Trust In Virtual Worlds

The Escapist's last issue for the year touches on the currency of Trust in Massively Multiplayer Games. With virtual-world currency gaining ever more value in the real world, in-game scams and lies can be deadly serious. When you give away that Trust, business can boom. From the article: "Their business plan is an ingenious one: Rather than engage in the wars that rage through alliance space, ISS has chosen to take a neutral stance, building a huge player-operated structure known as an 'outpost' that provides repair, refitting and marketing services to all comers. In a star system known simply as KDF-GY, ISS has established a little Switzerland in space, where pilots of rival corps and alliances can dock to do business, sell loot and kit out their battlecruisers for the next engagement. And according to Martin Wiinholt and Shayne Smart, the 30-something players behind Count TaSessine and Serenity Steele, respectively, business is good."

Comments

Linden's mistake

[rodentia]

"We want to ensure that new residents have easy access to additional L$ without having to take yet another leap of trust to sign up and give payment information to a third party," said Linden Lab economic czar Lawrence Linden. But residents had already taken that leap of trust with GOM, and been rewarded.

Indeed. I daresay one would have greater trust in the third party, whose business solely relied upon professional integrity and actual fiduciary trust. Linden as market maker for L$ is the fox guarding the henhouse. GOM had no fiduciary interest in the exchange ratio, merely the conduct of exchanges.

Re:Yeah!

[eyepeepackets]

"All public corporations in the US are owned by citizens. Everything from
Wal-Mart to Haliburton (in which Moore owns stock) to MS to whatever boogie man
you fantasize about."

Any person on the planet can own stock in publicly traded corporations as I
understand it, so saying corporations are "owned by citizens" is not technically
correct.

What the original poster suggested and the others following refer to is the apparent
ability of corporations, particularly multi-national corporations, to avoid the
repercussions of responsibility for their behavior. Such responsibility
avoidance is, in essence, a variation on the old con known as the "shell game."
It plays out in corporate and governance thusly: One concentrates authority in a
small group (corporate board and their purchased politicians) whilst diluting
responsibility over as large a group as possible (stock holders.) With this
manner of construct, the authority can pretty much do as it pleases and, when
things get nasty, the authority points to the responsible body, stock holders.
But the catch is that only the very biggest of the stock holding groups have a
voice that will garner a response from the corporate board. Funny how these
stock holding groups and corporate boards seem to all blend together into a
rather small group of the same folks.

As a test of your "responsible citizens" theory of corporate ownership,
please go buy what shares you can afford of a corporate stock, complain about
what and how they do, and let us know the result.

That our governments allow corporations under current law is proof simple that
the politicians are in their pockets: The entire corporate law/structure is a
responsibility avoidance device. Companies, whether incorporated or not, are run
by humans who make decisions with consequences and should be held fully
accountable and would be if our political systems weren't so very corrupt. Take
a look at where your congress critter's re-election money comes from for an
eye-opener than only the willfully ignorant (another definition for the word
"stupid") can pretend away.

Caio.