Space Monkey group's land "ripped off"

stealing? no, its in the game rules

stealing? no, its in the game rules

learn who you trust and you will not be ripped off

Don't let someone be an officer in a group owning land that you have paid for unless they have a very well established Second Life reputation... and preferably, meet them in RL first. People are a lot less "tough" and "mafia-esque" if you know where they live and they lose the illusion that "OMGLOL I PWNT 'EM IN SOME STOOPID GAME!!!!!!!!11111one"

-Flip

Just another story in corporate greed and corruption.

Almost as good as reading Friday's WSJ.

Right, and I am suggesting that the rules be changed so that a vote is necessary in order for group land to be sold.

You'll notice that I put quotation marks around the the words. This is because yes, it's allowed by the rules, but that doesn't make it morally right. As has been pointed out by other posters, the people who did this even admit they "stole" it.

Do you agree Kyrah, that one officer in a group should be allowed to sell all the group land? I don't and I am willing to bet that most SLers would agree with me.

As far as trusting goes - how can you really, truly ever trust someone you've never met in RL?

Hell, I've been screwed over by long time RL friends or family members in who I trusted because I knew them for decades - yet they still did it anyway.

The answer is not "only group with people you trust". The answer is a revised method of handling group land.

There should be multiple, definable privelege classes to select from.

Even still, Ardith, anyone could gain the trust of the founder and be in control of group land as easily as I did.

Love,
Xaphon

The biggest misconception I see involving group land is that the person deeding it to the group still feels it is their land. If you deed your land to the group, you are no longer the owner of this land, it belongs to the group. All officers of the group share equal responsibility as caretakers, no single person owns group land.

If you wish to retain full control of group land, you need to be the only officer of the group.

Fred's situation is unfortunate. But, technically, the officer did not "steal" Freds land. Fred deeded that land to the group, he gifted it to the group to share together, he no longer owned it. The guy that sold the land simply mismanaged a group asset without the consent of the other officers. Obviously it was done with malicious intent to benefit himself. And, it is a very slimey thing to do, but it was within the scope of his ability as a group officer. It is very unlikely the Lindens will get involved in this situation, unless there are other issues involved that merits abuse reporting.

I have seen this happen to others. It even seems obvious that some purposely attempt to gain trust, over weeks or months, in order to scam land away from a group once they are an officer of the group involved in land holding. There are more people that are good than that are bad, but you should always try to know who your dealing with in these matters.

Never allow yourself to be forced into deeding your land to a group. Never give in to pushy people demanding to be an officer of the group. If they are a tenant or just a pushy member, they can either accept how the officers are managing the land or they can move on. They have no real reason to be an officer no matter how convincing they may seem. Group land can be a great thing and very beneficial to many people, dont let this example be the "deal breaker" on your plans to have group land, just be informed and know the ins and outs before you trust your land to a group.

I don't agree with you. There are groups where I think one officer should be able to sell land without a vote. However, I also recognize the need for officers who don't have such a privelege. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree with the multitude of people who argue for more robust group structures. As it is, the group system does not offer nearly enough versatility. There should be multiple, definable privelege classes to select from.

Which part(s) do you not agree with? We seem to agree on some points - or at least that is what I am taking away from your post.

If it's the part about a vote, then know this, it was just one suggestion. If I think on it more, I am sure other ideas will come to me as well. I also welcome other suggestions. Regardless of how we individually feel it should be fixed, I think most of us would agree that the system needs revising.

The biggest misconception I see involving group land is that the person deeding it to the group still feels it is their land. If you deed your land to the group, you are no longer the owner of this land, it belongs to the group. All officers of the group share equal responsibility as caretakers, no single person owns group land.

If you wish to retain full control of group land, you need to be the only officer of the group.

Fred's situation is unfortunate. But, technically, the officer did not "steal" Freds land. Fred deeded that land to the group, he gifted it to the group to share together, he no longer owned it. The guy that sold the land simply mismanaged a group asset without the consent of the other officers. Obviously it was done with malicious intent to benefit himself. And, it is a very slimey thing to do, but it was within the scope of his ability as a group officer. It is very unlikely the Lindens will get involved in this situation, unless there are other issues involved that merits abuse reporting.

I have seen this happen to others. It even seems obvious that some purposely attempt to gain trust, over weeks or months, in order to scam land away from a group once they are an officer of the group involved in land holding. There are more people that are good than that are bad, but you should always try to know who your dealing with in these matters.

Never allow yourself to be forced into deeding your land to a group. Never give in to pushy people demanding to be an officer of the group. If they are a tenant or just a pushy member, they can either accept how the officers are managing the land or they can move on. They have no real reason to be an officer no matter how convincing they may seem. Group land can be a great thing and very beneficial to many people, dont let this example be the "deal breaker" on your plans to have group land, just be informed and know the ins and outs before you trust your land to a group.

Simply requiring a vote doesn't solve the problem, as there are some group structures in which it would be desirable to be able to sell land without requiring everyone to sign off on the deal. I think that this should be just one option of many when deciding how powerful to make members of the group. The creator of a group should be able to define how powerful its officers and members are, and there should be multiple (more than just two) levels of power, so that groups can more easily survive the machinations of blackguards.

Quite simply, I think your suggestion for a land-sale vote is part of a solution, but I think that more is needed.

The Space Monkey group had this coming to them. This was more of a Jessie matter, where the Space Monkey group had established orbiters all around the sim so that I could not enter. My good freind Xaphon was in the Landholders group, and we decided that the most profitable way to rid these people from jessie would be to get rid of their land. Thats what we did; normally I dont condone these actions.

So quitcher bitchin'

The Space Monkey group had this coming to them. This was more of a Jessie matter, where the Space Monkey group had established orbiters all around the sim so that I could not enter. My good freind Xaphon was in the Landholders group, and we decided that the most profitable way to rid these people from jessie would be to get rid of their land. Thats what we did; normally I dont condone these actions.

So quitcher bitchin'

I will confirm this statement.