Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Something like that.

There's a nagging sense that one shouldn't get too aggressive about imposing restrictions on the abilities of land owners. But I've argued (too many times) that the current arrangement gives far too much power to microparcel owners: some of these abilities just don't scale down over three orders of magnitude. Amoeba with automatic weapons.

So, setting aside all the far-stretched "free-market" theology and just being practical about it, I see absolutely no problem if microparcels could only be sold at strictly regulated prices.

It would solve the problem of landcutting and microparcel extortion in a single stroke of Jack's pen.

True but all this time we have survived without 4m parcels somehow, I don't think people should be able to own under some minimum amount of land in a sim, a mojority of those owning just 16m aren't sim residents, they don't care about other sim residents in the slightest.
Really most are just for spying on sims or bot landing pads. If it cost 4 times the tier to have a stake in each sim then "collectors" would only do so where it's actually profitable rather than because it's nearly free to so so. They are like email spammers.

For anyone interested, I've posted transcripts of Jack's past two office hours under https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Qie_Niangao/Jack_Linden_Office_Hour_Transcript.

The smallest parcel is 16 square meters. That's the smallest I've bought or sold.
There's legitimate reasons for that, too, for things like group rez/home points. Linden Labs has said they agree.

And simply restricting it to "set for sale for L$1/m" will do as good a job, because without Linden Labs being the bagman there's no mechanism to pay the ransom on the plot. They need to be able to have a safe intermediary (buy the land for L$OMGWTFLOL) that both the scammer and the victim can trust to transfer the ransom and the plot: any out-of-band purchase requires trust that's inherently incompatible with the nature of the transaction.

There are issues with price caps, that I don't really want to elaborate on here. Maybe making the parcel linked to tier costs is the answer.

I'd prefer to see a mechanism that ties parcels to tier fees. So if you have one 16M parcel then that parcel is worth upto 512M worth of tier. If you have 16M parcels on 3 sims that equals 3 x 512M worth of tier.

Where that would get problematic is when people cut their own parcel for landing points etc, so in reality they have a larger parcel but they cut a chunk for something else, it's not really a standalone parcel. There would need to be a mechanism to allow that and I'm not sure that's feasible.

I'm not sure any of it's feasible, but it doesn't seem that the individual cutting their own parcel would pose more of a problem, if the rule had to do with total sq.m. in a sim. That is, 512 could be the minimum chunk of tier contributed by land owned anywhere in a sim.

Of course, this may not be enough control. There's at least one noted microparcel hyper-pricer who often holds more than 512sq.m. of teeny plots scattered over the particular sims in which she chooses to operate. So maybe it really would have to be per-parcel, which would be extremely inconvenient for folks wanting to have a little rez area or to rent out stall spaces each with their own parcel names and landing sites, etc.

Either way, though, such a restriction would hit the data network operators (Elanthius, Weedy, etc.) very hard. I don't really think it would be the end of the world for any of those folks if they couldn't continue that business (whatever it is), but it seems like something to try to avoid breaking if possible.

Any solution for the microparcel extortion issue is going to have to do one (or more) of several things:

1) Reduce the damage/effectiveness of strategically placing a microplot to maximize said damage; i.e., "make it ineffective".
2) Reduce the incentive for people to use this odious method of harassment; i.e., "make it expensive (where the cost of doing it far outweighs the returns)".
3) Directly address those who are abusing the worst via sanctions and loss of their land, and hope that it acts as a deterrent to others.

No matter what solution is provided, it has to be surgical enough to minimize the damage to valid owners of microplots (who are not using them to harass or extort), while maximizing the effect on those who are intent on harassing/abusing others with them.

After many months of mulling over many different suggestions and plans, I've identified some key attributes of microparcel ownership that tend to starkly delineate valid uses versus abuses:

A) Many valid microparcel uses are not location-sensitive. Many are not sensitive to being in the same region; i.e., they can be placed in another sim, and the use would not be impacted negatively in a significant way.
B) Of those that are location-sensitive, a few are not sensitive to intra-region moves. i.e., they only need a presence in the sim; the location generally isn't too important.
C) Of those that are extremely location-sensitive, none of them have a need to be landlocked within or between one or more owners' parcels. Advertising parcels should be highly restricted as to location, and I think that LL is already on this part of the issue.
D) In many cases, microparcels are not being used at all, except as potential extortion landmines. i.e., if the owner is not using them at all, then they are definitely not location-sensitive.

As such, what I would suggest is to have the Lindens specify that microparcels below a certain size threshold be relocatable, unless the owner can give a bona fide reason why the parcel cannot be relocated. It would necessitate putting out a policy, establishing an arbitration board (which could handily be set up as part of the ticket system), and when a violation of the policy occurs, land trades will be mandated. No one will "lose their land" in the process; they will still have a same-size plot which will allow them to continue to pursue whatever they were before, but now without damaging the surrounding or adjoining property owners as much.

This would also have to go hand-in-hand with an extremely aggressive anti-cutting and extortion policy, where LL basically will start suspending/banning people for the practice of checkerboarding/corner-cutting/donut-holing/waffling/etc, and require those who have participated in the past to "clean up" their messes, or lose their land.

Like has been said before, land issues are about location, location, location. Addressing the issue this way gets away from the sticky issues of pricing controls and meddling in the land market. It goes the route of #1 and #3 above, without the problems of dealing with #2.

I've seen many good ideas and proposals for eliminating land cutting and small plot extortion. The problem with creating a set of rules to deal with these practices however, is that there are endless variations on the theme. We already have a solution - Linden Labs has taken on the role of estate manager for the Mainland. Jack has stated that activities creating a negative impact on residents will be stopped. Land cutting and small plot extortion are destructive and anti-social behaviors and they don't need precise definitions to be recognized. They are like a dog turd on the sidewalk - you know it when you see it. Sure there will be borderline cases and questions, just as there are now with the ads or any other potential infraction of the TOS. But 95% of the time the G team gets it right, and for the rest there is an appeals process. When LL decides to fully take on the role of estate manager, all they have to do is: 1) proclaim that any land cut into small parcels for the purpose of extortion will be confiscated, and: 2) inform the established extortionists that they need to immediately set the price of their small plots to within twice the average market value or have them confiscated. No fuss, no muss, just the hand of justice finally doing what it should do.

Well, "within twice the average market value" is more specific than I suspect LL is willing to get. They seem to be having some trouble coming to grips with the fact that microparcel prices actually matter.

I think the challenge is to make the case clearly, concisely, and compellingly that overpriced microparcels by some definition--general or specific--are harming the Mainland. This is glaringly obvious to those of us who live in constant dread of adjacent microparcels suddenly sprouting implausible ads, or being "terror-formed", or just being in the way: 16sq.m. unreasonably constraining the landscaping and development of tens of thousands of square meters around it.

But then come the counter-arguments. Here's one: "Why did you buy next to a microparcel if you didn't want to be next to a microparcel? "

The truth? "Because I didn't want anybody else to be tempted to buy your overpriced crap and fund your ongoing destruction of the Mainland, you disgusting, greedy pig."

But that's sort of the answer to a different question. After all, so far, I got exactly what I wanted: nobody else is going to buy the crap, so why should I want to make it go away?

Well, there's an answer to that, too. As long as the extortionist owns it, that land will never be useful for anything. It will just sit there forever, with or without a price tag, preventing anybody around it from doing anything that encroaches on the scar, or terraforms differently from it, or even runs a vehicle too near it. As long as it exists, it will be a problem for someone--that is its whole purpose. It is simply an obstruction, of vastly more cost than benefit to LL. It is a net quality-sink to the Mainland.

However obvious all that may be, I'm not at all sure that LL is convinced. I sure wish somebody could make them see it.

Yeah, but that's the thing. In my case, I bought in BEFORE they came to my region and bought in beside me and all over the rest of the region.

But nowadays, it is becoming increasingly difficult NOT to buy land next to some extortionist microplot, as they are a common detraction in many mainland regions. Just open the map sometime and look around. In addition, if you buy land in a region, you better buy ALL of the available land in the region that is or may come up for sale, otherwise, you WILL end up with one near you at some point. It's just a fact of mainland life now. I own 5500sqm more than I want to own, because I bought up land as it became available to make sure the adfarmers and extortionists didn't get it.

As for informing and getting LL to "see it", I am trying my very best, and have been for months. Jack is still not "seeing it" the same way we are, despite his claims to be talking with residents and "being a resident" himself. I have an open request to meet with him and go over EXACTLY what the problem is, but as yet, he hasn't taken me up on it.

Funny that the adfarmers can get him to meet with them to look at their new ad terminal designs, but I can't get 15 minutes to present the specifics of my case, even after trying for a month. :-/

1 all plots below 64sqm have the following restrictions
A NO BANLINES NO FLIGHTLOCKS NO TERRAFORMING
B cost is locked to 10% plus or minus the surrounding plot(s) based on sqm price
C any ARs stating that "X is blocking my build with his build" are to be automatically dropped (status "microplot owner :CLOSED"
D limit the number of small plots a single person can have (somebody that has 15000 plots all under 64sqm is most likely a "cutter" or triple the tier for "fragmentation"

2 after confirming a person is a "cutter" ban them via cc billing address and send a oh US$200 fine for being a "cutter"

3 limit the number of "ad plots" a given business can use (note this will also solve the current
adfarm problem)

In short drive the cost to do cutting/adfarms to LEO and drive the profit to the earths core

We might want to think about that "no terraforming" clause should be worded. While it would solve a lot of problems (holes and hills popping up overnight) it also means badly terraformed small plots could not be made to look like the larger area around it unless they were bought.

I am seeing the interest in land on the new Nautilus Island and must say is LL really that interested in cleaning up the mainland?

Why should they bother?

When they can sell new 1024sqm plots that will never be cut into microparcels at 80000L or more at the moment.

This produces a nice swift return on their server setup costs.

Is there really a pressure on them to rush out and clean up the rest of the crap?
The only reason people would be prepared to pay those prices is because they believe the new land will remain pleasant.

Land on the existing mainland has dropped below 2.4L/sqm, mainly because I believe it is just no longer wanted by the main userbase, this is most likely due to the problems with micro parcels, and visual blight.
Visual blight can be from any size of parcel not just microparcels, large tracts of the current mainland just look a mess of half finished builds.

LL are not interested in the value of the existing mainland the money doesn't come to them directly and as such they have little incentive to sort out the mess, while they are still getting tier for the land.

I have now sold all of my original mainland and bought better positioned land without any cuts as I really don't see LL doing anything soon to combat micro parcel extortion.

Expect instead plenty of new Sims without the cutting ability and more restrictions on builds IMHO.
Infact I wouldn't be surprised if the servers will not be ones that supported abandoned private islands, no way to know for sure but I would expect right now many private islands are proving to be very costly and as such being dropped, especially with the global economic considerations of RL right now.

Despite previous promises I would say for some time there will be a distinct difference between new and old mainland.

the no TF clause assumes/was intennded to assume that the cut plot was within 1 meter of the surrounding plot(s)


Oh and btw to the "they have Atlantis now so why do they want to clean up the old areas" guy. The No terraforming thing means atlantis is a no go for me

* They didn't notice it.
* They didn't understand what it meant.
* They couldn't find a parcel in the area they wanted that wasn't next to a cut.
* They were there first.
* They already had land in the sim when the microparcel showed up.

Make it "cost is locked to L$1/square meter and it must be set for sale to a specific person" and you won't need any other restrictions. Because they won't have any way to ensure they get paid for the land, other than making a deal with someone they trust and who trusts them... something that is notably lacking in any kind of extortion game.

Extortionplots are a problem to LL's users, any one who wants to combine plots into a larger single one is more or less guaranteed to fall foul of them sooner or later, whether they have adverts on them or not, the threat of them sprouting adverts ,being terraformed to harass or some other form of visual blight added, just means all users become affected in one way or another.
Are they a problem to LL though? the more this drags on the more I think LL really don't care, perhaps having extortion plots helps LL to prevent more users recombining sims, keeping more users on lower and more profitable tier levels, it definitely helps LL gain higher initial sale prices on their new land sales.
LL are not stupid they see the problems these extortionists are causing but choose to ignore them, I think the question to be asked is WHY?





Yes all of the above, there is that much of this crap about, on the mainland now its hard to find any land without extortion micro cuts nearby, so the question sort of equates to why buy any land on most of the mainland?

Were these cuts being made by a few large Island estate owners to drive users away from the mainland to private estates?
This is just a thought, but it makes sense and possibly gives another reason to LL's inaction, large private estate owners will be LL's largest tier payers by far, they will not want to upset them.

LOL well obviously as I have just read Jacks most recent post LL don't mind upsetting their estate owners, as it looks like they just burst the open space bubble.




The land is not a cost to LL though you are paying tier to prevent it being bought by another user who may pay the extortion price so, where is the cost implication to LL?
Even if the Land were abandonded around most of the cuts, there is a high chance the rest of the land remains as smaller parcels rather than a whole sim, which actually benifits LL as they get more income from tier than if the whole sim was owned by one user.
While LL can still auction off any abandoned and new land at profit where is their incentive to stop this practice?
They have found a way to add new mainland very profitably, this is possibly also driven by the extortion plot problems in most of the older mainland Sims.

Quite right: as long as somebody is still owning the land, it doesn't matter to LL's bottom-line. And if all the Mainland they mint henceforth will be zoned in the fashion of Nautilus City, they could plausibly just let existing Mainland rot away as long as enough of it remains unabandoned to keep paying the server costs.

But I don't think they can count on enough of the existing Mainland to stay owned that way. Or anyway, that's what I thought when I wrote about cost to LL. Yesterday, they gave existing Mainland a bit of a boost, maybe, by effectively killing off OpenSpaces. So in theory that may give them some breathing room before existing Mainland is too abandoned to clear costs.

It may be even worse. If, as I suspect, the new OpenSpace fees are just the first of this round of tier increases, there won't be enough landowners left to fill Sansara--and then, frankly, microparcel extortion will be the least of anybody's concern.

In any case, after the OpenSpace announcement, I'd venture that Jack will be "otherwise occupied" for a while, not giving much attention to the Mainland cutting and extortion problems. Wish we could use that time productively, to collaborate on design of an effective policy. (That's "wish", not "hope".)

Certainly if they increase mainland tier prices in the current climate, I think they will be issuing a kiss of death to large tracts of the mainland, as I am sure they will find they have just done to many of the private estates.

Many estates took the obvious option to purchase open spaces with their increased prim allowance.
Thousands from the sound of Jacks forum post, an increase of 50usd/month in tier will basically make them completely unfeasable for their intended purpose as open spaces, forcing any owners who were using them correctly towards renting them out in the manner that has been identified as a misuse by LL.
Except the increase in tier required for these spaces will make them no longer viable as rentals either, compared to paying half a Sims tier or rent so they will simply begin to be dumped as quickly as they were picked up I would expect.

Not sure if this will benifit the mainland though as people renting open spaces would most likely want to be in isolated areas without the worry of incompatable neighbors builds.
These users may be interested by themed and zoned land, and as such were probably renting 1/4 sims from estates previously, my thought is they will look to rent in that manner again.

Reading the blog post I would not expect further tier increases. This sounds very much a simple example of "why we can't have nice things", a basic lesson of the Internet that even crazy /b/tards like me know. LL told us what OpenSpaces were intended for, we have known and tested for some time exactly what would happen when you try to use it for heavier uses. Apparently most people didn't listen, abuse of resources and network strain have become a problem so LL moves to counter it. The nice things go away (or rather just become less nice in this case).That's business, that's life, that's the Internet. If people can't handle it, they need to gb2/hugbox/.

</rantoff>

Now then. For the effect on mainland, I would expect some of the people renting OpenSpaces to head back to the mainland. If their needs are still low prim but require large land space they may stick it out, even with the tier increase. However, with the current mainland prices, it could prove worthwhile for some to just go for a half sim since the tier would be the same and they get twice the primcount to boot. The remainder will likely bail out to private estates of course.

As for the OpenSpace owners who are using them as intended, it's still far cheaper than a full sim to handle the same function. If it's crucial to their design they'll tough it out or rearrange things to make do with less of them. They may indeed attempt the renting out path but I doubt that will hold up too well. 1) the renters are paying more as well, and like estate owners, not all are willing or can afford to pay more. 2) If you rent out the space in order to pay for it... then what's the point of keeping it to begin with? If it's all rented, you can't use it for your ocean or whatever it was for.

Honestly I think there will be a lot of whining, a small boost in mainland and private estate land sales and lots of OpenSpaces being dumped. Then the rest of SL goes on. Most people seem to have bigger worries right now.

1. I should NOT expect to lease a open space to anybody but to myself, as I cannot sell the land like I normally do for full prim regions?

2. I should expect some policing of my use of open space regions, despite the class 5 upgrade and 50usd more per month?

If I understand "No Owner switching for Openspaces unless it’s a full transfer of Payor." correctly, then open space regions will not be able to be abused as they once were.

Seems to me this is over-correcting the problem.

Here come the luddites...they just cant resist the opportunity to push their communist measures. Thats fine, we ignore them both in sl and rl. My real dispute is with the Lindens themselves, in particular the cowardly hiding Jack Linden. Jack Linden, come out of your hiding and answer to these crimes! Jack, you are a criminal, and will be dealt with as such.

Bwahaha, ok, this is getting really silly ya know that? Since wehn is Jack Linden a crininal for running a business that is profit orinetated? Also, I want to see you reading over 1200 pots of ranting, swearing and threats like this one and reply to this? He is only a human, godanmit and I think that it needs time till he will reply or make another post. The big changes will be happening in 2 months, a lot can happen till then, so I would clam down and look at this rational, instead of endless rants and threats.

Jack Linden and LL are not criminals. The real criminals in SL are those who set strategically placed small parcels at extortion prices and cut land into 16m plots for destructive purposes.

Railing against criminal activity isn't Luddism. However, the criminals themselves railing against people and LL changing things to correct the situation definitely is.

There's nothing criminal about Jack. He stands no chance of being charged with ANYthing in a court of law, since he is nothing more than an employee of Linden Lab. Even LL won't end up in court over this, because it is PERFECTLY within their rights to change prices at any time. No, really! READ THE CONTRACT AND THE TERMS OF SERVICE!

The only thing they can't do is raise the price for any period that is already paid for. Like if you buy a year's subscription, they can't change the rate and charge you more for the unused part of it. Once you have paid it, it is a valid contract for that time.

Anyway, just like the OS sim price increase, them going after adfarmers and land extortionists is well within their purview. I only hope they get their ass in gear and finish the job they started soon, as I am BEYOND tired of the BS I have been putting up with for nearly a year now. Hopefully, it will include permabans and TOTAL LOSS OF LAND for the worst offenders. Can't happen to better "people", IMHO.