Upholding Social Norms - Part 2

I didn't intend for Upholding Social Norms to be a multi-part post, but the conversation has become compelling and widespread. It's a subject that has reached a certain resonance around the Second Life resident blogs, and the comments on this blog alone have been thought provoking and highlight the complexity of the topic.

Here are a few other perspectives from the personal blogs of fellow Second Life residents:

• Chestnut Rau's "TOS - privacy and RL"
• Prokofy Neva's "Invalid Interlocutors"
• Otenth Paderborn's "Social norms, privacy, and community"
• Zha Ewry's "Congruence -- Words and Actions"
• Mera Pixel's "The Decline of Society in Second Life"
• Crap Mariner's "Erosion"

There may be more, if so please let us know in the comments.

Coincidentally, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society launched the Publius Project today. From the announcement :

Publius brings together a distinguished collection of Internet observers, scholars, innovators, entrepreneurs, activists, technologists, and still other experts to write short essays, foster a public dialogue, and create a durable record of how the rules of cyberspace are being formed -- with a view to affecting their future incarnations.

The first essays are now live:

• John Palfrey, Preface
• David Weinberger, Tacit Governance
• Esther Dyson, Governance - Tacit or Explicit?
• Kevin Werbach, Steering to the Edge of Trust

We take our inspiration and mode from the Federalist Papers, but our goal is to highlight a variety of perspectives on the evolutionary process of rule-making in cyberspace. The early American context and perspective is supplanted by our modern, global, and diverse experience. The notion of a singular constitutional moment is replaced by a vision of multiple forces shaping the structures that both open and constrict online spaces. Participants will reflect on the various elements of this loosely-joined architecture and consider how traditional understandings of regulation, control, and governance are manifested and constructed anew in cyberspace.

Berkman can tap industry leaders across a wide display of disciplines. The first three articles are worthy reads, but I noticed the one important element. They are touching on the same points as the rest of us "non subject matter experts".

John Palfrey, Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society sets the context for the discussion:

The ability to govern activities online is not the exclusive province of the state, and the line between public and private action is getting blurrier, not clearer, as more of life moves into the networked public sphere.

Lines are indeed blurring, but how those lines blur do matter and I believe that without conscious and deliberate discourse, things will merely evolve to a point of the lowest common denominator. How else can we positively shape social norms in spaces in which there is a permeable membrane between the real and the virtual?

Some (removed ref to Chestnut Rau based on clarification in comments) argue that the Second Life Terms of Service are necessary and sufficient means by which we can regulate, but Prokofy Neva argues strongly that the Terms of Service are arbitrary, abusive and over broad and in turn residents cede too much power to the private corporations that sponsor them.

One might argue that *any* rules in the form of a Terms of Service or otherwise could be interpreted as too stringent and therefore stifle social interaction and the subsequent norms that emerge out of it. Quoting from David Weinberger's article:

The fuzziness of norms is their strength. We need the looseness of norms to enable us to be with one another in surprising ways. The narrower, more explicit, and less ambiguous the norms, often the deader the social interaction: “Come now, Marjorie, you know that we raise our hands before speaking.” Norms are not rules that have yet to mature. Rules are norms that have failed.

If you believe Weinberger, then the Terms of Service will fail us, just as Prokofy claims. However, that does mean that there must exist some tacit governance to keep the community healthy and alive. How then, does tacit governance evolve, thrive and be effective in a large, growing, and diverse community like that of Second Life?

Esther Dyson provides an interesting perspective on that issue as she provides the following illustration of her experience at a seminar with a group of Russians.

In Russia, there’s a proliferation of laws, but the overall system of governance is mostly tacit in practice. (That’s not to say that there is not a lot of excruciatingly explicit paperwork, but most of it is irrelevant.) This tacit system – of connections, unspoken rules, shadowy powers - leads to all kinds of maladies. Those in power can act as they like almost with impunity. Those without power but with an understanding of the rules can mostly stay out of trouble.

But those who don’t understand the rules, or who question them, can lose their freedom or even their lives. (As Russian politician Boris Nemtsov once pointed out [in paraphrase], “Yes, there is freedom of speech. But that does not necessarily mean freedom after speech.”

Tacit laws are difficult to understand, to share with newcomers and to spread across a large population. Tacit laws are also more prone to unfair balances in power and influence, which serve as particularly bad influences on new and emerging markets as those afforded by virtual worlds.

Now I don't know about you, but I feel stuck. Outright written rules fail us, and tacit governance is nearly impossible if not unbalanced at scale. Where does that leave us?

I think it leaves us at the root, the elephant in the room, with that which is so ill defined that while we write laws around it, socially we embrace a tacit governance that allow us to rationalize our circumvention of legality in a case by case way.

That root, is trust.

I thought Kevin Werbach may have nailed it with his article entitled "Steering to the Edge of Trust", but sadly he presents a largely technocentric "Abundance trumps governance" argument which is a necessary part of the discussion but leaves me cold. I personally keep coming back to simple human trust which is often mediated (at least partially) by well designed technology.

Like many fellow residents, I don't have answers. I have still more questions.

Do the Second Life Community Standards and Terms of Service establish some baseline for defining the expectations of a "trusted" environment in the world of Second Life?

What makes the Terms of Service, as Prokofy suggests, over broad?

The Terms of Service and Community Standards are written rules to which we all agreed to abide; are they failing us?

Are there more powerful tacit governance structures within Second Life?

If so, what are they and how are they adopted, reinforced, spread, and modified?

What else am I missing in this discussion?

Upholding Social Norms

Recently, I've been observing what I consider to be an erosion of social norms within the growing resident population within the virtual world of Second Life (SL). I think to some extent, this was to be expected simply due to the explosive growth but I do think there is something a little more "meta" going on and I wanted to share a few observations. Before I go much further, I should say that the following represents my personal world view and is not intended to extrapolate to the general populous. It may simply speak volumes about the Second Life residents I encounter, and have little to do with the average population but at the least, it may provide food for thought and discussion in a larger context.

When Grace entered Second Life in Feb. 2006 the feel of the community was akin to Mayberry, USA. By that I mean, the population was less than 150,000 and residents were generally neighborly, helpful and glad to see you. I was fortunate enough to stumble into the tranquil community of Mill Pond as a home base but I spent most of my time traversing the grid, trying to get my head around the world as it were. Nearly every day of my first few months in world I heard "Welcome to Second Life" as I met new people and visited new places. There were leagues of well organized groups and individuals whose focus was to help acclimate new comers, from NCI to the Shelter and educational groups that taught basic skills. Inherent in these exchanges, beyond just building skills, were simple reinforcements of social norms and acceptable behaviors. It wasn't overt, it was kind and gentle and in the spirit of keeping the world of Second Life a place of community and collaboration.

Beyond the new resident centers, object lessons in de facto social norms were consistently reinforced by my fellow residents. This included simple things such as: greet and welcome people, be kind to newbies, excuse yourself when you left a group conversation, etc. It also included more subtle practices, such as waiting until you've established a bit of a relationship before you offered friendship - at that time calling cards were helpful without the implied social contract of a friendship. This was reinforced somewhat by the feature set because then your friends could not only see if you were online, they could also map you by default. This single point, beyond common courtesy, was a good deterrent to quick friends.

I realize I sound like some old geezer sipping a glass of sweet tea and reminiscing about "the good old days", but really I do have a point beyond simple nostalgia.

Reflecting upon my early Second Life social experiences and those today I see dramatic changes, especially related to social privacy. For example, part of the subtle but consistent reinforcement from the early community was that the separation between one's Second Life (SL) and real life (RL) was assumed, and the merger of those two was the decision of each individual to be exposed, discussed, etc. at their discretion and without prompting and if shared, certainly held in the utmost of confidence. I am not talking about the philosophical arguments related to immersion versus augmentation here, I am referring to simple courtesy and what was then a seemingly set of shared values and social contract terms that embraced the construct and consequences of what it meant to have social privacy.

Social privacy wasn't cast as "hiding behind your avatar" nor were the Second Life Terms of Service waved about by town criers, it was woven into the culture of the early era community and it was reinforced accordingly. Sharing someone's real life information and private chat logs with a third party was not only frowned upon, there was almost a scarlet, maybe crimson, letter cast upon those residents that were careless in that regard. Social privacy was considered paramount, and unfortunately I see that particular aspect of the Second Life culture eroding every day without obvious consequence.

In the material world there are forces that shape our social behavior such as fear of legal and social consequences and attendant regulation, which are largely choreographed by immediate and appropriate feedback. Often in the real world the law often becomes the lowest common denominator to constraint and social decorum.

However without feedback methods, those same consequences in online communities including Second Life are often missing, especially with a Laissiez-faire approach to oversight even in light of the Big Six. The "law" here in Second Life boils down to the Terms of Service, which clearly most people don't read or are otherwise immune simply due to the lack of obvious consequence. Without the means of consequence we know humans will push until there is some edge, and we are left with an eroding and destructive community.

Real world law is not the answer. Real world law doesn't solve destructive social behavior in communities and just to be clear, anonymity is not the problem. The arguments about identity verification and trust, while tuned to the real world, are inherently flawed in a space where new ways of thinking availed because of anonymity and the constraints it imposes. Additionally, no legal system is going to dirty itself by trying to moderate "Don't be a dick".

So what is the answer, or maybe what are the questions?

Are there different moral codes and norms that we are willing to adopt in online spaces to accommodate this new medium? If so, does self-moderation work in large and diverse social spaces to reinforce social norms? For example, are *you* willing to ...

• gently remind that new friend that just said something like "obtw ABC XYZ is rly a dude irl" that sharing or even discussing another person's real life is not acceptable?
• delete the notecard someone just dropped on you that contains a private conversation and kindly remind them not to do it again?
• even if you think you've "fallen in love" with another resident upon first sight, are you willing to give that resident the social privacy they rightly deserve?
• speak up in a public forum when a resident is being mistreated?
• defend a fellow resident's right to anonymity?
• remind the resident that disrupts an event with repeated transmissions of advertisements, sounds or even chat spam, that they might find a better outlet?
• write a blog post reinforcing your view of social norms?

Well, are you?

What about Linden Lab's new CEO?

Several people have asked me to comment on Linden Lab's new CEO, Mark Kingdon but the fact is, I don't have a lengthy analysis or random speculation based on Mark's background or experience. Rather I will spend my time, just like I do with any Second Life resident less than six months old, and watch his actions as a leader for a few months. One of the first things I noticed is that he called Philip and asked for the job, that to me is a very positive sign (and apparently the phone is still more reliable than twitter).

It's been my experience that the best leaders utilize their past as a way to become more aware, flexible and adaptable to the next new leadership challenge. Despite what HBR might desire, there are no magic recipes, sidebars or otherwise that prove effective in every situation. Each challenge is unique, and while we residents see a certain face of Second Life based on our own experience and level of participation, Mark will likely see things differently from his vantage. Watching his actions often provide some insight into what that might be, and how he can turn his past experience lessons toward the new job. It's likely that at least we all agree that the problem is complex and infinitely fascinating.

Given the change of leadership, what type of leadership model might emerge?

There is a model I was taught long ago called "Mister Inside and Mister Outside" (sorry, I didn't pick the term Mister, but we are still living in the day where that is 98% accurate in the largest organizations.) The concept is simple, Mister Outside is the outward facing leader shaping the thoughts, behaviors and actions of those "outside" the organization. Mister Outside may take many forms such as a visionary, a spin master, a business developer, or a lobbyist; they can be someone that keeps the wolves at bay or someone that shapes the face of the company to make it attractive to others.

It's Mister Inside, however, that runs the day to day of the business. Let's call him the redshirt; the one that is spending inordinate hours in the details - sometimes in sync with Mister Outside, and sometimes in spite of him and likely to meet a tragic end over time. Looking back, the Philip-Corey pairing leaned toward this model although I suspect Philip had a heavier hand in the day to day operations than a classic Mister Outside.

Organizations that exist under this model with a weak Mister Inside, or one that is not well aligned with Mister Outside are often fraught with a personality or identity disorder. You will often find them choosing "sides" or developing factions of thought and progress is haphazard. This is the downside of the model, but there is an upside if a) there are positive benefits to having strong external partnerships for growth and b) there is significant upheaval on the inside that Mister Outside acts as a shield until order can be restored.

Without jumping to conclusions, will someone let me know if they see M Linden wearing a red shirt?

Talkin' About A Revolution

This blogger is not on strike.

I have great respect for my fellow Second Life bloggers, friends and colleagues; I applaud solidarity and appreciate community activism but I am not partial to symbolic gestures.

I believe in community accountability, and that means we should "walk the talk" when wielding arm bands, berets, and pitchforks.

I don't think Linden Lab anticipated (or understood?) the nature of their actions regarding the latest policy, which is worrisome given that a vibrant and passionate community is the essence of success for Second Life overall.

I respect copyright, trademarks and patents, although I am certain the time has come to reevaluate how we interpret them and adopt business and social models that are more appropriate and beneficial given the digital renaissance.

I'll happily attend any community gathering for meaningful dialog, outreach and education, but none otherwise and ...

I will not strike silence at a time when voices need to be heard.

Virtual Worlds 2008 Absent Interoperability

I have been reviewing the structure of the upcoming Virtual Worlds 2008 Conference to be held at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York on April 3rd-4th. The conference is broken down into five tracks: Kids and Teens, Marketing and Entertainment, Virtual Law Conference, Enterprise Round Tables and Technology and Results. I zeroed in on the Technology track, anxious to see what progress has been made in the interoperability arena.

At the Virtual Worlds Fall conference in October, interoperability was the darling buzz word. IBM, Cisco, Linden Lab and many other technology organizations held hands at an invitation only "interoperability summit" born on the back of an IBM- Linden Lab announcement that had "intent to develop new technologies and methodologies based on open standards that will help advance the future of 3D virtual worlds."

At the conference itself, Cisco's Christian Renaud waxed about ubiquity, common identities, common denominators such as Nick Wilson and Robert Bloomfield's Metaverse Market Index, common platforms and the promise of integration across worlds and told us to "Take a deep breath, find your happy place..".

Like Raph Koster, I was immediately skeptical about the vision of interoperability as it was evangelized by the technoluminaries. However, the VW conference provides the next logical check in point to find out about things such as the progress of the MMI. I dove into the conference schedule to see how interoperability was transforming virtual worlds.

The Technical Track seemed like a logical place to stuff interoperability. The "Technology and Results" track starts with keynotes by a General Manager/SVP and a Senior Brand Manager, that must be an ice breaker. The rest of the schedule is as follows:

Stardoll: The Next Level of Engagement
Virtual worlds have quickly evolved into one of the most engaging marketing platforms on the Web. Index Ventures- and Sequoia Capital-backed Stardoll has emerged as a leader in the space, presenting brands with a unique opportunity to develop deep and seamlessly integrated campaigns in a vibrant community of more than 15 million members across more than 200 countries. This session explores how Stardoll has effectively partnered with the likes of DKNY, Sephora, Disney, Fox Walden, Heidi Klum, Faith Hill and Dualstar Entertainment Group to deliver creative, compelling and engaging marketing programs.

Introducing Electrotank® Universe Platform
Electrotank Universe Platform™ (EUP) is a flexible platform used to create unique virtual worlds. In this session you will be introduced to EUP and will get a glimpse into how it can be used to shave months off of development time while providing unprecedented flexibility and performance.

MTV Networks: Case Study Featuring Ford Models and Elizabeth Arden
For the ultimate case study in how to bring a brand to life in-world, MTV Networks, Ford Models and Elizabeth Arden present a panel discussion that demonstrates what happens when three iconic brands team up to create a deeply immersive experience for virtual world users. Representatives will discuss the first-ever M by Mariah Carey's "Virtual Ford Model Search," which helped crown the new face of MTV's Virtual Hills. In this interactive session, hear directly from marketers and media execs who can offer first-hand tips about how to create meaningful and engaging in-world initiatives and how to extend that campaign to 2D environments and to the television screen, generating even further exposure for the brands.

Winning Strategies to Optimize Online Revenues - Leading initiatives in MMOGs/Virtual Worlds
Listen to leading MMOG/virtual worlds thinkers present winning strategies regarding business models, user experience, worldwide reach, billing solutions, lessons learned, current issues and fraud prevention. Hosted by Paynova.

Real Results from Virtual Advertising:
A New Generation Advertises in the Virtual World
With traditional advertising in turmoil over ever-diminishing returns, how far-reaching will advertising in virtual worlds be? Immerse yourself in this fascinating discussion on the new way that products and brands will deliver their messages in the virtual world and how that translates into real- world brand awareness and sales. The discussion will focus on “push vs pull” advertising methodologies, “Empowered Engagement,” and effective marketing strategies that mutually benefit both advertiser and user. Additional coverage includes the use of true metrics and visitation analytics and how they can effectively measure Returns on both Investment and Objectives as well as open new doors for sales only viable in a virtual world. An open discussion with the panelists follows a brief presentation.

Is it just me or do the above all look like strategic marketing topics, and not so "technical"? I see several forms of the word "engage" sprinkled throughout and not a single mention of "interoperate". Am I looking in the wrong place?

Scanning the other four tracks, and I see that interoperability, or any sort of follow up from the most resounding parts of the Fall conference is missing. Search the show blog Virtual World News and you will see the most recent post containing "interoperability" was February 4th on the IBM-HiHiPi parternership annoucement.

If I look over the rest of the conference schedule, I see that most is dedicated to branding, marketing, advertising and interestingly enough, case studies highlighting walled gardens. What does this tell us about the prospects of virtual world development and evolution? Where is Miss Interoperability - our virtual worlds debutante, the belle of the ball? If someone knows where I can find Cinderella, please let me know.

I want to advance our understanding of the interplay between social and technical architectures and as such, understand the efforts and ideologies of those influencing interoperability on a larger scale. We must raise the level of dialog to that of the interested community, out from behind the closed doors of large technology organizations and conferences.

For now, I am off to watch the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Hearing on Online Virtual Worlds.

The Cost of Passionate Consumers

I am not a pile on blogger. I write what strikes me when it strikes me, although many of my friends and colleagues know that I spend a lot of time studying and then regurgitating my opinions and findings about the implications of social media and virtual worlds. Which, today is about the hidden but real cost of passionate consumers.

To that end, I am not going to waste my words reporting on the new Second Life Brand Center announcement except as background:

1. On March 24th, Catherine Linden announced the Brand Center on the official Second Life blog.
2. There is a new affiliation trademark and license entitled "inSL Logo Progam".
3. There was a new Terms of Service update on log in to call attention to the recent changes and weighty legalese buried in: "4.4 Without a written license agreement, Linden Lab does not authorize you to make any use of its trademarks" which points to the numerous sub pages within the Guidelines for Using Linden Lab's Trademarks.

As a result of the above, there was and still is a resounding uproar and panic across the Second Life resident community that embraces many new media forms (blogs, podcasts, fan sites, etc) about the implications of the changes including the equivalent of "arm bands and berets" protest symbol. This afternoon, a twitter-rama of discussions about a boycott:

"Boycott"
"flickr is a good idea for a strike. we should have buttons too"
"Just adding a blog entry: "this blog is closed until LL clarifies how fansites are allowed to use their trademarks"
"yes, Blogger's Strike. No more links to Second Life® until we know we can use the trademark without fear of getting sued! "
"Beside SL blogger's strike... how about mentors going silent as well?"

So what's going on?

Do die-hard Second Life residents begrudge Linden Lab for moving to protect the strength of the brand? No. In fact many of them are the most vocal when it comes to otherwise inaccurate or marginalized press coverage that may damage the brand.

Are they simply uninformed when it comes to the importance of trademarks and brand management? No. Some are IP lawyers, several are marketers/brand managers and some have even registered their own personal trademarks.

So what is it?

It's simple. The product Second Life and the company Linden Lab have benefited greatly from the explosion of creativity and passion of its growing community and the recent changes combined with the way (once again) the changes were communicated is not congruent with what this community expects, and they are outraged at the implication that they have not in some tangible way contributed to the heretofore success of the Second Life brand recognition.

From Jennyfur Peregrin's blog:

For now, I view this action as a slap in the face to all of the enterprising individuals who helped to build Second Life into what it is today. Linden Lab developed the product and platform, but without the countless enterprising residents engaged in forging the vision for virtual worlds far and wide since late 2002… Second Life never have grown to its current size and popularity.

From Gwyneth Lleweyn's blog:

We’ve been the ones ultimately promoting that vision, spreading it around, and making sure that the world noticed your product and your brand. We were very successful — thanks to your gentle and encouraging former policies.

And for four years, you have been thankful enough to allow us to do that promotion, by establishing very reasonable and clear guidelines of the terms of usage of your trademarks.

And Gwyn's personal request for clarification and implied call to action:

We consider that an appropriate response should be forthcoming in the next few days, or we will be forced to shut down our own blogs, websites, forums, community portals, and other 3rd party sites to avoid litigation — and thus deprieving (sic) Linden Lab® from the traffic generated by millions of direct links and millions of viewers that learn first about Second Life® through all those sites.

Personal note: This blog will enter on strike on April 15th, 2008, for a period of 3 days, if no clarification by Linden Lab is published before that date.

As androids dream of electric sheep, so do most companies dream of passionate consumers. The discipline of embracing your passionate consumers, coined recently as "net promoter economics" can raise the value of your company to new heights. The nightmare, of course, is when you alienate them they can resist and revolt with equal fervor and become detractors. Detractors are costly in several quantifiable ways including retention, margins, annual spend, cost to serve and negative Word of Mouth. If you want more information, go read The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth by Fred Reichheld.

So you have a large base of passionate consumers (how many blogs do you think there are about Second Life?), that's a great thing, right? Well, sure it's great but there are a few costs.

1) Learn to communicate and do it really well
In this new age, we talk about dialog as if it were merely the institution of two-way communication such as opening comments to the floor. It is, however, more about understanding each other and developing norms for communicating that are consistent with a shared set of values and community norms. This means you have to work at communicating, constantly adapt and improve.

2) Spend time knowing what the Passionates are doing to help you
You cannot sit idly back and let the minions come to you. You have to actively seek out your passionates, engage them, and learn from them. They often know far more about your product than you do. The value of this is directly proportional to your willingness, your time and your creativity to engage. The key is to be pro-active, not passive or re-active. For example, office hours are a passive. The Second Life Views program is moderately pro-active. Seemingly arbitrary institutional changes in policy so long after the establishment of wide spread adoption is reactive.

3) Allow Passionates to have some influence over your policies
This sounds terrifying, but if you've done #1 and #2 correctly, the terror resolves itself. If you've made a mistake and need to make a policy change that is distasteful to your passionates, admit you were wrong, explain the change using #1 and #2 and move on.

These are just three points, but each carries a cost. It can be manageable, but it cannot be avoided. You can pay me now, or pay me later.

Happy Rez Day, Philip Rosedale

On the anniversary of his rez day and with some irony, on Pi Day, Second Life visionary and founder Philip Rosedale steps aside from the CEO position at Linden Lab. Philip will assume the chairman of the board position for the privately held company, as Mitch Kapor steps down to take a member role. Reuters carried the story exclusively, although Philip's remarks showed up later in the day on the Second Life blog.

I feel that the most important contributions I have made and will continue to make to Second Life are related to building both the product and the company through my direct contributions to vision, strategy, and design. As we grow, the role of our CEO will increasingly be to hire and grow the right team - to lead and help the company scale - to thousands of people and tens of millions of users of Second Life. I believe that we can hire a fantastic person in that role, and also give me the ability to totally focus myself on the job that I do well. I bet this will be the most interesting job opening in the technology world.

Despite whatever bad press Second Life received over the past year or two, it was astonishing that it never seemed directed at Philip. He has carried himself with poise through what must have been desperately challenging circumstances. I attribute much of that to his unflappable energy and passion. I've known few people with the raw energy and sheer conviction that Philip possesses. On the two occasions I had to talk with him personally, I left feeling inspired, charged, challenged, engaged and glad that he was who he was, where he was.

Just as few theoretical physicists can find their way around a laboratory, so few visionaries can lead an organization through critical operational transitions. Whether Philip is CEO material or not, is really not the question. The important question is could he separate himself from his own ideals long enough to balance short term and long terms objectives in the face of this new era for Second Life? Probably not.

The Second Life community has been abuzz since the announcement, various social networks lit up with a general sense of surprise, remorse and some worry. In summary a collective "Okay, we understand, but .. just damn" rattled across the waves. Even those that regularly spew venom at the platform still found a fondness for Philip.

To be sure, he has left very large prim shoes to be filled, a spirited team with a unique and pronounced culture and finally, one very large and equally passionate crowd of Residents, noses pressed against the gate, waiting for the next leader.

I'm hoping the reins of the chairmanship are not slack and the new sheriff rides a white horse.