The Question of Land Cutting

My opinion on ad farming, on renting or selling small parcels is this ;
People buying land should be able to do whatever they wish with it as long as it is not a TOS or rule violation. If it offends you, dont look at it!
I think Linden Labs needs to step back from joining on the coat tails of every squeaky wheel that decides they dont like something in SL and going back to fixing things like Groups, rezzing issues, etc.
I am awaiting the day when someone decides they hate yellow hats, get enough of a group together to support that idea, then enlist some at LL to get on the band wagon to outlaw yellow hats.
Enough is enough!
Second Life is a wonderful place to use your imagination, to explore all sorts of ideas, but let us do just that pease?
TY for all your hard work, but please step back and go back to fixin what is broken!

The purpose of the WHOLE SUITE of policies that we've been attempting to get addressed for the last YEAR (remember the February adfarming policy? and the October one?) has been to address the entirety of this issue. LL targets one piece, the parasites move to several others. SYSTEM GAMED! Next?

As such, MY POINT is that it is high time to END the ENTIRE INTERRELATED swath of behavior at once, and to eliminate all the little "sideslips" they have been taking at the same time.



..and is why most spam policies seem to be completely ineffective at solving the problem, whilst destroying potentially legitimate reasons to bulk email. Not to mention that it is a COMPLETELY different problem set.



Yet, the core of the problem is harassment and extortion. That's why I am saying that this policy will FAIL, just as the previous ones have, in solving the CORE problem. As long as the CORE problem remains, we will continue getting little tit-for-tat policies every 6-8 months that whack-a-mole at the different facets of the problem, rather than solving the CORE issue.

Again, I explained this in my post. Why don't you go read that instead of requiring a re-hash?



Uhh, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you recommend the arbitrary limit as 256sqm?

Regardless, yes, even 512sqm. With quite a few sims that have HUNDREDS of microplots, it is not inconceivable that our bestest buddy, Mr. Four Corners, can link 32 of them together to get around the rule. So now you have the NEW NEW tactic "pepper plotting".



*I* wouldn't pay them if the Creator himself acted as "bagman". However, many people buying these damn plots to begin with don't know any better. Most of us who do know better also know that these people are parasites and that buying their extortion plots makes more elsewhere.



..and it still would not address the core issue, meaning that we'd be back to square one as soon as they implemented their next dodge.

SOLVE the behavior causing the problem, and you solve the problem, right? That's what I am proposing.

There is no "piece" involving setting 512 square meter parcels for sale for ludicrous prices for widespread extortion. There is no indication that there is ever LIKELY to be such a problem.

Spam policies can't stop spam because no law has ever been implemented that uses a definition of spam that attacks the real problem. The laws about spam are all about intent and who's allowed to spam and who isn't and what legal spam should look like. The LAWS about spam are all based on the same kinds of policies that you want to apply here, and that's why they don't work.
For sale, yes. I haven't said that should be the limit for defining whether a parcel was landcut.

And that may happen, on a small scale (if it happens in 100 sims, that's still small scale, and I doubt it would happen in that many).


But many people do. But they wouldn't if they had to trust the extortionist.

Sure it is. The core issue is microplots.

If it goes beyond this then Linden Lab have completely lost the plot.

Originally Posted by Argent Stonecutter
"Sure it is. The core issue is microplots."



You have encapsulated the issue in a nutshell. Jack talks about microplots, but not about abusive behavior. Governance doesn't want to address the problem of abusive behavior, just shuffle the game around by discussing 4x4s.

nothing under 512 should be allowed to be sold period the tiers for land starts at 512,, let them cut it as much as they want but don't allow any sales below 512m

Good points in this post, and important to consider. I've been focused on 64m2 being too small, and thinking 256m2 was about enough to keep gouging practices from being profitable above tier, but I now think I was wrong about that. Maybe "size doesn't matter" and an effective policy simply has to include enforcement against evident intent, regardless of size.

I still do think, however, that microparcels smaller than a contiguous 256 are special in that they have negligible market value except as tools of extortion. There are also more of them, so the response needs to be less labor-intensive per parcel, and fortunately there are just no edge cases that matter at that size, so no need for judgment or deliberation. They're appropriate targets for an initial sweep of automated enforcement following simple bright line criteria.

+++

I keep puzzling over the same question that bothered me in my earlier post: Why is the first step to prevent "cutting" instead of gouging?

Just hypothetically, if one were trying to protect the current crop of land scammers, it would make sense to prevent further cutting first, and then slow-roll any anti-gouging policy. Here's why:

The only thing that has kept me from buying extortionately priced microparcels is the fact that doing so would feed the moral hazard, worsening and spreading the problem. If that weren't the case--if it were impossible for more cutting to occur--I might not keep waiting patiently for LL to advance the next policy; I might just pay the ransom. Even if I wouldn't, how many would?

This would give any land scamming friends of friends of alts of Lindens a chance to clear a tidy profit that they could never get while cutting was permitted. It is playing into their hands. The likelihood of this reward-the-scammer effect being unintentional seems to depend on how I adjust this tinfoil hat.

The G Team can and do deal with abuse, I've reported it, I've had results. I've also been on the wrong end of complaints when ad farms were allowed to put up banlines.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel here.

There's wisdom in this.

I would venture to wager that a poll of all SL residents* as to whether 'Land-Cutting' or 'Platform Stability' is the more important issue, would consign Land-Cutting to the realm of the (as you say) squeaky wheels.

But: which would be cheaper for LL to actually do something about........? (You guessed it.)

::cynical smiley::


*not that such a thing is really possible as not everyone votes even when the poll is on the log-in screen.

..and I never claimed there was. I *AM* claiming that land harassment, in general, is not limited to any specific size of plot, but the actions using land of ANY size. It just so happens that the CURRENT *vehicle of choice* is microplots. Yeah, sure, whack microplots up to X size; then it will be X+1 size. No matter how you "slice it", the problem will remain, and will continue to BE a significant problem.



No, spam policies can't stop spam because it is IMPOSSIBLE to stop without changing the way the system works. Much like DRM can *NEVER* stop piracy because you can't change the fact that ANYthing is copyable on a computer that you have full access to.

<digression>I can't blame Jon Postel for not considering the implications of an unlimited world-wide communications messaging system and protocol when he drafted RFC-821, but I sure can blame all the 'tards that came after him that didn't bother to think about the implications in their implementations of it to build in some kinds of safeguards to give people more control over their inboxes.</digression>

From what I have read of the CAN-SPAM act, they read like what YOU want here.. lots of ins and outs and little dodges that anyone can get around. They CAN'T address intent, because there's no "world governing body" that has the authority to police it. THAT is why this situation is COMPLETELY different than the spam situation, and why the solutions that work/don't work for regulating spam have NO bearing on this situation.



Well, if it is supposed to be a landcutting policy we're talking about here (which *IS* what you said), probably would be appropriate, wouldn't it? Or are you talking about changing it into another kind of policy yourself?



100 sims is 2% of the mainland landmass. Probably up around 10% of the landmass that is CURRENTLY affected by this problem. I don't think I would want to tell all those residents "sorry, your problems were too small scale for us to deal with".

Personally, from direct observation, I think the number of possible sims that could be affected is much higher than 100.



You don't know that. People pay into scams all the time before they realize they have been taken. Read RA sometime. Nary a week goes by without someone coming in complaining about being taken by one scam or the other, and we all KNOW the forums are just a *tiny* subset of the active resident population, right?

If the parasite makes it look legit, people will probably trust him enough, thus the land price clamp won't solve the CORE problem.



No, the *CORE* issue is harassment and extortion using land. Microplots are the current vehicle of choice used to implement it. You can't eliminate microplots, and making them unsaleable below some specific size doesn't stop harassment, and won't impact extortion practices enough to matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low
Could you please describe, specifically, how the cutting of a 512m parcel could constitute this 'deliberate and obvious intent to harass or extort' you?

I'm not being snarky---I'm genuinely baffled.





Edit: I think Qie is right (posted on the next page), and I did give too short shrift to the '512 made of a 4m strip' idea.

I still don't see it as being extortionate or harassing---because I don't see any way for it to actually affect the experience of neighbors.

TRY standing on a piece of flat land---the ideal place for your idea of a 4m by 128m strip. Even assuming you can see all the way to the end (not always a valid assumption), what could be build there, with 117 prims, that could be extortionate all along those 128m? Standing on your (hypothetical) parcel and gazing at this alleged attempt at extortion, how are you affected differently than by any other 512 with a build you don't happen to like?

THAT is why I think the example wasn't germaine. But, back to the original post:


[I'm retracting this bitnly the first paragraph of your six had anything to do with my question] (which was about how a 512m could be cut from a larger parcel in a way that constitutes 'harassment and extortion'). [I'm also retracting this bit: The rest, about what could be done by cutting a 512, isn’t relevant.]

A 512m that's been set at a high price, and decorated with buildings or objects that you don't find attractive, can be screened.

I can't really see that this hypothetical Harassment and Extortion calls for a new policy---the existing TOS should cover any ACTUAL harassment that might take place.

A parcel's build and a parcel's price can be defined as 'harassment' only (in my view) by someone holding unrealistic expectations about the amount of control they have a right to impose on others.

Nice idea in theory, but in practice it ignores the fact that people don't want to live next door to ad farms, period. We know this from complaints people have about mainland, and we have land values to prove it also. So, we can serve some sort of esoteric ideal, or we can serve the interest of both LL and the vast majority of people in SL who aren't losers who need ad farms and microplot extortion to make a living.

Anyone who believes that this isn't an issue either doesn't talk to people, or is being purposely obtuse. Mainland is known for being a junked up mess. None of my friends would live on it willingly. Even if you find a nice plot, a week later the plot beside you sells and you end up staring at rotating pictures of badly rendered genitalia. If you are someone who believes that anyone should be able to put such things in their yard, then i suggest you wander outside your room and see how Real Life works. You can't do that in 99% of the civilized world, either.

Hardly.



Perhaps, but it is based on the typical false dilemma that LL employees (or LL itself) working on one thing are not working on another. None of the land issues have anything to do with "Platform stability", and working on one does not, in any way, preclude working on the other. The Lindens who work on one do not work on the other, and vice-versa. Thus, ignoring land issues entirely wouldn't make the platform become any more stable any faster.

The fallacy you demonstrate here is the claim that work on one project has no effect on work on another project.

This could be true only if LL has unlimited resources of time, labor, and materials.

* Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?
================
If one cuts land for the sole purpose of resale for profit, Yes. If one cuts land to reshape
for the reason of repairing another's practice of land cutting. I say no.

=================
* Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?
==================
I cut land to fit my buildings for the sole purpose of renting. This allows separate media
streams and prims for each parcel. This makes the renter happy. Happy renters means
they stay. It gives them a more "OwnerShip feeling". So My Answer Is Yes......

=====================
* 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, But Only if it is marked "For Sale", and is less then 512sqm. I think Cutting of the land is ok but selling anythng smaller then 512sqm should not be allowed.

I also think that land owners who have these small less then 512qm parcels dotting their land, whether one or more, LL should take steps to return/sell the land to the owner the small peice of land surrounds.

=======================
Finally, it has also been suggested that parcels of 64m or smaller have their sale value clamped to be no higher than the current average price per meter. This would obviously involve development work so wouldn’t be something we could deliver quickly, but I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts.
======================
If you do that.....then you might as well "Set & Freeze" the price on all parcels. This will drive out the land barons off the mainland who have no other interest except making huge profits instead of enjoying the SL expereince. I have seen parcels listed for more then the price of Sims. Totally ridiculous. I know this is a capitalist society, But come on.


HERES A GOOD RULE....NOTHING HOVERING BELOW 800 METERS......

Quote:
"Is that really for you to say?

If nothing else, the number of prims assigned to a parcel that might be on the other side of a sim from a prospective buyer's main parcel, but still needed and wanted by the prospective buyer of the under-512m parcel, might well be non-negligible to that person."
[^me, in post #440]



You had said (in post #420): "Well, frankly if you own a piece of property smaller than 512, it's a negligable loss."

That's what I was replying to. Notice that I had not replied anything that could be construed as saying "you have no right to an opinion about things you don't like about SL".

If I had said something like that, your reply (above) would make sense.

But: no.

Instead, what I said indicated my view that it really isn't your call on whether the loss of (say) a 496m parcel with no compensation is 'negligible'. It's the call of those to whom it (hypothetically) might happen.



[all from your post #445, if anyone wants to confirm that in this case, the context doesn't change the meaning]

I had never really noticed your posts before, but from those I've seen today, it would appear that ad hominem attacks are a regular refuge for you when you don't have good arguments to offer.

It all seems to boil down to 'I believe LL should enforce my personal tastes and wishes, and anyone who disagrees is a __________'.

You might want to consider the possibility that many readers will have noticed this tactic, and might not find it to be a convincing one.

I'm not sure you read the other paragraphs the same way I did. A 4m wide slice across a sim is 1024sq.m., and in the right conditions could be managed with the clear abusive intent of coercing a neighboring half-sim owner (say) to purchase the parcel to avoid accumulation of debris, for example. It's really just a more obvious, blatant example of the corner-cut 512 in the first cited paragraph.

You go on to say that this is covered under the existing ToS, and I agree that LL can operate under that ToS to confiscate the land and ban the abusers, or take any other action necessary to restore quality of service to customers. I think the discussion here is about how they can most effectively do exactly that.

But the economics of land ownership in SL make it an unprofitable *business model* for anything but microplots, and it's the business model that needs to be targeted, by targeting the actual behaviors that enable the problem.

Increasing the minimum size that could be used even by a factor of 10 would kill it dead.
Absolutely not. The anti-phone-solicitation clauses of the TCPA are much closer, and where what we were trying to get support for, but the Direct Marketing Association got the CAN-SPAM act though instead.

Which means if it was limited to 100 sims that would mean 98% of the mainland would be landcut-free... and I believe 100 sims is an incredibly pessimistic estimate.
Of course, but right now even people who *know they're scams* are wiling to pay in because they know that Linden Labs guarantees that they WILL get the parcel that's causing their problem. Limiting the problem to "mugus" (what the 419ers call their victims) will again change the economics massively.

And the problem is the economics of extortion, and the way microplots amplify the ability of extortionists to operate. Eliminate microplots, and it would become a minor problem.

I don't have a problem with builds, no matter how ugly (as long as they aren't horrifically laggy, either to the client, or the sim). However, if someone goes out of their way to get land up next to me and put some harassing build (something like Dragons being slain or whatever; something that is explicitly intended to harass), then yeah, I am likely to AR it. Not so much because I really care about images of Dragons being slain, but simply because the person went to the gross level of stupidity to become a raging asshole, and I am a firm believer in "Stupid Should Hurt".



Well, that's what we kept telling Jack off and on for nigh upon 9 months now. Others, like Weedy, have been telling LL for far longer. However, Jack wants to play Mr. Policy, so fine. Make one that addresses the behavior, implement it well, and be done with it. It is appalling that a YEAR later, we're STILL in the "talking about another piecemeal policy", and we're STILL seeing people cutting land daily or otherwise being raging assholes using existing plots.



Well, I tell ya what. Let's say you have a nice, homey 512sqm plot which is bordered on 3 sides by a much larger plot. Let's say you and I have a serious falling out and I want to become that "raging asshole" who wants to do as some of these extortionists have claimed and "f*ck your SL until you suicide"sic). I buy the large plot, carve out a "shell" around 3/4 of your property, larger than 512sqm total, and jettison the remaining plot. I then proceed to "terrorform" it, raise banlines, and litter it with my little "projects". Or, let's say I make it a giant walled castle, raising the walls (with no megas!) to 50m above max "terrorforming" limits. Oh, and to cap it all off, I set it for sale for L$100,000, maybe even to you specifically. Yeah, you're not blocked on one side, but do you think that your "SL experience" WON'T be negatively impacted by my shenanigans?

Size doesn't matter.
Content doesn't matter (I can harass you just as easily with a completely empty plot with banlines and terrorforming, plus little fun messages in the plot description).
Cutting doesn't matter.

The policy needs to stop the BEHAVIOR, not the TOOLS of the behavior, because screwing with the TOOLS of the behavior, in this situation, often has undesired as well as unforeseen collateral damage.

I didn't really explain myself as well (in the post to which you refer, #460) as I'd prefer, so I went back and made some clearly-marked edits. Here's the gist:

Edit: I think Qie is right (posted on the next page), and I did give too short shrift to the '512 made of a 4m strip' idea.

I still don't see it as being extortionate or harassing---because I don't see any way for it to actually affect the experience of neighbors.

TRY standing on a piece of flat land---the ideal place for your idea of a 4m by 128m strip. Even assuming you can see all the way to the end (not always a valid assumption), what could be built there, with 117 prims, that could be extortionate all along those 128m? Standing on your (hypothetical) parcel and gazing at this alleged attempt at extortion, how are you affected differently than by any other 512 with a build you don't happen to like?

THAT is why I think the example wasn't germane.
.................................................

I agree with your comments about the existing TOS being able to deal with any such occurrence. (And I still think that classifying the cutting of a 512m Extortionate or Harassment is hyperbole [not that you, personally, had been trying to make that case].)

If you want people to consolidate small parcels back into larger ones, then give them a financial incentive to do so. Lock the maximum price *per meter* to be

(Area in square meters)/16 IF Area < 512m

So 16 meter plot can sell for maximum of 1 L$/meter
32 can sell for 2L$/meter, .... up to 512m for 32L$/meter.

Then people will have a reason to group small plots back together, in order to sell them for a higher price.

It still isn't going to solve the jerk who buys a hole in the middle of a 20,000sqm plot from an adfarmer who dumped it to the bots because the landowner of the 20k plot refused to pay his extortion, and now has someone owning it who isn't interested in extortion, but decides to harass the landowner every way he can because he has issues with said landowner.

The problem is you ARE NOT TARGETING THE BEHAVIORS. You are targeting the TOOLS. When you remove one set of tools, the BEHAVIORS will switch to another set. The same way the Internet routes around blockages, the parasites route around policies. Until you target the BEHAVIORS, you're just playing whack-a-mole.

To be honest, I used to believe as you do. If you read some of the policy drafts I started with back last May, you can see much of what you are suggesting in them. Since that time, what I have seen these people do has convinced me that no simple policy playing numbers games is going to stop them. They even have the balls to SAY that TO MY FACE.

WHY do you think Mr. Four Corners decided to start using the 4-corners trick MONTHS ago? Because, around that time, people started talking about limiting sales of microparcels to 64sqm. Thus, he started cutting his checkerboards and linking the 4 corners into one parcel, so that it would be immune from that kind of policy. This was MONTHS AGO! They are already so far ahead of LL that these continual piecemeal policies are going to have little to no impact on their activities, despite what you think.



I find it, from the evidence I get sent to me fairly regularly from people around the grid, to be a overly OPTIMISTIC estimate.



Problem is, they won't become "mugus". The extortionists aren't going to risk getting banned by simply taking the money and run for one single parcel. They'll be more than happy to follow through with ALL transactions, because it will be "business as usual", and they have little to no fear of getting caught.



..and, again, extortion IS ONLY ONE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

How many times does that have to be said?

We had someone put a big picture of a pile of dead coons up beside the Coonspiracy. I guess he just had a bug up his ass about funny animals. It happens. We blocked it off and waited him out. It was on a 512, and eventually he quit paying for it, and we bought it, end of problem. If it was on a 16, it might still be there.

Outy's Particle store has been an irritation on the edge of our land forever, because it makes him money. But it's a minor irritation, because it's there to sell stuff.

Economics. Griefing isn't profitable, so it ends. Microplots make it profitable.

I don't consider that kind of thing a major problem. It costs too much to keep a serious grudge up against someone who knows how to use invisiprims and ARs. As I mentioned above, I've BEEN through that, and it ENDS, because it costs real money and doesn't provide any profit.

The behavior is *making money through extortion*, and it requires microplots to enable it.

And, yes, collateral damage is an issue, which is WHY you have to focus on the enabling technology, and change the economics of it, not try to solve 300 vaguely related problems at the same time.

I just did a little math on the 'shell'. One could be made with 288m, but you did specify 'larger than 512m total', so let's say an 8m wide squared-off 'C' around my 512m, coming in at 640m.

Dude, if you can put up a no-mega 50m-high-walls castle, having a frontage of the necessary 64m to surround my 512, on just the 146 prims you'd have with that 640m parcel.....


...Then you should start a new business!

(Granted, you need only 30 prims to make the inner wall, assuming you use hollowed-out, path-cut 10m cubes for the corners. But, to make the entire castle....!...well, it could be done. But it would be feature-short.)

Seriously, why would I care? It would be pretty cool to live in the shadow of a castle.

And what else could you do to 'harass and extort' me that would fall OUTSIDE the current TOS, but inside some hypothetical rules you hope that Jack will make?

Why? A 16sqm costs just as much as a 512sqm to maintain with the default "free" 512sqm all Premium accounts get.



Correction: Microplots are ONE WAY it is profitable. In addition, griefing doesn't always have to do with profit, nor is it necessarily a major motivation. Certainly, in the case of extortion, it pays to grief; however, as I said, repeatedly, the parasites WILL FIND A WAY to continue, and we'll be here again arguing the same old bullshit on the next iteration of the policy until someone at LL gets tired of it and stomps it completely out of existence once and for all.



*I* consider it a major problem. I daresay I am not alone in that assessment, either. Nor are invisiprims and ARs are always effective, as you should well know.

Yeah, it ended for me, too, after LL impounded the land and transferred it to me. Problem is, the bullshit that I had to put up with in the meantime whilst this policy crap ground on for MONTHS.



No, it doesn't *require* microplots to enable it, and no, that's not the only behavior related to land that needs to be addressed with this policy.



I'm not. *YOU ARE*. Every one of these policies has yet to solve the problem so far. This one is already looking pretty pinkid, and it isn't even out of DRAFT phase yet. I want ONE POLICY and ONE COHESIVE ENFORCEMENT EFFORT to get rid of ALL of the problem once and for all, not piece #3 of god_knows_how_many policies.