Is LL Subsidizing Our Exploitation?

I guess you haven't heard about The Neualtenburg Projekt. hehe

Pendari, not only have I heard of Neuoldenberg Projekt (don't you reach for your gun every time you see someone use a Russian-like "k" instead of a "c" to denote Communism?), I don't see how what I asked her to do is anything remotely like what she is doing now.

She came up with an idea for a governance experiment, using an ideological mind-meme called "progressive taxation" and other Marxian solutions to sometimes non-existent problems. I have no idea if the people who joined this community understand they are dealing with a Marxist mind-meme problem or whether they just wanted to be in something kool with the letter "k" instead of the letter "c" but ....

She didn't buy land herself, she didn't convince people to put in their tier and collective support the land. Unless I'm mistaken on the details, she got her tier waived by the Lindens because she came to them with a group project. Maybe that's OK, but let's not confuse that with an experience where a venture capitalist actually convinces 40 like-minded people to take a risk with their tier.

Perhaps I have it backwards, and the Lindens gave them free land, in exchange for their paying tier in perpetuity, but without ever having to have absorbed that first horrid cash burn of a big purchase. OK, same difference.

If they had to buy land, but have their tier waived just because they're social democrats, I really want to complain and howl. That really is not fair. What, this capitalist game company that sells their game at a profit and attracts venture capitalists is subsidizing silly social democratic experiences on the backs of the rest of us?

Huh?

So, does a Linden-sponsored project get a break on land?

Quite correct - how can one provide a solution if one does not agree with the statement there's a problem in the first place? It seems that most people in this thread who haven't 'provided a solution' simply dont see anything that needs fixing. Perhaps a re-statement of the issue is needed - one that is more likely to be agreed upon as a valid issue?




Let's see - group bonuses provide an incentive for people to pool their resources and buy up land. Land subsidies, now...every penny of my sim is paid out of my pocket, how is it getting subsidied?



I keep wondering what this 'group and land subsidy' is. If you're referring to the group bonus and progressive tier system, they're not subsidies. They're straightforward facets of a capitalist market - the more in bulk you buy, the better the price. A subsidy is more along the lines of the Neverland project - or from what I hear, the Neualtenberg project.



Using that reasoning, coal mining must also be trivial. Shovel out some coal, stick it in a bucket. That does not equate to being a low-value task, nor does it make an easy one. Last I heard, shovelling coal was generally back-breaking work.



And who would get to decide what's 'commensurate with the level of work done' - the all-knowing, all-controlling goverment? A committee of politicos more interested in how much they can quietly skim into their pockets while the populace isn't looking? No thanks. I'm much happier with the free market model, where the success/failure of a venture isn't decided by beaurocrats, but rather by market demand and supply. If a land baron is buying up huge tracts of land on the cheap, it's because it is profitable to do so. If people do not like that concept, then there's an easy solution - influence market demand by refusing to buy from a baron and convincing others to do the same. An open and free market system allows services/products valued in the market to raise to the top, and nonvalued ones sink. To me that's the penultimate in 'self-government'.

One thing that seems to be missed here is one observation - the free market model treats everyone equally, without exploitation, due to one reason, which is - that we all start out equal in the beginning. Everyone is given equal potential to raise as high - or sink as low - as their own willingness to get there.


- Newfie Pendragon

I certainly think you have a good point here, Ulrika, and I whole heartedly agree. Its just that I think it is a concept hard to grasp for the average American, hence the recurring failure to see the problem

Ah yes. We must be stupid. We don't agree there is a problem; we don't agree with the underlying premise; ergo, we must be too unintelligent to understand.

Good one Michelle.

ROFL !!!

Sorry, lol

Give me a break. Now it's because we're 'average Americans'?



This issue is that not all of us, American and non-American don't necessarily view it as a problem.

Curiously, Michelle, has this 'problem' affected you personally? If so, how?

I'm not saying every American, but you realise you do have a reputation around the world when it comes to things like this, don't you. And that is not an attack, just an observation.
It's just that it looks like that everyone who doesn't share the capitalist "values" here in SL gets ridiculed

My comment was not an attack either.. and guess what... my reputation hasnothing to do with the validity of my comments.. does it?

Uhm -- I suggested that very thing in the beginning of the thread. Sorry you seem to have missed that.

The land tiers were not waived. The "K" in Projekt is there because that is how one spells "Project" in Germany.

To be honest, I'm not sure you are comparing equal things: valid or not depends on the angle you look at a comment, while a reputation is born out of a whole bunch of comments. Nothing to do with them valid or not.

Edit: corrected missing word

Hey thanks! It's always nice to see a word of support.

With that said, I think this thread has run its course. I'd like to thank everyone for providing good suggestions! I'll roll them up into a new analysis that I'll post in a few weeks. If anyone has statistics on land, land prices, ownership, or distributions of individuals in tiers, please contact me. I need raw data.

Remember, address the issues not the individuals! The forums at their best are a place where people can come together to solve problems and at their worst a place where people can come together to tear down people. Let's use it for the former and discourage the latter.

~Ulrika~

Be sure to include figures that include overhead costs as well Ulrika. No sense in doing all that math again and missing a fair part of the equation, right?

I thought some more on this and figured it best to let you all see a snapshot of what your calling Monkey Math. Its not its strait forward to the point and realistic.

Arbitrarly though the information is skewed because we do not know what the bell curve of dispersion is. Thus the quoted claim to "Monkey Math"

In one aspect this could be construed as a Positive for a Group Run Goverment to help players that dont want to spend a fortune and be a part of a larger land or group environment. How so well that would take a while to explain.

Although using these numbers without transparency there is no way to truly have a system that is an arbitrage. As many have stated its more capitalistic.

Ulrika please do not take me wrong your math in essence was right your quick conclusion on the status quo of the analysis was correct based on raw data. Here are the things that are missing that cannot be accounted for. How many actually buy and resell land are in the top 20% of Land Holders?

How many people are actually in the 512 tier range.

Based on information given I would be safe to make a guess that 10% of the population owns 75% of the land. Why because everyone else is doing the 9.95 life time account thing and running around and just having fun. Of the 10% mentioned I can almost safely guess 1% of that is Life Time accounts offered with 4k meters free for thier service and dedication to the beta program and buying in High on a Life Time account.

Now some questions? for all sides.

First yes we know the current tier system is skewed especially based on these numbers alone. However, my first question is how skewed is it? I mean seriously. Can everyone afford 204.85 amonth on a full sim. I know I sure can't.

But how many people can group together and have 1 person pay the tier and reduce the rate for the entire group. Anyone would be my answer but I will let all of you debate that out. I am simply offering questions to ponder with hard facts.

The Information shown in the snapshot can be gleaned from the My Account page under Teir fees.

Ulrika I do see your point and the validity of where your comming from however in context to the actual situation the variables that you have left out being the Human factor of Greed and again the typical Me Me syndrome in sl. People will never ban together strong enough to trust a single person to do what is needed to make it easier on the pocket books of everyone. Thus I welcome you to a capitalistic society of Me First you second and if you want to be Me First spend more money than me.

On an additional note: The whole premise here is for people to do exactly what I am mentioning. Why becauses as a capitalistic society a group that bans together can effectively reduce tier costs and in essence drive a change current tier system not through explotation but through LL goal of community in the first place.

The only drawback I see to the whole Idea of 1 person being over a group of 8 or 16 or 32 and have them all paying into that one person for land tier is this. If 40 groups formed to do that and 9 -20 players then were all presumed in charge of all the land then you would have some desent in the community as the nay sayers and trolls would come out and belittle that system and cry foul to the lindens once more.

personally I think the current system is skewed on first glance. But, I think its human nature and distrust, thats going to have to effectively change in order to make benificial progress in this arena about Land tiers.


So in Summary:

Ulrika's Math...not monkey math but strait hard fact

Conclusion that the tier system is skewed yes it is.

Perception that Land barrons controll all of the land via this system. Flawed as the system is not transparent so its merely an assumption and you know what assuming gets you.

Is there a solution. Yes it has been said many times but no one is catching it.

What would help in reducing misconceptions and allegations.

Transparency of the land market Ie. Sellers and Buyers be publick knowledge with in the confines of the realm of SL.

Transparency of Land ownership.

Ie how many residents have 512-1024 meters of land
How many have 1024-2048 and how many users just dont own land.

this kind of information alone can help build a better construct of what the land market actually is.

Anyway, I will close this now and let you chew on this information.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

I certainly think your point is way off the mark here, Michelle, and I whole heartedly disagree. Its just that I think it is a concept hard to grasp for the average European, hence the recurring tendency to see problems where there are none

Again - my second request - I sincerely want the problem to be stated in 25 words or less.

WTF is the problem?

Thanks

Ulrika, you have discovered the power of the tiering co-operative. One of my first businesses in SL was renting tier.

I would purchase one-sim tiers for $195 per month (65,536m of land) at a cost of .3 cents ($.003) per m. At the time, this translated into L$.576/m. I would sell tier at .6 cents per m ($.006) OR L$1/m and make a nice little profit.

To demonstrate how this worked here is a little example:

The most popular rental size was 2,048m - most of my customers paid me in L$, so we'll use that for this example. The customer's cost would have been 2,048 x L$1 = L$2,048. Using GOM, this translated into $10.65 USD. Had they paid tiering fees to LL, it would have cost them $15 USD. I made money, they saved money.

A one Sim Tier allowed me to sell 32 different 2,048 parcels, this netted me L$65,536 per month, I converted this to USD$ via GOM for $340 USD. My profit per sim = $145 USD.

Of course, the big problem was making sure you had enough renters to fully utilize your tier - if you did not reach tier capacity, that was pure waste and directly affected the bottom line.

There were many advantages to this business type, the biggest being that my renters LOVED the ability to pay for their land in L$ (which LL did not allow then or now).

I think there is merit in your idea of a non-profit tiering co-operative and its worthy of investigation. Good luck!

~Jacqueline

Your not quite understanding what Monkey Math is.

Monkey Math is a mental jungle-gym. It's all solid fact, by definition. And it's always based on obvious assumptions. What seperates Monkey Math from other forms of math and logic is that Monkey Math is a deliberate attempt to use accurate facts to confuse a simple issue and lend authority to a position that doesn't stand well on its own.

Minus a couple math errors (Like forgetting the base subscription to own land), Ulrika's math was all correct.

But her elaborate mathmatical equations did not actually support her position. It wasn't that her position was wrong according to her math... It was that her math is not relevent to her basic position. She showed us mathmatical fact, and she told us her opinion, and held them up together and said, "See? Proof!".

This is like when people try to use mathmatics to prove that god exists, or that he doesn't exist. You can some up with some damn convicing math, that is all technicly correct, until you realize that the math doesn't actually relate to the initial question.

Short attention span?

Hardly - communicate the problem you see eloquently and simply.

Thanks

Oh? But then you got the land for free or at a discount? Do tell.

Hehe, just when you're losing the argument?

You never said whether you believe in Marxism, and finite value which can only be redistributed equitably, or capitalism, which believes that value can be generated from work and entpreneurism.

It's not a personal attack, it's a clarification of what belief system we're dealing with here.

As has been pointed out, if you want to make a non-profit collective to pool tier and prevent churning of land sales, exploitation (if you believe it is such -- I don't), and insecurity in the land market, why don't you try out what you suggested -- convince a group of people first to kick in to buy a sim, and second to pay tier.

Is that what you did at Neualtenberg?

No, because either your tier was waived (your member said not) or you didn't pay for the land.

So what kind of experiment is that?

Reit, agreed in that context as I think I outlined under a different venue of approach.

I think the summary of my point should have been using that information to support flat Rate Tier initially can look good but is a tatic used by politicians to get em to vote for them.

Without the facts from LL on How many people are in what tiers and what basic dispersion of land is one cannot assume based simply on the math and numerical data that the system is flawed.

Merwan is that in 25 words or less I lost count after Reit...LOL

The land was not given either -- It's Linden property --we pay "rent" with our land tiers. It's on a quarterly lease, contigent upon our meeting goals set by the Lindens. Hardly free at all

Umm. No we don't Anshe. We have to pay the land costs and teir fee just as everyone else does. The only thing was a sim was set to the side because Haney wanted a project to move in to protect the look of the snow sims as well as draw attention to them. We got nothing free. Just wanted to clear that up.