An Open Letter To Linden Lab

Would it be fair to say, that you were affected by the changes?

Would it be fair to say, the changes that were brought about, better for SL in the long run?

The reason I ask, is because I'm not so sure that in my case, the changes were necessarily better. I stated many of my concerns in previous posts, so I will spare you the details.

Of course she was affected! ROAM was a business. They had a fee scale. Income. Which they no longer get due to the fact there is no need for the business as a direct result of LL's action to PUT BACK a feature they had nerfed 2 years previously. If anything, I'd say that Francis and Rathe had far more reason to assume that that their business was relatively safe. Excepting they probably know all too well that LL are forever making poor decisions that they find themselves undoing later.

What does it matter that it's for the benefit of SL in the long run? It's still a business fucked by a feature, no matter what. Months and months of groundbreaking work down the drain.

I really, really fail to see how you can keep arguing this logic about 'well that was for the good of SL so its ok, but this only affects lil old me, so its bad'.

LL's new land policy that fucked your business? Well I think its for the betterment of SL, not least because it's one more lockdown on parasitical opportunists who add nothing but their own profit margins with a 'service' due to LL's oversight.

I didn't ask you, I asked Francis.

Truth is Kris, you have no idea what I was involved with in my business. I did things that LL will never do when it comes to return land. You will never sway me from what I already know and experienced.

A- Because you probably never read this thread. and B- Your mind is made up anyway.

Ignorance is bliss, for you maybe......but not me.

I suggest you read this post:

/108/da/95037/12.html#post951866

I was thinking the same about you actually - you seem to be the type of person that has to go out of their way to ignore other peoples points so you can stick with your own beliefs. Because otherwise, having read this thread, as I have, I dont see how you could still be sticking to the same logic. Or lack of it, rather.

I don't ignore people's points, in fact I have addressed every single one of them in this thread.

Gotta do better than that Kris. Your attempt at ad hominem is failing miserably and won't make me change course.

My opinion is ad hominem and to be dismissed but you don't ignore peoples points?

I hear people's points. With lucidity.

In fact, I learned a quite few things here that I didn't know before I started this thread.

Some of which give me cause for concern. Some of which dispell concerns.

I'm not here to ask for compensation, and not demanding they go back to the old system.

I am going to continue to voice my opinion as to how some changes should be made in the future, based on my experiences.

Is that too much for you to understand?

I'm pretty sure I've made my position clear already. If you have any specific points you'd like me to elaborate on, feel free to ask.

What I do understand so far is that people display vast levels of hypocrisy depending on who it is they perceived to be getting shafted and whether they feel they'd be personally better or worse off with the introduction of whatever feature is shafting said shaftee.

Though we appear to have some area of agreement as far as concern at the way LL go about introducing and communicating changes. I recently made some of my feelings known here if you care to read them.

kris you WOULD make it impossible to post comments on yur site....anyhoo mummy loves you *kisses*

People have plenty of alternate places to fight amongst themselves.

If I decide to use my site as a vehicle for slagging someone down I'll make sure to enable comments so they have a right to reply.

But I usually do all my insulting over here, frankly

Thank you for the link, I read it and certainly agree that we have common concerns about how changes are made.

In my mind, they really haven't fixed much (if one is of the mindset that land scanning is unethical at it's core, and not only because of the odd lost parcel to land scanner swoopers, which seems to be a common feeling shared by the anti crowd - the very notion of land scanning seems to leave a bad taste in their mouths), they're moving the "problem" to another venue (land list), which is already host to a bigger problem, which is land list price setting mistake swooping (when someone tries to sell to a friend or move land between groups, and set it for a very low price not realizing there are obsessive types out there hammering on that refresh button, all day every day). So now, not only will the refresh button pushers get land set price mistakes, they will be fed the public land as well, at 1$L/m2. It will literally be placed right into their greasy little hands. I can't speak for others, but I'd rather see this perk enjoyed by people with a history of ethical behavior than the people who slaver over that list all day, waiting for newbies to set their land for sale at a ridiculously low price.

I can tell you from direct experience, that many more instances of customer dissatisfaction are generated about having land snarfed in a sell price snafu then the odd incident in which someone accidentally releases land, and has it swooped up. It does happen, however, not that often.

The frequency of mistakes is simply much higher with land pricing mistakes than with land release mistakes.

So to me, it looks as though they went after the the easiest thing to fix. That's not necessarily bad, IF they plan on providing a solution for land sales mistakes as well at some point. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world, and people always paid attention or were savvy enough to know how those tools work right out of the gate, but eh, it can be confusing to a newbie, especially if their first language is not English. Newbies are the lifeblood of SL, so having them lose real life money because of a mistake, as one of their first experiences in SL, is a BAD thing. And from direct involvement, I can tell you that it is mostly newbies who make these mistakes.

I almost think that maybe there should be an Orientation Island optional walkthrough of the land selling and buying tools. That way LL can at least say they offered education to the pissed off newbie whose lost their parcel.

So what has really changed?

Now that same released land will go onto the land list instead of being highlighted on the world map or detected by land scanner businesses, so land dealers/scanners will still be getting that land at 1$L/m2, which is what I think most people opposed to land scanning were cranky about in the first place, because they consider the process unethical (my personal problem with scanners in the past was not about the ethics of scanning itself, but rather grossly irresponsible code implementation).

There is one benefit that I see, LL will now have some time to deal with erroneously released land, rather than having one of the particular land scanners who have no ethics sell it off in five minutes. The thing is, I know several people who use scanners, and most of them are stand up people who don't keep mistakes, Weedy included. So yet again, a very small minority ruins things for the people who operate ethically.

In the end, I think it's wise to try and look beyond personal distastes for land scanning, baroning, or what ever happens to be one's personal issues with it, and try to imagine what the larger effects will be.

A couple of effects thay may come about as a result:

- Land list watchers will now be rewarded more, which isn't a terrible thing in and of itself, as Cris has said -- everyone will have a crack at it now, if they are so inclined (although everyone DID have a crack at land scanning as well).

-More people will probably clamor to monitor the list, and this means more eyes out there to catch land pricing mistakes. The folks who messed up pricing in the past were already mice in the field,with a few hawks around, but now there will likely be many more hawks.

Andrew has said that they're thinking of giving previous owners and adjacent landowners a right of first refusal for reclaimed land.

Well, I'm selling a "long distance" (up to 512 meter) instant teleporter with access controls here. I'm sure hoping that Linden labs GOMs me by implementing llTeleportAgent sooner rather than later.

Some people implement tools to fill in the gaps because they want the gaps filled. Some do it because they make money. I got the impression (from googling the forums) that ROAM was more of the former than the latter.

This concerns me too, you and I both know the antics of the people. We have seen them take the land and laugh about it. Citing, "What part of the dialog confirmation did you not understand". Does no good to complain to LL either, because they won't reverse sales based on failing to set to a person or missed zeros. Not all people that closely watch the list are bad people either, so it's not fair to paint them with that brush either. There always seems to be one or two around though at any given time, and to dangle a $1/sq carrot only invites more.

This is a point that alot of of the anti-scanner people refuse to see.

There is something to this... not sure how it can be done fairly, or if it might lead to disputes between owners.

A right of first refusal? What's that?

Weedy Cris is a lot of things - but not at all like "ye who shall not be named".

I'm certain if you two talked inWorld you're coversation would but things back onTrack.

I don't sell until I give an agreed to party the first opportunity to buy.

This is a good point.

I also think we need to examine the why and wherefores of LL decisions, and whether they are indeed analogous to this situation.

P2P - It already existed at one time. People had been clamoring for it to return ever since it's removal, and obviously telehubs, although the intention behind then was good, failed. This was a classic case of the needs of the many outweighing those of the few. It sucks to be the minority of persons who were affected, but this sort of thing has happened consistently and often throughout human history with advances in technology, changes in human "needs", etc. This was a case of re-implementing a feature, and LL does not benefit monetarily from it, in fact - it may have cost them money due to the ire of some land barons. I'd say not analogous, because they aren't profiting off it - *GOMing* ROAM. Not in the true meaning of the phrase.

GOM - I remember hearing that LL was considering a built-in exchange in late 2003. While I sympathize a bit with their plight, LindeX was not a bomb dropped out of nowhere. They tried to work with GOM first before they implemented it. And then there's intent, did LL do it for soley greedy reasons? Was it because many people had asked for such a service? Was GOM actually forced to close? There are other exchanges out there that are surviving, the difference being, those folks are diversified. I personally have a little trouble sympathizing fully with those who place all their eggs in one basket, and didn't even make an attempt to roll with the changes. As for what went on behind the scenes with LL and GOM, we'll never know the full story, so months of speculative freaking out doesn't do much good. This one is open for debate on whether it's analogous, it certainly has some semblances to the public land issue, but again, LL profits off LindeX, and not so this public land change (although they may see a small return because some folks who may have left pissed off about losing their land to accidental release may stay on).

Now we see that the term "GOM-ing" is being thrown around quite lightly (IMHO) - things like P2P, which provide no monetary gain for LL are being called *GOM'ed*. It's casual use of charged phrases like this that create an atmosphere of negativity and distrust.

Public Land handling changes - LL still gets the same amount, 1$L/m2, so again, probably not driven by greed and more an attempt to assuage some complainants. The difference here is that its a sweeping change being implemented for a minority, and one that will likely have at least some negative repercussions.

I guess in the end, we have to ask the question Argent put forth. Is the making of money by SL residents more important than some major concerns that affect nearly the whole player base? For me personally, while I am by no stretch anti-SL capitalism, grow a bit weary at times of the incessant focus on money. This is supposed to be a Second Life which entertains us to some degree right? Or is it simply another life of having to worry about the all mighty dollar continously, and with great emotional attachment? I suppose that comes down to individual viewpoint, but jeez, it would be nice if people could put aside the money aspect at times, especially with regard to things that affect us all, even those who are not even remotely interested in utilizing SL as a job, which happens to be the majority right? Maybe not so anymore.

Kiari says it a lot more succinctly than this windbag (me) ever could, right here, in response to Darwin Appleby's question of what happened to this place:

/112/1e/95617/1.html

Quit with the quasi-Biblical "He who shall not be named" business.

Prok is a friend of mine, and grown people shouldn't be referring to other people this way.

Makes me hate these stupid forums.

If you gotta talk about somebody negatively behind their backs, then grow some ovaries and name them. Have some respect. Or try, at least. Bleh.

Get over it.

coco <---- "she who must be obeyed"

( that's a joke, from Rumpole of the Bailey)

Who is this directed at? (yes, I realize not me, what with the female anatomy reference)

If you want people to name names, then maybe you should too?

Realize that that who "will not be named" business stems from some folks indignance toward him being talked about at all, unless of course it's praise or a link to his blog...

Yes, it is! The ovaries part! It's like saying, "have the balls to..." That's not considered male-specific!

And yes, I know you're right, I'm just cranky. You'd get sick of it, too, if it were a friend of yours.

coco

P.S. I've got it. How about just not mention him at ALL. As in, "If you can't say something nice about somebody, just don't say it." It really isn't necessary to all the time drag in, "Well, you're not as bad as SO-AND-SO", is it? No, it isn't.

I LOVE that Rumpole of the Bailey show!!!!!

Fair enough.

Sorry I got cranky too, it's just I think some good discussion has come out of this (it was touch and go yesterday), so I would hate for it to get bogged down again, not that I had to answer you and didn't therby contribute to that myself.