no man is an island

andrew linden points out there is a commons in sl.

residents have what is theirs, and there is the commons.

the policies regarding the commons changes, with resident input. while this may or may not be government, it gives the lie to the notion that individuals can do things in isolation without affecting the commons or being affected by the commons. that is to say "leave me alone" doesn't quite work. a more realistic position of "bother me as little possible" might make more sense. structuring limits on how decisions about the commons affects the residents might be fruitful. might not.

Good point. For a current example see Loki Pico's thread in Land and Economy about whether the Iris telehub sim in the new continent should be a linden sim or whether the parcels should go to auction.

And for an alternative viewpoint to the utopianists, see Prokofy Neva's thread about the telehub and Iris sales.

I'm all for commons. But who will pay for them? We don't have a government and taxes -- and thank God for it! So each piece of commons must be paid for by the Lindens or by players.

A telehub is already established by usage and practice as a center of commerce. Many people bought their land in the new continent based on this assumption.

The question is regarding an issue like Iris, where there will be at least three different legitimate positions (no to mall commerce, no mall commerce but yes, promotion of small business, or yes, mall commerce) how do you decide, and who decides?

In this particular case, I'm not for the Lindens interrupting a regularly-schedule purpled-land auction process (even if not for sale yet on the auction) due to the clamouring of a few tree-huggers and moth-worshippers.

I'm a moth-worshipper myself, but moths need light to be drawn to, and it's dark in Iris until you bring commerce.

If we are to open up questions like "who decides what happens to Iris" here we must decide the basis for which anyone could affect that decision. Is it right and just for those who do not buy land or work land to make these decisions? I think not. I don't think thousands of players who just want a nice park to play in, who may have $9.95 lifetime accounts with no land, should not have the right to override the players who spend much more each month in tier payments, and who bid on the auctions. It undermines the society created on the basis of land value and freedom of land ownership to allow the masses or, the vocal few stirring up the masses, to get their way in this fashion.

What would be particularly onerous and untenable would be if those who do buy land and do benefit from telehub commerce elsewhere on the grid to suddenly get all utopianist now on this issue, merely to play for public opinion in their reputation ratings game and merely as a marketing ploy for their products and services.

This is what happens when you forget which alt you're logged in as. You start mentioning your current avatar in the third person.

~Ulrika~

Been there, done that.

Ha!

That's not a function of forgetting which av I'm logged into. I'm almost always logged in a Prokofy. When I said "see Prokofy's thread" it was to stay in the same third-person style that said "See Loki's thread" etc. -- that's all. Just a stylistic convention.

We pay for our land, but we also pay for the experience. The Lindens maintain a lot of land that is paid for by us, not directly, but because we are residents. The sandboxes, vehicle sims, and welcome area regions are prime examples. These areas enhance the user experience and is a cost of doing business. Strategic development of common areas has and will continue to enhance SL as an attractive destination for all to share.

This is a bigger issue than the Iris hub. But, as a simple example, if no one is permitted to build within 100m of it, no one is punished. Everyone will have the equal right to build whatever they want at 101m.

The area up there has already changed dramatically. Much of the land in this atoll region has been raised to form new land masses that were never intended. I am sure the lindens did not anticipate this happening and it was a mistake to make the water only 3.5m deep there. Had the water been 6m deep, the area would have maintined the watery feel to it. It was a simple oversight, a mistake.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a mistake before it can be undone. It was never a demand, simply a suggestion. SL has always developed through community input and suggestions should not be demonized because they are not of your view.

Actually, you've done most of your posting in the Political Science forum as Random Unsung.

~Ulrika~