The Question of Land Cutting

Let people cut land down to what size they need as long as it is adjacent to same owner parcel(s) totaling 512m or larger.

Prohibit selling of land less than 256m and give 60 days for those with smaller parcels than 256m to sell before the size ban takes effect. This will result in either the owner being forced to sell at a fair price as the deadline draws near or they risk forfeiture to the Lindens if they wish to stop owning after the deadline passes.

Land forfeited after the 60 days to the Lindens can only be sold at fair market value (e.g. the avg. L per meter for the SIM) to the adjoining property owners. If adjoining property owners would end up going up into the next tier if they acquired the land and show no interest as a result, give a waiver of tier increase providing the land does not exceed 64m which should cover most of the land cut parcels in question.

There would be a risk that land between 16 and 256m would left orphaned and owned by the Lindens, however, I think that the amount would be very small. Just keep that land open for purchase to adjacent property owners as it will likely change hands at some point and the new owner might be interested.

The more I think about this, the more I think I agree.. Darn that Desmond!

LL has (or can get) lots more data than we can about who owns what. They know who's causing this problem and I'd be just fine with them declaring that selling tiny parcels with value to _nobody_ except their neighbors is not a valid business model any more. Then, as Des says, Jack can let the gteam members he's been keeping starved and locked in the basement out and they can tear up the worst offenders and reclaim some land.

I think it's clear who's trying to make a business out of selling these tiny plots. LL should make up their hit list, give them 2 months notice to knock it off then start reclaiming land. LL is the mainland estate manager - they have every right to do this.

I own the sl help desk and we had issues of our neighbors doing just that they still do and these ilicit adds go up in the air making the feel of the land the the surroudnings anyting but good. remember being in a sim working on a project and zillions of rotating advertisments were there it was like the slums the land was not attractive peoples high rising sights were often not in good taste. but seemed more sex places or escrot service places wanted to crowed the skyes or just about view with there junk. still munck has some of those 16m parcels thank goodness none are used for ads at the moment and most are being sold off and joined with main parcels. i am doing that as much as i can making it part of the sl help desk sand box. but i encourage all on the mainland with land to take in those 3prims aka 16m of land and elimiated them once and for all.

so hats off the Lindens for thinking of incoorporating this policy!!! thanks

1. Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?

Yes. After 2 years of constantly being targeted by extortionists for our garden sim project, this really really needs to be a very serious offense.

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

We have to be clear on what cutting is. I feel that a person parceling off a section of their land to make use of media settings or descriptions/options is something that should not be restricted. Only SELLING of micro parcels should be disallowed by the system. If you have two people that wish to trade a small portion of land have them cut a larger chunk, sell that off and then cut it again and sell back the excess. This way it is still possible for land owners to trade land, but not allow the micro parcels in the first place.

3. With land that is already cut up, but still mostly owned by the resident that cut it, should we ask that the land be joined back together?

Yes, this should be put back together. If you add a max value micro plots can be sold at, you greatly reduce the extortion process. However, there must also be the ability to AR the persons that do not put the land up for sale but extort via IM or visual spam.

Known, and constant pains in the butt, residents should be expected to sell off their parcels by a set date before they are forcibly reclaimed and sold to the bordering parcel owners.

As a bit of history, I have not posted regarding this issue before due to fears of increased extortion attempts for our mainland community.

We started with 1.2 sims and though 2 years of dealing with extortionists and the like, slowly increased our lands (by waiting them out, never giving in!) to 1.7 sims. That is half a sim of "buffer lands" to protect our primary sim. This month we'd finally had enough and sold off all mainland (at a 65% loss) and moved to our own 4 sim island. Free forever from the mainland cesspool.

All this comes "little to late"...

Samantha

I think that cutting should not be a violation, just the abuse of it.

If governor linden would allow neighbours to purchase abandoned small plots automatically if they ask it would fix a lot. I was once told by a linden I could apply for 32 or 64(? i forget) sqm neighbouring plot to be put up for public auction... Considerign the troublesome neighbours this might cause for myself and my neighbours I of course did not apply, and sold up for a cheap price and moved out that region. I have since thought the Linden must of misunderstood which plot.

Ive seen smaller cuts be used for land media, games, set home points for multiple groups, upacking areas, scripting areas, store servers, store rentals and landmarking. I can think of other reasons too.

I think the tier adjustment thing needs to be considered. An escrow might be good idea.
I have seen a person is just a few sqm short of tier size have to cut an existing fragment. Smaller tier increments would really help with this, also.

Also the lack of flexibility with set home here options forces many people to create a group just so their friends can set home, and land cutting to allow a spot can let them retain ownership on most of it. if I wanted all my friends to be able to set home, taking into account how limited group space is Id have to talk with various group owners, donate the tier and land, and have land owned by 6 groups on the border. Its a good thing I dont want to do that.

Some really excellent posts in this thread so far, I've read all of them and have taken note of many of the suggestions. So let me add some further comments:

I don't think there was any suggestion that we would stop everyone from creating or using small parcels for legitimate reasons; the example of multiple media streams is just one reason why this wouldn't be a good thing to do. What we're talking about is the commercial, larger scale activities that a small number of land dealers have been engaged in. I would say that a fairly small number of people are probably responsible for 90% of the 'bad' cutting that goes on, which is similar in many ways to the ad farm situation.

I totally take the points about removal of liberty where your land is concerned, we don't want to stop you from doing fun, whacky and creative things with your property. But as Estate Manager for this large contiguous space, I think we do need to find ways to stop the more excessive parcel division. The long term effects are not healthy for these big continents.

By the way, you'll notice me trying hard to avoid the term 'land cutting'
If you have a better term for it, do post it here!

Quite a few of you like the idea of us adding controls on selling small parcels, either by limiting the price or just not letting them be sold. Do you think that would end the large scale slicing of land that we've identified as a problem? More feedback on this aspect would be great.

A few have suggested that we simply come down hard on the few residents that are causing the problem, without a stated policy. The problem there, is that although those people may ultimately be the ones that we take action on, we should still have an established policy that everyone can understand and be comfortable with longer term. For new residents too, it's useful to have clear guidance up front.

Also, we're not going to automate the enforcement of something like this, the cases we come across will be looked at closely before we make any judgement.

Going back to my point about us acting as a responsible Estate Manager.. if what you are doing has a significantly negative impact on the Mainland as a whole and on the enjoyment of others around you, then we're likely to take action to end that. If what you are doing is not badly impacting the Mainland, you've nothing to be concerned about by changes like this.

Anyway, keep the comments coming, we'll leave the thread open for a few days yet and we'll be reading all the input. Thanks again!


Jack

How about "Land Cutting" to "Micro Parceling"?

I know that even if pressure forces the micro parcelers to sell, there will be a few who will resort to renting them. It could be added to the user agreement that renting of micro parcels for the purpose of an ad farm would be a violation. These could be dealt with on a case by case basis to reduce the workload on the support staff.

I also believe that if you don't automate at least some of the new rules if implemented, your support staff would be inundated with more cases than they can handle. At minimum, any limitations on land sales below a certain would be best implemented via automation.

I think the problem is that LL seems to have a problem using the word extortion, for legal reasons maybe?

State that the policy is that chopping up lots of land into tiny parcels and setting it for sale at silly prices is now not allowed on the mainland!

I'll bite - what is the technical solution? I don't see one that causes more problems than it solves, and I'll be the first to say so.

The term "Predatory Microparcel Barons" comes to mind...

Desmond, what about only allowing cutting of parcels below a certain size if the same owner owns more than X acres in the region already and/or X acres that would directly border the small parcel that would be created when they made the cut. On top of that have the system do a check when a parcel is set to sale to disallow it if the sale would leave the owner with less than 16m in the region. To allow land trades I'd suggest allowing person to person sales to bypass these rules but expand the TOS to make extortion by IM or by parcel description to get people to buy these parcels a TOS offense.

I'd also suggest (and I see no objections posted to) the seperate idea of what I previously posted about giving direct bordering neighbors right of first refusal on any seized or even abandoned parcels, giving other landholders in the region right of second refusal, and then depending on how it's implemented either after X amount of time, after they've all refused, or both putting it up for public sale. I'd suggest doing this for all parcels but this is especially important for smaller parcels and those near LPS (Linden protected space).

How's this for a policy:

"Detrimental activities to the mainland estate, such as cutting tiny parcels of land and attempting to sell them for prices many multiples higher than the average trading price of mainland, is not allowed.

Case in point: offering a 16m parcel for sale for $L 800 would be a very clear violaton - a price of $L 50 per square meter.

Other tactics, such as erecting ban lines or pointlessly large prims on small parcels to block the regular enjoyment of avatars in a region are also not allowed.

If what you are doing has a significantly negative impact on the Mainland as a whole and on the enjoyment of others around you, then we're likely to take action to end that."

* * * * *

Couple of key points about the above...

Notice it says "offered for sale" - not "set for sale using the land sale function." That kills the "IM me to find out the real price of this nuisance parcel" sales.

Second point is that there isn't a clear line drawn - you don't want one. Once you draw a razor sharp line, anything just under that line is state-sanctioned as acceptable.


Final point: you've got a very, very intractable problem with the mainland, Jack. The problem is this: it's not a 'themed' area. Even a very broad theme, such as "build houses and roads" is not a requirement.

There is absolutely nothing that says the mainland cannot have Sigmund's Exploding Pig Balloon Exhibit, or Dr Strange's Mysterious Upside Down Floating Palm Tree Forest.

These are perfectly valid uses of mainland, as per terms of service. In fact, zany artiste types may *wish* to use mainland in that manner, with no intent to harm their neighbours at all, and nothing says they can't. In fact, the mainland is the one place they *can* without renting an entire region.

I really think there needs to be some sort of broad thematic rule - or make painfully clear that there is none at all: a Wild West area, so to speak. Until this is done, you've got trouble.

I have dealt with the best land cutters in sl --alias ROBO and ms plandz so I know all about the scrutiny of these people ! Wanting 5000 Ls and 15,999 Ls is absolutely blackmail ! They know you need to make the land whole to be able to make anything look right !
They told me I was stupid and my purposal a joke, when I offered them the daily worth of land, according to you, linden lab!
I think it should be considered illegal to cut the land in order to use blackmail to get somone to pay an extravagant price for it!!
I also think that no one can use a 64 or a 16 for any pupose that is not a coniving schem to make money off of those of us that want to build and make the land a place of beauty not signs hanging all over the place and ugly mounds in the middle of the landscape !
I had to buy five of these mounds !
And yes I think all pieces of land that are 64 and under should be investigated and the cutters made to give them back to LL and subsequently given to the landowner that holds the land they are on !!
i also think you forgot the cutters that dont have the pieces up for sale they will only trade you another piece of ground so you can move it out of your way --i think this practice should be illegalized too !
It still creats havock and you still cannot make the land whole ! there is always that piece in thew way of someone
!!
I have never seen any 16 or 64 used for anything that was not an eyesore or scam!!TY LL !!!!! It is about time to make the mainland whole again and make these people pay back all they have destroyed of the mainland!! I just which I could get back all the thousands I spent trying to do this !!!

Thanks for the clarification Jack.

How about a simple policy of lot sizes less than 512m can only be used for personal use and not commercial use.

Meaning no tall billboads, no ban lines, no full bright builds, and cannot be sold for more than L$5 per meter.

Cat

Sounds like these rules would punish ordinary people unnecessarily, and in fact may make the issues worse. How would you easily get rid of a microparcel you were stuck with, if say it was a small matter to you not worth 60 seconds of time? This is often the case.

In the face of such complexity, small parties would be tempted to simply abandon microparcels to Governor Linden, thus compounding the cleanup problem. I think it's fairly important not to just dump it onto the estate manager's lap, because that can start to get expensive after a while.

You have a policy.



Not to mention the nuclear bomb section of the TOS:


I know you just want to give people a chance to "clean up the act" But the problem is criminals don't stop being criminals till they die. There is no rehabilitation. Ever. The only way you will get rid of the unacceptable behaviors of these very few people is to get rid of them permanently.

Be sure to post the proposed language of the new policy for review so we can tell you how they will immediately avert it and continue on with the harassment and abusive behavior.

Well, actually, I do, but it's not PG and therefore I'm not allowed to say it in the forums.


Well - regarding the price limits, if they aren't making a big profit, most of them won't bother with it anymore. I think that you may see a few people continuing to cut, though - even a tiny profit on each lot would be worthwhile if they can cut enough in volume. That would be bad!

If you determine that lots under a certain size just can't be sold anymore, you'll have angry mobs of people holding preexisting microparcels yelping about not being able to recoup their 'investment'.

It's a tough situation. Maybe you need to address the volume of microparcels being cut and sold by unique users/groups in the policy? Have the system flag people/groups who have a certain amount of these microparcels for sale during a set time period? Of course, that could be evaded by the sneaky ones who use lots and lots of different avatars to do their dirty work. Perhaps build in a time lag between when a lot is cut up and when small parcels created from that larger lot can be put up for sale?

“Terrasplicing” Micro Parcels must be stopped, and the former Micro Terrasplices must be rejoined with the larger terrain of the surrounding SIM SIMPLE!
We paid a lot of money to enjoy our Second Life, and unfortunately the normal basic human instinct of greed got out of hand in the excitement of this wonderful new virtual world we all now share.
I have absorbed the cost of this virtual land slide, and have learnt a lot from it. The only way for us to grow and prosper is to learn from our mistakes, and others; move on, and get back to having fun!
All of us (hopefully) know how unfulfilling it is to take advantage of others, and more importantly how crapy it feels to be taken as a fool, so why bother? If you are truly unhappy with the Second Life platform, and its proposed policy to stop crooks from making our experience here a miserable one; leave, and don’t look back, because it is not just you who is going to be paying the price for this massive cleanup, and damage done.
We are all in this together, so why try to cling on to the useless Micro Terrasplice that has been a griefing tool from day one? All they are doing (The Micro TerraSplices) as you can see, or read; is causing Terror!

Jack, there are some of us that have almost, if not whole regions set to certain themes. Then there is five to fifteen 16m scattered around with price tags from L$ 5000 to L$ 20,000 for sale. They are firm on their prices and ridicule you if you dare suggest anything less. This as stated before is nothing but pure extorsion. Someone trying to make a profit off of land deals is one thing, but things of this type are wrong. I do support and end to this and hope that it is done soon.

How does "Predatory Subdivision" sound? The term could be applied to any practice in which land is divided in such a way to enable predatory pricing.



Would it make sense to have a throttle to prevent land prices from spiraling out of control regardless of whether or not the issue of Predatory Subdivision is the cause? (dunno about you folks, but I dig Predatory Subdivision... lol) Set a price cap at something like 20% above average market value, so no parcel can be sold for more than 20% of the average price? The percentage here is simply used to illustrate the point, a different value could be substituted. Of course, this would be far more appealing if it were introduced on a region by region basis. It doesn't seem fair to attach the same cap to landlocked parcels as waterfront property, as waterfront is most often more desireable. This median + percentage cap concept is a thought which I've only just had, so it may be full of holes. Just another thought to add to the mental fire.

The mainland could be improved, agreed. LL is the Estate Manager, agreed. LL must not interfere with the functioning of a free market in private property rights, agreed. Therefore, what can LL do as umpire instead of player to help improve the mainland?

1. Develop a comprehensive strategy for the production of new land. Don't generate massive volatility and uncertainty in the mainland market through a seemingly random process of drought/flood land production. Long-term investors/creators need stability. Short-term speculators feed on volatility.

2. Don't place Mature sims next to PG sims. It generates friction between residents that reduces land values and hinders long-term investment on both sides of the border. Friction/confusion promotes short-term land use (ad farms, leveraged harassment, sandbox lots) and simple neglect.

3. Set an example by consolidating LL maintenance land into large lots. The river in Chartreuse is a perfect example of dozens of LL micro-lots that confuse prospective buyers of neighboring lots. Put your own house in order before applying policy to others.

Then what?

16m2 lots are useful for many reasons. They need to be tradable/sellable for many reasons. Price capping is arbitrary and unworkable. Do we cap 32m2, 64m2, 128m2, 512m2 lots? Why stop there? I can hear calls for LL to set caps across the board. Transfer fees? Taxes? All unworkable.

At the heart of the problem is a FALSE ASSUMPTION.

As mentioned by others, the problem is not "excessive parcel division"; the problem is harassment. Placing a giant, screaming cheese-head on a 1024m2 is far worse than charging L10k for an empty 16m2. The REAL question is how HARASSMENT should be defined for the mainland.

There is one valid reason I can think of to allow microparcels, and that is for the use of multiple media feeds in one area. Useful if you have multiple Google calendars you wish to have displayed on your parcel, for instance.

However, the roadside lumps that have the garish ban lines about them - even if they are used for prim farms, and not for ad farms - do not add anything but trash to the landscape. There is no reason for the ban lines on microparcels, someone who does that is just being asinine. All it requires is that the owner not allow builds on them.

I have considered purchasing the micros between my mainland parcel and the protected land, even if it puts me in another tier level, if only to ensure that the ban lines are gone and the line of vision from my windows is of the landscape.

The reason land is cut into small parcels in the first place (in the excessive sense that this policy means to address - not someone creating a few small parcels on their own land for legitimate reasons) is that the cutters know that most of the parcels will be bought. And who buys them? People who set them at absurdly high prices because they know that eventually those small parcels will become enough of a hindrance to adjacent landowners that many of them will cough up the 10 K for a 16m parcel so they can have a decent larger piece of land. And it works for them, as many here in these postings have stated that they do buy these extortion plots just to get rid of them. And then what happens? The cutters get their cut, the extortionists have lots of cash to maybe go cut up some land themselves (I have no doubt that in many cases the cutters and extortionists are alts of the same individual) and more land gets chopped.

Limiting the selling price for plots of 256 m and smaller to average market price will remove the incentive for anyone to buy small plots for the purpose of extortion. The cutters will lose their market and you will see the amount of land chopped into 16m to 256 m parcels drop drastically. I set the limit at 256m parcels for price controls because many extortionists do things like join separated 16 m parcels in the four corners of an original 512 parcel and raise the price to something like 16999 L, for instance. Maybe 256 m is too small and we would see 272 m parcels set really high next to a 240 m parcel, but I don't think that will be a viable extortion business model for long. Make this policy retroactive on existing plots as well, and most of the present fractured areas will be rejoined to useful sized parcels. It seems simple to make it land fraud (abuse report category) to offer parcels 256 m or smaller for sale either overtly or covertly at greater than the average market price.

Jack,

We've been around and around this issue for almost a YEAR now, and you STILL can't draft a policy which fits the actions of the miscreants? You want surgical precision in a policy that is supposed to embody things like intent with words? Guess what? IT JUST IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

Microparcels aren't the problem. Never were. CUTTING microparcels isn't even the problem. Never was. WHY THEY ARE CUT AND WHAT PEOPLE DO WITH THEM IS.

Do you have a rule specifically against me using my avatar a certain way to harass my neighbors? No, you don't. You have a general set of "catch-all" rules called "The Community Standards" and take reports of violations on a case-by-case basis.

You don't NEED surgical precision. A sledgehammer in this case is good enough. The problem is not a walnut, it's a watermelon.

All you have to say is this:

"Any use of land to harass another resident is prohibited. In addition, such use with the intent to sell, which includes things like the premeditated intent to create microparcels for the purpose of charging extortive ("excessive", if you can't use "extortive" prices will be considered especially grievous. Any complaints received which violate this policy, as an extension of the harassment policy, will be dealt with swiftly and severely."

Then, your sledgehammer down from the wrecking ball:

"Any subdivision of land below 256sqm (or whatever size), not performed as part of a pre-arranged deal, that is subsequently set for sale at substantially higher prices per sqm than the prevailing current market values for the region in question will be seen as a violation of this policy, and may result in sanctions from the loss of the parcels in question, to account closure, depending on the severity of the situation."

Now, you can't sit there and tell me that you can't implement this as a policy. You already DO with the "no harassment" rule. You examine each claim of harassment that warrants significant attention, and apply appropriate corrective measures to the resident(s) at fault. Those which are severely impacting others, or lightly impact others, but on a large scale, you deal with harshly. The ones that are a one-off from a bad person-person spat, you send them packing to neutral corners and have them mute one another. It is *SIMPLY* a matter of degree. You ALREADY have the processes and personnel in place to deal with it; they simply need a playbook to go by. THAT is YOUR job. We can help you with that, but it doesn't take weeks, months, or years. In fact, I DARESAY that you've been given a majority of it by the Ad Zoo, Arbor Project, and associated member groups, plus the THOUSANDS of posts in the "Mainland Discussion with Jack Linden" threads from months ago. More threads and more posts and more discussion isn't going to change the basic facts, nor the underlying problem, nor is it going to give you the "Holy Grail of Policy" that will allow your crusade to surgically decimate the sinning heatens and exalt the innocent and pure.

If you want to cite specific examples, fine, but they are simply that; examples:

1) Don't cut land into checkerboards with the intent to sell any of them.
2) Don't mass cut microparcels along roads with the intent to sell any of them.
3) Don't cut donut holes or corners out of rectangular plots and sell them.
4) Don't BUY donut holes or corners in someone else's land with the intent to charge the owner of the surrounding/adjoining land exorbitant prices to "get rid" of them.
5) Don't use ANY parcel feature on a microparcel (banlines, adtowers, prims, etc) to induce neighbors to buy out the parcel at an exorbitant price.
6) Any existing microparcels which negatively interfere with neighboring landowners ability to use their land in peace (and are strategically placed at any point to do so; now, or in the future) are subject to being swapped/moved through adjudication with the neighboring/surrounding land owner.

In simpler terms, don't be a subhuman parasite by trying to profit off of someone else's pain and misery, ESPECIALLY after causing it, or being a party to causing it, in the first place.

IT IS TIME TO END THE HARASSMENT AND EXTORTION, JACK

You don't need to spend another three months gathering feedback, chewing your nails, or otherwise foolishly delaying this ANY LONGER. Lay down the law, get your enforcement "officers" and your "precinct" in order and all working off the same page, then start with your "ten most wanted" list by catching and punishing Public Enemy Number One. Then, once he/she is sorted, get to Public Enemy Number Two, then down the list until you are simply working off of reports alone.

I *PROMISE* you, if you do this, the problem will literally evaporate in a very short span of time.

If any more cutting is reported, you IMMEDIATELY come down on the perpetrator(s) like a coal scuttle full of anvils as soon as you get the reports. Once you establish that you are taking this seriously and have the cajones to follow through with it, rather than hem and haw about it for MONTHS ON END WITH NOTHING DONE BUT ALLOWING IT TO CONTINUE TO GROW UNABATED, you'll start to get some respect back; not only from the perpetrators, but from the residents you are supposedly here to help in the first place.

You DO realize that none of the extortionists take you seriously, right? I've given you THOUSANDS of lines of chatlogs from the "major perps", full of scoffing at LL's ineffectual handling of the situation. Some have even said that LL ENCOURAGES THEM. Well, yah, I can imagine why they would think that! They are more than happy to make hay whilst the sun shines, given the Endless Summer of Sloth. Yeah, you put a dent in their haymaker with the previous policies, but you know as well as I do that, without a comprehensive policy, addressing the entirety of the problem, they are going to continue to effortlessly weave and dodge, especially since LL allows them to operate in "bullet time" by comparison.

As for the existing mess of plots out there, give people 30 days to clean them up, or you do what you did with the ones in Great Pubnico; you forcibly reclaim their land, and move them to an empty plot, or into one in another sim, upon request from those negatively impacted by the existence of those plots.

Further, STOP punishing the residents who are only doing what they know to do IN YOUR ABSENCE to deal with the plots that YOU ALL allowed to come into existence in the first place, and START punishing the people causing this. Since you all really started coming down on the adfarmers, you also have been allowing the adfarmers/extortionists to get away with fabricating harassment situations, and punishing the victims. It's time the Governance Team got their crap together into one bag, started working off the same play book, and, you know, communicated and worked with one another to make sure enforcement stays consistent. There are some really good people whom you ganked whilst the real perpetrator stood just off-camera giggling to himself. You know what I am talking about, too, because you got a multi-page report on it.

The blatant cases, which are the majority of them, are slam dunks. Hit those NOW. For the ones which look to be "on the edge", confer together to come to a quick and solid consensus, then act as a united front. I get tired of seeing A Linden do/say one thing and B Linden do/say something completely contradictory. There's a reason it is called the "Governance *TEAM*". If you need any more clues, you have my inbox.

In short:

STOP talking about it.

STOP shuffling it around like so many pieces of paper in a Byzantine bureaucracy.

JUST DO IT.

EARN some respect back for a change.