Regardless of whether Economic Changes were good/bad...

... we were given 2 days notice, no opportunity for discussion before changes were made. In addition, this change seems to be independant of the platitude of comments left in the Feature Feedback forum under the Ratings thread.

Back when 1.5 had patch after patch to fix bugs, developers swore they learned from the mistake of having a 2-day test time, and in the future would give ample time to discuss and test features.

While I have no problem Linden Lab doing what they think is right to make SL grow and flourish, I do think having a 2-day warning on a patch that is so controversial and has so many possible ramifications is repeating the mistake that we supposedly learned from last fall.

I would like to hear an explanation.

I may add that as a Live Helper, today we were answering a lot of questions about the patch. I imagine our load could have been a lot lighter and our focus on other questions, had the community been made aware of the change sooner.

I am betting money that you will get (if anything) a response along the lines of "this was not a feature... that statement did not apply here".

Not rendering an opinion one way or the other (because I'm not sure how I feel about the short notice), but if LL strongly feels the need to do something and it's not actually open for discussion, should they have the discussion with us anyway just to make us feel important? I do think that the people who will be impacted by this the most (the people who host events) should have been given more warning and time to come up with a plan B.

*nods* I've thought of that, Korg. I asked anyway.

Excellent point.

It's not necessarily whether or not something needs to be done that needs to be discussed, but the manner of which it can be done.

Linden Lab could have asked things like:
"How much should the ratings cost be increased?"
"Should we stagger these changes or do them all at once?"
"Are there any consequences that you see that we may have missed?"
"Are there concerns you have about these changes that we can address by adding to the patch?"

Yes, they could have done that, but that would imply that it was open for discussion. What if it wasn't? Do you think they should let us talk, even at the risk of most people being against it, and then go ahead and do it anyway? Wouldn't that backfire even worse?

*thinks about this*

It's possible, Chip, but seriously... do you think 25L was "in stone"? Could it have been 20L? 30L? How about 27L? How about 15L for positive and 35L for negative? I don't see how things like this would be closed for discussion.

The whole opening for conversation could have been framed with, "We're implementing an increase in rating cost, we're going to reduce event support for non-educational events, and we're going to adjust stipend bonuses. We'll tell you exactly why we're doing this, but we'd like your feedback to fine-tune these changes and address concerns we may havae overlooked."

...

and I say this not to tell Linden Lab how to do their jobs, but because it's how they've done it in the past. Perhaps I'm approaching this whole issue from a programmer's perspective, and I'm focused on the promise to give sufficient time to test patches.

This is not a programming patch. It is a policy matter that directly affect game economics... While Chip raises the only salient point I have heard yet - that it was decided and input was not desired, therefor asking for input is both pointless and couner-productive - it goes to show that skepticism concerning the future of SL/LL-customer relations is not only justified but prudent in the long run.

True, but also look at the Feature Feedback forum - they asked for open communication about the rating issue, but they never mentioned this patch there.


*nods*

Damn it Hiro.. Get off this 2 day notice crap. Does the President of the United States take a poll from the American People before he makes a policy decision? NO!!!!!!!

And LL doesn't have to either. Its their business, their game, and you will adjust to their worldly view. This isn't a tea hour to discuss 500 ideas on what you think is best. LL decided what they think is best based on information they've gathered from many places, events, etc.... So Deal With it and stop crying about it.. Its a Done Deal.

Jesus Christ.... Why do folks in the 21st century have this belief that everything needs to be debated and discussed until pigs fly? When will we get back to a time when "Leaders" and those in power made a decision and that was that. Today, if you don't like something, you fuss, cry, debate, file lawsuits, and keep hounding about the same crap over and over. Repeat after me Hiro: "I am the Sheep and LL is the Shepherd. They will lead and I will follow."

Chill, homie. We're all adults and we dont' need to yell.

Now, the President of the US makes decisions that affects millions of peoples' real lives and are usualyl extremely time sensitive.

Linden Lab's changes to the monetary system of Second Life are neither. I hardly see your example as relevant.


Indeed.


Or, if a player doesn't like it, they will leave. Companies that listen to their customers can make better products that will encourage more customers and customers who spend more money. Since Linded Lab is looking to expand, I'd say that while they don't have to do it, it's in their interests.


Sure it is. That's why we have a forum. That's why we have town hall meetings.


If you read my post again, you'll see that I explicitly stated that my concerns are independant of whether or not the patch was a good or bad thing. Ergo, saying "It's a Done Deal" is irrelevent because my focus is future patches.


Hiro will do. I don't have a god complex. *snickers*


There were some folks in ancient Greece who thought this way; they started the first Republic. And some folks in the British American Colonies in the late 18th century - you might be familiar with the concept of "democracy", as well as Protestant religions, the modern corporation, and so on. You discuss things, make a decision, then move forward.

Measure twice, cut once.


Hopefully never.


Isn't this a little ironic coming from you? Last time I checked, you see nothing wrong with beating a dead horse and not providing any new ideas when challenged.


Alby, I hope to god you're being sarcastic. And I can't imagine how, if that's true, that you will accomplish anything with this tone.

/111/f6/32802/1.html

Check out the Technical Issues / Bugs forum - looks like already we have game-breaking issues from the patch.

While I agree that the actual BUILD needed more testing (two days is not enough, LL!) economic changes do not need much warning at all (and, in fact, too much warning could, concieveably, lead to panics or wild fluctuations in the value of the L$ during the time between annoucement and change).

So can suddenly making the change.

My previous Greenspan analogies stand. Maybe when he retires from the fed, he'll sign up for SL and get our economic house in order.

And so do mine. You don't make big changes to the economy suddenly. Instead, you make them gradually.

This was a big change to the economy.

I think this was a small change to the economy. The only people who are going to experience a big change are clubs and event hosts, and all they need to do is ask for sponsors from within the community and experiment with making people actually pay them for what they provide. *gasp* Honestly I don't know why their ire is directed at LL. In their shoes I'd be more annoyed with everyone who feels entitled to enjoy the fruits of their labors for free.

How is raising ratings from 1 to 25L a small change?
How is halving the bonus of stipends a small change?

I think the smallest change was actually the event support - I never really saw how they effected events one way or another.

Rate mining was never supposed to be a viable career path Everyone who used ratings in that way was exploiting the system and essentialy cheating. It's about time they put a lid on it.

Yes, it is a minor change in the grand scheme of things. So it slows down the triple rate whores, big deal.

The change in bonus is to the stipend delta, and is also minor - something to the tune of about 40L per week or something.

The event support is the largest of the changes, but probably the most necessary. With the level at which some places were hosting events and submitting for support, the amounts can be significant - hence the action in the first place.

Some of you may remember...

"Mea Culpa".

Just wait.

Cristiano and Chip:

What you are saying is ENTIRELY different from saying these are small changes. You are saying the changes were needed / good / whatever.

I'm not debating that in this thread. What I'm saying is that the economic impact of these changes is large, and such a large change needed more discussion.

Chip,

Rate mining became the standard, true enough, and our economy became adjusted to that. Everyone agrees it was/is a broken system, true enough. But that doesn't mean our economy won't have a significant shift due to the change.

Cristiano,

It's not going to be as low as 40L per week. And to people who don't make money via sales, it could easily be 10-20% of their income. That's a big sink when you consider them as the primary buying force in SL.

As for the rate change - I don't see how you can say it's minor. It's a 25x change. I see it can have two results:
1. People rate a whole lot less, reducing the overall stipend bonus growth of people in SL in general - across all users.
2. People continue to rate, and a whole lot of money is sunk out of people.

It doesn't mean that it will either. Boths statements would require psychic abilities that I'm relatively sure neither of us have. I will be thoroughly amazed if the impact justifies even a tenth of the panic.

Ah, you reinforce my point very well - we don't know precisely what will happen, but the potential is there for the change to be large. Had we as players had more notice, we could have more thoroughly discuss these possible outcomes. Instead, people panicked because the change was happening so suddenly.