Court system? eeeek!!!!

And here lies the problem, it should be mandatory for covenants to explain the TOS and make sure a resident has read and understood that. Also the terms used should be changed, land ownership is misleading. I lived there for over a year and at the time was pretty fresh to SL and like many it would have been nice if these things were better explained to us.

Well the problem with that is that any legal system instituted in SL would really fundamentally alter the character of the place. SL is designed to be a place with very few rules. There are the "big six", but beyond that, it's designed to be a very laissez-faire place. If you institute courts, automatically it becomes less free, and the cost of doing business for a landlord rises to pretty difficult to manage levels. The island land owner has to maintain full control over the island because ultimately it is the island land owner who is repsonsible to pay island fees to LL. The island owner has to have the flexibility to do as she wishes with the island. A better solution than a court would be for LL to recognize the tenure of the parcel holders and bill them a proportionate island fee directly, while leaving the estate controls in the hands of the island owner. That would protect the island owners from some financial losses from deadbeat tenant/owners, while giving the tenant/owners more secure tenure. The issue with this structure is that it really takes away a lot of the residual equity from the island owners who paid for the island to begin with -- LL would have re-evaluate island pricing (downward I think) if it were to be structured this way, and to be honest it would make islands much more like mainland, so I doubt LL would do something like that.

I think that everyone should investigate before buying and realize that when you own you are in reality just a tenant. If the island owner wants to take it back or sell the island or leave SL, you are out of luck. The same thing goes on mainland, although there your risk is that SL goes under in total -- so it's a more systemic risk, rather than the particularized one you take when you opt for island ownership.

I'm talking about people that have paid $25.00 USD for their tier, and $75.00 USD for their land, and then to have a sim owner take that away from you for no good reason, other than the fact that you had a disagreement with them.

And here lies the problem, it should be mandatory for covenants to explain the TOS and make sure a resident has read and understood that. Also the terms used should be changed, land ownership is misleading. I lived there for over a year and at the time was pretty fresh to SL and like many it would have been nice if these things were better explained to us.

You did read and understand the TOS, or at least you told LL you had when you signed up. So you want to be protected against the fact you lied when you signed up?

There needs to be some rules that estate owners adhere to and one of them is having a covenant that is clear and at least reiterates the relevant section of the TOS.

When I signed up I did read the TOS but at the time I didn't even know what SL was all about and land "ownership" hadn't even crossed my mind and I suspect that is the case for most people. There needs to be some rules that estate owners adhere to and one of them is having a covenant that is clear and at least reiterates the relevant section of the TOS.

Saying I lied when I signed up is rather a bold statement on your part, I suggest you choose your words more carefully

Hello everybody,

I agree with most of the things said about being cautious. If you want to rent on a private Island, you should be aware that, regardless what it is called, you just 'rent'.

Being an Island (co-)owner I am strongly against any regulations that fiddle with our... uh... 'powers'. There is no need for some 'court' system or whatever run by whomever. If anybody has problems I expect them to come to me or my sweety to resolve them. We handle everything and I take the step forward and say that we only have satisfied tennants.

But from my experience I must also admit that there are a lot of... uh... people out there who are just plain... uh.. 'overpowered'

I recommend these things, if you seek to rent on a private Island (many mentioned before):
- Ask around the current tennants how they like it
- Ask around the forums, here are many people that can give you tips
- Bother your friendslist... most know somebody who can help
- Talk with the Simowner (my personal favourite, but I am chatty anyways )
- Use common sense
- Play fair, but be honest (Simowner and Tennant)

And.. taking a step further yet I recommend 'Waikiti' to have a look at. I know the Simowner personally and she is a smart girl and reasonable

It would be great to have some Infopoint or something to leave suggestions for private Islands with good reputation, but I do not feel good about a place that works like a forum. That can get ugly. Rather a '+' or '-' like voting perhaps? Every Simowner who wants the opinion registers there.

As a final note: I would be ashamed as Simowner and as Person, if I ever did something like the OP mentioned. It was neither fair nor mature. Meh. I hope you find a nice place again and get settled *hugs*

I bought land there over a year go, actually in 1996

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taylor Malibu
I bought land there over a year go, actually in 1996

rights that are not enforced are not rights.

they are suggestions

That's a cynical but not irrational view. But the implications are wrong.

If you say that the buyer has no rights, the implication is that the estate owner has done nothing illegal. If true, then further efforts would be pointless, and other estate owners are encouraged to think this way.

But saying that the rights exist but aren't enforceable changes it from an ethical and legal conclusion to a practical problem. It's entirely possible that someone could find a way to enforce them. For example, suppose the buyer in this case happened to discover, through independent means, not only the estate owner's identity but that the estate owner lived in the next town over, in the same state (assuming US for the sake of argument).

If that were to happen, then the practical issues are solved - take the owner to small claims court; I believe there's be an excellent chance of winning. So instead of ruling out enforceability entirely, we should simply view it as a difficult problem that could be solved in some rare cases.

More importantly, we shouldn't treat LL's refusal to get involved as implying that all agreements between estate owners and buyers include a provision that allows the estate owner to be arbitrary. Sure, a smart buyer should act as though that were the case, but the community should never treat it as acceptable. In other words, an approach that says it's ok to be dishonest if you can't get caught is unacceptable, even though cynicism acknowledges that too many people act this way and get away with it.

The trouble with covenants is that they are basically meaningless. Oh, they are useful in that they provide a simple means of communicating a set of rules to people who rent in an area, rather than having to pass notecards around, and the basic system of people being able to "buy" land rather than having to deed it to group is a great improvement. But the content of the covenant means nothing to either party in terms of breaches.

Certainly if I were to engage in legal proceedings it would be evidence. If I rented four sims from somebody who then threw me out claiming that I was not wearing a good enough hat, and the covenant had no hat clause, I could bring it up in court as part of a contract and I would probably win.

But, we all know that nobody actually takes this stuff to court, thus it really doesn't matter what the covenant says, since nobody is going to act on it.

hmmm interesting. I do not think LL is going to support people taking their landlords to small claims court.

I don't think LL sees wording in the covenant as "Rights" and I think they would and do deny all suggested or implied rights of Private Island covenant "buyers"

I think the strongest LL is *ever* going to see the conditions spelled out in a Covenant is something more nebulous such a "Terms" which still have no legal or TOS binding to them.

My views are not going to be popular but...

I think the best chance for getting better system for customer protection is to get the Lindens to provide a technical solution to the issue. That is what they like to do and what they feel works best.

My proposal would be that island parcels are bought and sold just like mainland sims. If you have bought and own an island, then decide sell a piece of it then you should have no further rights to it until you buy it back (if you do). The person who bought it should then pay tier to the Lindens for the land and the island owners tier contribution should decrease to fit their remaining holdings appropriately. If you don't own a full sim anymore - you lose the estate tools too. There is no reason I can think of why island should be treated differently from mainland sims or why an island owner who decides to sell parts of their island should expect to then be able to take it back under any circustances whatsoever.

Island owners who don't like this option should rent out parts of their island in the same way mainland rentals are done.

If that is not economically viable then tough I say, making something economically viable at the expense of customer protections is not a good solution in my opinion.

This isn't such a radical or unpopular idea. Caledon for instance was around prior to the 'deed to individual' days which resumed in earnest in summer 2006 - and we ran just fine using groups. If they were all my groups like a mainland rental it would still be okay in the long run, just a bit more work to manage.

Part of what makes all this so sticky to solve technically is that people deal outside the system. For instance, I don't use the land sale search feature whatsoever. People come by, prebook a parcel by word of honour, then gift me some $L in the following week or so. 100% trust. I deliver the region usually about a week after that, then gift the land over for $L 0 or group deed it for them.

Paradoxically perhaps - the reason people go to private estates is *because* the region owner clearly has powers over the residents. Because once the region owners can't stop someone from adfarming or doing whatever they want - you got mainland again.

There *is* a risk, I give you that. But it is up to you to weigh it against the pros and cons. You can't get the 'less morally bound' out of the system. Either both sides adhere to their agreement within reason or both sides should rethink that agreement.