Zoning Hath Begun

(spiffy blurb test. Stop mousing over and click me, dammit!)
Via here:
/3/14/86795/1.html



While I've been overtly critical to several of the systems of late, and the first phase of the "suburban project" that spawned Blumfield/West Haven, I find this to be a good thing. However, I like this for reasons completely tangential to the direction I think the Lindens want to go with this.

These are the first steps toward a system of resident-operated zoning. I've mentioned in several previous posts that this degree of granularity would be wise, as it allows resident landowners the ability to "sub-admin" sims to prevent community bads - Impeach Bush being a good example.

Allowing residents to be able to "niche" communities is exactly the way I feel they should be moving - provided it's done properly. Allowing us to create community portals of sorts for portions of the main grid is a good thing, so long as a system is put in place that does not lead to what have been called "virtual gated communities."


Some points to consider:

- Making it easier, from a tier perspective, for residents to move. As Eggy and a few others brought up, the "double-billing" problem of swapping large land makes this extremely difficult to work effectively.

- Moving entire builds with ease. Again, a major stumbling block. Rez-Foo helps, but a Linden system of backup, restore, and move is optimal.

- Better land tools to facilitate zoning. Real admin tools for sims have been needed for some time.

- Anti-segregation of communities. Offer incentives to have these places inter-mingle, to prevent simply cordoning off areas with ban lines and scripts. Roads and community structures (ie. infohubs) are a start, Google-like events systems should be part of the long-term.

- Separability. Controversial one, but assets need to move in the direction of being separable from the main grid/asset server along community lines. I expect this one will not happen, but I'm throwing it out here anyway.


Discuss.

applause!


Sounds like a good start. I'm sure once this is implemented, it will be tweaked here and there as time goes on. This could be the start of some really interesting sims and communities.

PILE IN!

And why not?

Land Baron: "Your signs are not amusing my customers. Take them down."
SomeRandom Guy: "But... free speech!"
Land Baron: "Sure, provided you're not just being a prick with it. BALETED!"
SomeRandom Guy: "Forget you! I'm going elsewhere."

Any questions?

Why is LL subsidising this new experiment? They should just sit back and see if the new bulk areas come up with something.

Rather, LL should be concentrating on whether the static land experiment as a whole is going to continue as the model for user created shared virtual space. I don't think it should. Creating community by forcing proximity is an outmoded idea and should be left to the real world.

Nah, they will and they should, just, knowing SL, the scramble to get the first lot won't be pretty.. And I expect the price of normal land to plumbet..

The new bulk areas are still mainland (I believe), and therefore can only be resold, and therefore can't be effectivly zoned. Reubens post explained the current problems of why it is near impossible to effectivly zone and still allow people to own their land.

I agree. That's a problem with the existing system - for several of the reasons presented.

Allowing residents to move freely on a distributed system, on the other hand, is a major sticking point of what the system Should Do (tm). I'm willing to give them a chance with this, but I agree forced proximity is the direction they're probably thinking with this New Thing.

And I think what will come out of it is people saying exactly what you are.

'we have given them the option to buy plots of land prior to the 20th for L$1950 per 512 m2'
was in that article too.

Not exactly generous, is it?

*puts on his Eggy Cap ($19.95 MSRP)*

They're a business, dude. What do you expect they want out of it?

*removes*


What interests me isn't that they're doing this for their own ends. It's the shift in ideas I expect to come with it that I (expect) will be a good thing. People are learning. It's only a matter of time before they come up with a system that works - even if it doesn't exist in SL.

Seems entirely reasonable. They don't want people just snatching it up and turning it over themselves (would defeat the purpose of the deal), therefore they present a reasonable price and pinch any possible margins for resale.

I wish I had more time to get into the details on this idea. I agree that while the ability to link and delink the proximity of individual residents' properties is the long-term ideal, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

So what's the immediate technical solution? Appending covenants and enforcement contracts to land sales?

You know what I've never understood? why is it estates can't be joined to the mainland?

Eggy strikes again!
As for separability, I already posted about this in feature suggestions:

/13/b2/85491/1.html

The asset server is simply an HTTP server.
It seems that it wouldn't be too hard to let us use other HTTP servers by specifying an URL?
Basically, wherever you would enter a key or an object name, you could also enter "http://blah" to specify an external asset.
LL said they are moving to open standards, so I fully expect something like this to be a part of it.

heh, look at my sig. the second proposal is urls for image references. it's not the whole kit and kaboodle but I figured I'd try to persuade them one step at a time.

I agree, very exciting!

[sigh] More stuff to keep up with... [/sigh]

I don't think the issue of expense/difficulty of moving will be very easy to solve as long as each patch of terrain has a static relationship to its neighbors. It's unlikely we'll see a way anytime soon to make that dynamic, but there are a couple of modified metaphors that could be introduced without dramatically changing the current setup:

Ignore all objects/scripts outside parcel - you know this one.

Transfer gates - now that we have P2P it's time to update the linking/landmarking metaphor. In this you simply have a scripted object that you can walk into or touch that offers you a teleport to a specified location. You could get creative as to the imagery used - having it as a doorway with an image of the view you'll see when you teleport, for instance. Your "infohubs" could have a wide variety of doorways to choose from. This isn't a massive change from the current pattern of having a script offer a landmark and then the person selects Teleport, but it could be much more immersive and creative.

Communities not related by geography could stich themselves together in this manner.

Keep talking. You're right on target, IMO.

What I'd like to see happen is the ability for groups to use permissions to express a set of standards (through roles, access lists, and their charter) and for those standards to be able to be applied to the parcels owned by group members without them having to deed their land to the group. This way group members in a contiguous area on the mainland can in effect create a homeowner's association. Hopefully, we'll be able to implement something like this in phase 2 of the group tools improvements (Phase 1 will open up the roles and permissions system to create greater flexibility and usefulness).

Sounds to me like this is still in the early planning stages as an idea. A question does come to mind:

Are you (the Lindens) thinking of this from a top-down or bottom-up approach? Tiger had used these terms in his "better than groups" discussion, and I think it's relevant here.

More to the point - are discussions and early planning going into building an entirely new system to support this problem in a more organic manner, or taking the existing (permissions) system and appending these new "tools" into it? My question sounds slanted, and deliberately so - I support building from the bottom up in this scenario.

Anyway, I bring this up because I think "permissions" is a bit of a misnomer when delving into group charters and open-ended ideas like fair use, copy protection, and zoning. I'm honestly curious at how LL plans to solve the scalability, separability, and community problems without simply ramping up on red tape.

so long as its all opt in - sounds nifty.. solves the probs for people who need it, leaves alone the people that don't want it.

I think I'm following what you're suggesting, Robin. I would recommend keeping it very simplified to start with, though.

Any group can have an open-ended charter, but the tricky question is whether an HOA charter is transferred when land is sold. Once a homeowner's association is attached to a land parcel, what (if any) are the circumstances under which it can be broken? Here's a scenario I was thinking of:

A group is formed for the purposes of zoning. Members of the group can attach the charter to their own land as they wish. Once the land has this charter, anyone who buys it, or a portion of it, automatically becomes a group member. The buyer must agree to the terms of the charter before accepting the purchase, or it does not go through.

Designating a group as having HOA powers gives just a few enforcement powers:
-Officers may return items on the land not belonging to group members.
-Officers may use freeze on non-group members.
-The Founder or designated Officer may return offending items on group land. Only one person at a time could have janitorial powers.

For this to work, there needs to be recall powers for the group members, though.

A land associated charter would be dissolved in the event there are no more group officers (either by recall or all of them simply quit).

Oh right on Lindens this made my whole week! Rejoices fantastic LL!

Whoo Hoo!

Cat