Cancelled Account

I would imagine when setting up a totally new economy, there will need to be a few major shifts in an attempt to get it stable. Of course, I've never setup an economy from the ground-up, so I'm just guessing.

That's assuming that was what the changes to the rating system were intended to do - solve inflation.

I'll bet it is to solve the complaints about rate-mining, rate parties, etc.

Well reverse what is being changed and you will find your answers im sure.

From users gaming the system and exploiting the support system to hold several events a day and getting compensation with ALT's.

From the massive rate mining/whoring in world. The money supply in world nearly doubled in a short time span. Stipend BONUS was cut by 50%. this bonus was determined by ratings. Those who resorted to using rating tactice to max their bonus are part of the problem.

As userbase continues to grow, people's skills increase, and the community and content matures over time, I am sure more adjustments will need to be put in place. We do the same thing in America where there are adjustments by the Fed after analysts crunch the numbers.

So, you choose to believe the pap offered you from someone out to make a profit from you. You dispute the person's publicly stated reasons for the change... yet acknowledge there are different possible problems being addressed. You theorize about difficulties in solving a "vauge/ambiguously defined big picture problem" - without articulating what the "big picture goal" is.... leaving me to believe that you do buy into the LL vision...whatever that is.

Sorry. Your arguments are fairly empty of anything concrete enough to discuss much less evaluate in terms of validity or basis in the reality that I exist in. Not an insult....seriously. You just aren't providing anything with any substance and admit to be just guessing.

Hmm.. reverse what is being changed... okay. TOS/subscription promises are being changed despite prior contractual agreement. This is not the first time - and prior changes have been to cover LL's ass in terms of lliability or to rectify major screwups in game design.

Ergo, LL is not to be considered a trustworthy organization from a customer perspective.

Exploiting the system as it has been designed? That exploit is having an unintended effect from a corporate perspective? Seems to me that the game design was and is lacking. Not that people should not take advantage of the "tools" provided in the game. On another note about this, didn't Char/Robin (I forget which) say that event listings were going to be more closely monitored --- and then weren't? Hasn't "enforcement" of what is/isn't acceptable to be listed as an event been eminently inconsistent? Whose responsibility is it to enforce the rules? Residents or the "gamemasters"/LL?

Gaming the system? That's a problem? That indicates that LL's employees are not as smart as its customers and that LL is a reactive organization, not a proactive one.

Ratings bonuses were tied to income by LL, not by residents. Changing that relationship now is changing the rules of the game for many if not all. Is changing the rules on foul in basketball something that you would allow/condone in the middle of an NBA game? Was Michael Jordan allowed more leniency on that rule than other, lesser players during his career? If so, was that fair or moral? Or was it profit-driven?

I agree more adjustments will be made... and more ignorance will be displayed - ignorance being defined as action/policy change without serious analysis and a reasonable expectation of projected effects to be anticipated beforehand. Based on LL's own communal body of knowledge, past changes along these lines have not solved the current "problem" whatever ou claim that to be -- they directly led us here.

Don't apologize Korg, I don't take offense to anything coming from you.

As I stated, it was 'my guess'. Yup, probably not a very concrete idea with little to nothing to back it up, but it's merely brainstorming.

As for the ratings - thier actions could definately been seen as a fix for the rate issue (aka rate whoring). Making ratings 25x the price will encourage people to give ratings when truly warranted. It's alot harder to justify a gratuitous triple rating at $75 than it is at $3.

See, I don't see "rate whoring" as wrong. It's using the system as it was designed in a reasonable way to improve one's lot within the game. Now, check my profile and see if I did that.....wait, I'll save you the time/effort. I didn't. My numbers are fairly low compared to most. Still, I don't put down people who script either... That's just not my game.

With a large enoough bankroll to start, I can definitely justify "rate whoring" at 25$L per rate in the short term. Since LL has stated they are going to reduce the bonus even further, in the long term, it's probably more of a risk. Then again, I expect that LL will wipe all ratings again.. as they have in the past.

Doing so will be yet another admission they don't know the game they think they designed.

Saying it isn't certain isn't the same as saying it's a bad thing.

Never said that absolute certainty was a requirment. OTOH, blind experimentation without logic is senseless, and misconceived premises often lead to bad conclusions though the logic is technically valid.

So, what's your point?

Once again, Korg, you seem to be under the impression that if you say it, it must be true.

This isn't "Blind experimentation without logic". If you don't believe me, look around the forums, the reasons are abound.

Clearly it's not wrong, but it's not being used as it was intended. Ratings and Voting/Donation boxes were a means of letting someone know you liked thier build ability/personality/appearance.

I've seen where people rate w/o ever having seen someone's build ability or barely knowing them. Not wrong, as you stated, but not being used as intended. Adjusting the price will make people think twice about it.

Sigh. Look around the forums and verify that I have repeatedly said that I don't believe the public statements to be complete, truthful, accurate or non-strategic. Consequently, my argument is - my opinion - and only that. I haven't claimed anything in my argument as fact that cannot be verified by referring to the forums yourself in terms of previous statments, policies, actions by LL/LL personnel.

You seem to be under the impression I am trying to convince anyone of anything or that your rah-rah cheerleader postings on the forums make a bit of a difference. They don't - not anymore than my postings do.

Until and unless LL changes the forum rules, you can draw your own (probably wrong) conclusions about why I post. I could care less about your conclusion, your opinion of my posts or even your motivation for responding. You ain't going to convince me of anything other than that you are an LL apologist with the things you have recently posted, that is for sure.

So, you agree that LL hasn't understood te game they have designed/the product they are offering. Good, we can move on from there.

If they do not understand what they built/provide, why should I or anyone else believe their proposed solution is to a real problem? Especially if I dispute that it is a problem as opposed to a difference of perspective --- rate whoring vs using the SL rating/bonus system as currently implemented?

---
I will say that I think that ratings should be given in a manner that they mean something... but that is should, not is. Let's deal with what is.... a system some claim is broken in that it does not reflect what was intended. If that was/is the case, is this truly a GOLD product, or are we actually still in a poorly implemented Beta? And if that is the case, shouldn't LL admit that publicly so that those of us who don't want to be Beta testers can leave and, if necessary/desired, take appropriate legal action? Does LL have NO responsibility to truthfulness to its recurring payment customer base?

Don't put words in my mouth Korg. I didn't say that.

If that's how you choose to see, so be it. We, the people, will always find a loophole in whatever someone designs - no matter how well thought out or planned it may have been. Period. It doesn't mean the product was bad, it just means that there is someone out there who is more determined to find the loophole for thier own benefit.

Korg, I'm surprised that you are still paying/playing if you think its a 'poorly implemented Beta' product.

Additionally, you have a distinct knack for pointing out areas/subjects that you think are issues, but I don't recall you providing any suggestions to rectify the issue, at least with this problem. Of course, maybe your real question is 'is there a problem at all'?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! Jebuz folks. Quit the f-ing whining already!

I have repeatedly said that I don't think that the "publicly identified" problem of inflation is a valid definition of a problem I also said I don't think "rate whoring" is a problem in and of itself. So, as far as that goes, yes. I am still looking for a definition of what the "real problem" trying to be solved its.

I couldn't get inworld to attend even a remote of the just concluded Philip Linden TH... but I did read the transcript and he managed to provide even fewer concrete answers than I had hoped... and that's saying something.

If the CEO can't articulate in detail the specifics of the vision as relates to this single issue - or won't - when it has such a potential for impact, then I don't have a whole lot of hope left that it will be provided us anytime in the foreseeable future.

As for being here now and thinking this is a Beta, guess what. I AM selling my land. I am pulling out... Having paid my fees already, I am stuck here until those "assets" are gone. I will probably be around as a lifetime Basic person for the foreseeable future. I decided over a month ago that that was probably the best thing for me to do as what I thought I was paying for is not what I am/have been getting. I stuck around for one last shot at something - the Butsu aircraft carrier built with someone else. It didn't acheive what I had hoped and I am pulling out. Check the forums - I already posted the land I have for sale.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I said something, you seemed to agree with it. If I misinterpreted that, please clarify where I misinterpreted. Don' just say not to put words in your mouth.

Summary - where IS the problem? I back up my position by doing what I think is right - I think this is a bad Beta, have already paid the "for life" fee, so I will sell all land and revert to a "hanger on" status and a drain on the economy. Oh wait... that won't be until June as I have already paid for the annual premium subscription. Well, gotta wait til then for that then. Sorry. I'd like to see this "work" .. it has potential. I am unsure whether SL will be around in a year based on the current (and recent) state of affairs and decisions. I can't get any clearer than that on my position - other than to say, I am not paid to offer solutions to problems I don' think exist and didn't create. I came to have fun, something increasingly difficult to experience.

The above has been brought to you by the guy who titled a thread as an announcement of HIS leaving. Nothing personal, Hank. Just keep in mind your own previous posts.

I was drunk, and just needed a break.

So the "door on the ass" comment was well-intentioned and heartfelt?

Uh huh. Good to know.

{I'll edit my ill said comments}

Uh.. I will stfu when I chose.

But tell us, oh wise one... what ARE my intentions you arrogant and omnisicent scion of SL?

Nevermid, sorry.

**Originally Posted by Hank Ramos
I was drunk, and just needed a break.**

Haha good one, wish I'da thought about saying that's the reason I started this thread. It's so nice to know so many people are concerned with my a##. The kindness here overwhelms me.

Aww crow you're not my friend? Guess I better get that cc of yours out of my "friends" folder.

Please Don't! No please! Your friendship is way to important to all of us! We need your card, we need you here! If you leave SL will be so different! So lame without you!!!!

Silly, of course I'm your friend. That's not what I was saying at all.
Just making a point about forum usage for enciting rabble rousing that most people are not really wanting to know about, that was all. And it wasn't directed at you really either, so can I keep the card? Please=)

Crow