From: Alexander Harbrough
Not sure where you are going with that... sex workers would be in the category that would be working in Ursula. They could in theory atttempt to continue illicitly in mature land, but would likely be doing so under the guise of an 'escort agency'.. the same gimmick used to get around zoning restrictions for that industry in RL.
You were the one saying that if they don't advertise, they're not a business. And yes, I fully believe that Sex workers will continue to ply their trade on PG and Mature land if other avenues are closed off. Non-verified escorts won't have to get verified- they'll simply adopt a different business model. they'll do the out-call things- even hang around high traffic areas and IM people offering their services.
And none of that will be against the rules that LL is laying down. after all, the "adult content" will be taking place somewhere private- outside the G-team's jurisdiction. At least according to Blondin, anyway.
It was meant as an example of how the changes LL wants to make are *deeply* flawed, and won't accomplish what the want.
From: someone
There have been examples posted in this thread and another related thread in resident answers pointing out cases where people have indeed been living next to clubs or whatever where the conversations carry across property lines. This is one of the reasons there is zoning in RL (which is not restricted to matters restricted... RL clubs often are limited as to where they can locate due to noise and parking issues. Parking is not a problem in SL, but noise can be).
I do not dispute the concept of zoning. In fact, I think it wise to implement a fairly rigid zoning scheme. What LL is doing is leaving almost *all* of the old content in place- Anything *unadvertised* goes on mature land. you just can't shout it from the rooftops.
The "I'm in a pg sim stuck next to a mature sim with a titty bar" crowd has been asking for this for a long time. LL isn't giving them what they asked for. LL *is* giving them the status quo with an added keyword search, and the ability to AR your mature neighbor pretty much at will
From: someone
Unless you are incorrect. You are critical of LL for not providing sufficient data to form a solid conclusion, yet at the same time treating speculation as fact. You may be correct, but that is not a given.
Alex, I'm working with the information I have. I happen to think that it is pretty accurate, but it's also the *only* information I have. I would be pleased as punch if i had the whole complete plan laid out before me, but LL won't *tell* me what all they're doing. they'll only tell me what they *want* to do, as if it were self evident that their plan *does* all those things.
It *doesn't* though. Not even *Close*.
MY arguments is based upon the facts I have at hand. LL's argument seems to be one of assertion- "Because we said so".
From: someone
Going back to RL, the fact that it is nigh impossible to prevent individual acts of mischief does not invalidate the concept of zoning.
PLease, let's don't get into RL zoning laws. They *do not apply here*. this is *virtual* land we're talking about. ones and zeros written magnetically upon hard drives within a computer mainframe. RL zoning, and whether they are justified or not, or how they are arrived at or enforced (or not) is not at issue here.
what *is* at issue is that LL sold server space with certain criteria. those criteria are unacceptable to some number of users. LL wishes to change the criteria.
Well and good. make changes that make *sense*. PG and Mature sims shouldn't be all jumbled together as they are on the main grid.
there should be discrete blocs of PG and Mature land so that the one doesn't have to look at the shenanigans of the other.
BUt LL is keeping them all in place, and telling the mature residents that they can still get their freak on as long as they don't advertise it and it's not open to the public. LL never said "x meters away from PG land, or to keep it off the front lawn. they said to keep it out of *search*
In trying ti minimize the PR disaster, they have hamstrung their plan before it had a chance to even *try8 to do something.
Oh, and the people who live next door to an adult club? loosen up, relax, and try to enjoy yourself. you moved there, you *stay* there*, and the adult club is probably doing *nothing* wrong by being where it is.
It they break the rules, AR them. IF they don't, then move if you can't stand the sight of them. Indecency is in the eye of the beholder
From: someone
Personally I think the non-NIMBY aspect is a very loud voice, and primarily from outside.
I think that this is the most likely possibility- but there are residents and groups in-world pushing for this too. I just want to know if there's more than 3k of them.

{QUOTE=]If you go in assuming that LL is lieing about their figures, then there is no point in asking for the backup, or discussing anything at all with them. If they are going to outright lie, then they almost certainly do have a strong alterior motive for all this, which is not likely to change due to protest.[/QUOTE]
Let me try to state this clearly. I don't *think* that LL are lying about their figures. I think that they have gathered bad data, and since it supported their preconceptions about what is "normal" for SL, they aren't looking any further.
I think that they are clinging to a faulty, inaccurate sample because it favors their plan and tells them that uprooting that Adult contingent of SL is "no big deal"
I'm willing to take any *evidence* to the contrary into account, but I am *unwilling* to include unsupported assertions in my calculations. I have seen plenty of numbers form the people on this forum and others which lead me to belive that what numbers LL *has* released are *wrong* that doesn't make LL *Liars*. It makes them *wrong*.
I wouldn't be trying to convince them if I thought that they were *lying*. I'd simply try to scare up enough people for a class action suit for fraud, and leave it at that.
From: someone
They get the benefit of the doubt for the very reason you need to demand the numbers rather than simply present them with the numbers, because there is every reason to believe they have internal reporting that can give them such numbers.
I don't doubt that they have internal reporting that would give them a better set of metrics to act upon. the plain fact is that they are not using them, because if they *were*, they would have a *different, more effective plan*.
That they are still pushing this steaming pile of goat poop tells me that they haven't availed themselves of the means they have to collect such metrics.
Perhaps by prodding them, we can get them to actually look at the whole picture, rather than one little piece. If they wanted the benefit of the doubt, then they ought to have been more thorough in their research and planning for this step.
If someone like me- outside the loop, and with no particular training in this sort of thing, can see the gaping holes in their plan, surely i can expect that LL's paid experts can see the same thing? And if they don't, they need to be replaced- they are *badly* mismanaging this change and are doing it the hardest way possible, both for the residents *and* LL.
So, why should I give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have more information than I do? They're obviously not using it, either by choice or incompetence
Either way, I see no reason to *trust* their numbers, whatever they are. I want to *see* them if they have them, and I suspect that they *don't* have them. I suspect that they never got that far in the process.
In my nightmares, I see the LL board hearing from two schools, one business, two adult content providers, a few churches, and a dozen AR's about a strip club opening up on the land adjacent to a PG parcel, or being chased around the welcome area by a giant squeaky penis, that calling that a "sample" and basing their plan on the "need" to do some thing about that stuff. then leaving the research at that.
From: someone
Meanwhile, even if every voter is an individual and not an alt (by the way, I never said bot.. not all alts are bots), the votes still represent opinions based on partial facts formed by people who have different stakes in the success of SL than LL does. That does not invalidate the JIRA, but it does weaken the suggestion that it is a sufficiently convincing arguement to scrap these changes.
The point is *who cares*? If someone votes for the JIRA more than once through alts, they are merely doing what LL does every thing it touts how many "users" it has. It still adequately conveys the depth of feeling, and the importance of the issue.
Besides, LL is more than happy to count the alts when it comes to making an impression on a potential client.
Millions of users who will all see your billboard in the welcome area! Sign up now for your full sim for a corporate headquarters in-world! they'll show up in droves! Did we mention millions of users?
My point is this. If you are willing to give LL "The benefit of the doubt" and assume that they have better numbers than they are showing in this argument, with all evidence to the contrary; then why be so rigorous about who's voting the JIRA?
You assume that people are gaming the vote. I'll tell you honestly, it never occurred to me to do that. I have a total of 6 alts, and Valerius Constantine is the only one who voted the JIRA. Why shouldn't I give the rest of the SL residents the benefit of the doubt, and believe that they'll do the same?
From: someone
They could be a lot higher, but would be is a harder case to make. It depends on how aggressively anyone wanting to stuff the balot wanted to act, whether they thought the additional votes could be traced to them somehow, any number of reasons. And again, I did not say it *was* happening, just that it could be, and the fact that it could gives LL a convenient out. You are responding as if it could not be happening.
Ah, so what you are saying is that you discount numbers presented to you, on the basis that they might not be accurate, even though you have no proof that they aren't.
Fair enough. Why then do you complain when I do the same with LL's numbers (such as they are) when in some instances, such as the total amount of "adult content" affected by the changes, they have been refuted a dozen times over?
When they have moved the goalposts on what constitutes "adult content" and they are still in a state of flux?
When they came up with the number before they had a working definition of what "adult content" was?
Seriously alex- the LL numbers and assumptions not only have more holes than a collander, the very thing they're supposed to represent *keeps changing from week to week*!
If *they* don't know what will have to go to Ursula and what won't, then why are they doing something idiotic like predicting that the number will be between 2% and 4%?
They gave out a number that *obviously*, and on the face of it, *THEY HAD NO IDEA IF IT WAS ACCURATE OR NOT*!
That is LL's track record in a nutshell.
I am choosing to believe that they are merely "challenged", rather than actively trying to swindle me. but that's about as far as my "benefit of the doubt" goes.
From: someone
But LL already announced this, for whatever reason. Why would anyone agreeing with it start a JIRA saying, essentially, do what you are already doing? Even if they actively put up such a poll, why would people feel the need to go out of their way to tell LL not to stop?[/QUOTE}
I'm talking about the JIRA article that gave LL the idea that they needed to do somehting in the first place, not one in favor of the current plan started in counter protest.
I simply thought that there might actually be a JIRA article covering these issues in the back of the pile- from 9 months to a year back, asking LL to do something about all the Pr0n.
And if there *is* such an article, I wonder how many votes it got.
These changes had a starting point. I want to know what it was, and what their goals were then, and what they are now, and judge their plan accordingly.
I actually sympathize with their stated goals, alex. it is the plan itself that is my target.
It won't work, and it has all the hallmarks of being cobbled together out of several hobby-horses. Sort of the way a Platypus is a duck designed by committee, so is this plan-
I'm sure it started out well, sleek, strong and streamlined (albeit, possibly pointed in the wrong direction). and then they started adding things, and it went from looking sleek and strong to looking more like a platypus.
With extra elbows and knees, and an odd sort of space helmet/gun rack on its head.

From: someone
And my counter is to point out that simply saying 'we do not like this' as a JIRA is not an arguement in and of itself. It is safe to say that more than 3,000 people are concerned about this and would rather not have to deal with changes. That does not in and of itself mean change is bad, merely unpopular.
But in a case where you are trying to determine who moves and who stays, the popularity of the idea *matters*. besides, there is a request- "Stop and re-think your plan. Look at the alternatives being offered by the residents, announce the changes via the log-in screen to get the maximum amount of feedback. *then* look at the problem, and try again". The JIRA doesn't make any arguments, because it is referring to the *multitude* of arguments posted in this and other forums.
From: someone
Although the $100US per person is exaggerated, if LL did not believe that, despite the protests, this would somehow enhance their bottom line, they would not be doing this.
3000 voting against it might represent a loss greater than any gain they will see from this, but that is not a given in that just because those 3000 are voting against on a JIRA does not mean they would automaticly pack up and quit if this goes through.
So we're back to "trust them because they wouldn't go against their own self interest"? Sorry. As I said previously, people and companies do dumb stuff every day of the week
I'll probably do six dumb things before breakfast.
Why should I assume that LL, with it's track record of tomfoolery, will do any better?
And the 3000 JIRA votes are to make a point. LL didn't think this through carefully enough. There are quite possibly more votes against it that there were *for* it.
3k-plus votes on a JIRA article is pretty darn rare. They should probably pay some attention to that number.
From: someone
They really have been doing a poor PR job on this, and it really is not helping.
Absolutely correct- their PR effort has been almost nonexistent and when it *was* there it was patronizing and Heavy-handed, all at the same time.
From: someone
I am not so sure that the affects will be that deep. I am sure they will be deeply felt by some, and that there will be an adjustment period. I prefer to think of this as them leading people on a dangerous journey. Some will give up on the way, some will fall down on the way, and there is no certainty of a promised land at the end of the journey. But there is no certainty that it will be worse at the end either. Uncertainty is always scary.
Well, I was thinking more of the SL economy, which is based primarily on land sales and rental. the price of Mainland "mature" parcels is going to plummet, and I think so will Pg. And once the griefers start in with the PG folks, and the sex workers continue to ply their trade in "mature" areas ("what do you mean? we were in a *private residence* go away and tell that peeping tom next door to leave us alone!"

. And as the loopholes are more and better exploited, it will be worth even less.
Of course, that's just my opinion- I wouldn't want anyone to think that I had numbers about the land price tank. But it seems pretty logical given the responses I've heard on these forums, and my experiences in-world.
As for the uncertainly, and the dangerous journey- Is it more or less dangerous than staying *home* in the first place? I'd want a few more fact about any putative "promised land" before i committed.

^V^