The Question of Land Cutting

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


Most of my personal owned mainland is 16sqm parcel and sits between large parcels that i rent under SL groups. My legitimate reason for this square is to keep the rent boxes that are on them from being returned mistakenly by a group member on the parcel next to it. If i ever decide to sell any of my mainland, i would join those squares back into the parcel they came from. 3 prims is just perfect for this ( 4 would be better though ). 3 parcels surrounding a 16 sqm square are all serviced by one rent box parcel in between them.

Hope this helps.

Syn

Yes, I agree in principle. There are good reasons for cutting one's own land into smaller parcels. I don't know of any legitimate reason for offereing small parcels for sale. The ban should not be on land cutting, but on offering small parcels for sale.

Larger parcels are a bigger drain on tier, but 64 is a bit low.

The only way to stop land selling at extorted pricing is to put a cap on profit.

For example;

Any land can be sold; but only at a 25% mark up cap.

I support the earlier suggestion of not allowing sales of parcels less than 512 contiguous sqm. People can still subdivide as they need while they own, but only parcels 512 sqm and up can be sold.

Good

You state the problem is with these small parcels being sold. So keep the focus on that; people in this forum appear to focus on cutting the land as a problem. It is the sale of land in sizes that are too small to be viable for hosting prims on.

1. Refuse to list parcels for sale in search under a minimum size.
2. Add a tariff on sales of small parcels to make it less attractive.
3. Realize its my prerogative to cut parcels small and have them listed in search for 30L/wk if you want those out, increase the price to list on search.

Thank you, Jack, for finally offering the long-promised 'blog post on this issue.

Jack asks: "Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?"

No. EXTORTION needs to be a violation. But since LL is reticent to accuse its customers of extortion against other customers, then yes, we will chase our tails and make land cutting the violation, which will set in place some rules that will then be a) gamed by extortionist, and b) eventually ignored by Linden Labs anyway (as with the ad rules which now seem to go unenforced).

The land cutting issue is not about land cutting, just as the ad farm issue was never about ads. The land cutting and adfarming issues were about EXTORTION. Pay the fee, the ad goes away. Pay the fee, the *threat* of obscene builds on your border goes away. It is plainly EXTORTION.

Got that?

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

This is a trick question, because you define 'land cutting' as basically being extortion, and then ask this question, which boils down to: 'are there any legitimate reasons for extortion?'

So no, as asked. But of course there are legitimate reasons for people to hold 4x4 parcels, just as there are legitimate reasons to sell 4x4s to others. The problem, again, is EXTORTION, not the size of the parcel, and not the way the parcel was generated. Address the problem of EXTORTION and the market takes care of the rest.

Jack asks: "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, in a way. The cutter's account should be suspended, his land seized, and thus rejoined as an abandoned parcel. Why should the cutter's account be suspended and land siezed? Because THAT PERSON IS AN EXTORTIONIST.

I put this in all-caps because so many in LL either fail to see this as one set of customers abusing another set of customers, or else choose to avoid the term 'extortion' for very important legal reasons on the part of LL.


Solutions:

I have offered solutions to this problem in the past. They are as follows:

FIRST AND FOREMOST: Make extortion a violation of TOS. Establish guidelines by which extortion can be reported and verified. By neglecting to address this issue for so long, LL has set itself up to make this a necessity.

Some technical ideas follow to curb the symptoms, but they are no substitute for the real cure.

2) Set a minimum tier per sim. That is, if you only own 16m2, you still get pinged for, say, 128m2. This would really hurt the 'bot networks, so let's say it applies to for-sale land.

3) A minimum m2 requirement for open-market sales. meaning that you can only sell parcels less than, say, 128m2, to other people, not on the open market.

4) Rules on the condition of land that is for sale. For instance, land that is for sale but does not include the sale of items on the land should have a maximum of one prim. This would allow for tracker objects that land managers use, while disallowing junk builds for extortive purposes. Another condition might be that the terrain must be in its reverted state.

Others will have much to say of course. The cutters will try to diffuse the issue, keep the discussion off track and headed down a rabbit hole.

Please, Jack, offer your policy decision before the 8th, so I can know whether LL deserves any more of my tier money.

Thanks.

Yes, there are a lot of reason s for needing a 16m plot. Traffic, TP spots, videos, sound etc.

Why not just make a 16m plot only available for sale for $16L and only for sale to anyone. Or just remove the ability to sell plots smaller than X. Most IRL counties have a minimum subdivide sizes to keep administrative overhead lower.

This is totally acceptable in my mind. This would, however, mean that adjacent parcels are all owned by the same person, and not set for sale. I could also see a large number of small parcels for store rentals (these would normally be over 16 m2 tho), or for testing/demo purposes (like a security system, etc.) But the key is these are not set to sale.

The biggest thing for any fair solution would be reporting, communication, and reasonable times for replies. Reports would be investigated by a dedicated team, not just freezing things on the say-so of a single person (or group). If a legitimate excuse can be made no why a parcel is being chopped, let it stand. If it comes up for sale, then raise the flag again. But communication is key - if the avatar owning the parcel logs in repeatedly without responding, then assume that it's not for a legitimate purpose and freeze the land/assets on it for a period of time. When a trouble ticket comes in, then deal with the problem. If no response, the dispose of the seized land/assets in an open and transparent manner.

I dont believe that a programmatic solution clamping land prices would work - it would, in fact, drive the extortionists even farther underground and into other tactics. Rather, a way to scan the database and transaction histories should be established to determine/log offenders, and get them off SL for good. I'm sure there is legal precedent for suing the offender to regain funds taken off-grid that were obtained by fraudulent means (or by violating ToS).

Parcels under 128M don't show in search anyway, so you're wasting your L$30 if the parcel is smaller than that.

In general I agree that land cutting needs to be a violation, in principle not so much. It's more so many people abuse it that yes, it's probably the only alternative.

One legitimate reason might be if I owned land and a friend wanted to place one or two boxes to sell things they had on xstreet and have that land named a certain name, etc might be one. And yes, generally they just dump them on my skybox until they get their own spot and that's fine with me, I was just what-ifing.

* 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?

If it's not for sale, then no. If it's for sale, then yes. If it has ugly stuff on it already, joining it up isn't going to make a difference really.


*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.

This policy would have saved us literally hundreds of dollars, before I implemented my won't pay over X a sq meter for land policy

There is STILL a 16m parcel of land in Coulours set for sale at just short of 10K linden for a very long time, even with offers to purchase, AR's, and your ad farm policy. Their response was to take down the ads, which we DID appreciate. And yes we'd like to purchase it for a reasonable price which I do not consider 10K to be. We and Governor Linden own all the land around this 16m as well, so I'm not sure who would ever buy it but us. We did purchase a smaller spot recently for over the market price at 10L a square meter, I didn't mind that as much as it filled up a hole in the land we owned right next to the 16M in question. But the 10K spot will sit there forever at that price as far as we are concerned.

Just my 2 lindens worth.

Tawney

People actually still live on the mainland?? LOL, I thought everyone got smart and moved to estates to not have to deal with all of this crap. Good luck letting LL mettle in land ownership rights, I'll stick to estate living!!!

I never understood that. Does anyone actually sell those parcels? And what if it's not for sale at all? Just sitting there with banlines up or a few prims scattered around. Would that be covered by this new policy?



I used to own mainland. I came to assume that having neighbors with ugly crap on their land was pretty much routine. It doesn't look much different nowadays when I do my random teleporting. :-\



Yep, that's definitely extortion. It's also already a TOS violation.

Again, I'm not here to excuse or condone this sort of thing. And it's not like this policy change affects me; I don't own mainland anymore because I got tired of being at the mercy of my neighbors, which is what this issue boils down to. I just get itchy when LL starts talking about even more rules and regulations, given their awful enforcement habits. I guess I tend toward dealing with problems myself, rather than getting the Governance Team and their fragmentation-grenade approach to complaints involved.

Legitimate reason for smaller than 512 plot?

Billboards for non profit/educational/entertainment/corporate sponsorship run by LL for the benefit of it's subscription base.

That means someone who owns a parcel smaller than 512 is going to lose whatever they paid for it, unless they buy another parcel that's over 512 to merge with it -- and that parcel has to be adjacent, not across the sim? There are regions on the mainland where a 512 is worth an awful lot, where you're not likely to find a neighbor willing to sell.

I don't like blight, but neither do I like the idea of hurting landowners who've invested in nice builds on the mainland that increased property values.

I own a whole SIM on the old continent with no other plot owners on it, the only non-owned part on that sim is a LL railway track on protected land. Apart from my residential rentals and community land located there....I also have a well established Mall which has been there for 3 years...or better phrased...survived 3 years through all the policy changes made during that time.

I have over a 100 vendors located in that Mall and i've cut plots of land for nearly all of them. The plot sizes vary between 144 sqm and 200 sqm, it gives the Vendor oppotunity to use their own keywords and logo in order to appear in ALL Search.
Bear in mind that the introduction of ALL search has led to the demise of a lot of Malls on SL , the only way i could achieve some sort of visibility was by cutting up the Mall in that way. If i were ever to sell that SIM, i would join all the plots back together again and sell it as whole SIM!

So this was a commerical decision and harmed no others on the SIM because there are no others. I would like to maintain the right to manage my SIM in anyway possible to remain competitive and prosper. If you want to ban 16sqm plots thats fine with me....my minimum size is 144 sqm (9 squares) and i would like to see that sort of size maintained.

Well if there were no profit in it; ppl wouldn't do it. Small plots with ban lines not for sale? Well that's just someone being a bit of a pain . I bought a sim on the mainland 3 days before Bay City opened; I sold it. I would love to try and run a residential community on the mainland...just as soon as I had access to the estate tools....and just as soon as I wasn't in direct competition for renters with LL. I have an estate; I am happy.

Mar

Do you agree in principle that land cutting needs to be a violation?
- YES

Are there any legitimate reasons for land cutting (excluding profit) that we should consider when setting policy?
- ONLY IF THEY ARE NOT SOLD OR SET FOR SALE - a landowner may choose to cut microparcels inside larger parcels for landing points, while retaining ownership; personally I don't see what legitimate reason there is to sell such parcels

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, and more. Give compulsory purchase rights to neighbors for donut holes and similar nuisance parcels.

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
- Why average price? Rock bottom mainland 512 price is the better measure, as it is not distorted by microparcel extortion.

The limit to 64sqm allows some violations to continue - for example, 4m wide lines up to 256m long, not adjacent to roads, being cut out and sold - surely only useful for building walls to harass people with adjacent land. Same goes for long zigzag roadside parcels which spoil roadside land for the owner, but can be well over 64sqm.

Want to do something quick to make mainland better ? Advanced -> Rendering -> Types -> Red Fences! How hard can it be? How much longer are people going to have to put up with red fences right in their faces, spoiling their homes?

for me it seems to be simple:

do not allow to sell parcels smaller than 256 sqm

concerning pieces of 64qm and lower I can not see a reason why this should be neccessary for me. As we have learned it is sometimes usefull to regulate the 'free market' a bit .
and clear, think the easiest way to solve the problem as my pre-poster said would be to make it impossible to sell such fragments. So the owners would be kept free to do what they want. But this perhaps would require to first cleanup the existiing parcels because sometimes a neighboor perhaps want to extend a bit and get a bit from the other sold. This could be allowed via neighboors-ownership perhaps.

That land not be cut? Well why even provide a tool to do so if it's not wanted?

There are good reasons for splitting land, and it involves per plot properties like media streaming issues, land quota issues, group versus individual ownership, differentiated naming, to mention a few.

It's in everyones interest for people to create beauty and not ugliness. But yes the reality is that not everyone is thoughtful that way, wishing to make quick profit and take advantage. We probably behave as we do in RL where there are apparently good reasons for cutting. Is SL so different.

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I think the proposal is a serious mistake.

The division of ground little to serve for the groups which buy land but if he had the possibility of buying more for the same price ( fees ) that would avoid having divisions of absurd ground. Exemple: 2,240 sqm. (2 avatars in a group)

He would indeed be that the adversities having of the refreshed age of more ground for a better experience on SL. Given that they had the time to learn to builder.

More land for old avatar with Payment Info Used (Premium Account).

As a responsible mainland owner who has spent much time and money over two years consolidating small parcels into larger ones - who has frequently paid L10k and even L25k for a 16m2 square - I STRONGLY OPPOSE making land cutting a violation. Equally, as someone who has been a victim of the greatest land/ad scammer of them all (now banned), I still STRONGLY OPPOSE making land cutting a violation. Linden Lab must not become a 'government' that strangles SL with red tape more pernicious than all the advertisers and land cutters combined.

There are many legitimate reasons for creating small lots: precision terraforming, buffering, landmarking and controlled rezzing come instantly to mind.

NO, Linden Lab must not tell people how to subdivide and join their land. If LL wants to help the mainland, it should fix the cut up portions of its own maintenance land - the river in Chartreuse, for example.

Finally, LL MUST NEVER involve itself in land pricing of privately owned land. This is the road to hell that will undermine the entire market in private land ownership.

Do NOT micro-manage the rainforest. Do NOT introduce rabbits into Australia. Do not divide the residents of SL into Republicans and Democrats, each with their own ideas how best to manipulate the economy. We all know where that leads!

I do the same, since I rent land, I use the 16m2 parcel to place the rental box on it and then it measures the prim count on the parcel its assigned to. Whenever I sell the land, I join those parcels back together.