Those steps will merely make the cases harder to investigate. However, if the Bar Assn can get the avatar names -- and then subpoena the billing information from LL -- they have worked around your work around. LL is subject to CA law -- including subpoena power -- even if SL activities are not. Bar Assns already do this when investigating legal advice in chatrooms and in other cases of false or concealed identity.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":l6hofmm3]Ash whether I thought that the CDS could realistically be on a RL government radar. Yes, I do. With the press we have received lately, I would not be at all surprised if multiple RL governments had heard of us and had people looking at us.

And I am worried about regulation by legislative action of RL governments. I am even more worried that RL adminstrative agencies will use their current authority to step into this space. I see a very real possbility of Bar Assns doing just that.

Maybe I am paranoid. Maybe I'm not. Time will tell. However, if I am right and we do nothing, we die. If I am wrong and we do something, we all have fun with the game we create. I think the game way is better, more fun, and safer.

With regard to the issue on RL arbitration, in most states, arbitrations require special licensing. A mediator can be, and often is, not an attorney -- but many US arbitration acts specify who can act as an arbitrator, and such acts frequently limit the role to licensed attorneys. They do so for the same competence concerns that inform Ash's qualification requirement under the Judiciary Act. Thus, even if regulators conclude that what we are doing is RL arbitration, they are likely to intervene (rather than stay out) based on that conclusion.

That said, I am not proposing to make our process look like RL arbitration. I am suggesting using some processes from RL arbitration to make our process simpler. My concerns about work/play are different. However, I think that if our process is simple, it is more likely to be considered "play" and therefore "safe".

I think that the showiness of out trials will not save us. Rather, it is the nature of our activity that will be scrutinized -- not the ornamentation. If our actions look too much like attorneys at work and not enough like avatars at play, we are in trouble.

Beathan[/quote:l6hofmm3]

There is nothing here that amounts to anything more than you speculating "maybe a US state legislature will pass a law [i:l6hofmm3]just for us[/i:l6hofmm3]". Even I don't think that we're that important.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash --

Well, no, my concern is that a legislature will pass a law for all virtual communities -- or for all virtual communities that are platforms and not just games -- and that such a law will impact the entire SL community, and not just us. My concern is that we would be used as an example of what is happening, without government oversight, in virtual communities of concern to RL citizens.

I don't think we are that important, but I do think the Judiciary Act is that dangerous.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":3u69gtm4]Ash --

Well, no, my concern is that a legislature will pass a law for all virtual communities -- or for all virtual communities that are platforms and not just games -- and that such a law will impact the entire SL community, and not just us. My concern is that we would be used as an example of what is happening, without government oversight, in virtual communities of concern to RL citizens.

I don't think we are that important, but I do think the Judiciary Act is that dangerous.

Beathan[/quote:3u69gtm4]

Still mere conjecture.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash --

And how is my conjecture that a RL legislature will be interested in SL, especially as they have every reason to be, in some way worse than your conjecture that SL litigants will raise the complicated issues anticipated by your Procedural Code in the manner contemplated by your Code? Either we can make conjectures and assess them on their merits, or we have to disqualify all conjectures as "speculative". I am willing to do either -- provided that we are consistent.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":104g0bet]And how is my conjecture that a RL legislature will be interested in SL, especially as they have every reason to be, in some way worse than your conjecture that SL litigants will raise the complicated issues anticipated by your Procedural Code in the manner contemplated by your Code? Either we can make conjectures and assess them on their merits, or we have to disqualify all conjectures as "speculative". I am willing to do either -- provided that we are consistent.[/quote:104g0bet]

The difference is the same as the difference between saying "I may have an accident in the car if I drive it, therefore I'll stay at home" and "I may have an accident in the car if I drive it, therefore I'll wear my seatbelt". Designing a code to be able to take complex cases if they arise (but also to be able to deal efficinelty with simple cases: see the system of allocating to bands) is very different to abandoning the whole enterprise lest something happens that shows no sign of happening so far.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1whr5kh1]The difference is the same as the difference between saying "I may have an accident in the car if I drive it, therefore I'll stay at home" and "I may have an accident in the car if I drive it, therefore I'll wear my seatbelt". Designing a code to be able to take complex cases if they arise (but also to be able to deal efficinelty with simple cases: see the system of allocating to bands) is very different to abandoning the whole enterprise lest something happens that shows no sign of happening so far.[/quote:1whr5kh1]

Well, a simple Google search yielded the following sites which indicate there are many forces in the U.S. which seek to regulate and/or punish the activity of lawyers online, as well as those acting like lawyers online:
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.c ... tentid=982

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/comments/200604.htm

http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_6/altheide/#a3

The CDS Judiciary would undoubtedly be dealing with issues like copyright/trademark law, financial transactions, contracts, etc.
Beathan may be on to something that should be carefully studied outside of these forums before being dismissed as mere speculation.

Incidentally, I think that if our bar for participation is going to be RL legal experience, those who claim to have such experience and want to participate in the exclusive judiciary should reveal their RL identities. Before you ask why, think about the dangers of not doing so.

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

I think the real solution is to note that [i:vcexynxz]all[/i:vcexynxz] of our judiciary is effectively ADR from a real-life perspective.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":11x6h5yv]I think the real solution is to note that [i:11x6h5yv]all[/i:11x6h5yv] of our judiciary is effectively ADR from a real-life perspective.[/quote:11x6h5yv]

Aliasi has hit it exactly right. Our CDS documents should so note.

I don't think my state bar would mind my setting up an ADR practice in cyberspace (even with -- or as -- a "judge" with "robes"); I don't think they can regulate work as an arbitrator or mediator ourside of their RL jurisdiction.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Justice and Aliasi --

My continuing research tends to support your take on these issues, at least in WA and OR.

Dimsum, I concur that of this conversation continues, it should do so off-forum.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3ieq126x]The CDS Judiciary would undoubtedly be dealing with issues like copyright/trademark law, financial transactions, contracts, etc.[/quote:3ieq126x]

Let me make this very clear now: our judicial system, under our constitution, does not have any power to apply or purport to apply first-life law. It applies only the law of the CDS.

[quote:3ieq126x]Incidentally, I think that if our bar for participation is going to be RL legal experience, those who claim to have such experience and want to participate in the exclusive judiciary should reveal their RL identities. Before you ask why, think about the dangers of not doing so.[/quote:3ieq126x]

[url=http://www.55tc.com/jamesp.html:3ieq126x]This[/url:3ieq126x] is me. Who are you?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":9vnhsc9s][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":9vnhsc9s]The CDS Judiciary would undoubtedly be dealing with issues like copyright/trademark law, financial transactions, contracts, etc.[/quote:9vnhsc9s]

Let me make this very clear now: our judicial system, under our constitution, does not have any power to apply or purport to apply first-life law. It applies only the law of the CDS. [/quote:9vnhsc9s]

I understand that. However, it would be interpreting laws that relate to property and situations which have actual value. Without a clarification of CDS as an ADR system, a person who found themselves on the receiving end of CDS justice may have a very good case against you (and us) in real world courts under California and US law.

[quote:9vnhsc9s][url=http://www.55tc.com/jamesp.html:9vnhsc9s]This[/url:9vnhsc9s] is me. Who are you?[/quote:9vnhsc9s]

Thanks for sharing. Baked any cakes lately? :-)
I'm not sure I want to unmask myself yet, though for anyone who took the time it wouldn't be a terribly difficult process to connect the dots scattered across these forums and the Web in general. Not that I'm challenging anyone to do so!

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3odfoyws]I understand that. However, it would be interpreting laws that relate to property and situations which have actual value. Without a clarification of CDS as an ADR system, a person who found themselves on the receiving end of CDS justice may have a very good case against you (and us) in real world courts under California and US law.[/quote:3odfoyws]

On what grounds?

[quote:3odfoyws]Thanks for sharing. Baked any cakes lately? :-)[/quote:3odfoyws]

Christmas cake a couple of weeks ago :-)

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3eli3r21][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3eli3r21]I understand that. However, it would be interpreting laws that relate to property and situations which have actual value. Without a clarification of CDS as an ADR system, a person who found themselves on the receiving end of CDS justice may have a very good case against you (and us) in real world courts under California and US law.[/quote:3eli3r21]

On what grounds?[/quote:3eli3r21]

You might enjoy [url=http://www.secondlifeherald.com/slh/200 ... e:3eli3r21]this article from the SL Herald[/url:3eli3r21] about a current lawsuit, as well as a previous situation with The Sims Online. Granted, these deal with the service provider, but it is precisely because of their role as a "judge, jury, and executioner" that these kinds of suits have any traction.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash asks Dimsum [quote:34uzardr]This is me. Who are you?
[/quote:34uzardr]

Ash -- Dimsum is not an office-holder or office-seeker. He is merely an interested citizen. Surely it is not inappropriate to hold our office-holders and office-seekers to a higher standard than we hold our citizens to as a condition of citizen involvement in the process. In fact, I oppose any standard for citizen involvement in public debate and support only a minimal and reasonable standard for citizen voting. However, I think it is fair and proper to hold office-holders and office-seekers to a standard appropriate to the office. That is all Dimsum was proposing. You yourself support that, through your judicial qualification exam. There is no such thing as a double standard in the case of a relevant difference -- and we are dealing with relevant difference here.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”