How landcutters are still hurting the mainland

I don't mean apathy towards the extortionists, I am talking about apathy towards the Lindens or, more generally, towards doing anything to fight the extortionists, leading to being "cowed by their bullying tactics".

Most certainly, people probably care a lot about being gouged in a fraudulent manner, but it's that same old "voter apathy" kind of problem; they hate the situation in the government, but don't see that their vote matters enough to bother voting. Well, until this most recent election, anyway. Even still, there are those who refrain from voting because they feel disenfranchised.

Up until recently, LL hasn't given people much to hope for that it would be fixed, so I tend to think it is apathy they show towards supporting getting it fixed, which is what the extortionists have been banking on. Not surprisingly, that was even an admission from one of the worst; he admits that people's unwillingness to fight, but instead pay his (self-admitted) extortion prices, was what allows him to rake in enough money to pay for several sims, as well as have extra money to cash out every month.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to give offense, I still am not sure how what I wrote was a distortion of your opinions: I got the impression from the way you phrased your comment that you believed that the majority of cases where one creates a group using ones alt is actually unethical. I can imagine there might be unethical uses to which one can put a group, but I have a hard time thinking of any, so I am interested in your reasoning.

I don't want to make out that this is the most gigantic big deal in the world, because it isn't. But what you posted in #166:
.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low
I think making a Group of one's alts is unethical

Why?
.................

...is not only NOT equivalent to what I'd written--it's a virtual opposite. I specifically said that I was NOT saying the phrase that you attribute to me as my entire statement.

Again, what I posted (in 156) was: ""What you describe does sound like a legitimate use of the 'alt group' tactic (which is why I refrained from making a stronger statement such as 'I think making a Group of one's alts is unethical)."

In that and other posts on the topic I said--more than once--that I could see there were legitimate uses for alt groups.

From that, you chose to portray me as having said "I think making a Group of one's alts is unethical."

It's as if you had posted this: "I think that people who post things like 'Short people are stupid' are demonstrating nothing but their own intolerance."

........And then I had posted:

Quote: Originally Posted by Argent Stonecutter

Short people are stupid.

............................................................
Can you see that this would, in fact, be a distortion of what you had posted? That I would be portraying you as posting a belief that you not only didn't hold, but that you had specifically deplored?

No, it's not a big deal, I honestly did not believe that I was misrepresenting your position: I interpreted the way you phrased it to mean that you were expressing agreement with the quoted phrase in the general case. I'm sorry that I misinterpreted the way you were using that particular construction, and I will attempt to avoid such mistakes in the future.

Can we set that aside, because I really am interested in the reasons you find alts in groups objectionable.

Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low

...But if you persist in 'terming' things what you like, without any connection to actual definitions and usage, then you will find that you are continually having to explain yourself.



'Educating' people about your private language, in which you make up your own meaning for terms, could turn out to be a full-time job. Most people find that the point of language is communication, and will find your quest to create your own language puzzling, to say the least. But, to each their own.

However, if you choose to use your made-up language to insult people, don't you owe it to them to disclose that you aren't actually accusing them of (say) Strawman, since you concede that no Strawman was committed, but instead, are accusing them of your own imaginary violation?

Some sort of asterisk system would demonstrate integrity on your part. For example, you might post:

You are creating a strawman.* You have to realize that this sentiment has grown up after..."

And then, at the bottom of the post, you'd have:

*I don't mean Strawman in the accepted sense of having attributed to an opponent an argument that they didn't actually make; I mean Strawman in my own private language, which means something else entirely, mainly that I disagree with whatever the person I'm accusing of Strawman has said.

This sort of system would show that you are willing to act in good faith (even if your insistence on using a private language is rather eccentric).







How do you get from my statements:

"I'm on record in the thread as asking for the locations of at least a few of the alleged multiplicity of abuses " (in post 19 and

"could you provide us with a few locations to look at?" (post 72)

............to "not really interested"?

Where did I retract the questions?

(and again: the fact that I'm not interested in having private contact with you, in no way invalidates my requests for documentation on the claims that these problems exist in SL in any kind of widespread fashion. Why not post at least the names of a few of the sims? If the problem is genuinely all that ubiquitous, there should be hundreds if not thousands of sims that have egregious examples…))

Okay.

As I've said, I can see that making a group consisting of alts for the purpose of dealing with a tenant's needs, seems legit to me. (I guess it would be the owner, the tenant, and one alt of the owner, due to the 'minimum of 3' rule.) And I put my concerns about alt-Groups that are NOT about serving a tenant, but just about saving money (Tier payments) for the owner, more in the category of having questions about the ethics involved, rather than saying 'it's unethical'.

The reason I have questions about the ethics of the non-tenant-situation type of alt-Group, the type that's just about saving the alt-Group-maker money, is that it appears to go against the intent of the policy, and that therefore it seems deceptive.

Here I'm inferring that the reason the policy was made in the first place was to encourage Residents to...be friendly. To form associations with each other, work together, make a community.

I'm inferring that there was a bit of idealism in the reasons for the policy.

And to simply try to save money, by making up two alts and putting them in my 'Group', seems counter to that idealism. It seems cynical and deceptive (though since so many people not only do this but talk about it openly, 'deceptive' applies only in the most abstract sense.)

So, that's basically it. I'm not saying 'it's wrong' or 'people who do this are bad people' or anything like that. I'm saying that even though I could probably save myself US$97.50 each month by doing it----a not inconsiderable sum to me----I just feel.....'funny' about it.

It's "minimum of 2" now.

What about groups just to let you set a cool title?

What about groups for permissions, with no land, that are detected by 'llSameGroup'?
That's what groups and group ownership is for, yes.

The first I heard of the group bonus, I was told it was because people were reluctant to move land into groups because it was more or less impossible to get it out without going over tier. If you have 512 square meters, and put it in a group, and want to get it back, you have to sell it back to yourself. When you do that your tier goes up to 1024 for that month.

With the group bonus you can slice your land into 10 slices, and sell each slice back to yourself, moving the tier back to yourself in 10% chunks.

For people with just a "First Land", that's a big deal.

When I set up the Coonspiracy that's exactly how I used it, because one of the three people we set up the first group land with didn't want in a big group, so I pulled my land out and used that as the start of the Coonspiracy. We didn't get to benefit from the "group bonus" as an actual bonus to our land until we had several people in the group, all with first land, and we bought the first chunk from a neighbor.

Is this room 12A?

Interesting--I didn't know about the '2'.

And yes, certainly, my reservations wouldn't apply in cases where no land is involved.




Ha! That's an ingenious solution to the 'if you own it for even 1 minute' rule!

The easier way is to just pull all your tier contribution from the group first. It won't go *poof* instantly or anything--you certainly have a few minutes to buy the land back as an individual.

The scary part is that it evidently won't go *poof* for a long, long time. I discovered this quite by accident when I also discovered that, if one leaves a group, one's tier contribution is instantly removed. So at one point for over a month, I was buying land using the same tier over and over again until I got to wondering why I still had so much tier available. (That part is *not* recommended!)

Where one can get in trouble is becoming dependent on that group bonus. So, for example, a bonus-only Premium with a 512 can add 48 of scrap within the group bonus. But they can't sell the whole 560 back to themselves without going over tier. Hence, that 48 ends up stranded again if they decide to swap out for other land, unless they can find a buyer for the whole 560 (difficult: not enough folks even know about the group bonus, let alone how to "Buy for Group".

People worried about putting land in a group (which was the people the group bonus was supposed to encourage) are NOT going to feel secure about doing that. Like, ever.
Thanks for the warning. o_O

I don't have any idea why you think straw man arguments have to be held to a highly specific (and nowhere near complete) "formula" to be considered such. They don't. There is *NO ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT* that they be used to with a person. They *CAN* be used to "straw man" an argument from an entire opposing viewpoint, hence:



I am sorry that you think that the Wikiality definition represents the only possible definition, but it just isn't so. I would suggest you look around and broaden your horizons and usage of terms a bit, especially considering that you seem to be the only one really having trouble grasping the semantic concept here.

Speaking of which, since I have already gone to lengths to explain myself, WHY are you still arguing semantics? Can we get on with things now?



It's not imagined, and it's not made-up language.

..and, yes, your arguments definitely fall under the (arguably) less-rigid definition of strawman.

Either way, your misrepresentations of the arguments of those you don't agree with have been called.



..and I have offered them to you. Many are IMAGES, which cannot be posted in the forum, as they are not available outside of SL. I also have some landmarks, but don't have the time to open them and copy the SLURLs here (not the least of the reasons is that I run SL and forums on two separate systems). I also have some notecards with embedded data, which also cannot be posted here.

Again, if you want any of it, it is available to you FOR THE ASKING. I really don't care one way or another if you want it or not, but if someone OFFERS you what you are asking for, and simply requests that you ask in-world AS A COURTESY, I don't think that is asking too much.

Edit:

As I said, I have a very large amount of these assets which could qualify as "evidence", and I presumed that a large majority of it you aren't interested in, so I also would like to have more detailed info from you on what you are looking for so I can give you the appropriate assets and data. That's one of the reasons why I am asking you to contact me in-world, rather than cluttering up the thread playing "20 questions" in here to narrow the search parameters.

[you apparently took this from: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-straw-man-argument.htm]

Indeed. 'Nuff said!







Seriously? The many, many Photobucket (and other free image-posting services) URLs that we see posted here each day, are in violation of the TOS???

Just post the sim names, as have been requested, and stop messing about.

But it doesn't matter how many pics and sim names you have. The fact is that microparcels are not 'bad' just because they are microparcels. That's all anyone was saying, and it can't be challenged. All your evidence would show is that microparcels *can* be bad, and nobody disputes that.

Exactly! I'm glad we finally agree.



Not from in-world, they can't, which is what I am saying.

I'm not going to download and re-upload images just for one person.

You want some samples, there are still a few left on the Ad Zoo blog:

http://etakeh-oh.net/adless/

The direct link to the images:

http://etakeh-oh.net/adless/gallery/index.php

I seriously doubt "sim names" are going to be enough to satisfy. Next, it will be "well I went there, but I didn't see anything".



The thing you just don't "get", is that NO ONE HERE EVER SAID THAT. NO ONE. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.

It can't be challenged BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE. EVER.

It's also not "all anyone was saying", definitely not "all" YOU were saying, hence:



In many, many cases, even outside the so-disclaimed donut holes, an empty 16 CAN be used for harassment and extortion. We've documented it in the activities of a number of residents who use this strategic placement of plots for extortion purposes, and do not necessarily put content on their plot, nor even necessarily use "terraforming terrorism" (though some of the worst do). However, buying up 512s, checkerboarding them next to active residents' plots IS an admitted tactic of these people, because they know it causes FUD, it causes irritation, and it DOES act as a stimulus to "buy them out".

There ARE people who think that all microparcels should be banned BECAUSE of the bad uses, however, more often than not, they aren't aware of the good uses, and I have rebutted and educated them about the situation whenever I can as well.

Yes, my evidence shows that microparcels *can* be bad, yes, people still dispute that.

learn from the advertising zoo how to deal with holes in your parcels.

The problem isn't always holes in parcels but also neighbouring parcels which are rendered unsaleable due to the proliferation of small lots. For a sad situation of 16 sq.m. plots gone mad turn on property lines and take a look at http://slurl.com/secondlife/Hanaji/138/204/36 with cut holes in land owned by Governor Linden, probably abandoned which is really not surprising given the atrocious terraforming of the tiny plots. High time something was done about this and I agree with former posts that the minimum parcel size should be 512 sq.m. Stop the cutters and turn over these small plots to neighbouring land owners for free!

Well my issue was I bought a 2460 parcel in Hazel between a castle and a Victorian "painted lady" house, very charming. The back wall of a large store is solid plain "cut stone" texture that blended nicly with the castle.
I bought myself a castle and spent a considerable time making the residence nice to look at.
Then 2 weeks later- 2 weeks ago I noticed someone set a large colored square on the ground behind the Victorian house, it had some name on it like skybox, ok I thought it was rezzing there and would go up 500 meters and be gone.

Then I logged in a few days later and the Victorian house was gone and this HUGE 6,000 meter BORG going up in it's place. Turns out this thing is the Brittish version of freaking WAL-MART but 3 floors high and selling "hot" lingerie and clothing.
Yup, there's no covenant, but still, one would think that in an area of residence houses, someone wanting to plunk down "Wal-Mart" would consider the people already there and build the thing in a skyplatform 500 m up or on a commercial location.

I tried blocking my view of the ugly thing with a tall tree line, but since my parcel is L shaped it took about 50 trees just to partially block it, that didnt work well so I wound up having to move up to a sky platform, but all that put a serious dent in my prims having to waste it that way. Also, a mega prim does wierd stuff to scripted objects like pets ( they fall thru it) and I wasn't getting the full use of my parcel as the prim was smaller.

I wound up putting up a mega prim wall to block my view of the thing and I added a sign describing my frustration with this BORG ruining my parcel for me, and I put the thing up for sale so I can move on, ready to dump it at a bargain basement price to be done with it.

Well, the BORG lady must have reported the sign as an "ad farm violation", nice eh?
So now I'm still waiting to hear back about the alt account suspension and I'm not a happy camper at all about this whole thing!
I get suspended but I see a bunch of "ad farms" as well as "avatar attacks" etc in the incident reports simply getting WARNINGS.

This all makes me think TWICE about ever buying land again, I was considering buying 8,000 to 16,000 m but now after seeing how someone's petty issue can potentially cause your account to be suspended, or locked up, or terminated for any reason or no reason at all it seems, no way do I want to chance losing hundreds of real dollars on a parcel because someone doesn't like something I said, or feels I bumped into them as a "griefer" or something ect.

Umm you brought their land, they won
I personally think there should be a minimum limit somehow on the amout of land a persont can own in a sim, they aare either a resident of the sim or they are not, so maybe start at 32m and work up to say 128m or 256m over 12 months. If 512m was a limit from day one, we would have had none of these problems and nobody would have cared less, why a new virtual world wouldn't learn from these mistakes is beyond me,
If you want only a few prims for a sign or backup server find a friends land or rent 16m off a sim resident.

? but won't that 16m plot need to be divided (cut) from the land to be of use to the server? isn't that advocating more 16 meter plots?

Yes, but the owner of the 16m can't sell the 16m seperately, they have to total a minimum of 64-128m of land in the sim or sell the land in 64m lots
Why would the 16m for a server have to be cut from the main parcel at all, the server will still work.

My bad I was thinking about how media works on SL, I have no server experience.

This would be a little messy. The land owner would have to arrange for the server not to get auto-returned, which generally means a separate group to own the land, which is generally impractical because of the 25 group limit. One could just turn off auto-return (I guess; personally, I would *never* do that), or maybe just own the land as an individual and only set it to a group, leaving that group to be owned by a couple group-rich alts.

Per Jack's office hours yesterday, whatever LL has cooked up as an anti-cutting policy will be blogged sometime after Jan 13. The delay is supposedly related to the Homestead launch. We can just hope that this means they'll be able to focus more attention on resident feedback to the blog, as opposed to thinking--after all this time--their scheme is a fait accompli.

Also in the works for a separate posting is a revamped Traffic policy. I have some reasonable hope that they've finally seen the light and will remove Traffic from Search completely. But we should be honing our feedback arguments in support of that, because there will be a lot of posts by alts of the burgeoning "traffic for hire" industry, and a few by those still deluded that their meager, legitimately earned "popularity" is still relevant in the age of bots.

That sounds promising. Is your hope based on something that's been said, or is it just a hope?