Second Life Forums Archive - Double Tiering?

Jade Bard

Registered User

Join date: 7 Jul 2004

Posts: 106

02-07-2005 06:57

Now I just want to say that I don't even own land, and don't plan to any time soon, but one day when I came onto SL, it talked about how you pay for the most land you owned during the month... Now that doesn't make any sense to me, because then SL would be double tiering. If I sell the land, then someone else buys it. I have to pay for the tier on the land, and the person who bought it would have to, to. So why is SL being unfair it seems, and double tiering the land. Now maybe I'm wrong, and missing something, but if i'm not, why would you double tier the land Lindens?

Ardith Mifflin

Mecha Fiend

Join date: 5 Jun 2004

Posts: 1,416

02-07-2005 07:08

From: Jade Bard

Now I just want to say that I don't even own land, and don't plan to any time soon, but one day when I came onto SL, it talked about how you pay for the most land you owned during the month... Now that doesn't make any sense to me, because then SL would be double tiering. If I sell the land, then someone else buys it. I have to pay for the tier on the land, and the person who bought it would have to, to. So why is SL being unfair it seems, and double tiering the land. Now maybe I'm wrong, and missing something, but if i'm not, why would you double tier the land Lindens?

Why should you be able to hold the land for free? Don't you think that would be unfair?

Heather Nyak

Second Life Resident

Join date: 27 Nov 2004

Posts: 184

02-07-2005 07:30

From: Ardith Mifflin

Why should you be able to hold the land for free? Don't you think that would be unfair?

I think what Jade was saying is why do two people pay tier on the same land e.g If i sell you 16k of land on the 15th Jan I will pay full tier for it and so will you.

Ive never really thought about it before though has never really bothered me.

Lordfly Digeridoo

Prim Orchestrator

Join date: 21 Jul 2003

Posts: 3,628

02-07-2005 07:56

Because if you didn't, land barons would get a "free ride" and 100% profit.

All a land speculator would have to do is tier up as much as humanly possible at the first of the month, and, as long as it was all sold, wouldn't have to pay a smidge in tier fees.

It would also probably give rise to "land swapping", kinda like how tax-swapping was popular in version 1.1 (ie i keep your land for you so you pay zero tier at your payment period, then you do the same for me)

It's better this way

LF

_____________________

----
http://www.lordfly.com/
http://www.twitter.com/lordfly
http://www.plurk.com/lordfly

Moopf Murray

Moopfmerising

Join date: 7 Jan 2004

Posts: 2,448

02-07-2005 08:11

Actually, I wonder if the whole tier thing doesn't need a re-think. For instance, it makes much more sense for a charge based on ownership to actually charge based on the length of time you own. But it would require a radical re-think of how land is charged by LL and, as they're making double money in some circumstances at the moment as the original poster has pointed out, I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, unless the double tier charging isn't actually bringing them much in.

One way it could be done would be to split the tier into days, so for every day you are in a higher tier in a month, you're charged accordingly. You buy land in the middle of your charge period that puts you into a higher tier, you pay 1/2 that higher tier presuming you keep enough land for that tier until the end of your charging period.

This would get around the double charging and also get around land barons tiering up at the start of a billing period and paying nothing at the end of the charging period if they've sold all their land, as they'll be charged according to how long they were in the different tiers.

Jade Bard

Registered User

Join date: 7 Jul 2004

Posts: 106

02-07-2005 18:49

From: Moopf Murray

Actually, I wonder if the whole tier thing doesn't need a re-think. For instance, it makes much more sense for a charge based on ownership to actually charge based on the length of time you own. But it would require a radical re-think of how land is charged by LL and, as they're making double money in some circumstances at the moment as the original poster has pointed out, I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, unless the double tier charging isn't actually bringing them much in.

One way it could be done would be to split the tier into days, so for every day you are in a higher tier in a month, you're charged accordingly. You buy land in the middle of your charge period that puts you into a higher tier, you pay 1/2 that higher tier presuming you keep enough land for that tier until the end of your charging period.

This would get around the double charging and also get around land barons tiering up at the start of a billing period and paying nothing at the end of the charging period if they've sold all their land, as they'll be charged according to how long they were in the different tiers.

I totally agree with this idea. I think the smart way to do this would be something along the lines that if you didn't sell the land, then you pay what you normally would (of course), but if you did thn you have a simple equation of... (price of tier) * ([How many days in that month you owned the land] / [number of days in month])...
So, if you owned 512 of land for 15 days of february, then the it equation would be
5$ * (15 / 2

= 2.68
Then the person who bought the land would have the pay the remaining days, unless they sold the land, but the 5 dollar figure would be covered. This is very simple, it wouldn't create a rush to sell land at the end of the month, or anything like that, maybe at the start, but I doubt it. I think it just might push people to sell land faster (if that.) Plus lets think about this, why should you pay a full months fee on the land that you only could use for half. Hmm... Unless anyone has any strong convictions of why they shouldn't change to this, I really think they should.

Double Tiering?
Jade Bard Registered User Join date: 7 Jul 2004 Posts: 106	02-07-2005 06:57 Now I just want to say that I don't even own land, and don't plan to any time soon, but one day when I came onto SL, it talked about how you pay for the most land you owned during the month... Now that doesn't make any sense to me, because then SL would be double tiering. If I sell the land, then someone else buys it. I have to pay for the tier on the land, and the person who bought it would have to, to. So why is SL being unfair it seems, and double tiering the land. Now maybe I'm wrong, and missing something, but if i'm not, why would you double tier the land Lindens?
Ardith Mifflin Mecha Fiend Join date: 5 Jun 2004 Posts: 1,416	02-07-2005 07:08 From: Jade Bard Now I just want to say that I don't even own land, and don't plan to any time soon, but one day when I came onto SL, it talked about how you pay for the most land you owned during the month... Now that doesn't make any sense to me, because then SL would be double tiering. If I sell the land, then someone else buys it. I have to pay for the tier on the land, and the person who bought it would have to, to. So why is SL being unfair it seems, and double tiering the land. Now maybe I'm wrong, and missing something, but if i'm not, why would you double tier the land Lindens? Why should you be able to hold the land for free? Don't you think that would be unfair?
Heather Nyak Second Life Resident Join date: 27 Nov 2004 Posts: 184	02-07-2005 07:30 From: Ardith Mifflin Why should you be able to hold the land for free? Don't you think that would be unfair? I think what Jade was saying is why do two people pay tier on the same land e.g If i sell you 16k of land on the 15th Jan I will pay full tier for it and so will you. Ive never really thought about it before though has never really bothered me.
Lordfly Digeridoo Prim Orchestrator Join date: 21 Jul 2003 Posts: 3,628	02-07-2005 07:56 Because if you didn't, land barons would get a "free ride" and 100% profit. All a land speculator would have to do is tier up as much as humanly possible at the first of the month, and, as long as it was all sold, wouldn't have to pay a smidge in tier fees. It would also probably give rise to "land swapping", kinda like how tax-swapping was popular in version 1.1 (ie i keep your land for you so you pay zero tier at your payment period, then you do the same for me) It's better this way LF _____________________ ---- http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly
Moopf Murray Moopfmerising Join date: 7 Jan 2004 Posts: 2,448	02-07-2005 08:11 Actually, I wonder if the whole tier thing doesn't need a re-think. For instance, it makes much more sense for a charge based on ownership to actually charge based on the length of time you own. But it would require a radical re-think of how land is charged by LL and, as they're making double money in some circumstances at the moment as the original poster has pointed out, I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, unless the double tier charging isn't actually bringing them much in. One way it could be done would be to split the tier into days, so for every day you are in a higher tier in a month, you're charged accordingly. You buy land in the middle of your charge period that puts you into a higher tier, you pay 1/2 that higher tier presuming you keep enough land for that tier until the end of your charging period. This would get around the double charging and also get around land barons tiering up at the start of a billing period and paying nothing at the end of the charging period if they've sold all their land, as they'll be charged according to how long they were in the different tiers.
Jade Bard Registered User Join date: 7 Jul 2004 Posts: 106	02-07-2005 18:49 From: Moopf Murray Actually, I wonder if the whole tier thing doesn't need a re-think. For instance, it makes much more sense for a charge based on ownership to actually charge based on the length of time you own. But it would require a radical re-think of how land is charged by LL and, as they're making double money in some circumstances at the moment as the original poster has pointed out, I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon, unless the double tier charging isn't actually bringing them much in. One way it could be done would be to split the tier into days, so for every day you are in a higher tier in a month, you're charged accordingly. You buy land in the middle of your charge period that puts you into a higher tier, you pay 1/2 that higher tier presuming you keep enough land for that tier until the end of your charging period. This would get around the double charging and also get around land barons tiering up at the start of a billing period and paying nothing at the end of the charging period if they've sold all their land, as they'll be charged according to how long they were in the different tiers. I totally agree with this idea. I think the smart way to do this would be something along the lines that if you didn't sell the land, then you pay what you normally would (of course), but if you did thn you have a simple equation of... (price of tier) * ([How many days in that month you owned the land] / [number of days in month])... So, if you owned 512 of land for 15 days of february, then the it equation would be 5$ * (15 / 2 = 2.68 Then the person who bought the land would have the pay the remaining days, unless they sold the land, but the 5 dollar figure would be covered. This is very simple, it wouldn't create a rush to sell land at the end of the month, or anything like that, maybe at the start, but I doubt it. I think it just might push people to sell land faster (if that.) Plus lets think about this, why should you pay a full months fee on the land that you only could use for half. Hmm... Unless anyone has any strong convictions of why they shouldn't change to this, I really think they should.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Double Tiering?