Is LL Subsidizing Our Exploitation?

Korg,

In the case of your projects, you own the land, they do not. That is the distinction. It is neither a handout nor a waiver. The only truly donated project so far has been Neverland - it was free of tier fees and land purchase cost, but again, the land is not owned by Spellbound either.

Why?! Our project has nothing to do with Ulrika's personal feelings on another issue in SL. Ulrika doesn't run our project and you asked questions about it as did others. If someone comes across condesending and/or misunderstanding, then others in the project are going to try and defend our position and/or correct those misunderstandings. Just because you want a particular answer, does not mean you are always going to get it. Or not always get it in the form that you see fit.

The fact that we do not own the land is something others alluded to and that some of us are trying to clear up. It does make a big difference in this attutide that some seem to have thinking that we got some massive deal. We have a challenge. The closest thing to compare it to would be something like the Neverland project. To me it was fair that they did not have to pay the fees on the land because they do not get to keep the project. We however will get to keep our project *if* we pay the fees AND if we meet certain goals.

Ok I have a question why has this thread devolved to being about Neualtenberg or what ever the name is.

The initial context of this entire thread was about Ulrika proposing a change to the current tier system. She used hard math to support that initialy until being drawn off track with NBerg.

Why is this relevant because if it continues then it will devolve further into a thread about Government in SL and to be honest thats getting a bit freaking tired.

So, Back to the intial questions she had and I have tried to answer but apparently have been ignored due to the overall context of the post.


So to reiterate again her proposal was

Change tier system from Regressive tax rate

Change the Group 10% bonus to a limited amount of allocated tier actually contributing to a group.



My final answer on it for now is without further data or transparency of the current system we cannot collectively make a valid assumption that the regressive tax rate is detrimental to the economy and society as a whole. Thus, Leave it alone

On the Group Status....Leave it alone...

on the NBerg thing Why did it even come up in this thread in the first place.

Because some people refuse to seperate Ulrika's personal opinions about other issues in SL from the Neaultenburg Project. She can barely utter a word without someone twisting it back to our project. Then untruths get stated, then we have to correct those, etc. and so on.

I never attacked you. I pointed out that you didn't answer the question, and listed in what way you failed to. I'm sorry you see that as an attack.



Not ignoring anything, actually.

I dismiss the relevency of that point to the issue at hand. That's something else entierly.

And by the way.

You say there aren't just "two conclusions." It was a binary question. Either something happened, or it did not. The existance of other data does not change that.



Then why did you not just say, for example, "Yes, we got it for free, but it came with strings attached?". That would have answered the initialy question.

And if you think my arguements are prejudicial... Well. I'm sorry, I guess. But I don't retract the statement.

But, since I didn't come here for an arguement, I'm going to start to phase myself out of this discussion. I'm not going to post an overly melodramatic "I'm done with this post, bye". Because nobody who says that ever leaves. But frankly, I don't care about anything in this thread now. The initial arguement has been debunked a dozen times over, so basicly this thread has just devolved into an arguement.

Such is the way of the forums.

Its been a long day and I just sat back and realised we were debating the project again and it was never about Nberg in the first place which then infuriated me as I realised I had been lead off the topic that I wanted to debate in the first place which was the regressive tax/tier rate.

Funny how this thread was like a dog sled team. When the lead dog came to a halt the rest slid right on in....

Because a yes/no question was what was asked.

I don't give a damn about Ulrika or the "projekt" anymore. I have yet to agree with Ulrika on a single issue of economics to date, and I doubt we ever could agree. Our views are too wildly different. And as for this being about her 'baby', I care only insomuch as she is talking about linden labs unfairly using the money of lower-tier people for other things when she herself (and her group) are being given access to a whole hell of a lot of land as part of a special deal with LL.

The whole "dont throw stones" thing.

And that is the entire extent of my interest in this at this point. Initially, my interest was more academic.

I wasn't refering to you in my reply Shadow. I was referring to others in this thread and just answering your question. Just wanted to clarify.

As did my "weasel words".

Your question was flawed. We didn't "get it for free" because we didn't "get" it at all.

Get it?

Honestly there isn't the hard line you might think. We're all just renting the land from Linden Labs... they can take it from us for any reason at all, or no reason, at their whim. They don't do that often, granted, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking we have legal ownership of the land. We don't.

Nor would probably 90% of the people care if they were given their land or purchased it. Most people want the land for the ability to build semi-permanant structures on it, not just for the sake of owning land. So access is nearly as good as true ownership.



Again, while this is both factually true and an interesting commentary on how land is handled in this game, it's not actually relevent to the issue at hand.

Do you walk to school, or do you carry your lunch? Yes or No.

(I know this is about to go nowhere, since Ulrika was gracious enough to decide to close the topic and all - how nice of her to decide that for us all - but, I can't resist responding on this one)



I can answer easily the 'why' on this. It is because on one hand there is an argument here about a certain group getting a 'one up' over the rest of SL (remember? the 'exploited' topic in the first post?), and then at the very same time taking advantage of a special deal given over by the Lindens. From what I understand, it's an entire sim allowed to be occupied without paying a single Linden in downpayment. It may not be free, as land allocation (not land itself) had to be covered, but even at its lowest valuation it is a benefit to project members of at least $325,000L (65K X $5).

On one hand she argues for player benefit equality, and at the same time is getting the benefit of a one-time deal. At the very least it makes it look hypocrytical, at the worst it reinforces the impression of social democracies being prone to internal greed and corruption. At least capitalist economies make no qualms about claiming greed (aka 'demand') is a factor in how it runs.




Wether the project succeeds or not is irrelevant to the fact that the project members are getting the benefit of a special deal with the Lindens now. That deal may be time and conditionally sensitive, but that affects only the total amount of benefit the project will draw from this deal.

Personally - I have great difficulty in believing Ulrika's statement SL members are being exploited, while at the same time she is herself getting the benefit of specially-priced land. It does not help her believability in my eyes to see her say one thing, and do the opposite.


- Newfie Pendragon

You are still missing the functional side of the issue for the theoretical.

You are still "getting" it. You just have a couple of additional strings that the rest of us don't... Your access can be revoked easier than ours can (But make no mistake, ours can too. We don't own the land either), and you can't transfer the rent to someone else.

*edit*

Removed some of my frustration from my reply. It's not worth heated feelings at this point on either side, since we have been reduced to a purely academic arguement.

No, but I hear it is hotter in Florida than it is in the summer !

Kendra and Pendari,

I really find an enormous amount of slight of hand going on here -- it's very troubling.

You can't seem to answer the question straight.

You are trying to leverage the confusion between "what land costs" and "tier fees" and make it sound like yes, you did pay for something because you're paying fees.

You didn't answer the question as to whether you go a discount because of the group, beyond the 10 percent normally given, because it was a special deal with the Lindens.

You say something about a "base price" -- but you never say whether that is tier -- the base $512 that every first tier donation or purchase costs assuming first land is only a $1 -- or WHAT you did.

It seems to me that you're trying to make it sound as if you paid something -- namely tier -- so you're in a position to incite the mob against land barons and complain falsely that they have exploited the average landowner.

You never say if you paid *a purchase price for the land*. That's what everybody else does. It sounds like indeed, the Lindens *just gave you* a big piece of land, without you having to pay the going market rate for it, or even less than market, or any kind of flat fee at all. ALL you're paying is tier -- which is a maintenance fee or rental fee on top of the initial purchase price.

Everyone else has to live in the world of first a purchase price, then a tier allocation. Let's say they only buy a first land for $512. They aren't in a position to donate tier to any group because their tier is tied up on that parcel. They would have to tier up to both hang on to that parcel and kick in 512 tier somewhere.

I don't know why you can't be straightforward and say whether you paid an initial price for this land, yes or no, and did the Lindens give you this land "For Free" in the sense that no initial purchase price was required, all that was required was later paying tier. You're being evasive answering plaintively that nothing is "free" and you "do so, pay". But you don't. You don't pay initial costs which are whopping for many people in the game.

Yes, I've read your forums backwards and forwards, did that weeks ago.

I think you've probably rarely had to face anyone who called you on what you are doing.

I didn't start this thread thinking playing-run governments or projects subsidized by the Lindens are a form of exploitation of us all, but now I think that. Especially when the funding of such experiments leads to incitement of hated against classes like the very land barons who enrich the Lindens -- typical Bolshevik class hatred -- and incitement of mob-style justice in the form of boycotts, or clamoring to the Lindens that they have to change their taxation/rental structure to accommodate your social democratic needs. It's laughable, given that your social democracy has already been amply compensated by escaping the initial purchase cost of land that we've all had to pay -- especially for such a large parcel as a whole sim.

I could add that I asked all these questions publicly to see how you'd answer them publicly and take some accountability.

I already long ago asked one of your members in a normal, friendly conversation what the deal was. She explained that you didn't pay any up-front land price, but just paid tier.

Why can't social democracy be for everybody?

Why does social democracy only get to be for the vanguard revolutionary elite and their capitalist lackey minions?

And why do you and your supporters get to use your paid-for social democracy bully pulpit to incite hatred of classes (land barons) and races (Americans)?

We also can't sell it, subdivide it, or just build anything we want.

* applause *

LOL sok Pen I wasnt replying to what you said hun I was just making a statement as a whole about how the whole thread had gotten off track...I knew you knew hun.
(also note for the anal retentive that get mad when a man calls a woman hun be it known now pen is an old friend and even if we ever debate she is still my friend and I will call her hun and if the anal retentive dont like it GTFOI)

I wasnt and never intened for anything to head towards NBerg or be even correlated to government as this whole thread was started about a subject and people again gleaned because it was Ulrika that posted it that the thread was about Nberg. That perception has got to go and what made me reconsider my view point was Cristiano's interview with her the other day...she is smart she has "SOME" good ideas but then again those Ideas get deluted when people continually associate her with NBerg.

This is for others to know I am not Part of NBERG I never will be as it goes against the very essence of my fiber to be in a player controlled society when I signed on with LL.

But at the same time I will defend them when I know for a fact the context of the attacks are to provoke them ...so basicaly leave NBerg out of this whole fanfare and deal with what Ulrika proposed and not what was previously touted to be her "Baby" as her "Baby" is growing up and has its own voice and its called NBERG so leave it alone.

This doesn't quite have the same ring as (paraphrased) "Did you pay for the land you are using? Yes or no.".

Ok. First I restate as I said in my first post. I too disagree with Ulrika's solution. While I personally believe there is a problem, I do not think of it in the same way as she does nor do I think her solutions would be the most valid. That said, these two quotes:






I feel these are actually valid statements. I was actually even just discussing it with a friend in chat as you posted this. While I do not think our project got some massive deal, we are proof that the current system does have its workarounds and excepetions. This to me means that the Lindens are willing to work with the population of SL to not always have the same requirements in place.

Examples of this are: Lynn Lippman's flea markets. Where she was able to rent sims out for a certain amount of days for her project. Neverland, where they were given sims to do a project for a certain amount of time but can gain no profit, yet did not have to pay for land. The ability to rent the Vehicle sims for a $1000Lindens a day for events. The Lottery for the Luna and Vehicle parcels. The upcoming Incubator program.

These are all examples to me that there are already ways in place to avoid the "normal" way of buying and selling of land for whatever purpose.



Just to clarify, it is only half a sim that we have to work with.

How exactly is the land "specially priced" again? THEY DO NOT OWN THE LAND, yet have to pay tier fees on it.

None of which invalidates the rest of my point. It just adds to it.

No, but it does have the same ring as "Did you get to access the land for free, or did you pay the Lindens to buy the land?", also paraphrased. One side of the question talks about access, the other talks about ownership. The question at hand is there a rental fees above and beyond the tier fees in order to occupy the land - the answer is no, there is not.

You do not own your land. You are renting it from linden labs. They can revoke your 'ownership' at any point, for any reason or none at all, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

The only difference is that they have to build within certain guidelines (including impressing LL sufficiently with what they are doing), then cannot alter the 'deed' to the land (By adding or selling land, or subdividing) and that it is implicitly spelled out that failure in the first restriction will result in their land being revoked.

I'm not being evasive at all --and I resent the implication. How much more straightfoward can we be on this? You're asking a yes or no question --which doesn't apply to the circumstances, and then faulting me for answering your question more clearly then a yes or no answer would be?


We lease the land --we don't own the land.

We cannot sell it, subdivide it, or even use the land in just any old way --we aren't even allowed to "just let it sit there and do nothing"

We pay tier donations PLUS labor in the form of meeting goals set by LL.

We didn't pay intitial costs --because we don't own anything.

You are conflating N'burg with issues raised in this thread which have nothing to do with N'burg.