All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
NEW YORK – When a player of the virtual world Second Life discovered that another member had erected a huge anatomically correct nude picture of himself facing her in-world property, she asked him to remove it.
She didn't rely on that working, however. Instead, she also turned to the game's developer, Linden Lab, for help. She filed an abuse report and asked the company for assistance in resolving the situation.
For Linden Lab, the dispute, and an increasing number like it, poses a significant problem. The company has no formal dispute resolution system in place and it's growing at a rate of 20 percent a month. If it doesn't come up with a well thought-out solution soon, it may find itself overwhelmed by a flood of users asking it to resolve their player-to-player problems.
Any persistent massively multiplayer online game will have an endless supply of similar conflicts. A debate on the issues took place weekend at the State of Play conference in New York. A group of game players and designers, along with law professors and other academics, discussed how to create an effective and efficient online dispute resolution system.
"I think the goal is to leverage the processing power of computers that are connected to the network, and figure out if there is a third-party mediator, and figure out how technology can contribute to the process," said Ethan Katsh, the director for the Center for Information Technology and Dispute Resolution at the University of Massachusetts. "You have to figure out how the technology can (increase the) likelihood of parties reaching agreement."
For many at the second annual conference, State of Play: Reloaded, the opportunity to discuss dispute resolution systems was part of a series of talks that delved into the societal, cultural and legal frameworks into which MMOs fit.
The conference centers on legal and intellectual property, as well as other issues involving virtual worlds. Among the topics discussed were governance and democracy in virtual worlds, and the regulation of MMOs.
A roundtable designed to help Linden Lab fashion a dispute resolution system, turned into an opportunity to talk about how any growing MMO could tackle the issue.
Robin Harper, senior vice president of community and marketing at Linden Lab, told those gathered for the workshop that the company is very aware that its growth makes fashioning a formal dispute resolution system both urgent and more complex.
Some thought creating a system in which Second Life users engaging in a transaction – a common source of disputes – could enter into in-world contracts governing the terms of a deal, and keeping Linden Lab from having to take sides in such a conflict. But some cautioned against any virtual world's developers building in such contracts.
Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School and an organizer of the conference, said such contracts without oversight from a game developer could cause more problems than they solve. And adding oversight, too, can be problematic.
"When they complain about a contract between two users, the problem is you're taking two positions against each other," said Balkin. "Position one: There's no contract; Position two: there is. If you decide to set up a dispute resolution procedure, it will be part of (the game's) rules. You will agree to solve all problems through the process. On the other hand, if you say we don't handle contract disputes, they'll say, 'Oh, I made a (legal) contract.'"
Balkin even proposed the idea that a virtual world developer might take the position that no matter how complex an in-world community becomes, it's better to avoid legal issues altogether.
"Say, oh, this is just part of the game," Balkin said. "Then the burden is on you to come up with a dispute resolution process that is satisfying. Because if you don't, they're going to sue you."
In the end, the experts in the workshop agreed there are no easy solutions for developing a system that meets everyone's needs. Some suggested binding mediation between players as the best method for resolving disputes, while others proposed game companies turn over thorny conflicts to third-party resolution companies, like Square Trade, as does eBay.
Colin Rule, eBay's director of online dispute resolution, said sometimes it's crucial to get out of the way of what might seem the most inconsequential battle.
"I've seen players turn to Square Trade, which costs $20, to handle a $10 dispute," he said.
