Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Best Jack line of the meeting after finding out what twinkies were:

"man, do people eat those?"

If gambling was allowed I'd offer odds of 6-4.

If you're talking about 16M parcels then banlines are only used to grief.

I destroyed the Elbow Room on at least seven different occassions. It was my property. If I wanted to take it down I could certainly do so. And I did so.

The bar itself orginally measured 8mx10 on a 128-sq.m parcel. This parcel was reduced in size to 96-sq.m parcel following the change in Event Posting rules.

Assofaras the consortium which attempted to purchase the bar all monies collected are presently in the process of being paid back. Note that under the Terms of Service, section 5.1, I'm under no obligation to pay anyone back (as it's a dispute between residents). However, I accepted that obligation and did make it clear that everyone would eventually be paid back (I've mentioned this /on my own/ in other threads within General Answers). Short form: I always hold up my end of an obligation. And at no point did I point a gun at people and ask them to join the consortium. They made their own decision to place their money at risk. And I'm always willing to put my own dirty laundry on display.

Assofaras popularity the bar did make the Popular Places list on at least more than one time.

That's ok with me as long as the Lindens act fairly and consistently and stop removing perfectly legal, under the ToS & CS, walls which were put up by land owners, on their own land, which they pay for, regardless of size.

If it takes them having to come up with a "change" to enforce the existing rules through, then fine by me. The mechanism isn't important. The results /are/.

It was technically and legally your property the last time you did it, but not morally. You'd sold joint ownerships to people by then, and they didn't get a say in what you did. If you haven't dealt with the joint owners fairly, then you are are a <not in Jack's thread>. Paying them back isn't good enough. You sold them joint ownerships for significant amounts of money - over US$100 each. From your post about it, it sounds like you are what you appeared to be in your first post in this thread.

If someone wishes to place ban lines around their parcel, no matter what the size, then they may certainly do so as it's their property.

Again: As long as the property owner is neither violating the Terms of Service or the Community Standards then they should be able to do whatever they wish within the boundaries of their own parcel. It's their parcel. They own it.

It's not a question of scale.

It's griefing, there is no excuse for it and to paraphrase someone else "What are you doing, knitting in the middle of it?"

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts banlines on a 16m parcel is doing so to piss off their neighbour, it is very much a question of scale.

What on earth are you looking to protect on a 16m parcel?

Not for long! Not on tiny mainland parcels, anyway..

Not in PUBLIC!

As I stated very clearly before: I destroyed the bar a number of times.

The attempt at joint ownership never reached the trigger amount. The amount in which it would all convert over to the consortium. They never managed to /own/ the bar (and thus had no say). Membership in the consortium cost far less than US$100.

I dealt with the consortium very fairly. So fairly, as I already pointed out, that I decided to forego the protection of Section 5.1 of the Terms of Service and pay everyone back (as quickly as I am able).

I ALWAYS HOLD UP MY END OF AN OBLIGATION (and I even talk about this in the bank failure threads of long ago. I felt they had an obligation to pay out all deposits rather than convert to bonds).

My attitude's great: I'm not hiding out as an Alt, I show my face in SL after a botched consortium deal, facing irrate consortium members, and having gone through seven partners (including one I lived with). And I still believe that a person's property is their property.

Am I the only one who could care less about an off-topic sub thread about the drama at some bar?

Nope!

It doesn't matter what they're doing on it. It's their property. If they wish to erect ban lines around it then they may do so.

Too much of this thread is concerned with what /other/ people are doing with /their/ own property.

Taking it to the other extreme I've seen threads where people ask how to go about acquiring land that they feel the parcel owner isn't using frequently enough. To paraphrase: "So-and-so next door is never around and I really really really like his land but he won't respond to my IMs offering to by his land for a bright shiny penny. Is there any way to contact Governor Linden and get that land from my neighbor because /I/ feel it's abandoned?"

Unless the objects on a parcel violate the Terms of Service or the Community Standards the parcel owner is well within their rights to do whatever they wish within their parcel. As there are a variety of things mentioned within the current ToS and CS in which a number of ad parcels are in clear violation of it's up to the Lindens to proceed with enforcement.

The best possible question to direct toward Jack would be: Why haven't you been enforcing the rules already in place? If the answer is lack of manpower then a change in the rules or the addition of new rules will not provide a solution as the lack of enforcement manpower will still be there.

Actually, I could _not_ care less about it.

I'm not thrilled about it either but if someone asks me a question I answer.

Imagine I was looking for a new place to put a store that was part of some real infrastructure and away from the perils of mainland (mini-casinos, entire roadsides being cut off, or paying several hundred real dollars for a place in bay city) where would I look? Is there a reasonable alternative or have LL got us over a barrel waiting and praying that all will be well on Oct 2nd?

The whole way of living in SL is happening, whether its liked or not, its changing and it must. Ive seen changes but not to this extent before. I welcome the changes and look forward to LL becoming a part of how the future of SL will be. For way to long LL has had a hands off policy. It was useful in the beginning but its out grown any usefulness.

I recently have been spending a lot of time away from inworld. With only the ToS and CS as a guide SL was becoming very negative. I am looking forward to LL taking more of a active role now. After all LL, its your baby and up to you to nurture it

Ahem.

As far as I know, Elbow Room didn't go out of its way to incur the kind of social costs that obtain from ad farming and land extortion. It didn't need nor use the "rights" that are at issue here. (Okay, maybe it sold for piles o' L$s and all, but it was surely the business that was sold, perhaps using the parcel as the most convenient means of transfer.)

Moreover, it's not that every small parcel must be abused in order to require differential treatment of small parcels, any more than every gun must be a murder weapon in order to need firearms regulations.

It is not my fault that some small parcel owners are responsible for using the rights afforded them as property owners to so destroy the Mainland that it's no longer viable for LL to even bring any new sims to auction.

It's not my fault that LL now must, in deed if not in word, treat smaller parcels differently than larger ones.

I'm just explaining how it is, and why it got that way. Everyone is free to ignore what I say if they find it upsetting or at odds with their political predisposition.

And if it's any consolation, it's quite likely to be possible to ignore it without seeing many contradictions. Judging by the language they've been using, it will be possible to interpret most of the ways LL will end up defining harassing behavior as being consistent across all parcel sizes.

But whether they admit it or not--whether they even realize it or not--they are responding to human failings engendered by giving disproportionate power to those with the least at stake.

Well it does matter, there are rules and regulations and you can't do what you want on your own parcel, otherwise we wouldn't be having this whole debate. People have been AR'd for blocking ads, so it's not a matter of doing what you want. Banlines aren't erected on 16M parcels for the interests of owners property, they're erected to interfere with the neighbours property and are rightly being eliminated when their use is so clear cut.

No, I'm afraid you are very much mistaken about that. I've ARed two extortionists who put their 16M parcels on sale (inside my property 100%, not roadside) for 10,000$L and set the parcel to No public access. Lindens came and turned access back on the same day.

Next the extortionists took the land off sale and put the lines back up, I ARed again and Lindens turned public access back on. So extortionists raised the price to 20,000$L and put it on sale again without the No Entry lines. I'm just waiting patiently until the 1st so this stupid game can end once and for all.

What's an "Elbow Room?" Is it an Ad Farm?

cuz this is the discussion thread on ad farm policies, not about a club -- no matter how popular or unpopular it is or was, or who blew up what.

Could you please describe what is on these two parcels which are within the outer border of your larger parcel.

Based on what I'm hearing so far I'm under the impression that the Lindens are overstepping their bounds.

Nothing is on them.. that is the whole point. They aren't using /content/ to harass, they are using the /land/ itself to harass.

Do you think it is right for a landowner to do anything in his power to annoy and harass a neighbor into buying him out at extremely high prices to stop the harassment? If so, then you're arguing the wrong side of the problem. If not, welcome to the club.



They aren't. The landowner of the small parcels IS.