The Question of Land Cutting

You know, in a majority of cases, this would be fine. It would work best where the parcel in question is adjacent existing Linden Protected land. Not quite so well for "donut holes" because, as Elanthius points out, it would leave much the same problem for development of the land surrounding the parcel. Slightly mitigating that is the fact that the surrounding parcels are in a sense "larger" for the tier-free inclusion of the microparcel--at least nobody else is going to build in that space. Some clumsiness with the terrain over time, but better than the messes that are there now.

Perhaps a more serious drawback is that it would reduce the total land generating tier revenue for LL. That's not necessarily a show-stopper: there's really not all that much tier generated by all those tiny parcels anyway.

Nope! I didn't say that.
I actually said that it wasn't ideal. (i.e. NOT totally ok)

IF this came to pass, and IF LL explicitly permitted adjoining/enclosing landowners to encroach on the small LL parcel, then:

Good for the landowner = They can build in a way that is not constrained by the presence of a small parcel either indenting or enclosed by their land. THe owner of the small parcel permits that encroachment. THe owner of that small parcel will never decide to build something there or demand that the encroachment ceases.

Sub-optimal for the landowner = They can't ress a prim or object that is centred over that small parcel. Their media won't play over that small parcel.
This is inconvenient, but can be worked around.
While inconvenient, it certainly beats being unable to encroach.


If the Gov owns the parcel and explicitly permits encroachment, no prob.
If another resident owns the parcel, no build.

Another strange post!

I have read all 800+ posts on this thread, I don't recall anyone saying Mainland should contain a Covenant or that Managers should be appointed for each SIM.......i must be dreaming!!!

Can you supply the post numbers please....which these refer to?

I'm not happy with it, but at least of they're owned by Governor Linden you can expect they won't suddenly grow a 4 meter hillock surmounted by an 8 meter tall glowing cube plastered with pictures of dead animals.

Of course "parcel mute" would help a lot.

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-1017

I never said it was reported to LL. That was your assumption.



Except that more than one person witnessed and documented it.



No, it was a paraphrase.

LL records can also show that you DID own the lots in question, if you want to make a federal case out of it.



Feel free to do whatever you feel is necessary. I have my evidence and witnesses to back me up, and am quite happy to subpoena any records from LL in any legal action dealing with you.



I'll be glad to, if I ever tell any.



OK, so you DID cut them, then? If so, then that's gonna be problematic for your libel case...



The person that inquired in the Ad Zoo group chat described the situation and was rightly suspicious of it. Even so, we advised him to make contact with you to discern why it was done before purchasing, which were words to the wise, in this climate.



Uhh, when you cut a 16sqm corner out of a rectangular plot?



Please spare me your "legal" bluffs. If you think you have a case, your "counsel" should have already told you to cease discussing it, and get on with the filing. The more you talk about it, the weaker it becomes.

Funny, I don't feel like I am being punished for anything. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on your part?



OK. That's what I wanted to know. Could have saved yourself a lot of angst and woe by just coming out and saying that to begin with. Now you have to follow through on your threats to save face. Good luck with that!

Now, I'm a major owner of small parcels. I mean, I probably have hundreds so you can take my opinion as seriously biased. For my personal benefit I'd like to see a plan that continues to allow the trade of small parcels but still discourages cutting, discourages extortion and encourages rejoining parcels. That said I do want to "heal" the mainland as much as anyone. I seem to spend half my day putting back together parcels that dullards cut into tiny pieces and sold to me.

Anyway, the more I think about it the less I like this plan. The only time anyone will ever take advantage of a rule like that is if they hate the land owner so much they don't mind paying to destroy their land. It's like stamping on someone elses toys or something.

I mean, I'm a pretty major land owner and I had a whale of a time going around ARing for sale signs and ad farms and stuff. But I can't see myself ever paying money just to kick someone else in the nuts.

Hey!
I'm not proposing this as a solution.

I'm simply looking for the good points in Jopsey's post.

It's a good brain-storming technique -
Even if your instinct says Yuk, work at finding some plus points.
Then raise a concern, and suggest ways around that concern.
And that's even if you really don't like the idea in the first place

The technique is designed to avoid people waging war and shooting down ideas simply because they were proposed by that bastard who shot down their proposals.
(NOT referring to Jopsey here. It's a classic thing that happens in dicussions)

Hi, Argent. I didn't realize I was being confusing. Sorry about that.

My AOL comparison was not to the exact situation of land griefing, but to the sheer number of user interactions and potential for various sorts of griefing of all kinds on a service with that many users. You'd said that even a company much larger than LL could not moderate a situation as widespread as this with a social, rather than technical solution, but I have seen it done with other problems just as (even more) widespread. It's interesting that you think that a single troublemaker has to personally post each of their griefing messages on AOL. When I was active there troublemakers had all sorts of coded tools to automate their griefing, such as spamming or crashing chat rooms and harassing or phishing or virus-laden IMs.

As for Habbo, yes, they make heaping piles of money from their sales. They don't have user-created content; the users buy stuff from Habbo, including things like walls or carpets or chairs, and then assemble them in various ways. The TOS don't give you the right to sell these things or credits for real-world money, which is why they crack down on those trying to cash out. But it happens all the time anyway, in a variety of creative ways. Technical solutions can't stop it, short of disallowing item transfers at all.

I don't know if the multitude of creative fraudulent activities going on in Habbo are still as prevalent as they were. When I was active there it was so bad that it made SL look like a magical fairyland where we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya together. I think fraud in Habbo grew to be a problem due to inadequate attention to the problem early on -- it became ingrained in the user culture. The griefer subculture grew, and they even passed programs among themselves (and made some available online to anyone) which were used for purposes like patching their system to undo an IP block so they could make another account and cause some more trouble. There was a very casual attitude about this among many users, and as well most of them were kids (some very young) who hadn't yet learned how to spot a grifter, didn't know what to do after they'd been ripped off or lured or tricked into low-level cooperation (if they complained they'd be in trouble too, and a tattletale on top of it), and many who didn't see committing a little fraud in a "game" as anything very serious (if they were the one committing it). I found the dynamic of organized fraud-based gold farming to be especially fascinating, if pretty disgusting.

SL residents are more aware of potential problems, and don't write off being ripped off as losing in a "game" and they generally don't worry their parents will ground them them for losing ten bucks worth of virtual refrigerators, teleporters, and bathtubs. That aside, I think the SL community management team does a much better job than Habbo was doing when I was active there, and always has, and that's the main reason why we have less of that going on here.

My comparison to There was to point out that the problems we're discussing here aren't entirely unique. Yes, when I was active there, some did try to extort by putting something hideous next door to someone else. Smaller world, fewer users, harder to get money for that as compared to land griefing in SL. However, it's a similar problem, and I think taking a look at how that company has approached it would be informative and interesting.

"Strawman" refers to restating an argument in a way that makes it easier to attack (literally, you're creating a "straw man" to attack so you don't have to attack the real argument you're trying to refute). Whether you're claiming that I said "small parcels can only be sold by IM" or that someone implied they were "livid" or "laying awake fretting" over checkerboards you're creating a opposition that doesn't actually exist, but is easier to attack than the one that really does exist. In short, a straw man.

Hello Jack,

Speaking about land cutting is a euphemism to extortion and harassment because sooner or later it all ends there.

As I will refrain to name the criminals, I can say that people that engage in that activity are plain and simply criminals and asocial individuals that egocentrically want to put themselves or their business interests before everything else, even the community as a whole.

Owning a small parcel in the middle of someone's land is unacceptable!

No matter what the justification or the age of the acquisition. It impedes the owner of the larger parcel of developing his land.

As in RL, criminals should be punished. I don't understand how can those ... individuals circumvent LL laws and still be in SL.

I don't understand LL apparent difficulty in knowing whom they are. We all know them, and the several kinds there are, the rude criminal, the polite criminal, the disguised criminal and so forth.

Some inclusive pass as "Large Honest Businessmen" and "Pillar of the Community" as in RL, and as in RL, that's laughable.

The simpler way, IMHO, to draw the urgently needed new laws into the TOS is:

1. Force parcels smaller than 512 m2 enclosed in someone's land to be traded* for the same size somewhere in the same Sim or sold at LL medium land market value.

2. Automatically limit parcels smaller than 512 m2 sale value to LL medium land market value.

With those two simple rules, old and future problems would be solved/avoided.

Sadly I know that I'll be insulted in this tread by someone that feels menaced by my view or by some "disinterested" ALT of the same, LOL, I'm already used to it and am immune.

Jack, please remember; Ye cannot serve GOD and mammon.

All the Best,

Praetor



*trade
noun, verb, trad⋅ed, trad⋅ing, adjective
1.
2.
3. an exchange of items, usually without payment of money.

swap
verb, swapped, swap⋅ping, noun

1. to exchange, barter, or trade, as one thing for another: He swapped his wrist watch for the radio.

Linguistics

This is the main thing that gets me about this debate. You're all coming up wth these crazy plans but the donut problem would be resolved for everyone if you just forced parcel swaps on the small parcel owner. Any problems not resolvable with land swaps can be fixed with a simple "Don't be an asshole" rule.

You may not, but there are PLENTY of people who are willing to do so.

I agree.

Even all these ideas together would not really address the core problem. LL already has the "no harassment" and anti-fraud rules in the ToS. Simply adding a bit of specification, then getting the G-Team trained on the same playbook would probably solve the problem with the least amount of collateral damage.

WOOoot Jack Linden you Rawk !
Thank you Thank you Thank you,,,lol
I vote for minimum lot size of 512meters, thats the no tier level for premium accts.
I think a land owner should be able to cut it smaller for store use,,,renter use,etc
BUT no land for sale less the 512 meters.

Thats my story and i'm sticking to it.
Usil Bailey
Mentor,,,Grid Wide :XD

Rene thanks for making my point! Label me what you want although I'm not a NeoCon (this is a first). Your in favor of regulations to satisfy your own interests while at the same time denying that free capital market idea that by the way LL has adopted. Make up your mind which way do you want it? I haven't read the 800+ posts someone on here has admitted doing, I don't have that kind of time to thumb around with, but I would be amazed if one entry on this topic was in favor of "Extortionistic Behavior". And even the term extortion has been mis-used on a few posts. It's ok if you and most people including your opinion that Jack or LL don't share my sentiments, that's what this forum is for to air out those opinions on the given topic. Jack or LL couldn't possibly not share my sentiments since they came up with this discussion 800+ before me. Don't be dramatic stick to the issue at hand. There are some who come into SL for the freedom of expression and most find that they can after being here. It is not wise to want to bring in regulations for the sole purpose of making it easier for you to get your hands on some land that you've wanted but just can't get to. You know, I would bet that you would trample over people in this very forum if someone were to offer a 4096 for $1L. You would be nowhere in sight on this forum moaning about how wrong it is for a landowner to take a loss now would you? If the cutting up of land on the Main Land is causing (1. Performance issues effecting the residents/ (2. The safety of residents/ (3. Harassment of residents, then LL should without question address *Those individuals* responsible. Otherwise, for the people by the people, shop wisely, do your homework, be nice to your neighbor, say hello to the Sim owner if you see him and have a great day.

Without wishing to sound like a lawyer, I believe that defining 'extortion' is much more difficult than defining 'systematic harassment'. Moreover, 1) 'systemic harassment' can occur without a financial component and 2) high prices can exist without 'harassment'.

The size of parcels is not an issue. One of the worst offenders on the mainland used 512m2 lots to conduct his campaign of harassment. A significant percentage of sub-512m2 lots are used for legitimate reasons without disturbing others.

The price of parcels is not an issue. The 'Price Mechanism' (Relative Prices) is a decentralized information system that enables residents to evaluate available options against their personal preferences.

Therefore, I believe that by merging price with harassment into 'extortion' we generate greater vagueness (adding the extra questions of what is a high price, defined by whom?) and allow the bigger problem of (non-financial) 'systematic harassment' to escape back into the wild.

I admittedly don't have much of a live and have read all the posts so far. For the record there have been 5 posts so far that have been clearly in favor of extortionist behavior. Notably only one was written in anything close to good English, the rest were essentially gibberish but decipherable gibberish.

That count doesn't include the anti regulation people, the anarchists, or the trolls who are clearly posting just for the sake of being argumentative but quite obviously don't believe what they're writing.

It seemed like you were simplifying the issue into two camps sitting opposite of each other, separated by clearly defined boundaries. It's much more complicated than that, with at least 1000 different variations of what people think should be done.

Converting the Mainland to be more like estate land makes little sense for LL, since they make a sizable chunk of profit from the "setup" fees and tier affiliated with estate land. Why would anyone pay more if they could get the same for less?



You can make all the comparisons between Mainland and Estate land you like, but that won't change the fact that they are too completely different products with different rate structures. There are similarities between the two because they are both hosted on the same network and run on the same platform. They both are tied to the same EULA and TOS. But the Lindens are responsible for maintaining and policing the Mainland, while Estates are mainly handled by their respective owners. There are as many differences between the two as similarities.

The solution to "Predatory Subdivision" (inappropriately referred to as "land cutting" will not involve Mainland covenants, mainland managers, or resident police brigades. The solution does not need to be more complicated than the problem, nor should it involve stripping people's land away with a 512sqm minimum parcel size. People should be able to sell parcels from the current minimum size of 16sqm and up, though price gouging needs to be eliminated.

I have been periodically suggesting a price cap in this thread, something to the effect of:

Average Per Meter Land Value + 50% = Price Cap Per Meter

The percentage here is just an example, and the cap would NEED to be placed on a region by region basis. You can't apply the same price cap across the grid, or regions with better builds and terraforming will be negatively effected by less desirable regions.

A change to the land pricing system would prevent prices being set above that region's average market value based cap, and a policy change specifically forbidding the sale of land for a higher price than what the cap allows, so unscrupulous land barons cannot attempt to extort higher prices in IM, for example.

The only change anyone would see, would be a maximum price limit when setting up a parcel for sale. Other than that, everyone can enjoy their current options without the fear of predatory land pricing.

I think it was either Elanthius or Argent that pointed this out earlier in this thread but there are major issues to even getting an accurate average since people would try to purposefully manipulate the average as well as dealing with private deals that may be higher or lower and other things that either should be part of the average or shouldn't be included in the average.

I think that the main reason that "all these crazy plans" are being tossed around is that nobody believes that LL have the balls to implement a simple "Don't be an asshole" rule.

Maggie got part way there by being sarcastic with an complete asshole, but she's not controlling or even on the G-team.

Precisely. We are expecting policy or code, we want to make sure that IF there's policy or code, it's policy or code that

1. Comes as close as possible to solving the problem, and
2. Causes as little collateral damage as possible.

I have been a land owner for about a year and a half. I have seen the evolution of the adfarm solutions, and I am very pleased.

I do on the other hand think that something drastic must be done. We all have rights, but in some cases, there needs to be judgment made by LL as to who has the greater rights. LL already has it's "TOS Cops" who act as judge, jury and executioner, often I hear of people that were suspended without being given the right to defend themselves, not really an issue here, but it goes back to the root of the issue, how is the determination of what is right made? Is there going to be a LLLeglislative Body? Linden Court? I'd like to post 3 situations that I have at this very moment.

Background: I own nearly a whole Mainland SIM. I only have two neighbors on the SIM that have more than 512m2. One has only 512, is rarely around and runs some games, no micro-Parcels, no ads, no problem. The second has broken land all over the SIM and an 'L' shaped parcel in one corner. Both average traffic of a max 2.

Situation 1: Person/Group, owns less than 512, land is broken into one 24 Parcel and several smaller parcels. Three 16m2 plots are surrounded by my land. I offered to trade all of their separate land for a contiguous block cut off of mine. The reply I was given was that they would only trade if I offered double the land that I wanted. In the same breath, the need for the micro-plots was for script testing.

Situation 2: Various "Holding", "Marketing" and "Research" Groups, holding a single 16m2 on roadside land. None for sale, no prims, no traffic. Some even state that they will not be given up for any reason whatsoever. The only thing that these parcels really do (to the naked eye) is block the building of the people that are developing the land in a SIM. Attempts to contact the owners are never answered.

Situation 3: A friend on the next sim over is buying up land, building, otherwise having fun. Then dead center of his land there are 3 separate 16m2 plots, each for sale… $L29,000+ He owns 3 - 4 sides around them, will not budge on the price or simply will not answer him.

Will the upcoming changes help these situations? Maybe 1 or 2 of them? Some solutions are obvious, and I am sure will be addressed, but without somewhere to turn for 'Land Disputes' there are people getting the short end of the stick.

I was impressed with the adfarm changes, I am waiting to be impressed with this.

At this moment, I don't know if they have the "balls" to implement a simple policy like that; I *DO*, however, believe they CAN find them. That's what I am hoping Jack will do; find the backbone and fortitude to solve the problems once and for all.

If I *TRULY* believed it wasn't possible, I would never bothered to post. I know it will be hard for him, which is why I have always said that there are no "easy button" solutions to this problem. At some point, LL is just going to have to bite the bullet and do what has to be done to solve it.

I *DO* know it is possible, and that it *CAN* work. The only trick is getting LL to believe in it enough to try their best.

An insight - albeit dating back to April '07 - into LL's cultural inablility to implemnt a simple asshole rule is avilable here:
[IMG]http://www.vtoreality.com/2007/daniel-linden-haunting-words-about-sl-at-standford-humanities-lab/1040/[/URL]

"On April 4, 2007 Daniel Linden (Daniel Huebner in RL) Linden Lab Director of community affairs stopped by Stanford Humanities Lab’s How They Got Game Workshop #1. A podcast and the video below was created and shared via Google video."

For those too short on time to view the entire 1h 17m video. the page indicates the positions of some selected highlights.
Such as:

"We were never going to be able to define what was acceptable in the virtual world.”

"To take a corporate company like Linden Lab and say we are not going to put our fingers in this. We’re not gonna meta. We’re not going to overreact and jump in every time we see something we don’t necessarily like. That process of detaching the ownership of this virtual world from our own personal goals and personal beliefs and personal morals has been incredibly difficult to achieve but it’s been working.“

“As the person who’s doing governance in Second Life, I’m not going to decide what is and isn’t a good use of the platform. That’s mostly what I spend my time trying to avoid. And trying to get everyone else in Linden Lab to agree with me.”


They haven't picked out the part where Daniel said "Hey. You CAN be an asshole..You can create mayhem"...as long as you are not directing that specifically at an individual or group.




Muppets!

Ok, let's revise my proposal then. Rather than relying on a single regional cap, add to it a grid-wide cap as well. For example:

Region Avg. PPM + 50% = Region PPM Cap

Grid Avg. PPM + 200% = Grid PPM Cap

If Region PPM Cap > Grid PPM Cap then Region PPM Cap = Grid PPM Cap

As I mentioned before, the percentages are just examples. The Lindens would need to set a more accurate percentage in the formula.

While adding a Grid wide cap would limit the market more than I think it should be, it would make the amount of work it would take to manipulate regional prices out of a normal range virtually impossible.