Ratings? Why do you care?

On one side of the debate, there is the question of why basic account holders, who pay 9.95 once but never pay again to use/enjoy the system, get free stipend checks? If they want to buy stuff, why don't they go buy $4.00 worth of $L every once in a while (about the cost of a beer)? (the answer to *that* is user habit (and expectations), which will only change over time, and the need to use a 3rd party system -- this will become MUCH easier if LL ever implements the currency purchase feature in-world, that Robin was posting about earlier)

On the other side, I can understand the perspective of those who do a lot of work to help other players and currently are able to justify the time because of the stipend boost it gives them, so removing the boost *could* hinder helpful activity. Would we start seeing people charge for "welcome to ad hoc SL tours" or mentoring classes (granted, there is mentoring event support)? But there are also plenty of people who are helpful and don't expect anything special in return nor feel they are owed anything -- they do it because they are friendly and it makes them feel good.

The issues are complex, and any changes that LL puts in place will have many unintended consequences, so I can understand them being careful. That, and there are more critical issues on the "feature/bug" list.

Though I don't agree with negative ratings, I speculate that it is a self policing of the community of one another to possibly ease pressure of Linden Staff, however; if the incident is that serious I would think it would warrant action in regards to Linden Labs as to the punishment in most cases anyway. On the other hand, if it is part of balancing the economy of some sorts regarding bonuses I would seek a reason as to why that is important, unless it is a balance modifer of keeping the Linden Dollar from falling to much.

That Blake, he's such a card.

The "Welfare Checks from the Lindens" drive the entire SL economy, so you and every other Serious Business person in SL are just as much welfare queens as I am.

Also, calling it "welfare" is incorrect. I paid the Lindens US$10 in exchange for an SL account, a minimum weekly stipend of L$50, and a bonus stipend based on ratings. It's not a handout; I paid for it.

If you want a virtual world in which everyone works hard for their virtual cash and nobody gets to have fun unless they enjoy the three or four ways that you can make money in the virtual economy, then I believe the game you want is called LOLbertaria and it's probably not very popular.

Well, partly to be contrary and partly because I really think so (but can still be persuaded otherwise), I am going to argue that the rating system should be a part of the stipend. I know I'm still a newbie according to somebody's timeline and that this issue has been hashed over again and again, but I don't see why that should keep me from getting in my share of the hashing. If you don't like that, just skip this, but please don't reply with some idiotic comment about how you already talked about this waaay back in '03 because I really do not give a fuck.

First, let's consider what the stipend actually is. A number of people seem to think that it's just some kind of welfare payment. Others feel that it's an essential part of driving the SL economy and making SL fun. Note that these two views are not incompatible.

However, I believe that the stipend is actually a wage.

Consider, what are the key ingredients in making SL a fun place to be? Well, there needs to be fun places to go, and we have landowners who take care of that. There needs to be ways to make your avatar look interesting, and we have clothing/skin/hair/etc. designers who take care of that. There needs to be fun stuff to play with, and we have vehicle/gun/sexball/etc. makers who take care of that. There needs to be fun stuff to do, and we have people who run events who take care of that. And hookers, too, apparently.

All of these people make SL a fun and interesting place to be and they all have ways of being compensated for it, but what is one key ingredient that is still missing? How about other people to do all this stuff with? SL would be pretty dull if the only people online were busy building, scripting, designing, mc'ing, or hooking, with just a few scattered people running around being social.

People who spend a significant amount of in-world time just socializing add significant value to Second Life.

If you just gave people a stipend without the ratings bonus (even with an increase to compensate), there is no reward for the people who spend their time with many others instead of working on their own stuff or just hanging out with their own small group. True, many people would still socialize and be friendly with strangers, but they are providing a valuable service to SL without getting any compensation for it and that's really not fair. When fewer people are out openly socializing the game is a lot less inviting for newbies, and SL will not grow and prosper. Failing to compensate the people who make SL a friendly place is essentially making them subsidize the growth of SL.

That is not to say that the rating system is perfect. It's horribly flawed, and a key aspect of that is the "rate me back +3 i rated u!" crap. This is the result of two specific problems with the rating system:

1. Rating for different things (behavior, looks, and building) may seem like a good idea but it's not how people use the system so get rid of it (it's much easier to change the system than it is to change the people). Instead, allow people to be given a scalar rating of +1, +2, or +3, for no pre-defined purpose. It's dumb that I had a high build rating before I'd built anything I was willing to show anyone.

2. All ratings just cost L$1 so, the thinking goes, why be stingy and give someone +1 or +2 when you could give that person +3 for just a little more? The problem here is not that ratings are too cheap, but that ratings beyond +1 are too cheap. If you make all ratings L$100 or even L$10, probably nobody will rate anybody and that defeats the purpose of the system. Instead, let the +1 cost L$1, but any beyond that cost increasingly more, e.g., +2=L$5 and +3=L$10 (cumulative!). This means the +1 rating is just the friendly, social thing to do, and beyond that the ratings are truly heartfelt.

I like it, I like it

So are we agreed that there are 10 potential reasons people are slaves to the welfare check rating system?
Are there more? Are there any points missed?
Everyone screams to offer a solution... fine... lets examine the problem so that we may arrive at a solution.

Last call....

I like a lot of your points crom (even if some had been said before, worth saying again). The above statement, though, doesn't sit totally right with me because of the following analogy:

I am not going to call up Pepsi and say that they owe me money for walking around with a Pepsi in my hand because I'm providing them a valuable branding service. If I want a Pepsi, I pay for a Pepsi. Yeah, Pepsi gets free advertising, but they're only gonna pay me if they are desperate to get more people to show off their product.

I'm not saying the analogy works 1-for-1, but it helps explain why that line, which i've heard multiple people say, doesn't feel fully baked.

Linden Lab is a small company, no? With only 15,000 people signed up? LL NEEDS these people. They NEED people to keep playing. They would want as many incentives to play as possible.

The difference is that Pepsi is a HUGE company and can afford to not have to "thank" each customer for buying their product. Maybe when LL gets big, they will turn into a huge, impassive company with faceless representatives -- but as it is, they're not like that. They are still growing.

I don't know what's "fair," but what makes sense is to have this ratings system (however flawed it is) to keep people playing; not because they like to rate people but because it makes money for them, which helps them buy things they want to buy. Which keeps them playing.

I like Crom's 1+ 2+ 3+ system very much.

Thank you for your response. I think this would be a good point if we were talking about real world economics, but we're not.

The difference is, it would actually cost Pepsi something to compensate you because they can't just print their own currency or make Pepsis appear out of thin air. The stipend costs LL nothing; L$ scarcity is entirely artificial and controlled by LL.

The rules of economic fairness are then entirely in-game rules, and not necessarily the same as the rules of economic fairness in the real world. SL economics are not constrained by reality, which is why I'm continually amazed at the people who pursue Serious Business interests in it, but that's another topic. Anyhow, as long as LL doesn't dump currency to the point where the economic system is pointless, there's nothing keeping them from handing out L$.

So, given that it costs nothing for LL to reward behavior that benefits everyone in SL, there's no good reason why they shouldn't, especially since anything to SL's benefit is to their (real world) benefit. My primary point here is that the ratings-based bonus is not a welfare check no matter how many times Doctor Bombay calls it one; it is quite arguably a payment for services rendered.

EDIT: I just realized another important difference between the SL stipend bonus and the Pepsi example is that while your visible consumption of a Pepsi product helps promote that product (assuming you provide a positive association, of course ), it does not make the actual product itself better. The presence of sociable people in SL does make the product better, and while LL may not have a contractual obligation to them, compensating them is certainly not a handout.

Quite honestly I can give 2 fucks about the ratings. They are simply insignificant numbers to me. I think the whole TSO crews that are rolling into SL have really screwed up the rating system. For example, we live just next door to Midnight City and I was window shopping. I happen to see some new faces, I clicked to check out their profiles and they have like 800+ and I happen to spot an Umberian (Beta) and they had a whole lot less then the noob. That is just screwed up. We have ppl in our community that have brought beauty to SL and they have half the ratings a nobody that contributes absolutely nothing to SL. Now how fucked up is that. That is why I do not care for the rating system and I do not care about the stipend.

I don't.

Edit: Too add. I've been here for 2+ years and I've only given out 200 or so ratings. If someone comes up to me and asks for rates, I don't even respond to them. I just go about my buisness and ignore them!

*applauds* Nexus

I think it's very easy for the oldbies to talk of not needing ratings. You all have probably found your niche in SL and are making money. Those of us still finding what our niche might be, do need the stipends to survive and some of us spend our stipend on buying items - maybe yours. I do rate if rated but do not go to big clubs just to get rated. I go to one small club where we have pretty much all rated each other already.

I disagree that all people are slaves to the rating system. Some are of course, but not all.


Someone listed 10 reasons - you missed out those of us who are trying to make money but are yet to be proficient enough at what we do to make money.

I wonder what would happen to your sales without the stipend payments? Think about that.

Alexa

Seriously who cares. Theres no way to make money in this game, for people that cant afford do dedicate a lot of time to this game and just wanna enjoy it , and for people who cant afford to buy L$. The weekly allowance and bonus is all some of us get. If some of u people are soo rich where u dont need the bonus, Ill take it off your hands. I posted this before, any rating system that u can possibly think of, people will find a way to take advantage of it. And once the bonus isnt tied in with ratings no more, the ratings system , will hardly be used. I dont even care to look at people's ratings now, it makes no difference to me how you've acted around people in the past. As long as your cool with me when I meet u , its all good. So either get rid of the rating entirely and up the weekly allowance, or keep it the same. Theres tons of smart and creative people in this game, and any new system will be taken advantage of.

Not everyone in SL is out to make a buck. My husband and I have been a part of the SL community for a year now and we do not do anything to make money in SL. I have total respect for alot of the old timers who have shaped SL what it is today. Without their talents alot of these new crews that are coming into are community wouldn't have the beauty and luxuries in SL.

Oh yes, I completely agree with you, Lo. That wasn't the point of my pepsi analogy. I am not advocating removing the stipend at all, for many reasons including that removing it would cause serious problems for the economy, at least until people get used to putting their own money in on a regular basis to buy stuff (not unlike spending 50 cents on a candy bar at the corner store).

The stipend encourages economic activity. It encourages broader user enjoyment, which encourages subscriber growth, and thus remains important for the company.

And I think Crom's points are well-said and provide an interesting perspective. I do think that much RL economic theory DOES apply here, however. Of course there are significant differences such as little cost of goods, barriers to entry, etc. but then those differences exist between RL industries too. Supply-demand, marketing theory, customer care, pricing theory, scarcity value, etc. are all important concepts for merchants and content creators in the SL economy. And the L$ currency is still a real currency, with the same issues of monetary policy, exchange rates, etc. Sure, LL controls the $L. But then, the US gov controls the $US.

Sure Paris. People participate in SL in all sorts of different ways. That's what is so great. And most people are thankful of the work and experimentation and tutorials of those who came before. This will continue to happen with every new generation of users.

The oldies had the privilege of being early. I wish I had heard of SL long ago. But we could have had a completely different cast of characters in the alpha/beta and I am sure that beauty and luxuries and tutorials would abound... simply because of the nature of those who would participate in such an alpha/beta. You could shut down SL today and start it up from version 1.1 with a completely different set of enthusiastic, smart, creative people, and they would do amazing things too. This particular group of oldies built their own brilliance and beauty and fun and drama, and it's great!

You sound like a repubnik

This is true, but as you said: LL controls the $L, and the US controls the $US. But Pepsi, however, does NOT control the $US.

Therefore LL has a much larger degree of control over the $L than Pepsi would have over the $US, yes? Therefore, since it is in LL's best interest to keep the economy flowing, they need to pay this portion of SL society that does not produce, but consumes. As you say, if LL took away this stipend, it would cause rather severe damage to this economy.

I just think some sort of "reward" system is necessary in SL in order to keep the less business-inclined people interested.

Lo, you are beautiful!

Rating is part of the system. Maybe it's wrong and maybe it should be changed. But as long as it is in the system, don't call it wellfare... Consider it as a tax return, or housing benefit.

I do a lot of volunteer newbie helping. I dont make money out of that. Some of you guys spend most of your time making money. I'm just being nice to newbies. So I demand that you all rate me +3 to compensate me for my kindness

Awwww thank you!