Soft Ball

You wouldn't be wrong suspecting this was some kind of April Fool's Alternative Reality Game -- Philip Rosedale testifying in Congress about Second Life at the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. But from all indications, unless a really hugely elaborate prank, it's true.

It's not the first trip of Linden Lab to the Hill. Former Linden Cory Ondrejka and Robin Linden made a trip to DC quietly to talk to congressional staff and some members apparently more than a year ago. Clearly, they've followed a very long-planned strategic plan here: to undermine and diffuse possible concern of potentially hostile authorities by finding friends on the technology committees, coming to them first, and seeming to enlist them in marching together to the bright future of Technology for America's Prosperity.

I swear the PR firm that helps Linden Lab, Lewis, had a gander at this testimony, and helped shape it. Philip doesn't go around saying "America" and "prosperity" 10 times a day, but here phrases like that are said as many times in as many pages -- all in a bid to seem "patriotic" to possibly "sensitive" members of Congress (the testimony, part of the public record in an open hearing, will obviously be read by less friendly members now or later). But...since when is Philip about "American prosperity" and not about creativity uber alles and more science, he who told us "wealth and land are not stake in this world"! (Of course, it's the old "no business but my business" line).

No congressmen thought to ask him how this was going to be so good for American prosperity, and not "shipping jobs overseas" as Obama and other candidates put it, if...now only 30 percent of the SL population is American, and 70 percent of this business is all happening overseas. This is ostensibly because broadband is better everywhere but America (a popular tekkie talking point that is never really fully fleshed out. Except for possibly the growth rate in Japan, you can't explain the growth of SL overseas as merely "about broadband". It's more complex than that. Brazil may have a faster-growing broadband development rate than the US or something (this could be looked up) but it hardly explains how all of a sudden all these people with high-end computers and graphic cards could show up. I think there's a simple reason why 70 percent of SL is not American. Because...more than 70 percent of the regular real world is...not American ROFL.

Ed Markey, a congressmen from Massachusetts, where Lindens have an office run by stealth tactician Pathfinder Linden (he never blogs, never talks, never comments, but just gets thing done in IRC channels and such), and where they have all kinds of friends, like the Berkman Center where Mitch Kapor used to be, is a big friend of net neutrality and other pet tekkie causes. He's also appreciated as a friend to liberal causes and many might argue that if you have to have a congressional hearing at all on virtual worlds, it should be done by someone more sophisticated about them than the average yahoo on the Hill and very friendly to them, to avoid having them prematurely shut down (I find this a totally fake argument, because nobody understands VWs well enough to shut them down, or misunderstands them passionately enough to care, they don't involve that many people). So Markey ensured that the kinds of questions asked weren't even "gentle" as Reuters characterized them, but outright marshmallows, and that the entire occasion was festive, in the spirit of April 1.

You couldn't have asked for a more supportive, and obviously Linden-Lab hand-picked VW-friendly FIC-y tekkie line-up either, as you had, in addition to Philip, Glitteractica from Tech Soup, Colin Parris from IBM, which has a strategic partnership with SL regarding interoperability and open source and is fairly deeply invested in SL -- though not with much money -- and Larry Johnson (Larry Pixel) of New Media Consortium who runs about 60 educational sims and has the largest educational empire in Second Life. Larry mainly stays out of inworld SL politics, forums wars, and blog struggles, but just quietly takes over (and moves on to other platforms as well, as Larry is now working with Sun Microsystems on their educational virtual world). Each of these people, starting with Philip, and going on down, not withstanding the volatile Glitteractica, who was the only one to raise her voice and stomp her foot at me at VW 07 (lol), all do good work. They're all wonderful.

But they all make money from this grid, or, if they don't actually make money (IBM fudged on that point when directly asked by a member, talking obliquely about "saving costs on training" blah blah), they have enormous personal enhancement from Second Life. And notice a really glaring factor: despite Philip's bragging about 50,000 people making money from Second Life, not a single inworld business was hand-picked here to be on this panel. (BTW, I've testified in the House and Senate numerous times, and I know how these panels get picked.)

Furthermore, the inworld event, where some of the "balancing" might have been done, and referenced from the floor, was apparently a FIC-only event, as it wasn't announced, and just "happened" apparently on the faux-Congress made by Clear Ink and financed by Sun Microsystems.

If you wanted to do any kind of serious inquiry into virtual worlds, listening to pros and cons and really looking at numbers, influence, affect, productivity for individuals, groups, and businesses -- this was not it. This was very much choreographed, very much packaged, very much PR'd and enhanced and, well, augmented, just like Second Life augmentation. It was decided as a political maneuver, to make it seem that this technology was wonderful, positive, never damaging, nothing to worry about, self-correcting, self-governing, and most of all *not needing of any regulation*, thank you very much. There's some very deeply misleading statements here.

When pressed by the gentlemen and lady from the states on their concerns about children, "self-policing" was Philip's panacea for the teen grid. Teens are really great, socially and culturally, he implied, at being able to ferret out who is an adult faking being a teen and doesn't belong there, and they report on it to the Lindens.

Except when they don't, as even another member of congress, Rep. Stearns, pointed out, that a predator could be cloaking himself, and be skilled at doing this. We all know that the issue isn't even so much adults coming on the teen grid as teen grids coming on the adult grid because of unverified accounts. The member asked Philip whether a Social Security number of driver's license was required, and Philip said "no," without explaining anything about the ill-fated age verification program that never got off the ground.

But there's a more troubling aspect to all this "self-policing" that goes beyond the immediate issue of child predators. And that is that "self-policing", when run by a closed, private company creates a really nasty police-state atmosphere. It makes people report on each other, secretly, without accountability. It puts Linden in a very powerful position of both maintaining networks of informants, hiding their identity, operating on their testimony without any accountability. Example: as we all know, the odious csven Concord, who *favoured* allowing ageplay as a free-speech matter, who fought very dirty in a drawn-out fight about whether ageplay was appropriate (I argued that it created a climate for tolerance of crime and incitement of crime and shouldn't be allowed) -- by accusing my tenant falsely -- and me by implication -- of "ageplay" merely because there was a swingset on my property, posting this picture publicly and making much sport with it. That is precisely the sort of thing that is all too easy to do in a private setting with no public accountability and no recourse -- it's like the Horace Mann Myspace cases.

Any such closed system is going to inevitably lead to grave errors, either neglect of a situation that should be addressed by authorities, or misreporting of a situation that shouldn't involve authorities. Linden Lab isn't a public school or public institution -- it's a private company that isn't required to show much of what it does in terms of policing. Countless calls on the Lindens to publish in the police blotter (now merely "the incident report) at least the names of the perpetrators and the informants and the prosecuting Lindens have fallen on deaf ears. They invoke the putative problem of vengeance (as if they should be allowing such things to occur anyway!!!) and then retreat behind the anonymity again for all concerned. It's a really nasty business, and anyone with even a cursory sense of internationally-recognized norms of justice gets this.

Second Life can be a place where, with much fanfare, an educational project for the International Justice Center can be mounted, but basic norms of justice available not just in "the West" but in many countries with the rule of law, such as "the right to face your accusers" are simply not upheld inworld, where people spend enormous amounts of time with very heavy involvement. That opens the door for abuse, of the kind the ICC itself has to combat in real life, which, while virtual, and therefore always less than real life in scale and remedy, is still *real*. It's really a conundrum, these constant coils and recoils like a Slinky going down the stairs -- Second Life can shine as this wonderful beacon of the ICC in various gushing news stories and blogs, but inworld, can be a contorted imitation of the worst kind of police state, in danger of either missing a real child predator or falsely accusing someone of crime without due process. THIS is what Congress definitely *needs to watch*.

Another aspect of the virtual world which naturally attracted Congressional curiosity was this idea of "terrorists in Second Life." And here, it's not even about money-laundering, as I and other bloggers have laboured to explain, but about providing ample grounds for recruitment, training, indoctrination and *sensitizing* to extremist movements -- and also creating cultural disruption and mental distress (yes, griefing is like terrorism).

Here's a real sensitive problem, however, for any lawmaker or law-enforcer in a democratic and liberal state. There will be all kinds of groups. Some religious, some extremist. It's their right to espouse whatever they wish, as long as they don't commit actual crimes, i.e. do not incite to imminent action, and the tests for that are very precise under Supreme Court rulings. The idea that FBI agents could infiltrate various virtual movements of the extreme left or extreme right, as they did in the past in the 1930s or 1960s or 1980s with various peace or patriotic groups, is naturally repugnant to Americans.

But...what is the plan then to a) avoid having such movements easily indoctrinate youngsters and b) prevent them from so desensitizing people inworld and in real life to their extremist and even violent ideologies that they make it easier and easier to accept their implementation in real life?

At what point can you put down your foot and say, "No, I don't want an Islamic caliphate established electronically that begins to control people's onlive lives, communities, work, socializing". At what point can you put down your foot and say, no, Corey Ondrejka your idea of "no no vote" is simply not acceptable in a democratic society!

If the caliphatists have the right to celebrate their sectarianism, other citizens' group have the right to push back, and emphasize liberal programs for society, too. But there's a vacuum in this regard, and often, the left secularists, extremist themselves, make common cause with Islamicists because they find it fashionable, they love pre-made ideologies that give them control over others, and they love the idea of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." If Bush starts complaining about Muslim extremists under the MUDs or Reds under the beds, you can be sure that the leftoids will cackle and giggle and blog it up and hold on to it all the harder, protecting extremism now as a "victim of the right". Sigh. It's all so predictable. Meanwhile, *our rights are eroded*.

Congress can't interfere with freedom of assembly or speech on platforms for extremist groups, but...you can ask that it not *fund it*. And that's where constituents have a right and duty to watch the taxpayers' money, and say, no, we won't support private companies making VWs with oppressive rules inworld on the public dime. If Linden Lab or any other VW entity wants to grab at the public purse, they need to become publicly accountable and not suppress freedom of speech, with their permabans for arbitrary reasons not even compliance with their own TOS, nor fail to ensure due process (remember their unconscionable TOS?), nor incite violent extremism.

Am I calling for virtual worlds to be regulated? Absolutely. They should be regulated. Why is there some autonomous piece of society that doesn't get to be under the rule of law?!

Media, after all, is regulated, even though it enjoys enormous freedoms in America under the Constitution -- it's regulated by the FCC, which addresses issues like campaign debates to ensure they are fair, and sets standards for obscenity. Why shouldn't the FCC take on virtual worlds, or a body that will address them separately (if it can be demonstrated they are so different from entertainment or the Internet -- I'm not sure they rise to that test). And why not? Is this to be labeled only some evil RIAA-supporting, SUV-driving, creationist believer, if you ask for what is *reasonable and normal in every other area of human life*?!

Of course not. It's ok to regulate movies, media, TV, education. These are the states' rights. They get to do that with public media that influences the public -- it isn't suppression of media, or taking away of its freedom, but it is laying out standards for when that media is used for education, for children, and for *broadcasting*.

Virtual worlds run by private corporations may be able to hide endlessly away as private clubs, and evade scrutiny of some of the nastiest stuff out there, like the promotion of hardcore BDSM, Gor, extremist political philosophies, pedophilia. But why shouldn't the public, through their elected representatives, be able to care about this, and express concern about it, and investigate it if there are credible allegations of crime or some "clear and present danger," as some politician might wish to express it? I just don't see that virtual worlds get a pass, just to ensure the technolibertarians and their California corporations and bought congressmen a pass.

I'd feel a lot better about this Congressional testimony, and focus more on the positive testimony (like Larry Pixel's excellent description of how avatars are really just people and extentions of people and not anything exotic) if I didn't see that the damn thing was so *concocted* and so *fixed* and so manipulative. There was even a specially-produced machinima that made Second Life look as if it took place on some other game engine with some other central asset server in some other galaxy! The machinima even had this creepy 1950s More Science High sort of voice that sounded exactly like the movies we all had to watch in Health in the 1960s about Better Living Through Chemistry and the Reproductive System and You. I wonder where they even find guys with voices like that anymore!

The Californian techlibs scorn representative democracy, like Lessig's new fad, they call it "corrupt," and they treat it as corrupt -- and therefore something that can be manipulated and bought or influenced, in the way they imagine "everybody else does it". They are wide-eyed cynics.

And that's why I have to call for a debate to be raised about how virtual worlds should be regulated, in America and the world, a debate that isn't pre-cooked with one California software company and their very special friends on the grid and buddies in Congress, but a broader political and civic spectrum that begins to study and learn the nature and consequences of virtual worlds. They are supposed to be "for everybody".

Comments

[Ann Otoole]

No commentary on why this hearing would even take place at this point in time? There is always a reason for anything that uses such a significant amount of elected representative time on the hill.

I wonder what comes next.

Poor Phil.. had to wear a suit. And was told to summarize before he had made it through so many pages of prepared statements. Embarrassing. tsk tsk.. tsk being similar in sound to that odd speech habit thing he has.

Seeing the exquisitely suited rich guy from IBM stumble on profitability was priceless.

[Prokofy Neva]

I have no idea why *now*. There has got to be something up. But it was an infomercial fo sho.

Yes, I had to feel for Philip there with being told to summarize. He didn't realize that what you have to do is prepare a written statement of say 7-10 pages usually, tell the congressmen that you are submitting it for the public record, which they'll accept and post, and then have like a large-type 3- pager or so with bullet points that you read, leaving yourself to figure out what you need to improvise depending on how the room is going, who is there, what your previous speakers said, etc. While he may have been told to just read his text and fill up the time, it's actually bettter to come in under the wire and leave more time for questions where you can really become memorable. However, perhaps they only wanted to make sure nothing but marshmallows were offered.

[Prokofy Neva]

Larry Pixel has put up his Congressional testimony in a markable book format, so you can comment on it, it's interesting:
http://wp.nmc.org/mrpixel/

[larryr]

will virtual worlds find the early regulatory surroundings of television, or the surroundings of cable television 40 years later...?

which it finds, may change our society for decades to come:)

BY the way- best laugh all day- serg and larry asking for you tube videos to choose their neighbors on Mars in 20 years..
virgin/google mars. 2030.
the ultimate gated community....lol

leave the rift raft on earth playing vr twiiter in ggoglemapsland.... were going to the new world!.. mars....

creative thinkers need not apply,-)

[Prokofy Neva]

I don't like Yolto. It's annoying. There is no authorship of these "round-ups". Are you the author? Why isn't it signed then? Pretending to be an unbiased aggregator is the most offensive thing on the Internet.

And it draws traffic away to itself then and acts as some kind of middleman that no one asked for. People then begin to read only short summaries in Yolto, which is behaving like a stealer of commentary, like an unauthorized Reader's Digest.

I just find it offensive. I especially don't like the BUY SELL crap at the top when it isn't clear what the hell it BUYS and SELLS exect possibly game gold. If this is your site, I'm unimpressed.

All it's doing is stealing content in order to sell its own ads. I find that really repulsive.

[Prokofy Neva]

In fact, I am going to research this whole Yolto and Metaforums constant grab and digest on their own pages of my content and others' content, see what it is they are selling, and ban it if it proves damaging to me by plagiarizing my content. I don't mind if my content is copied and discussed in fair use, obviously, but this isn't fair use. And it is being used to sell ads from which I get no revenue.

Not liking this, the more I see it these days, and Alex, you need to disclose your own financial interest here.

I don't see why I need to be available to endlessly produce content for you to suck up, and if this cannot be stopped, I think I'll be like other people who just stop blogging : )

[Tammy Nowotny]

Prok said:

"Teens are really great, socially and culturally, [Phillip] implied, at being able to ferret out who is an adult faking being a teen and doesn't belong there, and they report on it to the Lindens."

Someone from Whyville.com... a tightly controlled virtual world for kids aged 8-14... made exactly the same point at a Dr Dobbs session a couple of weeks ago. And it seems like a valid point. But there are two problems. One problem is that sometimes the kids are scamming the "predators" back. (In fact sometimes older teens want to be lured into the stuff they're being lured into.) A second problem is that, in the name of protecting children, we've largely (though not entirely) destroyed childhood. Kids are forced to deal with the adult world 24/7, and in my social stratum (the upper mdidle class) kids are expected to give themselves entirely over to winning the approval of adults (in the hopes of getting admitted to Harvard.) This means even the "good" kids who are sensible about sex and drugs spend their whole lives essentially scamming adults.

[John Lopez]

"I just don't see that virtual worlds get a pass"

Clearly, they don't get a pass. I have said for decades that virtual worlds will answer to real world law, eventually. Eventually turns out to be now: the gambling ban, financial speculation ban, abortive attempt at age verification and now being hauled in front of a commission makes it quite clear that the eye of government has noticed these little outposts. (Don't mistake the civil tone or apparent "softball" with a willingness to simply roll over; I know you have interacted enough with the government to not fall for the fake veneer of politeness there).

The question is, what do they plan to do about it. Traditionally, the early reaction to noticing things is to brand them as freaky pariahs and make political hay by passing feel good "protect the children" legislation.

When you note that virtual worlds combine *both* the evil of the anonymous Internet and the evil of video games in one tasty bundle and that both are under siege already, it seems pretty obvious that we should expect the push-back from the politicians. I noted that Phillip was complemented for his proactive actions with Second Life and he in turn made sure that they were aware he was consulting the FBI. The dance started a while ago, this is just a more public episode.

Not that being the modern ( Video Game | TV | D&D | Rock and Roll | Comic Books ) is a bad thing: it means something has arrived in popular consciousness. After the usual period of backlash, we can actually get down to the business of using virtual worlds as just another part of life, with just another balance of distaste and enthusasim propelling it.

[Prokofy Neva]

John,

They weren't hauled. They prefabricated this committee hearing themselves precisely to pre-empt a haul, you have to see that. It was genius.

They may feel now they've beaten the bosses at that level, and they can go back to questing and skilling. THey may not be able to put the bosses back in the can though or log off.

[Paco Taylor]

I think it was more like a PR event for LL.

Who were the suits behind Philip?

Looked like VC's or lawyers, maybe DC handlers.

[Prokofy Neva]

Yes, I wondered that same thing. The suits did not look like Congressional aides, they looked like handlers, maybe PR or legal.

The hearing room was curiously empty, given how filled it could have been with especially curious young staffers and loads of people any of us could have turned out, had we known even a day more in advance (seems like it was held close to the chest, another odd thing about a congressional hearing). And of course, the inworld event was also totally empty, except for Lindens and PR flaks and the loyal press like Rik Riel, all of whom got notice of it.

[John Lopez]

I probably shouldn't have used the word "hauled"; as you point out it is a preemptive move to paint virtual worlds in a positive light.

However, rarely does one attempt to preempt without something *to* preempt. The sudden reversal last year from hands off to regulation of activities in world are consistent with preemption as well. "Hauled themselves in" I guess.

Unfortunately, one company cooperating is unlike to discourage a politician looking to score brownie points, especially when Second Life has about 0.1% of the virtual world users. (Government officials are unlikely to split MMORPGs and open ended worlds apart in any considerations they make, despite the knowledge that was surprisingly shown by this committee.) Worse, MMORPG makers will cave quickly on many issues that open ended world users will care about and will want resolved in a different way.

I think the only thing keeping 2008 from being the year of governmental backlash against virtual worlds is the fact that any action taken would be seen as frivolous compared to the Big Problems currently faced.

[Ann Otoole]

The one guy behind phil on phil's left reminded me of Harold Ramis back in Ghostbuster. I kept wondering when he was going to pull out the Ghostbuster equipment and trap a congressional ghost.

[Kiwini Oe]

"just 'happened' apparently on the faux-Congress made by Clear Ink and financed by Sun Microsystems"

No, this hearing wasn't held on the Capitol Hill regions, it was held on the Rayburn regions in hearing rooms built by Barnesworth Anubis. And to (again) correct the same old story: Sun Microsystems was a sponsor of the initial event at the Capitol Hill sims on Jan 4, 2007, but Sun did not finance the creation or continued operation of that build. That cost was and has been carried by Clear Ink.

[Prokofy Neva]

Thanks for your correction, Kiwini.

The problem is that people refer to this island as "Congress" -- the Capitol Hill sim is the best known one named "Congress" and this other "congressional sim" is lesser known, so the two are conflated. Who owns and who made and who paid for the Rayburn sims? I'm happy to make that correction once I can understand whether "The Rayburn sims" is something completely separate from the Capitol Hill project, not owned by you, related to you, or whether it's just a location issue, i.e. "The meeting wasn't in Philadelphia but it was in Atlantic City."

On your second point, I really think you are splitting hairs and I find it misleading. If Sun Microsystems was a sponsor of the original event -- and I understand that to be a financial sponsorship -- that's an important source of revenue for a sim's development. It's an investment in the sim's creation. I don't see how you could declare it otherwise. It's a source of coverage of the costs of the sim.

I quite take your point that Sun didn't *keep paying* for the upkeep of the sim, but...what is the amount of the sponsorship?

If we can learn the amount of the sponsorship, that would help put it all in perspective. For example, a $2000 sponsorship for a one-time event, well, that covers the cost of purchase of that island, and that's it, as we all realize. But a $10,000 sponsorship could really cover the cost of tier for months. More would cover builders, too.

So call me stupid, but I assume that something like Sun Microsystems doesn't deal in nickle and dime sponsorships of $100 or $500 like this is the Kiwanis Club, that whatever they paid was the cost of the sim and tier and maybe more, i.e. coverage of the costs of developers/builders.

I quite understand that people get annoyed by bloggers that "don't check facts" but the fact to be checked here is not one that has been revealed from the start, and likely may never be revealed: *the payment* of the sponsorship. Is sim event sponsorship the new soft money?

Let's go back to the blogs of the time (you may dislike one blog's reference to another blog, but in this closed society of ours, we have no choice but to tell the story as we hear it).

In a RL situation, your sponsorship of, say, an organization, a charity, whatever would be governed by various laws. Say, a donation of $10,000 to a charitable organization's fund-raising dinner would have to be reported on that organization's 990 tax returns, obtainable by any member of the public for the cost of copying and postage.

But...how/where can we learn about this sponsorship?

This blog "Business Communications" is widely respected and read in the business community, and at the time, used the term "underwritten" by Sun Microsystems.

http://freshtakes.typepad.com/sl_communicators/2007/01/united_states_c.html

"Sun Microsystems is underwriting the Virtual Capitol Hill project"

That makes it sound like Sun Microsystems is paying for the cost or the sim or tier or development or some or all of the above, I'm sorry, but there really is little room for ambiguity there.

Valleywag was very snarky, but they used the term you prefer, "sponsored the event"
http://valleywag.com/tech/second-life/valleywag-reporter-expelled-during-new-session-of-congress-226209.php

dailymotion.com said "space created and sponsored by Sun Microsystems"

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v1sn_rocketboom-us-congress-in-second-li_news

Here's what computerworld.com said:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9007218
"The virtual House site was created by Internet marketing firm Clear Ink, with help from Sun Microsystems Inc."

So, computerworld.com, which I would think is viewed as more of a mainstream and accurate news source than Valleywag or some SL blog, said "create by Clear Ink, with help from Sun Microsystems, Inc."

So I realize you're keen to "correct the same old story," but...this isn't my problem. It's a "problem" in many other sources that wrote about this at the time, and there's something about the way you told the story. I'm not sure why these distinctions are important to you (do you feel that an onging relationship with a corporation sponsoring a congressional replica sim is somehow...tainting it?).

But as I said from the very beginning in a post to the New York Times blog, is this how Sun Microsystems lobbies Congress?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/second-life-and-the-peoples-house/

There's just something creepy and disturbing about a non-elected, non-representative, mere replica of the shell of the building of Congress, like a stage set, being built in SL by one private development company, sponsored/helped/underwritten by a large tech company. It feels like the Mr. Lee's Hong Kong problem of Snowcrash. Sure, there are bona-fide activities involving real congress people like Nancy Pelosi in front of this stage set, and that has its values. But let's just say the branding is confused here.

Mind you, I don't have the allergy to commerce, and the allergy to corporations lobbying Congress, that many of the refined technolibertarians do, who are always going around ranting about corruption in politics (Lessig's new shtick).

But...I just like to be clear on what this *is*.

Here's what the New York Times said in the blog at the time (gosh, getting things as wrong as any crappy SL blogger, are they?)

"Building a forum in Second life would be a way to fulfill the “Democrats’ profession that they would like to have policy discussions before the legislation is passed,” said John Gage, the chief researcher at Sun Microsystems, who came up with the idea. He then approached Clear Ink, which is the official sponsor of the project, to build the virtual House."

So, at the Time, it was reported as Sun's idea and Clear Ink was approached to build this, and "Clear Ink is the sponsor"-- all confusing, because "approached to build" sounds like "paid to develop". Now you seem to indicate that it was always your concept and Sun was a sponsor only of an event, implying that it was just a kind of one-off that wasn't a significant contribution.

[Kiwini Oe]

I haven't the foggiest idea who owns the Rayburn regions or the story behind their construction and setup for the hearings, or the future plans for them. After finding out the venue that morning, I just showed up and watched. It's unrelated in any way to SL Capitol Hill.

Sun was involved, along with Rep. George Miller, in the inception of Capitol Hill, but only with the idea of a one-time event to simulsimulate (there's a portmanteau for you) the opening of the 110th Congress in SL, and not to create the standing venue it ultimately became. That was Clear Ink's doing. Sun offered to defray the costs of "putting on the event". With that we could have built a simple podium for the event, used one of our spare islands, and moved on from there after the event was done. But we decided on our own to do more than that.

I'm not going to divulge Sun's sponsorship fee for the original event at Capitol Hill, but having done the math shortly afterwards, it was less than 10% of the cost of the overall project by the time the region opened. Their contribution did nearly cover the cost of the opening event itself. That way we were able to cleanly attribute Sun's sponsorship to the event, while Clear Ink has picked up the tab for everything else. Sun didn't pay for the islands and has never paid any of the monthly fees. If the Sun sponsorship had covered more than the cost of the one event that they originally proposed, I'd be more likely to say that they were sponsoring SL Capitol Hill, but it was never planned that way, and never happened that way.

I understand the difficulty of using blogs and bloglike news media as primary sources of information, and I know I've read attributions all over the board about this. If it were all a big wiki, I'd just edit it and be done with it!

Another day I can discuss the whole concept of varying degrees of simulation of real world venues in the virtual world--especially ones invested with great meaning and symbolism-- who has the right to do that, how those might be used, etc. I understand your point of view on this and it really is worth exploring.

[Prokofy Neva]

Kiwini: 10 percent of the cost of a project like this is a pretty significant underwriting.