Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Balanced proposal

Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-03-2008 07:41
This is a fair balanced proposal, keeping with the interests of everybody, not "we want all for free", not just accepting that legitimate users are punished for some "abusers". With this proposal, we pay everybody the same per CPU, independently of land surface (assuming that 4 openlands = 1 full sim, in terms of CPU requirements and memory space, which is a fair simplification).


To avoid hampering the legitimate users of openlands:
1) hard limit openlands capacities to the quarter of the capacity of full sims (quarter of prims, scripts, avatars...) knowing that there are 4 open lands in the same CPU
2) Keep the today price, which is the quarter of a full sim


To cope with the unintended "new uses" of openlands:
3) create intermediate lands, which are 2 on a CPU, limited to half the capacity of a full sim (half the avatars, prims, scripts...)
4) price intermediate sims to half of a full sim

To cope with cross-lag and similar issues:
5) re-enable the feature as what the owner of 4 openlands (2 intermediate lands) have all on the same CPU. It should even be mandatory.
6) apply the limitations globally to this whole set of 4 (2) as equal to those of a full sim. This allows to use 4 openlands (2 intermediate sims) as if it was a full sim, without any added cost.

7) if Linden Labs has any new values to apply on prices, prims count or avatar counts, etc... they are applied to full sims, and after divided by 4 for openlands (2 for intermediate sims).


I think such a balanced proposal is the less unpleasant way to get out of today crisis.


I am just a resident who wants SL to run smoothly, for doing my things in. SL is a wonderful tool, with still no real equivalent today. Please let us not break this tool!
Draghan Marksman
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2008
Posts: 20
11-03-2008 09:24
From: Yichard Muni
This is a fair balanced proposal, keeping with the interests of everybody, not "we want all for free", not just accepting that legitimate users are punished for some "abusers". With this proposal, we pay everybody the same per CPU, independently of land surface (assuming that 4 openlands = 1 full sim, in terms of CPU requirements and memory space, which is a fair simplification).


To avoid hampering the legitimate users of openlands:
1) hard limit openlands capacities to the quarter of the capacity of full sims (quarter of prims, scripts, avatars...) knowing that there are 4 open lands in the same CPU
2) Keep the today price, which is the quarter of a full sim


To cope with the unintended "new uses" of openlands:
3) create intermediate lands, which are 2 on a CPU, limited to half the capacity of a full sim (half the avatars, prims, scripts...)
4) price intermediate sims to half of a full sim

To cope with cross-lag and similar issues:
5) re-enable the feature as what the owner of 4 openlands (2 intermediate lands) have all on the same CPU. It should even be mandatory.
6) apply the limitations globally to this whole set of 4 (2) as equal to those of a full sim. This allows to use 4 openlands (2 intermediate sims) as if it was a full sim, without any added cost.

7) if Linden Labs has any new values to apply on prices, prims count or avatar counts, etc... they are applied to full sims, and after divided by 4 for openlands (2 for intermediate sims).


I think such a balanced proposal is the less unpleasant way to get out of today crisis.


I am just a resident who wants SL to run smoothly, for doing my things in. SL is a wonderful tool, with still no real equivalent today. Please let us not break this tool!


I 100% agree with this proposal.. It is just common sense...
I wonder why LL does not implement such an obvious solution that would benefit to them and put an end to this crisis.
Right now, their silence is destroying this community. Soon the wounds created will be so wide that they won't heal...
Even if LL eventually decides to do this, if they take the decision too late, damage will be done, and confidence gone...
Jack, act now, before it is too late...
Milano Ferrentino
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 5
A Very Sensible and Clearly Stated Proposal
11-03-2008 13:48
From: Yichard Muni
This is a fair balanced proposal, keeping with the interests of everybody, not "we want all for free", not just accepting that legitimate users are punished for some "abusers". With this proposal, we pay everybody the same per CPU, independently of land surface (assuming that 4 openlands = 1 full sim, in terms of CPU requirements and memory space, which is a fair simplification).

To avoid hampering the legitimate users of openlands:
1) hard limit openlands capacities to the quarter of the capacity of full sims (quarter of prims, scripts, avatars...) knowing that there are 4 open lands in the same CPU
2) Keep the today price, which is the quarter of a full sim

To cope with the unintended "new uses" of openlands:
3) create intermediate lands, which are 2 on a CPU, limited to half the capacity of a full sim (half the avatars, prims, scripts...)
4) price intermediate sims to half of a full sim

To cope with cross-lag and similar issues:
5) re-enable the feature as what the owner of 4 openlands (2 intermediate lands) have all on the same CPU. It should even be mandatory.
6) apply the limitations globally to this whole set of 4 (2) as equal to those of a full sim. This allows to use 4 openlands (2 intermediate sims) as if it was a full sim, without any added cost.

7) if Linden Labs has any new values to apply on prices, prims count or avatar counts, etc... they are applied to full sims, and after divided by 4 for openlands (2 for intermediate sims).

I think such a balanced proposal is the less unpleasant way to get out of today crisis.

I am just a resident who wants SL to run smoothly, for doing my things in. SL is a wonderful tool, with still no real equivalent today. Please let us not break this tool!


This is a very sensible approach to resolving the week-old crisis in SL. I proposed many of the same things in several earlier posts, but less succinctly and probably less clearly. I hope the Lindens give very serious consideration to this approach.
Ann Otoole
Registered User
Join date: 22 May 2007
Posts: 867
11-03-2008 14:02
To avert any further debacles related to price raises I think LL needs to allow preyament plans in 3, 6, and 12 month increments. Those with the CC balances to absorb the payment in advance will be "grandfathered" for the duration of the plan they purchased.

Anyway that is how I have seen this done. Especially with internet related hosting service providers.

And LL already has the billing framework in place for premium accounts.
Dominique Debevec
Registered User
Join date: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 1
11-03-2008 14:06
I 100% agree with this proposal, me too.
Je suis à 100% d'accord avec cette proposition, l'une des plus intelligente que j'ai pu lire dans ces tread.

DOM...
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-03-2008 14:54
thanks to approve. I think this proposal is acceptable if we do not make of this affair a pride of face issue toward LL.
Sonny Metropolitan
Registered User
Join date: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 3
11-03-2008 15:22
I lol'd at the overuse of the word 'crisis.'

The election tomorrow may result in a crisis. This is simply a rate hike.
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 01:51
It is a pity that this proposal (and other similars) just had so little support. This looks as the only way out, and anyway much better than thousands of messages just criticizing Linden Labs.

But it is also true that, if nobody brings a serious solution to this issue, SL may become much less attractive than today.

Large enterprises like IBM may be able to afford a large numbers odf sims, but SL is not only for enterprises. Many content creators in private islands have little money, while they bring most of the value of SL, with beauty, usefulness, social, diversity. So avoiding to hamper them should be one of the main priorities of Linden labs, especially if Linden labs is financially healthy.
Bonicolli Goode
Labyrinth Designer
Join date: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 4
Very sensible proposal
11-05-2008 02:14
This is a very sensible proposal and its implementation would IMO greatly benefit both LL and the SL residents. I'm all for it.
Delta Sweetwater
Registered User
Join date: 28 Aug 2008
Posts: 37
11-05-2008 02:20
Yup, I agree too, these are good ideas that should be put into consideration and hope that LL reads this and will include it in thier decison. Lets see what they have to say tommorrow, there will be a blog update about the OpenSim issue.
Denise Bonetto
Registered User
Join date: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 705
11-05-2008 02:43
This sounds a fair solution in working with what costs are already out there. Though I hope all the sims don't have to be joined who share a CPU as many of us have OS sims for the total privacy and to not have to look at others builds alongside our own.

Another idea would be to make OS Sim land not able to be divided to prevent them being split into small parcels which creates more agents as well as people running to prim limits.
_____________________
Sim Myoo
Registered User
Join date: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 31
who side we want it free
11-05-2008 03:33
We want it all free?? If I have 10,000 real US dollors in all this how is that free. People this isnt a performace issue, this isnt an abuse issue. Its LL wanting a bigger piece of the pie.
Travis Olbers
Registered User
Join date: 9 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
11-05-2008 04:02
i think the only thing LL is after is as follow :

Shock SL with the pricehike (67%)...say nothing or almost nothing for a week(on fora,in world etc).

then come with an offer everyone (LL) is "happy" with like 20-30%.

tomorow (or today ) LL will come with their plan , i would not be surpriced if its something like this LoL

(Sorry for my English im from Holland)

EDIT* : What i mean is u can try to think for good ways to make it better (or something) but i think that will not help a thing.
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 04:47
From: Denise Bonetto
Though I hope all the sims don't have to be joined who share a CPU as many of us have OS sims for the total privacy and to not have to look at others builds alongside our own.


If I understand well, you fear that your openland sim would be neighbouring the 3 others. This is not the case today, and I hope it will not be so.

But somebody owning only one openland will have to share the CPU with somebody else. But if the prims, avatars or scripts counts are actually limited to the quarter of a full sim, this should not arise problems. At least we should not see the today situation (that I witnessed several time) where somebody somewhere on the grid is running a night club (and thus frankly abusing of his openland) and your love-nest-for-two-only is lagging like a mall, or you can enter at only one.

the situation is different if one owns 4 openlands sims (or 2 intermediate). In this case there is no point to limit avs, prims or scripts for each of the four sims. So one can use his 4 openlands as if it was a full sim, with just more surface. So one can have a prim-heavy palace on one of his 4 openlands, of hold large events with many people, as with a full sim. But of course one cannot do this on the 4 openlands simultaneously. This is why I introduced rule 6 in my proposal.
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 11:39
It is interesting at last that a balanced proposal similar to this one was proposed by M Linden....

(comment deleted, see why in next posts)
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
11-05-2008 11:56
If you think this is a fair and balanced proposal I've got a bridge to sell you, or maybe I could interest you in some nice mainland?
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
750 prims for openspaces??
11-05-2008 12:52
(comment deleted, see why in next posts)
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
11-05-2008 12:54
From: Yichard Muni
There is a rumour going on as what openspaces would have only 750 prims allowed, which is nothing. I don't know where this figure is coming from, it is not in M Linden annoucement.

If it is true, then it is not a balanced proposal, it would make make openspaces useless, and what I say in the previous post has no value.

If it is not true, it is not honest to spread such figures, which only add to the real distress.


It is true and it's in the knowledgebase article:

https://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=4417&task=knowledge&questionID=5650

Homesteads, the more expensive product will support 3750 prims still.
Spacexcape Bridges
pissed off
Join date: 26 Jun 2008
Posts: 104
it certainly is not a good solution
11-05-2008 13:23
You will find that the damage was done immediately Linden made that silly announcement followed by the "Bush" like interview with someone who likes to call himself M. Lots of people have seen their projects ruined in the last week - myself included. The air of disdain and disappointment has spread afar. I say shame on Linden. I continue to protest by withdrawing any financial input. Soon SL will no longer be a monopoly. Soon is not soon enough.
_____________________
Spacexcape Bridges
_________________
Project Co-ordinator for the Spacexcape Project
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Spacexcape/15/162/22
http://spacexcape.com
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 13:53
From: Ciaran Laval



okie, thanks for the link.



New open lands are 1/20th of a full sim in capacity, for 1/4 of the price, making a CPU 5 times more expensive.
Homesteads are 1/4 of a full sim, for half the price, making a CPU 2 times more expensive.

in short, openlands are renamed homesteads, with still the price hike of 66%, and a new unusable product is created, named openlands. So we still have the price hike of 66%, even for legitimate uses of open lands.


In clear, M Linden's proposal is the same than Jack Linden's, just with different names. It is in no way a better proposal.

This kind of words play is not honest, it is usually called a manipulation. And it is generally useless to discuss with people who do such things.


This is in no way the balanced proposal that I (and other) were suggesting.
I am sorry if I cautioned this in any way with my proposal, and I decline any responsability on the way this sincere thread was used.
I also remove some of my comments above, which were based on untrue facts.

The killing of open spaces will result in ejecting many worthy and loyal content providers, thus reducing the value of Second Life at a whole. I already have one friend leaving his sim on 31th december. He could afford the change in name, but not the change in price.




This is just sad.


And ununderstandable.
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 21:42
This affair, and especially the mock reply by M Linden, makes clear that constructive discussion (like this thread, and other similar proposals) is not the efficient approach with Linden labs.

So I will use other means, which are now legitimate (but not public).


Second Life is a community of friends and loves, with wonderful and useful content in. It is perfectly legitimate to defend it, with correct but efficient means.
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-05-2008 23:31
the notion of open lands "abuse" was left fuzzy, perhaps purposely.

Of course having a night club on an open land was clearly an intentionnal abuse. But while as many avatars as in a full sim were allowed, many people "abused" without being aware of it.

The limit I put forward in my balanced proposal /354/13/290886/1.html was based on an obvious technical requirement: as there was four open lands in one CPU, they should share the capacity and have each a quarter of the avs, prims, and scripts of a full sim.

But 1/20th as it will be now, it makes no sense.
Jacquelin Seisenbacher
Registered User
Join date: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 156
11-06-2008 10:29
Yichard, your proposal is fantastic. This is what LL should have announced as the solution. Not to offer some sub standard New Openspace and to rename the current openspaces something else. LL, I really hope that you take another look at this as an option. This is a much more viable solution for your customers. Your current "offer" is not very helpful at all. Thank you.
_____________________
"Be yourself, everyone else is already taken" Oscar Wilde



Kleineschwein by Seisenbacher ~ Clothing, Skins and more...
In world http://slurl.com/secondlife/Caledon%20Eyre/48/112/25
blog http://kleineschweinpages.blogspot.com/
Sue Saintlouis
Registered User
Join date: 8 Dec 2006
Posts: 420
11-06-2008 10:53
Yichard,
Your original proposal made a lot of sense! I support it!
_____________________
Sue's and friends
The "different" hangout where the people are friendly, the atmosphere relaxed, and the conversations lively!
Voice enabled for the best laughs.
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Pelham%20Bay/180/212/22
Yichard Muni
Elf
Join date: 21 Feb 2007
Posts: 51
11-07-2008 09:39
Thanks for those who supported this idea.

Unfortunately it seems that we are not heeded... and we shall probably never be, by people who send a first proposal, and them send a second one "bettered" which is the same than the first with just other names.
1 2