the parallelism article answers that issue :-) As to the MR being sued, that presupposes that it will be treated in law as having legal personality: we have not yet finalised our arrangements, but it is quite possible that they will be such that the MR as a unit would not have legal personality, and one would instead have to bring suit against individual actors, if, improbably, there was ever a valid claim against the Republic.

there is an important conceptual distinction, which I highlight in the normative parallelism article to which I link above, between, on the one hand, alternative dispute resolution, and, on the other, a parallel legal system. An alternative dispute resolution system is simply a system for achieving compromises to claims that could have (and, invariably, would have) been brought in real-world courts but for the existence of that system. As such, ADR is entirely parasitic upon one specific, existing legal system.

A parallel normative system (such as that under development by the Metaverse Republic is quite distinct: it is not about compromising claims that one might have in existing courts, but a legal system in its own right, with its own substantive (as well as procedural) law, and its own, independent means of enforcement. By contrast, the only way of enforcing rulings or agreements reached in ADR is by issuing proceedings in the ordinary national courts.

A parallel system is not a second-rate substitute for ADR, nor some sort of stopgap: it is a preferable solution to using existing legal systems to resolve many types of disputes in virtual worlds.

To be clear, it is entirely possible to have ADR systems within a parallel legal system: people may well set up arbitration and mediation schemes based on the law of the Metaverse Republic (indeed, we’d encourage it), and use the Metaverse Republic’s own enforcement mechanism to enforce the outcomes of those procedures.