Lindens are gonna buy back telehub land at L$10/m -- Fair?

It's just frustrating for those who they won't even meet half way to help to have them then turn around and go the extra mile for someone else.

My skin is plenty thick, thanks. But when someone claims to be giving an opinion on an issue, and they're actually just being a condescending prick to anyone who has a different opinion, I'll call them on it.

But um, problem is. They don't have a stance on HOW they do business. Which is something they need to solidify if those new investors are going to stick around for long.

THis excellent post deserves highlighting.

Yes, I agree the same thing could be said about that avatar mapping thing, kind of. That's what I meant about it's not black and white.

But, since you bring it up, the avatar mapping thing - I ran that through my thought processes to its end and came up with: It's different because all that was required was more work to change the clothes already made, or make new ones, which would have been done anyway. On the other hand, it takes time to make those changes, and time is money, too. Still, they didn't just pull the whole rug out from under it. Weak, I know, and thus not black and white, but it WAS somewhat different.

Then there's the ROAM thing and the Taxi thing. Again, it is kinda different, but weak, I know.

As for content loss in bugs and whatnot, I don't think we can expect reparations for that, really, since there is no way of telling who lost what, and that's NOT weak.

Still, I think if the Lindens are going to do something that pulls the rug out of people's actual investments, then better they err on the side of making reparations each time they change the game in such a way that it costs real people real money.

I don't think it's analogous to Disney at all. This whole environment IS Disney. It would be more akin, to me, as if Disney sold all of its whole Disneyland to individuals.

And they said, "OK, now here is where we are putting the refreshment areas, so if you get a piece near that, you will be getting near the community areas, and that will be good, as we hope the refreshments areas will be the meeting areas for everybody."

Then - after that had been going on for a long time, they said, "Well, we've decided to move the refreshment areas." In other words, this was in their control (unlike bugs), and a conscious decision they made.

In which case, I think it would behoove Disney to then say, "but for those of you who paid extra to take advantage of the refreshments areas we set up for you, and hadn't lived there long enough to get any benefit from it, well, we'll make it up for you this way."

That to me is completely different from bugs and lost inventory that occured at random throughout disneyland. And it's somewhat (but not entirely different) from changes in avatar maps. And its even less different, I think, from damages to ROAM or taxis. Yet - even that is different, cause people didn't actually pay the Lindens before they set up their ROAM or taxi business, or pay them on the basis of what the Lindens had told them about how they had arranged Disneyland. They did those businesses all by themselves.

In the case of the land, people bought it from LL thinking one thing - then LL changed the rules, meaning they had wasted some of their money. So I think reparations for that are in order.

Not real articulate, I know, but I was just trying to run with the Disney analogy, Talis, and to explain that I had thought of those other situations as well.

coco

I guess that's the part I don't understand. It's the "what about meeeee!" attitude I was talking about earlier. If a problem comes up and I address it with LL, they make a decision and I accept it and get on with my life. Someone else's situation months later really doesn't apply unless I still consider my issue open ended. But it isn't really since it was already discussed and a decision made at the time. We can't honestly expect them to retroactively address every similar situation any time they make a decision about something. That's simply asking too much. Maybe next time if I have a similar situation I'll get a more favorable outcome, or maybe not. Either way I'll likely accept it and go on with my life.

To what end? Are you trying to shame LL?

Well said Coco. But allow me to step the parallel up a notch. You compare it to the refreshment area and such. Alright. Well, lets make a more exact parallel. Instead of selling out those spots to interested vendors. They did what companies tend to do with contractors. They bidded it out. And whoever came in with the best bid, won that spot. Linden Labs, (aka Disney here heh) didn't say, ok. You can have this spot for X amount. They said, here's this spot, who wants it. And then people fought out the bids.

So, in technicality, it wasn't Linden Labs calling for the resulting price. It was consumer based. And, well. They lost on this one heh. But whats the saying? Buyer Beware?

Yes, I think it was more like bidding it out, not selling them for a price.

So technically, no, the Lindens didn't call for the resulting price. (Though so far in this thread, I've been unable to determine whether or not they set a higher start bid for telehub lands than for other lands.)

But the point is, they pulled the rug out on the whole deal. Changed the rules of the game and the expectations they had themselves created, after people had already spent their money based on those expectations.

coco

Agreed fully there. Just my issue mostly stems from the fact that this is yet another of their lovely LL brand bandaids. If they had come up with something that was beneficial to more than a handful of high spenders, could probabally work with that.

Well, I hope this is beneficial to those smaller players, the ones who got on the forums to say they just had spent their life savings for telehub land, lol.

But I haven't been able to tell, so far, if this just applies to people who bought off auction, or does it apply to everyone who bought telehub land within the limitations given, from anyone?

I think it does apply to those small buyers, and I think it should. In any case, it can't be too many people who will benefit from this buy back.

Also - it would only benefit those who paid $10 or less in the first place. If you paid more than $10, you would just be selling it at a loss, though you could maybe then get more land for less elsewhere, so that would still be good.

coco

Yes, its for anyone who purchased. Doesn't matter if it was at Auction, or from someone in SL. But you hit the key to it. Just about the only way Telehub land went at or below 10/meter was if it was purchased at Auction. Anyone else would take a loss on reselling via the buy back. As for the ones who bought it at auction. Vast majority of them did so with plans of parceling off and reselling. So, they at least break even on the deal and get to tier down as well instead of holding it til it sells for little or no profit.

But aren't these reparations a response to "what about me?" type rhetoric in the first place?

Probably not to the degree people are assuming it is, but even if that's the case it doesn't mean I intend to follow suit or that I can find a constructive reason to care.

That's what I was beginning to suspect.

coco

This must mean LL wants to have larger-sized Infohubs with more room for cool stuff - I'm in favor of that.

I am more concerned about precedent.

I don't get why one type of loss, which came about because of an LL policy decision (like many other types of losses incurred because of after the fact policy decision) gets special consideration, that's all. I don't care that it's land, prim tacos, or babies in a box, I think this precedent opens a can of worms that LL will probably regret later.

We can tsk tsk the "what about me types" who will follow in the footsteps of this decision, but that simply is not going to deter them. Quite the contrary, and that is my concern, which actually isn't far from your own, if I am reading you properly.

That's true, and you are reading me correctly... but can you think of any single decision LL has made in the last two years that didn't cause a group of people to flip out? Full bright is the only one I can think of

The light tax was a perfectly workable solution that also provided a much needed money sink. Full bright textures are a wreckless hack that makes things look artificially bright. When you combine it with shiny,it makes SL look like Reno, Nevada. Think about the children! Plus it will mean more furries.

gah, knock that off! even in humor. Someone will pick up your battlecry and suddenly there will be 5 threads and subthreads about the evils of fullbright and the 7 gnomes.

Fullbright killed my local lighting extortion racket!!!!

Shit, I forgot about the gnomes. We really should leave Taco Rubio out of this, though.

Well I have telehub land I bought from anshe chung. Do ou think she is going to distribute the proceedsfrom this to thouse who bought land from her? No. I am left with the loss plain and simple and there is no detrimental reliance om my part for anythign LL did.

Personally I would argue that LL has always indicated the world is subject to change and that thigs may be done differently tomorrow. The telehub land was a speculative risk, maybe IRL LL istelf would be subject to sactions, but really there is no cause for restittution here. We can boo and hiss LL-perhaps deservedly so, bvut compensation? A bad Idea all around.

We take away money from things people do by killing the DI and then give the money back to the land barons, who do little more than prcel land a reap profit? Bad show.

Yes, I have no point and no business posting that pic.

Hey... I was born in Reno. And last time I checked, SL was not full of single- and double-wide trailer parks with moo-moo clad gray hairs sportin' the weathered look. Be fair.