The Question of Land Cutting

While I can understand the desire to improve the mainland experience, I think adding restriction and regulation after restriction and regulation is absolutely the wrong way to go about it.

Some of the activities I enjoyed the most when I first registered with Second Life, activities I still enjoy, are much more difficult now due to attempts at curbing griefing. One of my favorite things to do is explore the mainland, but with all of the excessive land restriction options given to landowners now, it is nearly impossible to explore much of the Mainland regions without getting stuck in a banline. Since I met most of my closest SL friends by exploring, I find the difficulties in mainland travel to be very disheartening.

The issue of "land cutting" (which is a silly term, by the way) has been around for years, and the community has brought it to the attention of Linden Labs time and time again. The issue is not the ability to divide land into small parcels, the issue is the ability to sell mini-parcels. There may very well be legitimate uses for 16mx16m parcels which have nothing to do with ad farms or property value manipulation, so I don't think creating a new "law" to enforce will solve the problem.

Remove the ability to sell a parcel below a certain size, and the problem goes away. This will allow people to split parcels into whatever size they need for their project, and remove the issue of mini-parcel farms designed to lower property value, or force high prices to rid the nuisance.

I miss the days when there were far fewer restrictions and LL was MUCH more involved in policing the grid. The griefers we all had to put up with "back in the day" were much easier to tolerate than restrictions and policy in place today.

I believe it is called "Throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Thank goodness there are other Metaverse options on the way. I think Linden Labs needs some serious competition to put things into perspective again.

Land cutting SHOULD become a violation for all the reasons you highlight.

It would be difficult to ask people to rejoin already cut parcels - it could do more harm than good in some case.

There is one legitimate time to cut land I feel, when you purchase already odd-shaped and tier unfriendly parcels - I purchase a 4624m, for example. I couldn't easily sell it without chopping off the 16m tier-unfriendly bit?

I FULLY support the general principle of making general cutting a violation.

I agree that something should be done about the small (<512 sqm) plots FOR SALE at horribly inflated prices.

Generally, making a "profit" is not a bad thing and everyone in SL is entitled to pursue a profit. However, common sense says that a 16sqm parcel set for sale at $L10,000 is more than making a "profit". People can buy, cut and sell land without gouging, extorting or otherwise being jerks. Buying a sim, cutting into 512 sqm plots and selling them individually for more than they paid for the sim is acceptable. Cutting a sim into 496sqm plots with a 16sqm plot in the center and setting that 16sqm plot for sale at $L30 per square meter is not okay. Why anyone would buy any of those 496sqm plots and then complain about the 16 in the center is beyond me but it probably happens, especially to inexperienced residents.

Most of the current <512 sqm plots are left over from the ad people who, for whatever reason, don't really want to sell them. Some are set for sale at ridiculous prices and they evidently have the money and patience to wait for some sucker to come buy them. Some are not for sale and have nothing on them and they refuse to even respond to inquiries about selling the plots. A few are owned by some of the land "barons" for various reasons and aren't for sale. Some are owned by people for unknown reasons who apparently pay their tier, but are rarely, if ever, on SL and do not check messages or, perhaps, don't speak English.

There are relatively few SL residents who are involved in the land extortion racket. Is there some reason LL can't run some sort of search that lists <512 sqm plots for sale at above, say, L$10 per sqm? I'm sure there are a lot of pieces of land but a relatively small amount of owners. Once you discover how wide spread it is, add to the TOS language that DOES NOT affect people selling <512 plots for fair market value but does prohibit the sale of <512sqm plots above it. Then state that everyone has 30 days to change the sale price on any <512 sqm plot to at or below a fair market value, which is currently $L XX per square meter. After 30 days of the announcement, the top 10 who did not comply will have their land seized and residents can begin sending AR's regarding violations they come across. Basically the same basic way the ad farmers were dealt with: some time to comply, then punishment and LL investigating AR's.

As for the plots NOT for sale, if they are not bothering anyone, let them be. I'm sure there are quite a few of them that are not being used by a larger landowner on their own land for streaming or vendors but are also not bothering anyone at the moment. Leave those for later when/if they become a problem. For example, there are currently two 16sqm plots on my land that are owned by others. Neither are for sale. There is a little invisible box running a script one one and there is nothing on the other one. At the moment, they are not bothering me. I have some trees on the land and am not using for anything else. HOWEVER, I wouldn't be able to actually build anything there because of their locations. I also probably would not be able to sell the land because of the donuts in it. I bought up that land from various ad farmers before the ad ban but those two plots have never been for sale and one has never responded to my inquiries about selling (although I don't think he speaks English). So, for the moment, they are not a problem and they should be left alone.

If a landowner has a donut hole situation or something similar, then after the 30 day compliance period (which may poke some people to put the land for sale at a reasonable price), they can submit a support ticket or something to request the situation be looked at to see if it's a language problem, a person who is simply not around anymore or if a trade off can be made somehow. But really, if the owner of the small plot does not want to sell and is not otherwise violating the terms of service regarding advertising or something, then they are entitled to keep the property. Why they would want to do this other than to just being annoying, I don't know, but I'm sure someone will think of a reason to have a useless and unused 16sqm plot in the center of someone else's land.

Some sort of balance needs to be struck between punishing and restricting everyone from trading and selling smaller pieces of land in a legitimate manner and taking care of the extortion problem caused by the few. I would think you would be able to find some sort of language that makes it clear that a specific behavior is no longer allowed without it turning into basically having to investigate every single small plot because everyone is claiming they are an exception or should be. There WILL have to be a case by case investigation of SOME situations but those should be investigated based on an individual complaint, not just because a plot is of a certain size.

Of course the unscrupulous residents will simply find other ways to get around things and come up with a new scam but at least this form of extortion would be shut down.

I like where Linden Labs is going totally.

The objective of LL is and MUST be growth and mainstream acceptance of Second Life.

When the first experience of new users is clutter and confusion it GREATLY HINDERS this goal.

YES, ABSOLUTELY. END AND/OR RESTRICT LAND CUTTING.

I was a noob, I didn't know anything, but I wanted some land. I bought a 192 m2 that was inside of two 128 m2. Bought them piece by piece to get a 448 m2 plot. A friend saved an adjoining 64 m2 piece and sold it to make my 512 m2.

Then the little 16 m2's started to act up that had always been there, dormant. A huge banner first - got rid of that - ka ching! L$1000 to that owner. The next 16 m2 was a porno ad- ka ching! L$1500 and I owned that 16. The last one was an ad for a casino. I covered it with a tree for a while then gave in and bought it for L$1000. There is only one 16 left but they stay nice and dormant.

Now, ask me if I will EVER move?

Not a chance !! hehe - Tory

As much as I like the look of the mainland now that the ad farms are 99% gone, I'm afraid LL has let the genie out of the bottle with land control. While I understand LL being forced into taking positions regarding certain matters due to rl laws (gambling & child porn for example) I don't understand LL trying to impose rules that are subject to the whims of thousands of residents and therefore require policing some 2900 mainland sims.

The question is, do we want a world 'without limits' or one where the limits are decided by a few?

I would rather have the ad farms back than LL deciding what we can and can't do with our land (and, no, I don't want to live on an island, that is extremely boring to me as I like the chaos of the mainland)

What I propose for consideration is two levels of mainland - one somewhat controlled by LL laws and one with no LL laws other than what is absolutely necessary because of rl constrictions.

Now, if LL were to do this, would I see things on the latter that would offend my sensibilities? Probably, however this would be better than being told I can or can't do something that I chose to do in sl.

Answer to questions:

1 - No
2 - Yes, there are many legitimate uses for small pieces of land
3 - No

General cutting? So you don't believe people should be able to divide any land to any size?

Anyway, to your point about cutting off a 16m portion of a parcel, you can always abandon it if you don't want to pay the tier that little bit would bump you to.

Besides, does anyone really think a "land cutting" (that really is a poorly thought out buzzword) restriction will be well enforced? Unless something is coded, this will simply be another one of those rules that people are supposed to follow, but gets ignored by many. Of course, there is the Abuse Report option, but that isn't what it used to be either.

* Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?

Yes. This is often done when an owner wants to offer a variety of streaming media to the visitors. Each small parcel has its own Media spec, and visitors to the area can select the streaming video, audio, or web content they wish to use.

Until the meda platform is refined to "media on a prim," cutting 16m parcels should remain legal. Or perhaps they are legal as long as they are not for sale.

Yeah they might end up banning people spamming the land list too! Shock! Horror!

Linden Labs isn't going anywhere. They are simply polishing the turd, so to speak. This restriction isn't going to improve grid stability or asset server stability. New users are not put off by ad farms and micro-parcels. They are put off by lag, Welcome Areas with naked people walking into other people, and a general lack of direction after they get to the mainland. When I used to be a mentor, the biggest question I would get from newbies was "Ok, now what?"

The idea that restriction "land cutting" (someone should slap the person responsible for that term, by the way) will improve new user retention is more than a bit of a stretch.

I don't think anyone claimed that it would. I see a it as an atempt to make long time landowning residents happy.

Some people are pretty flippant about other people's belongings. To those who say small parcels should be taken away with no compensation, that small parcels' sale prices be capped, or that prices should be limited to some gridwide average price that has nothing to do with the value of a particular parcel or region, I say: Great, let's have LL take away your land, too. Let's make you give it away for free. Let's see you sell your land for 2L per M2 when you paid ten times that for it. There are lots and lots of people who own small parcels already. There are lots and lots of people who have bought and sold small parcels over the years, with no extortionate intent, who should not be penalized for the greed and rudeness of a few. Target those who are actually doing something wrong and stop demanding that LL take away something that your good neighbors paid for.

ditto ditto

Are any Lindens going to participate in this discussion? I mean under their Linden names?

Imposing a restriction without a technical solution such as a price cap for parcels under a certain size, or removing the ability to sell parcels under a certain size, will not help anyone. It will only add more work to the Lindens who are tasked with policing the grid.

And much of the Second Life experience has been ruined for a great many by focusing on improving the SL experience for landowners. I do not believe enough work is done on the part of LL to determine a best course of action for the community at large when land related policy is considered.

While land owners certainly contribute to the grid through their membership fees and tier, if it were not for the content creators, land renters, and habitual spenders, the grid would have a hell of a lot less content... and people to see it.

Interesting, and important, point you make there.

But that isn't an option. Limits are already there - you can't buy or sell less than 16m or more than 65536! The tier structure introduces financial incentives for parcel sizes. The "cutting" problem can be solved by adjusting the parameters of either of these existing and unavoidable limitations.... no difference in control, no new rules, no extra enforcement, just changing a few numbers.

Peter,

Is this going to be a scripted solution or are you wanting us to police the grid again for you and report on our neighbors?

.

remove the free 512m you get with a premium account.

simple.

make the initial 512 that you would have normally gotten for free be half what it would cost for a +512m increase. in this case, it would cost them $2.50 USD a month to keep thier free land.


what this will do is :

1) remove all those tiny parcels from those accounts that don't log in anymore. abandoning them back to linden labs so that they can be turned over and pushed back out for you to purchase at linden labs default prices.

2) will generate some extra revenue for LL from the ones who decide to keep thier small parcels.

3) will hopefully keep the witch hunts down to a minimum and save LL alot of headaches of having to answer the 1000's of abuse reports that we know are going to arise if they push thier initial plan through.


i had more to say but if i keep rambling on, i'll lose the meaning behind this message.

psst ... if land is for sale and not sold for 6 months maybe it is set for sale at too high a price?

/me makes 'poor you' american sign language sign at Robo

Are you kidding me??

So your solution to the problem is to take away a good portion of the value of paying for a premium account?!? The price of premium INCLUDES the 512m, it isn't "free."

Again, another person suggesting that the community at large be punished for the idiocy of a select few. I cannot comment on this suggestion further without violating the TOS.

QUOTED *** "Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?"

There are. I own a sizable chunk of land which includes several 16s owned by others. These 16s are, for reasons unclear to me, not for sale but the owners WILL trade for like sized pieces in the same sim. I feel I should be able to cut some 16s at a far edge of my land to trade for the interior bits, thus patching holes in my land.....

That being said.....

As to sale for land under a certain size being locked to a certain price range, yes it should, if only to keep griefing through profiteering by land chopping to a minimum.

As for land being wrested from would-be gougers (not merely owners, but those actively charging extortion prices to tiny bits), and offered to surrounding owners.... At first blush I'd say yes, considering I own the land surrounding all the 16s in my sim. But the idea of LL actually seizing privately owned land for the enrichment of other land owners is the thin end of a wedge of possible future abuse.

Not that I would refuse first purchase option on such confiscated land, mind you........

Personaly i think there should be no parcell smaller than the 512 i keep buying up small lots to restore them to over 1024 or larger then resell just to keep it fromm a bunch of 16 lots

The cutting of and into tiny plots should not be banned or be a violation. As a land owner I have used this technique in the past to subdivide *my* plot of land into pieces such that I can rent parts (and use prim counter scripts) while still having "public" land or plots upon which to place landscaping items. To disallow me from doing this, while is still own *all* the land and it is contiguous is a violation of my rights to use the land editting tools.

I agree however that the selling of these tiny plots of land is generally pointless, except when a land owner may wish to cull pieces of their land spread across the grid, in order to purchase another piece and not incur higher tier. One could say, tough luck and I think that is fair.

To stop the abuse of buying some land, say 512m, and then cutting the corners off ending up with 4 x 16m and a larger 448m, simply up the size of the minimum saleable plot.

There is a problem I have seen though with new mainland, whereby Linden road placements can cause new land owners who wish to initially subdivide a sim into saleable plots, to create "odd" sized plots that do not naturally fit tier levels. Thus if someone wants to buy one and then trim it to fit into a tier, they may have to trim off small sizes.

The question shouldn't be whether cutting for extortion should be banned since that's an automatic yes, or whether 16m parcels should be banned overall since that's an automatic no, but it should be whether there should be hard limits such as requiring a person to own more than 16m in a region before having a less than X sized parcel and not let them sell the rest of their land in a region if it would leave less than X meters left in the region where X in both cases is a reasonably defined number.

Yup, been saying that for the last 8 months to Jack, in one form or another.

Two caveats:

1) LL *LOVES* its policy games. That's why it took *years* for them to even recognize the problem, and *months* to throw together something that should have taken no more than a couple of weeks. For the former, it wasn't the time, but the level of customer complaints from the massively growing problem; if it had stayed more low-key, they probably would never have addressed it at all.

2) LL's enforcement is HORRIBLY spotty, and SEVERELY inconsistent, often punishing the innocent and rewarding the guilty.

Before I would say that it would work, I'd have to see a major paradigm shift in LL's policy-making practices, and a major housecleaning/training/organizational restructuring that got the Governance Team all on the same page using the same rules, and enforcing them consistently.

If it were me, it would have been done back in April of last year. Now, it looks like it won't be until April of this year before something remotely similar in effectiveness will appear.

Too little, too late.