How landcutters are still hurting the mainland

I love the Mainland. That's why I've held on through promise after promise of "market forces" somehow fixing the problem. That was supposed to happen with the first adfarming policy. And the second. And you can safely bet that the same magical thinking will accompany another half-measure with the landcutting policy, whenever it's issued. And again it won't work.

What will happen instead is that the current landscammers will further inflate the prices of their microparcels due to "scarcity": no new ones can be made. Obviously, nobody pays tens of thousands of L$s for a 3-prim server site, but you know that will be the justification. The "market force" at work will be extortion, just as it is now.

And while there has been some improvement in the microparcel eyesore quotient with the latest adfarming policy, LL still can't bring themselves to deal with obvious, well-documented, blatant loophole-exploitation that makes them look like hapless fools. That they won't even enforce that policy in situations that hardly qualify as "edge cases" shows that they have no will to manage their Mainland estate without constant pressure from Mainland owners.

I would expect that one who owns a lot of existing Mainland would accept that the only way to make this stuff have value again is by getting LL to actually manage that estate.
"A little wierd" might be that charming British understatement.

I suppose this is the disconnect between me and you. I have a very clear value for mainland and apparently a lot of other people who buying land from me roughly agree. Someone is paying for it.

Check this: http://secondlife.com/whatis/economy_stats.php. Over a million SQM of land trades every day. Last month 100 million square meters were bought and sold. It still remains a fact that every parcel on every sim will be bought within about 10 minutes if you price it right.

Perhaps you want to make it have /more/ value. That's something else entirely and I don't think beautification will have as much of an effect as the simple forces of supply and demand. I suppose that's just my guess though.

But on the same page, the L$/sq.m. prices show a continued decline, Jack's contorted numbers notwithstanding.

It's still true that if one buys low enough, one can find that marginally "greater fool" quickly enough that the absolute price doesn't matter. But woe betide anyone with land on inventory: the carrying fees are astronomical, and the prices just keep falling.

That may give the impression that I care about the absolute price; I don't. I do, however, very much care about the time derivative of price: a decline means that value is being destroyed. That's just supply and demand, and since very little supply is being added, we know precisely what it means: people just don't much want this stuff anymore. And that's a shame.

We really don't disagree about supply and demand ruling the prices. We perhaps differ in whether active intervention to improve the scarred parts of existing Mainland can reinvigorate demand. Or maybe we disagree on whether such intervention is necessary to make that happen. But I think we must agree that in the absence of some renewed demand for existing Mainland, adding substantially to the supply with auction of new, zoned Mainland spells abandonment of much of the current landmass. (That's especially true if a lot of that new Mainland is double-primmed--effectively halving tier.)

My position is that LL dare not start auctions again until they actually remove the horrors that still depress demand for existing Mainland. If they auction again without fixing their mess, they'll generate some revenue at auction, and lose it many times over in the care and feeding of largely abandoned sims.

Have to admit that I almost did the same when I sold the last of my mainland. It was an error from placing the pointer to divide land and the resulting main piece was what I (in error) calculated. Only when I looked at the 'My land' did I realize I had a hanging chad and managed to correct it before it sold.

You know, sometimes when you collect most of a region and then sell it off, you sometimes end up with some odd pieces and have to decide whether or not the contiguous owners will buy. OTOH, I put that stuff way low and give it a week. For some reason, new buyers don't seem to factor the free 512k into their purchase so even tier amounts seem to sell better.

Not that any of that would explain the mess in the OP region...

Land botters are the singlemost largest land supplier to the extortionists.

The land, particularily those < 64 m are automatically set at base market value, sight unseen. More often than not, the extortionists beat the neigbors to it, for that very reason.... extortion.

Considering the sheer volume of land your group moves, coupled with the profits you enjoy, I don't see a whole lot of effort from your group, to take proactive measures to prevent extortion. Especially when you are more than well-equipped enough to do so.

Rather than join land for extortionists to recut, you would do well to develop a ticketed system which offers the land for sale to the adjoining property owner. Most neighbors are willing to pay a premium price for land within their regions, so could probably "value-add" your prices accordingly. After a set period of time (ie 7 days), sell on the open market.

If our group can and did do that to prevent Lazarus (Impeach Bush Guy) from his reign of terror, there is no reason why your group can't. Is there?

Maybe someone does that, can't say I know of anyone. Definitely I don't.



I'm open to ideas but...



... this one is pretty much already implemented.

All my land goes up for sale at absurdly high prices and then slowly lowers until it finds a buyer. For example I have a 64sqm parcel here: secondlife://Woodfall/224/164/0/ that is currently 11/sqm because I've owned it for such a short time. It may be lower by the time you check on it. If any neighbours want to pay a premium they've got probably a week or more to do so. This amount of time changes depending on how much land I'm buying and how much tier I have spare. I do this with absolutely all my parcels of every size. The only difference is with the very small parcels my prices drop much more rapidly.

The only part of your plan that I lack is a notification system to neighbouring parcels which I've considered but shied away from for fear of accusations of spamming.

Unfortunately, this is often viewed as exploiting "seller remorse" for those who unintentionally sold their land to a bot. I know your group is willing to return errors, but it's a manual process and you are not always online. Even at "absurdly high prices", extortionists will still buy them and inflate them to "insanely extortive absurd prices", which gives rise to the appearance of profiteering from the motivations of extortionists.



I noticed your profile offers land smaller than certain sizes to neighbors provided they meet some conditions, at no cost.

For small plots, a single IM to the neighbors, while the land is set specific to them at 0 to base, even 2x base, would not likely invite spam AR's. Even if they did, I'm sure the governance team would see it for what it is... a reasonable offer. LL would have to be totally brain-dead to discipline you for this measure. I don't log in all that often, but the volume of unsolicited group invites when I do, seems to be on the rise, and LL doesn't appear to be enforcing it.



By your own admission, profit on the small lots is dubiuous at best, particularily if they sit unsold for extended periods of time.

A little good will is a win-win situation.

Are you a plant or someone I've paid to ask fake questions so I can brag about the awesome features of my land trading system? Another feature is that all parcels that we buy for less than L$1/sqm have a notice attached alerting the seller to contact us immediately and the parcel is blocked from going on the market until I get online.

Of course, whenever you put high prices on land someone will complain or feel like they are being scammed into paying over the odds but, you know, I'm in the business of buying land for less than it's worth and selling it for more than it's worth so I don't apologise for trying to maximise profit.



I don't remember ever admitting that. The profit is small but it's proportional to the size of the land. in other words per sqm the profit levels are pretty comparable with small or large parcels. Large parcels are "worth" more but people will buy 16s for silly prices just to get them out of the way.

that's where the extortion part comes in...

Last I recalled, extortion is a felony, so you could possibly file criminal charges.

Mainland.....



There's a good half-dozen land owners in that shot. A bit of texture inconsistency, but, we keep a common theme because it looks nice. (^_^)

There are still a TON of micro parcels in the region... I was able to group deed my land and pick up about 3 of them for cheap.. But, that's all I could do. I have the land descriptions set up to say they're for trade in hope that I can get some of the parcels that connect to my store, but no luck so far. (>_<

Either way... I don't mind the 9 extra prims I have available and I'm keeping the microplots very clean until someone wants to trade. (^_^)y

I suppose we could turn this thread into one where I argue that people should have the right to put whatever price they like on land they legitimately own and you argue the opposite. It sounds kinda dull though.

(See other threads for evidence that G-Team's condition is not innocently brain-dead but actively, categorically, and clinically insane.)

And yet, I think with a bit of work and some careful phrasing, there's something that could be done here that would win serious points for the Flock without arousing G-Team.

The "bit of work" would be to make sure there could never be multiple IMs to the same neighbor when a bunch of disconnected parcels in the sim came were to be put for sale in the same day. And making an "opt-out forever" button somewhere (probably in-world, so one had a way to get the resident's UUID that won't seem like a phishing expedition).

I think it would be worth it, because landowners in the sim where a parcel is set for sale will generally appreciate the notification when it happens.

I've always had a bit of a problem with the term "extortion" for this practice, but it is reprehensible. I've recently come to a different view about this, as I think about the sheer magnitude of the problem. I now think that the best approach is to simply announce that henceforth, LL may at its sole discretion relocate to another sim parcels smaller than 512sq.m. contiguous and convex area. This would be done by Concierge, not Governance: it's not a disciplinary matter; in response to support tickets, not ARs.

It's not difficult for LL to know the handful of responsible owners of smaller parcels, including both Blue Button and Universal, and there's no reason they'd need to screw that up. (Remember, it's Concierge, not Governance.)

The big problem isn't the outrageous prices, it's that these parcels are simply in the way of better Mainland development.

I've rented out enough land to know that sometimes just moving people around solves problems. Sure, sometimes you lose a customer, but when it works out better for other customers, that's just a cost of doing business. I imagine that any Estate owner who's been in the business for any length of time has done the same thing, to avoid having to outright terminate a lease. I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing for the Mainland estate manager to do, too.

I look at it this way - so long as my view of the land with property lines off is clear and pretty, I don't care. It could be a field of 16ms, for sale at ridiculous prices, but I don't care. They can screw off and choke on tier. Unless you actually want to buy more land in the sim, it's not a big deal and the mere presence of a small plot shouldn't get people so irate that they give up on the game. That is just my view.

I don't want to pick out any one person, so will just quote this fairly representative view from this thread:

"There are a couple of 4x4 roadside chunks eaten out of my secondary plot near my shop, for sale at between 10000 and 20000 each. No ads or ban lines so I probably shouldn't whine publicly about it, but damn their presence is irritating. They serve no other purpose."


.......so those of you with this view are complaining about EMPTY LAND adjoining (or being near) your parcel????

You're complaining that there isn't a build out to the property line, adjoining every side of your parcel?


???????

[/highlight]


In connection with my previous post: you're the only one who's offered any kind of explanation for the 'I can't stand seeing buffer strips of empty land surrounding my parcel!!!' point of view, which, frankly, seems nutty on the face of it.

So, your rationale for that viewpoint is---and I'm checking with you to see if I've understood correctly---that the reason cutting parcels into pieces smaller than some particular number (512m???) is bad, is that if all parcels had to remain at 512m or larger (or whatever the number you have in mind might be), then----there would be 'better Mainland development'.

By this reasoning, all sims in which no parcel smaller than 512m exists, would constitute Better Mainland Development.

Do we see that result?

Isn't Better Mainland Development, instead, dependent on the imagination and taste---and time commitment---of those who happen to live in the sim?


If SL consisted of only a dozen sims, then you might have a point. But in fact there are, as we all know, hundreds of sims with large parcels of land standing empty. There's plenty of room for Better Mainland Development. Who is hindered in their visions for good development by some empty strips of land? Who is unable to find a parcel of whatever size they want, for this good development? (Even if LL isn't presently selling entire sims, there ARE such sims available for purchase.)


All that said: the only time I ever create parcels smaller than 512m, myself, is when the overall parcel isn't divisible by 512m. That happens fairly frequently, but I try to minimize the small bits, and include a note in the not-yet-for-sale bits offering them at the same per-meter price of the adjoining parcels, to whomever buys those.

In other words, I have no interest in creating strips.

But I find the arguments against them unconvincing (assuming that no extortionate objects are permitted by LL to go up on them). Empty land is a plus, in my view, no matter what sale price is placed on it.

Well, no, that's faulty reasoning. It would still be faulty even had I argued that *all* parcels under 512 must be removed. Rather, my argument is that smaller parcels *can* interfere with development of larger parcels, and should just be gotten out of the way as a practical matter of who's actually paying the light bill at Linden Research Inc, in much the same way that I sometimes have to move tenants around because it suits my business purposes--usually to keep other tenants happy.Of course we don't have to see the result, but in fact, in general, we do: larger parcels tend to be abandoned less frequently (sort of the zeroth-order criterion of "development", and subjectively I'd say, yeah, they contain richer and more valuable content on average. (That's certainly true compared to microparcels, the current highlight of which is a couple hundred radioactive ultra-glowing, particle-spewing purple crystals--thinly veiled ads for a kasino, in the guise of "art."

Doesn't matter. There *are* sims the development of which *is* curtailed by the existence of disconnected microparcels. Currently, the landowners--and more importantly, the *potential* landowners--of each such sim are constrained by these parcels, each comprised of 0.02 to 0.78 percent of the sim (16 to 512 sq.m.).

It's just bad business to keep letting the tail wag the dog.

Thanks for not singling me out by name, but I think I should step up and clarify my thinking anyway.

I don't mind at all that the plots are sitting there empty. In fact, Weedy's group owns a 16 that takes a "bite" out of my main parcel which I didn't mention; it doesn't bother me exactly because it's empty and I know it will stay that way.

The problem with the ones I complained about is that I will forever have to consider that at any time somebody could build something utterly random there and spoil whatever I decide to put there. It's the same problem everybody in SL faces, but because of the roadside location it's the equivalent of someone other than me owning the piece of land my mailbox sits on in RL, someone who can erect a 50 foot spinning plywood tower in my front yard at any time (or sell to someone in the 50 foot spinning plywood tower business).

And that's still the essence of extortion as it applies to the SL microplot business: if not ban lines or ads or horrendously annoying builds, the threat that they may come at any time - especially since these plots are for the most part not good for anything else.

But....how is that different from what would happen if a 512m, instead of a 16m, adjoined your property?

...

The only distinction I keep seeing mentioned by those who deplore small parcels is (paraphrasing) 'the only thing they are good for is extortion'.

But: LL has not only stated that they won't permit extortion---they've actually been backing up that statement with action. (I myself had a spinning neon tower on a 16m that adjoined my land---and within a few hours of my ARing it, it was gone. The parcel is still there. But I honestly can't think of any remote reason why I should be upset about it.)

It just seems as though people are having to jump through convoluted mental hoops to come up with a reason to be horrified by small parcels---and all those reasons seem, in the end, to apply JUST as much to 512+ parcels.

In other words, no one has yet given a valid reason for villifying the makers of small parcels.

As I've said, the only time I myself make an under-512m parcel is if the overall parcel isn't evenly divisible by 512. And frankly I can't see that 'buying large parcels and turning them into 16m's' is a business plan that makes a lick of sense.

But rather than vilifying those who deliberately make small parcels, doesn't it make more sense to....feel sorry that their IQs are (evidently) so low?

You haven't offered any arguments in support of your claim that my post contained 'faulty reasoning'. Do you have any such arguments, or were you simply making an ad hominem attack and hoped that that fact would go unnoticed?

The idea that 'smaller parcels can interfere with development of larger parcels' seems to lack any standing as a justification for deploring the existence of small parcels, for these reasons:

1) Larger parcels can 'interfere with development' of OTHER larger parcels just as effectively as can smaller parcels, since the issue is not size but configuration. Here the common-sense observation is that a rectangular parcel is easier to 'develop' (presumably in some way that would excite your admiration) than is an irregular parcel. A trip over the Map will show many instances of rectangularity being interfered with by phenomena OTHER than 'small parcels'.

2) Following up on this common-sense observation (about configuration being more important than 'absence of small parcels' for 'development'): the mere presence of smaller parcels does nothing to affect the 'development-readiness' of any parcel. A 16m that's in the donut hole of a larger parcel---sure. But in what way does a 16m on the edge of, say, a nice rectangular 4096m, 'interfere' with the development of the 4096m?

Those of you in the thread who've been deploring the existence of small parcels, have been attempting to justify a blanket condemnation of small parcels. None of you have successfully made that case, yet.








What's your source on that?

You left out one of the most, if not *the* most important reasons for over-priced 16sqm (or larger) parcels - Virtual Knitting!

Yay Maggie Linden!

You have managed to educate me today. I'd never heard of it.

(Urban Dictionary doesn't have it yet, but it gets 1500 Google hits....)

Maggie Linden is awesome. And she's got a nice looking avatar too! Definitely not noobish.

Because a 512 can't do this:



I'm not horrified or anything like it, it's just mildly annoying. I should have stuck with my first instincts and not whined in public about it.