Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Yes. Exactly the point. It is the loss to you that matters, not the gain made by the parasite. I guess I am trying to say that to influence LL we need to concentrate on the real damage, not on the consequent resentment, however justified that may be.
My point here is that, in the biological world, rampant parasitism arises, but is unsustainable and reverts towards symbiosis. This is supposed to be an optimistic message, but may, of course, be stretching the analogy. (I deliberately didn't mention that the other route to collapse of parasitism is the destruction of the host!)

I think all this is far too complicated, and creates too much opportunity for subversion by our malevolent friends. I would be more optimistic with Jack's strategic assurances and simple rules.

You have some redundancy. Limitation to roadside removes the need for the blocking rules. Every other roadside position is inconsistent with limitation of number per sim (unless that is a rather large number!).

I repeat my concern about effectively turning all roadside properties into advertsing zones. This discriminates against those with roadside plots. Not all roadside is equal. I will admit that the majority here do seem prepared to discount this protest.

I think this stems from a false understanding of the role of roads in SL. Except in commercial areas, they are not places where people stop, or even pass slowly enough, to look at adverts. We do not need them to be turned into tracts of destruction across the landscape.

Yes like this Jubby good idea maybe allow other Linden builds like Infohubs aswell.



Yes agree again here, to many adverts would result in a smaller scale of what we have now along the roadsides, which is bad for the advertisers and their neighbors.



This seems a very good idea and would solve other problems with highly priced, incorrectly priced lands that simply are not moving.



This would make searching easier to and have a possible effect of pushing people to create larger parcels rather than sell them separately.(Not certain if the larger parcels would be so good for new customers)



The roadside attachment would mean the adverts were always visible, not sure if blocking on 3/ 4 side becomes relevant under that premise.



I see the idea here Jubby and it seems fair in principle, definitely a small plot owner should not be harassed, but they should not be given the ability to harass either, this will always remain a grey area and must be addressed on a case by case basis.
FI - I would be real pissed if a vendor was installed in my garden and it was obvious due to small traffic not making many or any sales, and when approached the vendor owner said,
Thats a real high selling vendor, I let you have it for ****L, instantly I would think Bast**d and wall the vendor in.
On the other hand a tree in my garden would be welcomed but not so much if it popped up in my shop, again product placement becomes the issue.



This part I disagree with Jubby are you saying allow cutting of large parcels to create even more small ones?
I don't think wholesale cutting of a large parcel should be allowed at all if a 16sqm plot is required it should be cut as needed only, sure limit the number of these cuts allowed per week, but do not allow cutting at all on a parcel to parcel basis.

Quote/
This part I disagree with Jubby are you saying allow cutting of large parcels to create even more small ones?
I don't think wholesale cutting of a large parcel should be allowed at all if a 16sqm plot is required it should be cut as needed only, sure limit the number of these cuts allowed per week, but not on a parcel to parcel basis.
/end quote

As instances;
I have a large plot of land... i wish to cut it into smaller shop parcels and commence building on them. Under this rule i would be able to...to a limit. I would have to plan, and try and make few mistakes.
Or...
I have some roadside land i wish to combine, then recut into smaller parcels. Because of angled roading i need to make several cuts to get the right shape of parcel after.
Or...
I have several large blocks over several sims and wish to cut down to 512s to sell cheap

Under this rule i could cut..but only to a limit. That limit would be below whats needed to cut a 512 into 16s - thereby allowing real cutting and not '512 into ads' cutting. If the roadside rule was instigated it would prevent '512s into 16s' cutting anyway.

It seems to me that extortion is a time vs money equation. Slowing down the rate and number of cuts, restricting 'time on market' for plots, and forcing ad plots to roadside, is going to increase the time taken and reduce the profit. Hopefully that makes the equations so unbalanced as to not be worthwhile.

quote/
I see the idea here Jubby and it seems fair in principle, definitely a small plot owner should not be harassed, but they should not be given the ability to harass either, this will always remain a grey area and must be addressed on a case by case basis.
FI - I would be real pissed if a vendor was installed in my garden and it was obvious due to small traffic not making many or any sales, and when approached the vendor owner said,
Thats a real high selling vendor, I let you have it for ****L, instantly I would think Bast**d and wall the vendor in.
On the other hand a tree in my garden would be welcomed but not so much if it popped up in my shop, again product placement becomes the issue.
/end quote

Well with the roadside rule a vendor could not be installed in your garden, and i did say non harassing builds - that would include smoking barbeques, particle rainstorms, glow in the dark flamingos etc etc.
I have bought small plots for prim value and left them blank - specially early on when i couldn't always afford the next 512.

Well one thing about it. We merchants can all go out and buy up 50 micro parcels and put up rather interesting vendors on them when the llDetectedTouch() function is in the production release. That is less than the rent for a urinal stall mall rental.

Advertising on the mainland is going to get worse. Not better. Not unless the recommendations about exactly where advertisements can be placed are acted on.

I've been thinking along the same lines myself - RL hoardings - but I really don't think that LL would be up for it because it would likely take too much time to operate. But you never know. Maybe after they see what effect the current changes have over a period of time, they could start thinking that way. The biggest problem with doing it is that LL omitted an extensive road network, and there aren't many suitable places for RL-like hoardings. This whole problem is down to LL's lack of foresight, although I don't blame them for that.

Just out of interest, banner ads declined with the rise of Google, because it was thought that text links were more valuable for rankings. People now prefer text links for the rankings benefit. It was also found that text links get more click-throughs than banners.

You asked for an example of how a 16m ad plot could be used in a good way, and I gave one that would be fine with me. It didn't persuade you, so we differ on it, that's all.

I agree the idea of working within the general spirit of Jack's framework, limits the ability of certain individuals to find specific loopholes, so a little vagueness is good.

The ideas Jubby placed seem sensible though, especially the roadside placement, this would clean up whole swathes of the mainland, very quickly.
Yes I accept some people with roadsides may feel discriminated against, however their roadside plots should increase in value, as a result if the practice of advertising becomes popular on a larger scale.(remember very few chose to advertise in this way and those will now be limited to only 50 locations)
This in some ways compensates them and if it doesn't become popular then they have nothing to worry about, and shouldnt see any increased activity.

Take a look at the roadsides it is hard to find contiguous parcels along much of them already, they have already become tracts of destruction.
The fact remains they are and always will be the only places an advert can always be guaranteed to be seen, any other location is very probably likely to be walled in.

Some hate advertising, personally I don't hate it in particular but I don't want it in the middle of my plot unless I choose to put it there, if it is on the edge of my plot fine.
I have one of those gnusense towers next to one of my roadside shops.
He doesn't steal anything from me his tower is to high and does from a distance look a little out of place, but close up its not a problem the grey stone matches my build quite well and is nestled in amongst some rhododendrons.

As you mention the role of SL roads, they are the best areas for commercial sites they have a guaranteed access path, thats why I will only put a shop along the roadside, so what if most roads become commercial areas, with advertising, does it really matter?

I think Drongle was right here, this seems very convoluted and effectively allows mass cutting to continue over a prolonged period.
We cannot allow the possibility of certain individuals to carry on cutting on a wider scale.
I think the best solution is if LL state when anything larger than 128sqm is divided into 16's appears as a fresh cut, disciplinary action, takes place and the area is confiscated without recompense.

I don't think we can rely on the time verses money equation.

It is a mistake to perpetuate a market for microparcels.

Advertising should not be a real estate business.

Network advertising should not appear on land owned by the advertising network.

Advertising space should only be leased from large (>= 1024sq.m.) landowners in the sim or (preferably) Governor Linden.

If I thought Jack was prepared to act proactively and aggressively to heal the extortion parcels out of the grid and to keep them out--I mean *aggressively*, as in capping prices for parcels under 512 at nominal sums far below market level--then and only then would it be viable to allow ad networks to own the land on which they're operating ads.

Note the "far below market level." Why interfere with a free market? Because, as is manifestly evident, these parcels pose huge negative externalities on the market. Their costs to everyone else in the region outweigh their benefits to the owner. That's how we got into this mess.

These microparcels need to become worthless. Anything that renews the market for them is playing into the hands of the extortionists *and* fueling the further destruction of the Mainland. And that's anything that allows advertisers to choose and use their own parcels for advertising.

I am sorry but I don't buy your parasitic argument at all.

The fact is adverts are allowed.

If an advert is placed in front of your shop and benefits from high traffic, then yes it could be seen as Parasitic, but so could a small vendor or even another shop that popped up next door.

You already mentioned let them buy a regular plot and set up a store, well do you not think the traffic in that area would be a thought for any potential shop owner, prior to opening a shop? your precious traffic you created.

Your whole argument is based on the fact the advertiser is paying less for his representation in the Sim than you.

Which shows he is using his resources well, assuming his advertisement is working and drawing in customers.

I am still a novice to the add farm dispute but since I recently left private land for mainland I find myself right in the middle of this issue. It seems to me, after following this thread as best I can, that sim HOA's or BOA's may be appearing to deal with some of the new issues that are presented after 10/01, I would love to hear your thoughts, not a big fan of some of the decisions my HOA makes but it is good to have one for many other reasons.

Secondly, there are two 16sqm plots right in the middle of my plot. Its approx. 7100 with the longest side next to an unfinished Linden road, I noticed that they now belong to Weedy Herbst and it states that they are not for sale but can be traded for land elsewhere on the sim, does that mean I have to trade some of my land to get rid of the donut hole or is this something that can be AR'ed after 10/01.

Not really sure what the revenue is from adfarms but if its decent I dont really think the issue will be resolved to everyones expectation.

No, it shows he's using *your* resources well.

It really is parasitic. It's one thing to benefit from a neighbor's traffic and line-of-sight for something that could plausibly stand on its own. It's quite another for something to exist *solely* by using the neighbors' unwillingly granted resources.

In RL we all have neighbors, and there's a benefit to being part of a neighborhood. (Well, it's better than falling off into a void at your land boundary, at least. ) But to the extent that a neighbor "leeches" off the neighborhood without contributing anything--that's parasitic, too. If the neighbor owns a postage-stamp of land and erects a billboard on it, the asymmetry is blatant, and to control that, the city regulates such behavior in all sorts of ways.

It absolutely is about how much the advertiser pays into the existence of the sim, and what s/he contributes to or detracts from the sim's total utility to every resident who experiences the sim.

This translates pretty directly to parcel size. There are lots of ugly builds on large parcels, sure, but at least they have a roughly proportionate share in the cost of the sim's existence, by paying tier. By naively permitting "land rights" to apply uniformly to more than three orders of magnitude in parcel size (much more if we consider owners of multiple sims), both the current and new policies encourage the practice of minimizing contribution and maximizing social cost: putting ads on tiny parcels, for example.

It's hardly surprising that the result is the hyperfine dicing of the Mainland. And the new policy really does not fix that, unless it tacitly discriminates against smaller parcels, as it must if it's to have any impact on the real problem.

I don't want to speak for Weedy, but my bet is that, after it becomes clear what the hell is going to actually happen after 10/1, you'll be able to get one of those transfered to you for L$0 (it's not like they need to be carrying extra tier in any sim, nor that they're in the business of provisioning future adfarmers). The other one, yeah, probably, if it's the only land that group holds in the sim, you'd need to trade in order to move it around, because whatever they do on those parcels, they seem to need one in every sim where they can get one.

This is a question for Weedy, though: Based on the purpose for which I *think* those parcels are used, it's not clear to me why there would be any reason to prevent total prim encroachment by a surrounding abutter. I should hope to think that there's no reason to visit any prim rezzed on the parcel (if there is, your scripters and I should have a little talk), and no reason to land a bot at any particular altitude (although there should never be any neighboring security orbs too stupid to ignore that parcel--which, from what I've seen of their scripting, is probably a huge problem for you guys). What I'm suggesting is that a neighbor could largely ignore the existence of the parcel in building and landscaping, without causing you any trouble, right? (Obviously not rezzing a prim assembly rooted *within* the parcel, but that's a problem easily enough obviated by any builder.)

What is Weedy's group called?

Contact me in-world and we can arrange a trade. We offer trades as a courtesy to residents, because we don't want to adversely affect your building plans.

Borders change alot and we didn't intentionally "donut" anything, so ARing our plot would be pointless.

Creating donuts to be deceptive, extortionate or otherwise annoying, would certainly be ARable after Oct 1. I suppose it's even ARable now.

Blue Button Holding Company

No problem..Thanks Weedy. I purchased the land around it in sections before you took ownership.

In many cases, we allow building atop our plots, by permission only.

All we ask of them, is to allow us to teleport there without being bounced, orbitted or stuck.

We do not AR vertical blockage with prims, unless the prim owner is not the land owner. Tree overhang does not concern us. We really don't care about what people do with their own land, afterall we are not the ones who have to look at it.

Horizontal blockage is something else though. Most times, a simple IM to the neighbors will get the obstruction removed. Those which cause landing issues, are obstinate, abusive or use giant prims are AR'd and we ask the concierge to remove the obstruction.

Good coincidence. I've been intending to contact the group about a 16m plot in Seymour (162.62.77) to ask if the level can be smoothed to the surounding land. It's been a hole in the ground for ages.

No problem, I'll attend to that immediately.

The only time I've seen that phrase before it was referring to a web-based pyramid scheme that promptly collapsed when the pyramid ran out of levels, and similar terms have been used to describe spammer cut-outs.
That seems reasonable. You sure gave me a turn with the name you're using for it, though.

Take it up with the guy posting the BS. I'm just calling him on it.

I think you go too far. Really. I've had my differences with Weedy in the past, for example, but there's no reason her plots should be acquired by eminent domain.

I think you go too far. Really. I've had my differences with Weedy in the past, for example, but there's no reason her plots should be acquired by eminent domain.
Why wouldn't that be part of the same parcel as your shop? Parcels don't need to be contiguous.