From: Temporal Mitra
This does not mean the end of ad farms...this does not mean that billboards will be removed from second life, this does not mean that you can AR any billboard and have it removed...
It doesn't mean the end of all kinds of "ad farms" in every sense of the usage of that phrase, but it DOES mean the end to a majority of the instances of what that phrase presently describes.
I understand that it doesn't mean that all forms of (even odious) advertising will go away, or that I can't AR everything in sight I don't like. I never expected it to. Some things I have to deal with on my own, either by fighting them on my own terms, or just accepting their existence and moving on with my life.
From: someone
This also does not mean that the price per meter of land for sale will be regulated, or kept at a "reasonable" price, because that is not what the policy states.
I never expected it to. In fact, in another thread, I specifically stated that I felt LL would steer WAY clear of any policy which directly intervened in pricing or transactions.
From: someone
1. The policy does not limit the reportable content to annoying ads..but to any content that negatively affects anyone's view, anywhere, anytime, no restrictions.
This is entirely subjective, with the Lindens falling back on "I dont know what defines "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view, but I'll know it when I see it". My question is, if you can't define it, how can you enact and apply the policy with anything approaching even-handedness?
I think this is a red herring. It is QUITE clear and discernible EXACTLY what this policy targets primarily. One look at a sim decimated by Mr. Grassy-Spinning-Cubes-On-a-16sqm-Selling-For-L$500,000, and you can tell EXACTLY what is being defined by the policy. It is not hard to discern the intent, but I will agree that there will be a few cases on the razor's edge that will have to be a judgment call on the part of LL. However, I also expect those cases to be very few and far between amongst the VAST numbers of real abuse cases that are little more than open-and-shut. I'm willing to accept that even I have a vanishingly small, but still existent, chance that some neighbor may AR my land under this rule (assuming I ever put it up for sale), and I may get ganked over it. I expect to have an appeal, which the article also states I will have if I am suspended and, failing that in the worst possible case, I will take my business to some other virtual world which doesn't have as many idiots to deal with, or make my own.
I think the policy is designed well enough to promote the most even-handedness possible. If not, there will be angst, gnashing of teeth, and more "LL sucks" outcry. Nothing new there.
From: someone
2. What is considered to be an unreasonable price?
Exhorbidant or unreasonable prices for small (or large) parcels is relative. If an advertiser paid L$800 for a prime 16m ad parcel, and it will take him a reasonable amount of time to find a parcel in that same sim, or another that is as well placed, then charging L$1000 is not extortionistic at all. It is making a reasonable profit (or perhaps not even making a profit, merely just paying him for the time he will have to spend to find another spot)...And, as you can see from the policy, it is not aimed at legitimate advertising businesses.
If an advertiser buys an adjacent piece of land for near FMV, cuts it up into 16s-32s, then sells them for 2x FMV and up, then I consider that exorbitant. There is NOTHING about the land which makes it worth any more than it was before he bought it, chopping it up notwithstanding (and I would argue that it actually DECREASES the value of the land, as it is now mostly useless for anything other than adfarming). I MIGHT be able to justify a small increase, but not 5x-10x, which is what most of these idiots are asking.
Now, when some enterprising (unsuspecting) young (naive) businessperson (sucker) comes along and pays that ridiculous sum for one of those plots, puts up his ad system, then gets ire from the neighbors and blocked for his troubles, then expects someone else to come in and pay the same exorbitant price for the land he did, I am not surprised at his disappointment. I would counsel him to be more conservative with his money in the future and not pay extortive prices for land, advising him to take it as a lesson learned. Now, if he decides to be rude about it, then OK, all bets are off, and that's where this policy comes into play.
"But it is close to SeXXX club!!" So? That may make it more enticing for purchase by another advertiser, but it makes it LESS enticing for someone looking to get rid of the adfarm next to their home. Not to mention that when "SeXXX club" dries up and disappears, there is now NO reason for the plots to be priced so exorbitantly. "But I'll lose money!" So? Welcome to Business 101. Sometimes you lose money on a deal. Get over it.
Ultimately, it is nothing more than a form of land speculation business, and is no less odious than selling freebies to newbies at the Welcome Center, in my opinion.
From: someone
What if he paid L$3000 for that parcel a year ago, when land prices were so high?...will Linden Labs force him to sell it under his acquistion price, because they arbitrarily judge it is too high in todays land prices? Many of you own mainland waterfront...would you like to put it up for sale for L$20/meter (a reasonable price for mainland waterfront), and be AR'd just because someone could now say you are pricing it too high, because it is more than twice what some other mainland parcels are priced at, and they dont like your house? Remember, the policy does NOT limit it to ad land, nor to any particular size of parcel...or to an advertisement...it says "view", and "content".
They aren't going to judge anything solely based on a price. Simply the intent, of which price is ONE factor. No, there is clearly demand for certain plots (though, in a virtual world, I don't get it myself, since you can MAKE your own waterfront easy enough anywhere), just like there is demand for ad plots. Problem is, I have no interest in paying off someone else's "opportunity cost" to get the land to revert back to something which I couldn't possibly sell for anything near that price, as a real plot.
I don't see anything in the policy which would lead me to believe that they would ever seriously consider applying it against a regular landowner the way you are describing. I may be wrong, but I think I would err on the side of trusting them not to, than worry about it happening.
From: someone
3. Since my "view" may differ from others....based on draw distance...what is considered to be "another resident's view"? I can set my "view" anywhere from 64m to 512m, and if I disable my camera constraints I can remotely cam a lot further than that. What defines another person's view? What if the "view" I expect is an unencumbered view of the sunset with my windlight viewer, does your house have to go?...do you have to ensure what I deem my right to my view over your land? According to the policy as written, you do. What makes my right to my view anymore important that you using your land as you wish?
Again, I point out the intent. If you bought the land next to mine, and put up some horrid thing that negatively impacted my SL experience, then also immediately put it up for sale for some ridiculous price, perhaps even HINTING to me that I could buy you out if I want. I think the intent is clear, and is definitely well outside any "grey area".
If you never offer to sell it, or offer to sell it within a reasonable markup from what is currently FMV for the area or similar areas in question, then there is no foul to cry. Despite that I may think your build is garish and abusive of my "view", there's nothing I can do about it as far as LL is concerned. Expect it to be blocked from my side, though, as I will do whatever I feel is necessary to relieve myself of your bad taste.
From: someone
4. Since the policy does not state that the reporter of the abuse has to be a land owner anywhere near the offending view....can we assume that anyone can report any offending content anywhere on the grid?...as long as it affects their view at any particular moment?
Is this appropriate?...Should I be able to AR your neighbor in your sim, because I dont like the looks of their house, or garden, or statue, just because I think they are trying to sell their land for too much?
Sure! If you think it busts the rules, go for it! I'm content with letting LL sort it out. There's nothing wrong with reporting what you believe to be witnessing as rulebreaking behavior.
If you go visit your friend, and you see his/her neighbor orbiting people on "protected" land, then you and your friend should AR the neighbor, citing the victim as well, so LL can correlate the reports.
From: someone
5. Since the policy specifically states that it is only "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price" that would be considered a violation of the TOS. What if the parcel in question is NOT for sale, then it follows that there can be no reason to AR. This means that those who wish to keep their ugly, spinning, particle spitting, annoying <insert name of content> on their land, can do so without repercussion. This is why I state that this won't remove advertisements, they will just remove the small parcel land from sale...and since advertisers will not even discuss selling it, while it has an ad on it, you can forget about purchasing it for any price, anytime.
That is correct. However, that's where the "power in my paws" comes into play via blocking. Also, they can still be ganked for excessive particle and/or sound spam. Just because their efforts don't violate this particular rule doesn't mean they can't be ganked for violating the rest of the rules.
You also realize that the whole point of adfarm extortion is NOT about advertising. It is simply about annoying a neighboring person with "ads" to get them to BUY the land at their inflated prices. Without the ability to SELL their land, their whole raison d'etre is nullified, and it simply becomes an academic, though patient, wait for the conclusion when their tier eats a hole through their desire to continue in this line of business.
From: someone
5b. Since the policy specifically states that it only "Using content, particularly advertising, to deliberately and negatively affect another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price", then it also follows that the owner of these parcels could very well, and within the boundries of the TOS merely remove their "content" and replace it with ban lines. The ban lines will be almost as visually unappealing to you, still ruin your "view", and not be against the TOS in any way, because it does not ruin your view with "content". The ban lines will give neighboring landowners the added difficulty of not being able to fly through the air space. Imagine having to weave through a maze of ban lines...
I don't know about anyone else, but I can't see banlines until my camera is right on top of them, so that isn't a problem for me. As for access, I believe that banlines cannot be used in situations where it would deny access to someone's plot. I am not sure that is really an issue anymore with the limited ban height, though.
Since the policy has been instituted, one of the more notorious adfarmers, Mr. Android Comic, has been setting up banlines on his ad parcels. Since most of them are small, and confined to adfarms, they don't hinder me or anyone else in any way.
That said, I don't really care all that much, since it is a matter of time before they go away completely anyway. I can wait them out.
If the matter must be pushed at some point, I can see LL adding banlines to the extortion rule as well. After all, why have banlines on a piece of property you are legitimately trying to sell?
From: someone
6. Since the policy defines "content"...giving advertising as an example, but not limiting it to advertising...are we to assume that an ugly house or statue or windmill...or anything else anyone else deems to be negatively impacting their view of the moment on a parcel that they also feel is too expensive is able to be ARd? Do you realize that with this policy that so many of you are cheering for, that you are also the landowner that is on the other side of the property line from the owner of the 16m parcel? That you now are just as vulnerable to having YOUR land price, YOUR content arbitrarily judged for anything that "negatively affects another resident’s view so as to sell a parcel for an unreasonable price" This means that when you decide to sell your land, you are limited by what you have on the land, and for how much you may sell it for? What if you purchased your land a year ago, and paid 20L/meter? Will you be willing to take a loss on it, since by today's prices, that is "unreasonable"? When you advocate the abrogation of ANY residents rights to use his or her land for whatever use they wish, regardless of the size of the parcel, you are giving up your own right to do the same.
I will take the judgment of Linden Lab on the matter. There's a plot right next to me which is 8448sqm and is priced in the L$11.5/sqm range. It has lots of crap on it that I might consider "ugly", but I would never expect LL to respond to an AR about it under that rule, because it is plainly obvious that the land was being used in the state it was in before the owner put it up for sale. Even if it was being offered for L$20/sqm and up, I don't see how anyone could justify an AR over it. I agree it is possible, but the number of cases on the razor's edge of judgment will be very small. I can live with that.
From: someone
7. There have been groups that have put up ad blockers around billboards…these individuals and groups have often told advertisers that they will not remove the blockers unless the ad space owners sell the land to the groups at "a reasonable price". Is this not just a reverse form of extortion? Should these residents now be subject to the same punishments that a small parcel landowner will be subjected to? They are, afterall, extorting the rightful owner of that land to sell it below his price, for their benefit. Is that not as onerous to you? It should be.
That is a tough call, but my gut feeling is "no". I mean, I support the Ad Zoo, and we go after even those who just buy 16s higgledy-piggledy and set them for stupid prices, SOLELY for the speculation angle. It still is an odious practice, and is still a form of passive extortion.
That said, I think that "injection" advertising is lousy business practice, and I have no problems with blocking them in an attempt to get them to go away. I don't think LL can get involved in that dispute; it has to be a grass roots sort of thing, but I don't blame the neighbors trying to get advertisers out of their sims. It speaks to the heart of the "opt-in" / "opt-out" dichotomy issue, and I don't think there is an ethical/legal resolution for it, outside of enforcing zoning laws / sign ordinances, which is why we have them in RL.
Basically, I have no problem with making advertising a regulated business, much like banks, but I don't see it happening, and I do NOT expect residents to be ganked for "reverse-extorting" advertisers.
From: someone
8. Historically, on the mainland in SL, one has always "purchased the land, not the view". A policy of "you dont pay my tier, so you shouldn't be able to tell me how to live on my land". There has never been a "zoning law" on the mainland regions. Now it seems that there is a reversal of this policy. Now those that share your view, and those who's view you share, by right of your own land ownership (or by not owning any land at all, it seems), can now determine what should or shouldn't be allowed on your land. Do you realize you are giving up your right, the right you PAY for with your tier, to use your land as you wish? Is it worth owning land in a system that allows any other resident to mandate how you can or cannot use what you pay for? I agree with the right of "eminent domain", a governments right to acquire private property for public use. But this is not the case here, this is a case of a bastardization of "Public Domain", a government forcing it's citizens to allow public use of privately owned land....and if you own land in second life, it is taking away your rights too.
Well, the Wild West eventually gave way to Law and Order for precisely the same reasons that we're now seeing these changes. People just can not play nice together. We already have some measure of controls that have been put in place in the past. When someone buys land and puts in some kind of sim-eating build which lags out their neighbors or visitors (or lag out/crash the sim itself), LL has taken up the call to get that person to stop that behavior. As someone has said elsewhere, the Mainland is LL's estate, and we have to abide by their rules. I am willing to do that, and I think this rule is a step in the right direction and, thus, has my support. It doesn't mean that "Freedoms are being quashed" or "Rights are being trampled" any more than anywhere else on the grid, so I think this particular point is mute.
From: someone
Last but not least...the motto of SL used to be "Your World, Your Imagination" Perhaps it should be changed to "Your world, but only so far as it is limited by anyone else's opinion, anywhere on the grid that might happen to see your property."
Until the entire grid is composed of private estates, there can be no "Your World, Your Imagination" taken in a personal sense in any shared space. In that case, it has to be "Our World, Our Imagination".
