Vote for removal of required 3rd Group Person

Vote for the removal of the required 3rd group member policy. Why should we be required to have a 3rd person in our group, example: 2 people buy one parcel of land together, and they are going to split the costs of that land. Why should we be forced to invite a 3rd person into a 2 person personal transaction? Follow this link to vote

http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=763

I agree that two people should be able to form a group. There is no good reason to make people find a third wheel for the bicycle.

Yup, agreed.

Have no votes left unfortunately. Seems like a rather easy change, hope they make it.

Reasons it wouldn't happen:

1 It might cut down on LLs ALT revenue
2 It also makes that island land baroning thing easier, which isn't necessarily something LL wants to do.

So, technically easy, but there are reasons (none for the users, it seems) for its existence as is.

Alt revenue? With the advent of free basic accounts, isn't that gone? Not for holding land, but certainly there's no longer a $10 hit just to be able to form groups...

Might have more to do with an original intent for groups as elements of shared community, similar to the limits on group membership. I don't recall hearing/reading if those limits were more technical, or a social engineering prod to try and make sure people would only keep membership in groups that were "active."

I'm sure if I weren't so lazy I could find all manner of background info in the town meeting transcripts...

I agree, I should be able to form a group all by myself if I want to, IMO.

-Adam

According to the dictionary, "group" in numerous definitions refers to a minimum of "two or more". So it makes sense to me too.

When creating a group, it is required that we include a 3rd member into that group, or else that group will be deleted within 7 days. *If (you) and (one other person) owns a parcel of land, and you two are splitting the cost of that land.. and there is no 3rd person involvement, why should we be required to have a 3rd person join the group? I would like to make a poll or petition to have this rule changed. Its not just the sake of creating an additional account to fill the 3rd person requirement, its for the future group owners and residents too. Say 2 people want to go into a land purchase together, and they need instruction or help, setting it up. Well now you have to explain to them, that you have to have a third person that they may not even know, to join their 2 person land owners group.. They will think you are trying to pull a fast one. This just creates all types of confusion and doubt for all of us. ****VOTE***FOR***CHANGE****


Vote Here: http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=763

It is strange because by very definition (such as dictionary.com's), two or more people are a group.

The long-cited clunky way around this, of course, is to get an alt as the "3rd wheel".

The clunky way .. yes, it is an alternative. After deciding which of the two people to trust that they will remove the 3rd person before sale of the land or group owned items....around this time, we all start to wonder why it isnt soo clunky, so my post stands. And...Yes, you may enjoy the clunkiness of any given situation, so why change anything? One of the main things in keeping Second Life alive, is to remove clunky situations as they run their course, and also to add new things along the way.

Seconded and voted. I can only have two wheels with my lone credit card. It's either this proposition or else I (shudder) have to apply for a new card (gasp!).

I don't like clunkiness so for I'm greater efficiency. While I don't have common sense, I have uncommon sense, but I noted that for historical reasons, because it continues to be a stubbed toe and because a LOT of Resis ask and don't even know about that method.