Second Life Forums Archive - policy change: delete builds on request if theyre on land which is for sale

Zal Korvin

Registered User

Join date: 28 May 2005

Posts: 17

01-11-2006 04:58

The current problem with small plots of land put for sale at high prices with signs that local residents find ugly is that there's no way to prove one way or the other whether the owner really wants to advertise something, or whether the build is intentionally ugly to try and get you to buy a plot of land in which you would otherwise have no interest.

Currently if I set a 1024m parcel for sale at L$1 but put "Do not buy this land" in the description, I am absolutely certain that the Lindens will not give me my land back when someone buys it. This is an ackowledgement that setting land for sale says to everybody that you intend to exchange that land for money, and says it louder than anything you may say to the contrary in forums, chat, im, or the description of your parcel.

My suggestion is that policy is changed to also acknowledge this when it comes to selling at prices higher than average. I think the best way to do so would be for Lindens to delete a build if it is on land for sale, when requested by land owners from whose parcels the build in question is visible.

I can see two outcomes of this. One, nobody will be able to use ugly builds to sell land because the build can just be deleted on request. Two, nobody will be able to use the land sales section for advertising anything which is not land they intend to sell, because the build would be at risk of deletion. Of course, I'm assuming that Linden Labs endorse neither the use of visually disruptive builds to sell land, nor misuse of the land sales section.

Finally, I can imagine people having one plot of land which is not for sale constantly checking and re-rezzing a build on a plot of land which is for sale. I suggest that the policy change suggested includes considering such actions to be abusive.

Merlyn Bailly

owner, AVALON GALLERIA

Join date: 7 Sep 2005

Posts: 576

01-25-2006 14:44

From: Zal Korvin

The current problem with small plots of land put for sale at high prices with signs that local residents find ugly is that there's no way to prove one way or the other whether the owner really wants to advertise something, or whether the build is intentionally ugly to try and get you to buy a plot of land in which you would otherwise have no interest.

Currently if I set a 1024m parcel for sale at L$1 but put "Do not buy this land" in the description, I am absolutely certain that the Lindens will not give me my land back when someone buys it. This is an ackowledgement that setting land for sale says to everybody that you intend to exchange that land for money, and says it louder than anything you may say to the contrary in forums, chat, im, or the description of your parcel.

My suggestion is that policy is changed to also acknowledge this when it comes to selling at prices higher than average. I think the best way to do so would be for Lindens to delete a build if it is on land for sale, when requested by land owners from whose parcels the build in question is visible.

I can see two outcomes of this. One, nobody will be able to use ugly builds to sell land because the build can just be deleted on request. Two, nobody will be able to use the land sales section for advertising anything which is not land they intend to sell, because the build would be at risk of deletion. Of course, I'm assuming that Linden Labs endorse neither the use of visually disruptive builds to sell land, nor misuse of the land sales section.

Finally, I can imagine people having one plot of land which is not for sale constantly checking and re-rezzing a build on a plot of land which is for sale. I suggest that the policy change suggested includes considering such actions to be abusive.

I gather this relates to the "Impeach Bush" griefer moron... if no builds were allowed on land that is listed for sale, this extortion could not continue... if he wants to sell it, he can, but can't keep the signs up, but if he wants the signs to remain, he can't list it for sale and continue thumbing his nose at the people who really hate to see his crappy blocks floating all over the landscape.

He's just another griefer. When the Lindens wake up and decide to do something about that is anyone's guess.

Travis Lambert

White dog, red collar

Join date: 3 Jun 2004

Posts: 2,819

01-25-2006 16:03

This past summer, I took on a little diversion that was a lot of fun for me.

I purchased the cheapest, least desireable plots of land, prettied them up as best as I could with landscaping, and then built a nice starter home on each parcel. The parcels were sold with the Home included, using the "Sell All Objects with this parcel" land option.

I sold about 20 of them... some folks bought the property and just returned the house (I'm no pro builder) - others kept the homes, and are still living in them to this day.

It was a fun project - I only wish I had the time to continue with it.

Problem is - with what you're suggesting... say another Land Seller in that sim or area decided that they didn't want me there competing with them by selling my homes & land. If it was as simple as them petitioning Linden to have the build removed because they "didn't like it", it would have been difficult to try to add value to a parcel by including a build with it.

_____________________

------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.

Lordfly Digeridoo

Prim Orchestrator

Join date: 21 Jul 2003

Posts: 3,628

01-25-2006 16:06

This would ruin my land development business. No thanks.

_____________________

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

Argent Stonecutter

Emergency Mustelid

Join date: 20 Sep 2005

Posts: 20,263

01-26-2006 06:06

I've been a little wary of this myself, but I couldn't put my concerns into words. Thanks, Travis and Lordfly, for highlighting the problem so well.

Strife Onizuka

Moonchild

Join date: 3 Mar 2004

Posts: 5,887

01-26-2006 07:53

How about a rule titled "The Extortionary Land Protection Clause" where if you ask 10x market value in the sim for a meterage of land, your builds on that land can be censored by agreement of the other residents in the sim.

This wouldn't effect most land sales. If the multiplier is too low it should be adjusted accordingly.

_____________________

Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river.
- Cyril Connolly

Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence.
- James Nachtwey

Zal Korvin

Registered User

Join date: 28 May 2005

Posts: 17

01-26-2006 14:34

I wish all these things had been mentioned before I put the proposition up, but nobody seemed to read it until I made the proposal - but never mind eh. It also seems that forum diversity has picked itself up without my help too.

From: someone

I gather this relates to the "Impeach Bush"

That did play its part, but as many people have said: there were signs before - one of which upset me when I was a newb, so now I feel motivated to have a really good go at doing something about it.

Strife, I thought about what you mentioned, and realized that it could be gamed by using two parcels in a sim - one parcel to raise the average price so that another parcel cannot have its objects deleted. I ran through other ways of discerning between development and extortion, and thought of parcel size:

So, maybe I should post an addendum to the proposal here which limits the enforcement to small plots, in which case, what would be a good value to discern between small and not small? Basically I would assume that there's a plot size below which it's not worth developing, and above which it's too costly to extort - I'd like to hear what you guys think of that idea.

Gabe Lippmann

"Phone's ringing, Dude."

Join date: 14 Jun 2004

Posts: 4,219

01-26-2006 14:59

From: Zal Korvin

So, maybe I should post an addendum to the proposal here which limits the enforcement to small plots, in which case, what would be a good value to discern between small and not small? Basically I would assume that there's a plot size below which it's not worth developing, and above which it's too costly to extort - I'd like to hear what you guys think of that idea.

There do exist small parcels with things such as vendors on them. I own some. Have them priced fairly high. Price does not relate to market value, but to the value I place on them. I have no particular attachment to them, but am not looking to sell at market value. I also am not advertising through land sale tools in any way, I just recognize that a select few will value them similarly. People do buy them, finding similar value in location that I have. I also assume that given the opportunity, someone would wipe the vendor for a number of reasons, not all of which would be aesthetically related.

I realize my little personal example is abnormal, but simply want to add another variable to your thinking.

_____________________

go to Nocturnal Threads

policy change: delete builds on request if theyre on land which is for sale
Zal Korvin Registered User Join date: 28 May 2005 Posts: 17	01-11-2006 04:58 The current problem with small plots of land put for sale at high prices with signs that local residents find ugly is that there's no way to prove one way or the other whether the owner really wants to advertise something, or whether the build is intentionally ugly to try and get you to buy a plot of land in which you would otherwise have no interest. Currently if I set a 1024m parcel for sale at L$1 but put "Do not buy this land" in the description, I am absolutely certain that the Lindens will not give me my land back when someone buys it. This is an ackowledgement that setting land for sale says to everybody that you intend to exchange that land for money, and says it louder than anything you may say to the contrary in forums, chat, im, or the description of your parcel. My suggestion is that policy is changed to also acknowledge this when it comes to selling at prices higher than average. I think the best way to do so would be for Lindens to delete a build if it is on land for sale, when requested by land owners from whose parcels the build in question is visible. I can see two outcomes of this. One, nobody will be able to use ugly builds to sell land because the build can just be deleted on request. Two, nobody will be able to use the land sales section for advertising anything which is not land they intend to sell, because the build would be at risk of deletion. Of course, I'm assuming that Linden Labs endorse neither the use of visually disruptive builds to sell land, nor misuse of the land sales section. Finally, I can imagine people having one plot of land which is not for sale constantly checking and re-rezzing a build on a plot of land which is for sale. I suggest that the policy change suggested includes considering such actions to be abusive.
Merlyn Bailly owner, AVALON GALLERIA Join date: 7 Sep 2005 Posts: 576	01-25-2006 14:44 From: Zal Korvin The current problem with small plots of land put for sale at high prices with signs that local residents find ugly is that there's no way to prove one way or the other whether the owner really wants to advertise something, or whether the build is intentionally ugly to try and get you to buy a plot of land in which you would otherwise have no interest. Currently if I set a 1024m parcel for sale at L$1 but put "Do not buy this land" in the description, I am absolutely certain that the Lindens will not give me my land back when someone buys it. This is an ackowledgement that setting land for sale says to everybody that you intend to exchange that land for money, and says it louder than anything you may say to the contrary in forums, chat, im, or the description of your parcel. My suggestion is that policy is changed to also acknowledge this when it comes to selling at prices higher than average. I think the best way to do so would be for Lindens to delete a build if it is on land for sale, when requested by land owners from whose parcels the build in question is visible. I can see two outcomes of this. One, nobody will be able to use ugly builds to sell land because the build can just be deleted on request. Two, nobody will be able to use the land sales section for advertising anything which is not land they intend to sell, because the build would be at risk of deletion. Of course, I'm assuming that Linden Labs endorse neither the use of visually disruptive builds to sell land, nor misuse of the land sales section. Finally, I can imagine people having one plot of land which is not for sale constantly checking and re-rezzing a build on a plot of land which is for sale. I suggest that the policy change suggested includes considering such actions to be abusive. I gather this relates to the "Impeach Bush" griefer moron... if no builds were allowed on land that is listed for sale, this extortion could not continue... if he wants to sell it, he can, but can't keep the signs up, but if he wants the signs to remain, he can't list it for sale and continue thumbing his nose at the people who really hate to see his crappy blocks floating all over the landscape. He's just another griefer. When the Lindens wake up and decide to do something about that is anyone's guess.
Travis Lambert White dog, red collar Join date: 3 Jun 2004 Posts: 2,819	01-25-2006 16:03 This past summer, I took on a little diversion that was a lot of fun for me. I purchased the cheapest, least desireable plots of land, prettied them up as best as I could with landscaping, and then built a nice starter home on each parcel. The parcels were sold with the Home included, using the "Sell All Objects with this parcel" land option. I sold about 20 of them... some folks bought the property and just returned the house (I'm no pro builder) - others kept the homes, and are still living in them to this day. It was a fun project - I only wish I had the time to continue with it. Problem is - with what you're suggesting... say another Land Seller in that sim or area decided that they didn't want me there competing with them by selling my homes & land. If it was as simple as them petitioning Linden to have the build removed because they "didn't like it", it would have been difficult to try to add value to a parcel by including a build with it. _____________________ ------------------ The Shelter The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Lordfly Digeridoo Prim Orchestrator Join date: 21 Jul 2003 Posts: 3,628	01-25-2006 16:06 This would ruin my land development business. No thanks. _____________________ ---- http://www.lordfly.com/ http://www.twitter.com/lordfly http://www.plurk.com/lordfly
Argent Stonecutter Emergency Mustelid Join date: 20 Sep 2005 Posts: 20,263	01-26-2006 06:06 I've been a little wary of this myself, but I couldn't put my concerns into words. Thanks, Travis and Lordfly, for highlighting the problem so well.
Strife Onizuka Moonchild Join date: 3 Mar 2004 Posts: 5,887	01-26-2006 07:53 How about a rule titled "The Extortionary Land Protection Clause" where if you ask 10x market value in the sim for a meterage of land, your builds on that land can be censored by agreement of the other residents in the sim. This wouldn't effect most land sales. If the multiplier is too low it should be adjusted accordingly. _____________________ Truth is a river that is always splitting up into arms that reunite. Islanded between the arms, the inhabitants argue for a lifetime as to which is the main river. - Cyril Connolly Without the political will to find common ground, the continual friction of tactic and counter tactic, only creates suspicion and hatred and vengeance, and perpetuates the cycle of violence. - James Nachtwey
Zal Korvin Registered User Join date: 28 May 2005 Posts: 17	01-26-2006 14:34 I wish all these things had been mentioned before I put the proposition up, but nobody seemed to read it until I made the proposal - but never mind eh. It also seems that forum diversity has picked itself up without my help too. From: someone I gather this relates to the "Impeach Bush" That did play its part, but as many people have said: there were signs before - one of which upset me when I was a newb, so now I feel motivated to have a really good go at doing something about it. Strife, I thought about what you mentioned, and realized that it could be gamed by using two parcels in a sim - one parcel to raise the average price so that another parcel cannot have its objects deleted. I ran through other ways of discerning between development and extortion, and thought of parcel size: So, maybe I should post an addendum to the proposal here which limits the enforcement to small plots, in which case, what would be a good value to discern between small and not small? Basically I would assume that there's a plot size below which it's not worth developing, and above which it's too costly to extort - I'd like to hear what you guys think of that idea.
Gabe Lippmann "Phone's ringing, Dude." Join date: 14 Jun 2004 Posts: 4,219	01-26-2006 14:59 From: Zal Korvin So, maybe I should post an addendum to the proposal here which limits the enforcement to small plots, in which case, what would be a good value to discern between small and not small? Basically I would assume that there's a plot size below which it's not worth developing, and above which it's too costly to extort - I'd like to hear what you guys think of that idea. There do exist small parcels with things such as vendors on them. I own some. Have them priced fairly high. Price does not relate to market value, but to the value I place on them. I have no particular attachment to them, but am not looking to sell at market value. I also am not advertising through land sale tools in any way, I just recognize that a select few will value them similarly. People do buy them, finding similar value in location that I have. I also assume that given the opportunity, someone would wipe the vendor for a number of reasons, not all of which would be aesthetically related. I realize my little personal example is abnormal, but simply want to add another variable to your thinking. _____________________ go to Nocturnal Threads

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

policy change: delete builds on request if theyre on land which is for sale