Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Since the Lindens define the "bounds" I find it difficult to say they are overstepping anything.

Good point.

Yep. LL is the mainland estate manager.

I agree.



I agree.



I agree to a point.

The blight farmers that I'm talking about deliberately create ugly, offensive, or annying builds in order to cause harm to neighboring residents. In some cases this harm may be aesthetic (in that it reduces the ability of the neighbors to enjoy their land) and may or may not be harassment, while in others it may be economic (such as lowered property values or lost customers). The intent of this harm is to coerce neighboring residents to pay money to make the problem go away.

That's extortion.

Residents have a right to erect ugly builds on their land, whether they do so intentionally or unintentionally. But they don't have the right to do so in order to extort money from other residents. In this case, the difference between a right and a crime is intent. Intent is difficult to determine in many cases, and trying to do so *does* open up a can of worms, but there are many blatant cases of the kind of activity that I'm talking about across the mainland.

Here's one: the other night I saw a garish "ad" targeting another resident's build. The ad advertised nothing but the advertising services of the advertiser. The parcel was for sale at a ridiculous price, and the note in the land tool for the parcel read, "Don't like my ad? Then buy the land and remove it!"

Residents shouldn't be subjected to that kind of extortion.

Why? Because it's their land. They own it. It's theirs. Even if they're *not* small parcels.



I generally agree with this point, except when it comes to extortion and fraud.



A resident should have the right to set any price he or she wishes on a parcel, even if another resident really wants the land but doesn't want to pay the asking price. I agree 100% here. However, raising the price of a parcel in conjunction with a pattern of harassment or harm against another resident is often evidence of extortion, and should be treated that way.

A resident should have the right to erect ban lines, but if those ban lines are used to disrupt activity on another resident's parcel or harass another resident, then it should be dealt with.

A resident should have the right to build even the most hideous constructions on owned land, unless the intent of that build is to harm or harass neighbors for economic gain.

That's extortion.



Extortion isn't about being obliged to do something -- it's about one party harming another party until the other party pays a price to stop the harm. It's really not that difficult to understand.



Fair point.

However, deceptive practices like hiding property cuts under prims count as fraud even under the loosest definition of the term. That's why the only policy I've suggested anywhere in this thread so far has been to integrate a land transaction tutorial, preferably integrated into the viewer itself. The basic idea is that Linden Lab should do its best to help users, especially new users, recognize the techniques that people who engage in fraud (and extortion) use. Nobody's rights are trampled, and such a move would help to starve those who engage in unethical or illegal practices by forcing them to pay tier on properties that they are unable to sell. Even such a minor change would have huge effects in a relatively short time.

I've enjoyed this discussion so far and there are a couple of other posts I'd like to respond to, but I'm off on vacation. So if you respond to any of my posts and I don't get back to you in a timely fashion, don't take it personally.

Are you the owner of the parcel Shimada Yoshikawa is talking about? I'd much rather hear a description of the situation from the actual owner of the parcel. If Shimada Yoshikawa wishes you to speak on their behalf that is their own business. Moving along...

Oh noes... a person has built nothing on their parcel, no matter what size, and placed ban lines around so that no one except the owner might be on it. Nothing has been built upon the parcel and the owner of it has affixed a price that neighbors feel is too high...

(Note: Shimada Yoshikawa, if he is the actual owner of the parcel in question, had an obligation to inspect the parcel prior to purchase)

And then the Lindens come in and remove the ban lines as apparently people who don't own the land in question have more rights (and an ever-expanding sense of entitlement) than the actual parcel owner.

Again: The Lindens have overstepped their bounds in this situation as the parcel owner has a right to place ban lines if they wish to do so and they can price their parcel for whatever amount they wish.

If Linden Lab is the Estate Manager of the Mainland then I suggest they pay their own tier fees.

However, if they wish to continue to collect tier fees from me then I suggest that they continue to respect my rights as a landowner (which I pay a monthly Premium for) and allow me to build whatever I wish as long as it does not violate the Terms of Service or the Community Standards.

Again: The Lindens are the estate managers for the mainland. There's nothing magical about the mainland - it's just another (really big) estate.

It's theirs. They own it. People who "own" land on the mainland really just rent it from LL, just like other people do from other estate owners.


Ok, now you're just being silly.

Then don't pay it.

If all of you /quit/ purchasing these "extortion" parcels they would cease to be as the owners of them would no longer be able to pay their tier fees.

Again: If you don't like someone's product DON'T BUY IT.

I'm not being silly at all. If the Lindens have an actual claim over my land, wish to be considered the managers of it, and can do whatever they wish with my parcels when I've violated no terms of service or standards then they are more than welcome to pay my tier fees for it.

Again: If it's THEIR estate and not mine then they can pay for it.

Be that as it may, the Lindens are not just the estate managers but the overlords of all of Second Life. They make the rules and define the bounds and it is up to them as to how they choose to enforce said rules.

Their primary purpose is to make Second Life profitable. To do that, they need to attract residents who are willing to pay into the system.

Now, they can continue to take the hands off approach that they have been doing, allow the blight farmers to run rampant across the grid and watch their paying customers leave OR they can modify the rules to give them more latitude and allow themselves the ability to take a more hands on approach as Jack has stated in his post.

Either way, the rules are theirs to enforce, or not, as they see fit. So, your argument that LL has overstepped their bounds is a void argument at best.

Elex the Linden's have full claim over your land, like Estate owners, they have the big reclaim land button. There's an any reason or no reason clause in the TOS, you do not own the land, you're leasing it.

Hmm... I'm well aware of the details within the Terms of Service and the Community Standards...

So.. I should assume that, as Estate Managers, the Lindens are ultimately responsible for whatever happens with "my" land and what I build on it? If my neighbors don't like an enterprise on "my" parcel it's up to the Lindens to resolve the situation even if I've violated nothing covered by the Terms of Service and the Community Standards?

Are too.

Ultimately, yes.

QFT

Then I am under no obligation to reimburse members of the Dusk Consortium for the failed ownership bid to acquire the Elbow Room as the Lindens ultimately owned the parcel and the enterprise located upon it.

As "society" has made a claim of entitlement as to what parcel owners can and cannot do with their land, whether "society" is entitled to do so or not, whether the parcel in question has violated the Terms of Service and Community Standards or /not/ then persons seeking reimbursement can file their claim with "society" or with the Estate Managers of the Mainland.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

And I am off the hook.

Good day.

No, they'll have it across the road. Or if the people who are arguing that the ads have to be on linden land have their way... closer than that.

Not everywhere.

If they're a neighbor, we know each other (if not now, then soon) and we talk. And it's in their interest that I don't put a one-sided tubgirl prim up against their shop, if their ad pisses me off. Not that I'd be anywhere near that uncouth... and in general actual neighbors get along. I even got along with the newbie camping farmer I had next to me for a while. And the Gorean whose skybox kept overlapping my land.

Spammers aren't actual neighbors. There's no feedback to keep them from growing without bound.

/me shrugs

I couldn't care less, as this is a discussion about Ad Farms.

This thread is about *what those TOS and community standards should be*, which rather renders that a moot point.

Really? Then shouldn't you leave that discussion to the Lindens as, according to your own words, they're /ultimately/ the Estate Managers of the Mainland?

Again: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too (meaning: you can't have it both ways). If this is a discussion about "ad farms" then it's meaningless as the Lindens /ultimately/ own the ad farms. It's their problem. Not ours. Not yours.

I agree about not paying.

The thing is Elex, in law..... any "attempt" at extortion is treated the same as extortion itself.

Whether a person elects to buy or not buy, is irrelevant.

Absolutely, they make the rules. We're just here to bounce ideas around, some of which may be incorporated into policy.

However our problems are their problems and when those problems start to threaten their bottom line, they'll act accordingly.

Let me help you here. On page one, the first post says...

Feedback on the 12th September post on Ad Farming.

Meanwhile, Ciaran Laval said it better than I could in the post above this one.


EDITED TO ADD: Jack Linden did not show up for office hours today, so I hear.

And there's a number of things regarding ad farms which are already covered by the Terms of Service and the Community Standards. A new set of rules will not undo the fact that the Lindens have already failed to enforce the rules already in place. [Seriously... a neighbor's flashing disco lights encroach upon my parcel... I've contacted them and filed ARs... repeatedly... yet, the Lindens have the time to dash willy nilly all over SL and remove ban lines from empty parcels... why is it that anyone who actually pays to use SL and pays tier fees GOES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE STACK when it comes to ARs?]

What I'm seeing within this thread is a BLOATED sense of entitlement. That people who don't own a particular parcel, which has not violated the Terms of Service and Community Standards, can insist that the Lindens do something about it.

I'm most deeply concerned with persons who insist that /other/ people sell land at what "society" considers an acceptable market rate. If I make or create or /own/ something and decide to sell it I get to set the price for it. If a potential buyer doesn't like the price THEN DON'T BUY IT.