The New - New Zoning Discussion Thread

How to implement zoning...

It's perfectly possible to implement voluntary zoning associations (or as we used to call them, "themes". The biggest problem with them is how to handle membership turnover, and deadheaders (absentee landowners). Projects created by groups can easily outlive the original impetus and leave lots of empty, magnificent rubble behind. Please see the Gray sim for a prime example of this.

In large part this condition is created because there is no intermediate condition between single landowners and group ownership. I have a possible implementation scheme that could be coded, without getting property overly entangled in zoning or government questions:

Leaseholds

Step 1:

Create a means of enforcing a basic land rental contract. In this arrangement, a landlord would create a parcel and place it for lease rather than sale. It would have a set term for the lease, and the price to take posession of the property for that time.

In the basic version, the property would come with the same rights as any owned land. The tenant would have all controls over it as an owner. The difference would be that fees would be paid in L$ to the owner rather than to LL, and if the land is abandoned or fees not paid it would revert to the owner.

The owner would accept the liability of overall tier fees to SL, in exchange for knowing that the property would not be lost if the tenant abandons it. The tenant would have the assurance that as long as the leasehold fees are paid, he or she could not have the land pulled out from underneath.

Step 2:

Create options and restrictions that can be attached to land. This could include:

-Giving freeze/eject rights to a group or other persons
-Giving edit/delete rights to a group or other persons
-Giving janitorial rights (i.e. the ability to clean up non-owner objects)
-Attaching the land to a group covenant. This document could say whatever the group wanted about zoning regulations. Important in this would be designation of a person who has the right of enforcement. This might be the Linden Concierge but I doubt they'd go for that.

All of these options could be turned on or off by the owner at will, but if they were attached to a leasehold, only the landlord could change them. To avoid entangling property, none of these restrictions should be transferable at an outright sale.

As for Robin's other questions about zoning:

It should only be applied to land that a person or group actually owns.

Any zoning restrictions, and changes to the restrictions, should only operate on an opt-in basis. In other words, a person has to accept them, not have them enforced by majority vote.

Well, when the person with whom you are dealing considers you insignificant, no army of peers will help change their mind about anything. And if what they are doing is merely unsightly, and not against the TOS, then an abuse report is pointless from that same army.

Nice ideas, Ananda.

Something like this seems to me to be exactly the thing that's missing. It's not a matter of getting the Lindens to administrate zoning. Everyone agrees that's a bad idea. It's that we don't really have the tools at our disposal to implement zoning agreements if we do want them.

A leasehold system or tool similar to what Ananda describes would allow people to band together even if they owned two 512 plots and implement their own zoning regulations in a way that wouldn't bother anyone who didn't want to be involved.

I'd say the best approach to designing such a tool, however, would be to determine what kind of *functionality* is needed before getting into thinking about how to implement it.

To my eye, you need a couple of things (functions):

--You need to be able to join the zoning group.
--You need to be able to give someone or several people (call it a board president) some limited authority over policing zoning group builds, based on whatever zoning agreement you've drawn up. (This would probably be a rotating position, but that's better implemented in the zoning agreement than in the tool itself.)
--You might need to be able to remove the board president or current authority figure if they're out of line, probably by unanimous vote of the balance of the membership.
--You need to be able to kick intransigent members out of the zoning group.
--You need to be able to deal with the contingency of absentee landowners. (This would probably be via the zoning agreement, though, not necessarily a function of the tool.)
--You need to be able to leave the zoning group voluntarily.

Some of this is already covered by the Group Land tools, but probably not to the extent that's needed to really implement zoning.

My conclusion is that a Zoning Group tool that didn't require pooling of land resources but that did allow limited authority over zoning group builds, as described above, seems more along the lines of what would usefel.

That's my first shot at it, anyway.

More good posts.

I think it's clear the majority (myself included) feel that any zoning should be voluntary and unamimously entered into. (That answers Robin's unanimous / majority question)

Can we respond directly to Robin's questions? Generally I found when Lindens ask questions, they may actually implement something if they have the answers.

It's possible to implement zoning in a completely free market fashion. If a group of private parties (or, more likely, a developer who then sells the land to various private parties) contractually agree to limit the uses of an area of land, and to pass these same limitations on as deed restrictions to future owners, then you have zoning. It's just not zoning determined by a government.

Unless you believe allowing people to sign contracts is a violation of a free market, I think free markets have little to do with the issue.

The only problem comes if you try to enforce a contract on someone who never agreed to the terms -- for example, if a 2/3 majority can rezone someone off a sim.

- does a zoning decision in a region need to be unanimous or a majority
The initial decision to zone needs to be unanimous. Further zoning decisions should be made according to the zoning agreement that was unanimously adopted at the time zoning was begun.

- is the decision based on a vote?
Yes. Though whether something requires a simple majority or a 2/3 majority ought to be left to the zoning group.

- what about absentee landlords?
This could be handled in any number of ways. But they'd be covered by what I describe above in the case where (a) the absentee was in violation, in which case the president simply removes the build, hopefully after a warning or two, or (b) the absentee is the president, in which case there would be some kind of "ousting" mechanism.

- should people be grandfathered in (i.e. if a club already exists in an area that decides to be residential, does the club have to move?)
This is a more complicated question that just one of grandfathering in. If the club isn't part of a zoning group, presumably it couldn't be forced to do anything. But if it's already part of a zoning group and the group then decides, by whatever mechanism, that the whole group should be residential, then the club will either have to move or become residential.

This last point begs the question of who is to own the land. If the land is owned by individuals who can opt in or out of the group at any time, there's little point in it, as anyone unhappy with the zoning group's decision could just leave the group, stay where they are, and do as they pleased. But if the land is somehow owned/controlled by the group, there would have to be an enforceable mechanism whereby the group would buy out an unhappy member. This is one of the things that's missing from the group land tools.

Creating any kind of mechanism for zoning implies the creation of an enforcement mechanism that can handle the function. I.e., someone will have to have the authority vested in them to remove builds or eject members. Conversely, the group needs some kind of recourse to be able to remove the president. Otherwise, you're simply ceding your land to a group and trusting that the officers will make wise decisions. That's not a bad idea, but it doesn't require any extra tools. And it doesn't seem to constitute the robust zoning mechanism that's being envisioned here.

Just to clear something up: Are we talking about sim-wide zoning, or zoning only part of a sim? It sounds like we're talking about sim-wide zoning. The distinction is important, I think.

I think it would have to be sim-wide. Zoning is as much a discussion about sim resources as it is about aesthetics. So to zone part of a sim residential only to have a club/mall/other-resource-intensive-build move in and suck up a lot of sim resources is going to leave the residents feeling angry and helpless.

social problems are rarely amenable to technical solutions.

the problem of zoning isn't the technology. it's the people. technology would just be a big stick to make people obey.

Your statement is true in the real world, but Second Life is not the real world. Reality itself inside of Second Life can be shaped in many different ways, and these include the ability to fly, to teleport, to mute and IM.

I can chat in real-time with any resident in SL, regardless of whether they or I own a gaffe like a NexCom phone.

LL can determine the likely commercial or residential development of a sim just by its proximity to the nearest telehub.

I can mute a resident whose utterings I find distasteful.

(if implemented), I could remove the ability for others to push me without my consent.

All examples of technical solutions addressing social issues/problems.


Perhaps it is only rarely that technical solutions can meet the demands of social problems, but Second Life, being a virtual quasi-reality, is that rare society which is ideally amenable to technological solutions. Even so, technical implementations will not solve problems between disruptive residents; they will only give us the ability to reduce the griefers to an annoying buzz most of the time. We'll still be required to ignore that buzz, when they persist.

that may depend on your definition of solution.

what you do masks the symptoms, but leaves the underlying problem unresolved.

/bump

Good discussion going on.

I think so too.

First, I want to say I'm not arguing against tools to help people form groups and manage land together. In fact, I wish LL would take the ultimate step in that direction and let people genuinely own sims with total server control (i.e. set themselves up as "Lindens".

But what I'm saying is basically that the main problems prompting calls for zoning are not mainly social. The light pollution is technical, for instance. If SL had walls that block light, I wouldn't have to suffer from my neighbor's huge glowing red prims. Same with sound. The volume falloff formula is as artificial as SL (that's not air we're breathing). The number of avatars that a sim can handle gracefully is a technical issue, as is how to maximize performance for sim residents. It's similar to the prim hoarding problem for which they adopted a technical solution; automatically allot prims proportional to the land owned.

I'm not even arguing against social approaches in general. But I do think that a technical approach has a big advantage when it comes to policing and fairness. We can see in this thread how worried people are about a social system being abused, gamed, unfair or burdensome. If the Lindens can identify a few problems that cause the most angst and alleviate them through technical changes which are enforced in an automated, objective way, it will save a lot of strife. I think it worked out well with prims.

In the real world, social problems are alleviated by laws.

In SL, we have different tools. Technical ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting LL "legislate" anything to do with zoning. Bad idea. But right now we lack the kind of enforcement mechanisms that would allow residents to band together and unanimously (i.e., without forcing themselves on anyone) do this.

I see technology like this in SL as a little stick that would be used to make people obey who've already agreed to obey.

I agree that many problems can and ought to be solved by technology, but what about?:

- People who want a themed sim
- People wanting a no-mall / no business sim
- People wanting a commercial only sim
- People wanting to keep laggy scripts to a minimum

These are things that technology really can't fix. They are social issues - ones of getting landowners to agree. Can you propose technological fixes to these?

Just to be clear, my premise is that a small number of issues are causing most of the current angst, so I wasn't proposing addressing every issue this way.

I think there's some ambiguity about the word zoning. Some people want a themed area controlled by a group. Some people don't want their neighbors causing problems for them. It seems like the word zoning is being used for both sometimes. To me zoning is about restrictions, and themed sims are somehting else. Some people are proposing themed sims as a solution to problems with neighbors. But some people see themed sims as a potential neighbor problem in itself. I'm all for themed sims. I just don't think they're the most practical solution to the main problems.

I can imagine some technical approaches to a no-mall/residental sim. One is simply to disable item sales and llGiveMoney(). That would have the advantage of not requiring abuse reports. The other is to limit the number of avatars per parcel based on how much land is owned in the sim, as with prims. Clubs and malls would avoid sims like that.

People who want a commerial only sim are the people who should buy an island. I just don't see that as a problem. Maybe there's an issue I don't know about though.

Laggy scripts also seems like a technical issue to me. People have proposed various ways to regulate or choke scripts. I think the issue of clients running intensive programs on servers is an old one.

But again, I'm not saying everything should be addressed this way, or that better group controls for sims isn't also a good thing. I just see a few main issues that could be alleviated with a technical change, as with prim hoarding.

Cadroe Murphy, great post all in all and I agree with a lot of it. Well just two words I am curious about. Prim Hording???? I thought that was done away with by allocating prims to the land plot? Mind you its a question but if there is another problem that I am sincerely unaware of I would definately like to be enlightened.

Shadow

Shadow - That was my point actually - that the problem of prim hoarding was solved with a technical fix.

-make it easier for groups to purchase sims, particularly private ones. See my first post in this thread.
-Make areas of the world with no telehubs. Zoning would not be strictly enforced, but this would reduce the business possibilities for anyone living in a telehub-free area of the world
-Again, make it possible for groups to buysims, or simply allow individuals to, like the old Galleria sim.
-Interested groups will find ways to do this of their own accord, if scripters are willing to help them and if the group owns the entire sim. If they don't own the entire sim, they don't have the right to force their neighbors to stop using laggy scripts.

Good God, man, the underlying problem can NOT be solved. Not by technology, not by rules, not by the Tao. The underlying problem is:

In virtual worlds, some people will be polite and considerate and some will not be. There will always be conflict when these polite and considerate people come into contact with people who are rude or offensive.


Several ways of handling this:

-Deliberately vague rules, which allow disputes to be solved on a case-by-case basis. This actually encourages certain classes of griefing, because the "perpetrators" actually think that that they're not doing anything "illegal" even though they are being bothersome. This also hurts the administration long-term, as it favors inequal application of the virtual-law depending on who complains, how many complain, and who responds.

-Specific rules, and the willingness of the administration to support "avatar rights", including the right to be offensive while not breaking a specific rule. This will require an ever-increasing number of rules, and intervention from a dedicated staff of lindens which must scale up in direct proportion to the active population.

-Dedicating resources to alleviating problems through technological means. Virtual worlds are ideally suited for this, first because one person can not physically touch/hurt another. Second, because the experience itself is shaped by programming, which can be altered. This (IMO) is the wisest way to go, because a problem, once "solved", is solved indefinitely. If each resident has the ability to nerf the undesired actions of others, they may determine for themselves what is or isn't offensive and alleviate it accordingly. This will require a smaller, rather than greater percentage of Linden staff to deal with disputes, so it is economically more viable also.

/nod


I'm lumping them both because my proposal was to simply allow residents to choose what they want in their agreement. But you're right - it does mean different things to different people, and this is why this kind of discussion is so valuable.


Possibly, but for instance - Varney Preservation Society allows shops, but not malls...

Besides, I'm not sure how easy it would be to simply disable a LSL command in a sim.


Small businesses (like mine) should be able to band together without having to make the commitment of a private sim. And, many businesses want to be on the main grid.


Half of the problem, for sure. But some people have their laggy scripts and don't care.


/nod

solved is probably not the right term for me to have used.

the underlying problem needs to be addressed. the situation may be unsolvable, but it might be improved.

ignoring the underlying problem only allows it manifest somewhere else, and then the greifing isn't merely specific action, but the meta-activity of finding new instances of things to do that are annoying.

and as more and more bandages are placed on the symptoms, the system gets more and more complicated.

this is not to say the technology or new rules won't serve a purpose, but they are at best stop gap measures for an underlying problem what will manifest somewhere else. at worst they create a punitive system.

most individuals (even griefers) tend to modify they behavior more when then are given something positive to do than when punished for doing something negative.

there are endless discussions about how to punish people or prevent them from doing things. but the flipside of that is rewarding people who do well and giving people something better to do.

Peer Pressure....

After being beaten up in the forums, I can tell you that no amount of pressure from anyone will convence me to join something as weird as this zoning thing.