Looking for Help to Formulate a Jira Proposal to Get Rid of Ad Farms

This was moved to a requested features section when in fact the moderator did not understand that I am seeking answers on how to do this. When those answers are forthcoming and it is worthy of Jira, it will be entered there. Meanwhile, please help me get this idea to make sense in Jira -- (i.e., resident has question seeking answer: how to make this a decent Jira proposal with a chance of working?):


The problem is that cutting up land into 16m chunks has no consequence. The idea would work something like this:

"You are allowed a certain amount of land per tier level. That land can consist of your tier level land allotment / 256 number of parcels. You will pay an extra $1 U.S. in tier fees for every parcel over your allotment."

So if you are at 1024m in tier, you can have 4 parcels. If you cut it into 6 parcels, you must pay an extra $2 U.S. per month.

The actual amounts can be changed, it can also be grandfathered so it only kicks in for new parcels. This would mean everyone can have some small parcels, and larger land owners can have more distinct parcels, but ad farmers who have a large number of parcels but a relatively small amount of land will either be forced to sell or pay up.

I've watched new sims come online, and have seen that even before the first large parcel is sold often all roadside parcels are already cut up. Ad farmers have a negative impact way out of proportion for their numbers, one ad farmer can destroy the look of an entire sim.

The difficulty with proposals to stop them in have been in creating too many restrictions for those who have legit reasons for a few small parcels around their larger parcels. I think this proposal contains the essence of a working solution. If you like this idea, please help with the wording and the balance, then let's campaign. Ad farmers are the lowest scum in SL, they only care about the few pennies they get in ad views and are willing to destroy everyone else's enjoyment for that goal.

just 10 minutes ago i went to see a 2048 i had for sale only to see that a neighbour had sold her 1024 to an adcutter. the sim had been a nice ad-free beach sim, now its shit. one resident has immediately reacted with disgust to the adfarm by cutting her 12000+/m2 parcel into 2048s and put them up for sale, no doubt some of these parcels will turn to shit too.
i hate adcutters! ll need to do something about this i am sick and tired of this happening and i dont really care if some dip-shit residents argue that 'its thier land to do with as they please', go fuck off.

ive got 10 votes wasted on 'make sl bug-free before new feature' i will happily put the toward a well thought out comprehensive anti adcutting proposition.

simple solution as mentioned 10 times befor, don`t allow cutting smaller then 256sqm

either they have to much tier to spend and keep doing it with 256sqm`s or it stops

Tier based square meter OR Number of plots.

512M OR 1 plot - 1024 OR 2 plots

some exclusions would need to apply, making it difficult to set as a global policy.

it would need some "Elbow room", there are some very productive and benificial builds on small plots

You forget that not all 16 sqm plots go to ad farms. There are indeed people out there who use them for safekeeping - for backing up their inventory items there, for instance.

Personally, I do not think the Lindens will bother with this sort of proposal because it is not really of a technical nature but a social/preferences one, and those they stay clear of...

Sure what about ---

Landing points
Stall rentals
small meeting places
Vendors
server spots
data gathering plots
bot plots
-
even a porta-potty

I agree with Alicia, but i would limit size to 512, the Old "Starting land" size.
it's still the Lowest tier, but gives the Owner some Room and prims to actually Do something with the land.

Angel.

square meter or number of plots

I agree there are legitimate reasons for 16m plots, and with this proposal you can still have some. As for what the Lindens will and won't bother with, that is speculation. LL has many times intervened for "social/preference" reasons, and LL has a strong interest in ensuring the majority of its tier paying customers have a positive experience.

What has been lacking though is a way of attacking ad farmers without attacking the freedom to cut parcels for legit reasons -- which is why also proposals to make 256m the minimum size won't fly. This proposal provides for legit uses (with the goal find a good balance for the size vs. #parcels).

One person with 512m tier can own 32 parcels of land with ads -- for $6/month I can destroy the value of a sim. That ratio is too high.

You can just join up all your ad property in the sim as one "parcel"

It will limit price gouging on 16m to legitimate folks (oh yay, 20,000L for 16sqm. Yeah right.) but it won't get rid of the ads. It will also limit the ability of folks to buy out the worst views.

At this very moment I own 7 pieces of land in Svavarsson, entirely separate of each other (I bought out several ads). It was easy enough to combine them into 2 parcels- Svavarsson Restoration project (the scattered 16's I've bought, equivalent to just over 512sqm), and Rainy Day (my shop). There are about 5 cutters in my immediate neighborhood- each with several plots that they could easily combine to get a "legitimate" 256 or more (in fact the intact 512 next to my workshop is owned by an ad firm)

The cutting of land itself is not what the objection is to. People like me can hold 16's perfectly well and keep them beautiful for the neighborhood. The objection is for the hideous signs that accompany 16s. Sadly, while LL might have banned 16sqms if there were a reasonable objection to the land cut *itself* they probably won't dabble in social engineering and try to regulate what residents want to place on their land in such a round about fashion.

It makes murky waters trying to define advertising and ad parcels. Is the intact 512 next to me with 3 spinning signs bad? What about a wall of advertising for tenants in a mall? Okay, what about if you put the tenants advertising on the outside of the mall... okay how far away from the mall does it have to be before it's an eyesore? 16sqm? 4000sqm? The next sim over?

They suck and I hate them. That's why I buy them out. But unless you regulate "resident" property for attractiveness, there's no legitimate way to get rid of them.

anymore i would support the decision to automatically reclaim all 16m plots, auto return, and set to protected. sure, id lose some 16m plots ive bought up for prims. other people would as well, but the tradeoff would be worth it. i reckon the only people that would cry about it are those that own a heap of them, and i couldnt care less about those people anyway.

There are several proposals of various natures in JIRA already. I'll post those links here in a sec, once I find them.

[Edit: here are several proposals. The first here states that we shouldn't ADVERTISE anything less than 128 square meters, i.e. eliminate them from Search/Land. Sponsored by the Arbor Project:

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-598

The second one stipulates that users are not allowed to OWN anything less than 256 square meters on a sim:

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-246


The third limits the minimum size of PARCEL DIVISION to 512 square meters:

https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-129

These are the ones that I could find that directly affect the creation of ad farms. Others have to do with visual muting of objects owned by people or on particular parcels.

ok , but in reality whats to stop an ad cutter buying a 256 or 512 and filling it full of adds,

Currently a 512 can go for as little as 3-4k cna you imagine what the adds cutters will do to spall parcels and how it would effect those noobs just getting onto the land market.

Not pretty

Marty

Two things come to mind: the Arbor Project and the Clocktower Project.

LL need to make adcutting/farming/extortion an offence of the ToS.

Since these matters are basically an ugly build issue, I fear the Lindens will undertake no action against them.

Does anyone ever read those spinning ads ? Not me certainly, I have a finely tuned visual ad removal system embedded in my brain. However I did take timeout to actually take note of a few to see what they were promoting and saw that a lot of them were pointing back to RL. This got me thinking that one way to rid SL of ad farmers would be to dry up their advertising income, I wonder how the companies buying the ad space would react if their goods and services were boycotted as a result of ad farms? Would it be a TOS violation if some un-named residents collected a mailing list together, and masses of other un-named residents emailed those companies (weekly) expaining that because of ad-farming, 'buying their goods' and 'hell freezing over' were roughly equivalent.

PLEASE vote for this one if you want something done about Ad Farms.

The Lindens are now engaging with this - it's #3 in the 'most popular issues' in this category; we have a chance of getting something done and reducing the blight on the Mainland.

.

The Busybodies have reared their heads again, now trying to tell landowners what they can and can't build on their own land. If you guys want zoning, go to a private estate. LL simply will not let SL residents dictate to mainland landowners what they can and can't do on their land.

The Arbor Project and that Clocktower group are at least responding to the issue in a productive and responsible manner that doesn't involve either seizing other people's assets or seizing control of those assets.

On the mainland, if you want to control the view, you must own the view.

Technical solutions to social problems rarely work as intended. You need a social solution.

Remind me to buy a plot of land next to yours, build a 50m tall neon pink full bright tower, and see how you like it.

The actions of one money-hungry individual creating a spinning ad farm and putting it for sale for L$20,000 can ruin the value of a whole sim. If they buy the land, and either keep it or put it up for sale at market prices, that's one thing - but almost invariably people will put them up for sale at outrageous prices; that's extortion, and harrassment.

There should have been zoning laws, or at least some kind of guidelines, right from day 1, otherwise we wouldn't have had this mess to such a high degree today.

Another reason why LL's "hands off" policy isn't practical. With total freedom comes total responsibility, and it's clear that many people do not grasp this concept at all.

Broccoli

That would eliminate these tiny advert/land extortion plots easily, without causing any problem to other people.
It basically makes it 8 times more expensive for them.

A social solution to an antisocial problem?

Broccoli

Nope. Just trying to make landownership worthwhile... something in which the Lindens are intensely interested, for obvious reasons.Not for long. Soon, one way or another, the rule will be: if you want viewers, you must own the land from which they'd view.

So what else is new? Welcome to the Internet, where even the utterly clueless can enjoy their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame, is what I say.