Group land bonus tier % - obsolete?

Well, after this:
/120/bb/63654/1.html

and knowing that group land does not appear in the leaderboard,

and knowing full well that several land barons singly own more land than me (currently 4 sims for the SLCC) ...

I ask, "what's the point of group land?"

It's easy... you get that nice 10% bonus on your tier for donating land to a group.


It's time to do away with this obsolete, upper-class favoritist rule.

...

background.

This bonus predates the current land tier system - implemented at v1.2. It was obviously meant as a way of encouraging people to do group builds.

Nowadays, all it's really used for is getting 2 alts to up your tier 10%. In the time when LL made $10 / alt, at least they got some bonus - although $20 for a permanent 10% increase is not exactly economically balanced when 10% of many land barons tiers are dozens of acres of land.

No... most regular users don't use this tier system exploit. They sit on 512 or 1024 or 2048m land, and stick to that. Meanwhile, land barons are given a bonus *on top* of their already discounted land tiers at bulk rates.

Let's do away with the group land tier bonus. It's economically divisive - it benefits the richer players much much more than the lower ones, it is very very old, and it no longer serves its original purposes.

EDIT: I'll reiterate, upfront - obviously a system like this would imply LL would have to consider lowering overall rates slightly to compensate price.

How does the leaderboard display have anything to do with group land bonuses? What a pointless thread.What is divisive is posting stuff like this in the first place, and in the wrong forum no less.

Aren't people still supposed to be paying ten bucks for basic accounts beyond the one free one each new user is entitled to?

Great way also to try to take away the bonus from groups that legitimately use it. Very noble, Hiro.

This has been discussed before (the group bonus thing).

The consensus was: Even though the "land barons" make use of it, the net result would be it screwing the little guy, both because of a major destabalization of said barons' power (resulting in higher renting fees) as the fact some sim owners would be SOL.

Though it would "be good for the economy," the effect would be temporary and, in the longer run, screw over about 10% of the grid.

I'm sorry, since when did the forums become "only discuss topics popular with people who owned lots of land"?

Land tier bonuses is like the rating system - old and gamed. While many people do use it for good use, the overwhelming majority of people just use it to get 10% free.

EDIT: It also will become increasingly obsolete as SL moves to the Metaverse. In the long run, ISPs will charge whatever they want for tiers, and so having some universal bonus is short-sighted.

You can't fear change just because it would be rough.

With any change, there's a level of destabilization - people whine and complain at even the coolest changes.

Instead of outright ignoring my arguments and resisting, perhaps either:
(a) address my reasoning head on
(b) provide some reasonable offset to make a change easier

as for (b), I might suggest lowering land tiers across the board - this way the little guy *does* win.

The system - as it is now - is beneficial for more-landowning residents. It's an artificial subsidy for people who don't need it.

Increasingly it is "let's talk about topics that have been talked into the ground". Now you are mixing two metaphors by the way, which are you gunning for? The bonus you get for higher land tiers, or the 10% bonus? You have just mentioned both. I know many people who have grouped their land together, and are not land barons, they are simply groups of friends, couples, etc. Why not go after everything and ensure that EVERYONE in SL pays higher rents, and the same amount of money for even less land. Also, you criticize people for posting in the wrong forum, and then start a land/economy thread in general.

Sort of like Communism. >....

But no.. my point is:
The rich get richer, as usual.

I, however do not spend a dime in SL.
But I get my little 2L a day for sitting on my butt and being in ELFCLAN

I mean, the bonuses are nice if you network, but, think, all those little goups of, I'd guess on average of 5-10L per person, for group bonuses, for 50 thousand some-odd people... We there is your economic drain. Losing a few hundred thousand lindens a day, millions a week, ect. The poor over-looked group bonuses. That's where all stock went. 9_9 psssh.

Sort of like stealing the half-cents in Office Space, if you get my drift.

But, yeah, free L is nice, even at 5 a day. But, as it does add up over time, it's still minute enough to only cause problems by keeping it, I doubt anyone lives on that.

Keep it, kill it, to me, it matters not; As I, am a windbag, and that rediculous theory I laid out up there might very probably, be complete bunk.

I'm going to bed. Goodnight, Neverland.

No. I have grouped land, that I use.

Conditions change, new people come in, opinions change.

That's why one party doesn't win the Presidency every 4 years. That's why you bring up old topics now and again. I could use your reasoning for Havok 2 or HTML or whatnot - but the bottom line is that hot issues will continue to come up until an ultimately better solution is found.


Okay, sorry. Let me be clear -

Lindens have *already* decided - and stated so - that land rates will be flattened - that's the bonus for higher land tiers.

I'm referring to the 10% bonus for group land. Sorry if I was less than lucid.


Sure, so have I.

But I know many, many more people who own land, and use 2 alts just to get a higher tier. I know the official response is "alts are considered seperate people" but that's just naieve as it pertains to this issue.


Supply and demand, Cristiano, you know this. If there is a raise in price, demand will drop. Linden Lab would have to compensate by adjusting land rate prices.

It makes sense to do this at the same time they implement the flattening of the land tiers.

Where have they said they are defintively flattening the land tiers?

"Increasingly it is "let's talk about topics that have been talked into the ground". Now you are mixing two metaphors by the way, which are you gunning for? The bonus you get for higher land tiers, or the 10% bonus? You have just mentioned both. I know many people who have grouped their land together, and are not land barons, they are simply groups of friends, couples, etc. Why not go after everything and ensure that EVERYONE in SL pays higher rents, and the same amount of money for even less land. Also, you criticize people for posting in the wrong forum, and then start a land/economy thread in general."


..shh..... did I hear someone say PWNED?!

lol


~<><{M}><>~

Hm? I'm just presenting what I read from threads on this express issue.

The one I'm citing can be found here:
/130/3d/49155/1.html


As for my personal opinion? It's just plain irrelevant, and dropping the 10% would destabilize the market without any good reason. Furthermore, it's unlikely this would happen, because LL would essentially be shooting themselves in the foot vis-a-vis sim sales.

I also just don't see this helping in the long run. The knee-jerk reaction to higher tier costs for a land baron isn't to happily lose their profit margin - it's to raise prices. Would be great to curb inflation in the short term (more money going out of circulation), but the net result would just make the poor poorer.

While I personally despise "trickle-down economics," I do think it works in reverse (from the bottom up). I have yet to see what anyone has to gain from this other than the swell feeling of "sticking it to the man" when you're really sticking it to the land renters and LL itself.

The land barons don't need that extra 10%; it would freak them out, but they could just extract it from the renters. The lower land owners and renters care. And more importantly, LL would not be inclined to do this, making the entire issue moot while Second Life is their product.

PS: Lowering tiers across the board will not happen. As stated in a prior town hall with Philip, prices are set to the cost of maintaining hardware. If LL is not making money, we all lose.

~sorry, it's very late, and I should rest....

....but did I hear someone say DOUBLE PWNED??!!


K... 99


zzz.........

And I was addressing those views.


Fairness?


I disagree. They're already working through reworking land tiers. There's no reason this would be part of a balanced equation.


This tired argument is used by RL big businesses as to why they shouldn't be taxed, why they should be subsedized, etc. "Oh, it'll be cheaper for the consumer." ... the consumer, who ultimately pays for it via taxes.

In this case, essentially what's happening is that people who don't exploit group tiers are subsedizing people who do. - it's a form of tax in this sense, of wealth redistribution for the rich.


Again, see previous comments.


Supply and demand. If barons raised their rates, they'd get less renters. But again, this is out of context - it's assumed that Linden Lab would activate any economic policy in the context of a balanced system.


Right, but what we have here is this:

X - A certain amount of land owned by groups, getting group rate
Y - A certain amount of land owned by non-groups, getting standard rate.

0.9X + Y = K

Where K = total revenue gained by LL.

Now, the change would be

1.0X + Y = J

Since 1.0X > 0.9X, thus J > K -> total revenue gained by LL increases.

Supply and demand dictates that demand will decrease. Hence, there is a balancing, and LL is taking in about the same revenue as the first place - assuming people generally want to spend a certain amount of money.

Now, here's the key - LL is making the same money for less land - meaning expenses for bandwidth and server space is less. LL could then cut rates to match the new equalized expenses.

And voila - LL makes about the same revenue, rates are cut, and the 10% bonus / subsidy is no more.

How about pulling Tier fees inline with what other hosting fees are. Currently, we pay a fortune.

Only if we can get reliable data backup in the process, which other hosting services also provide

I can understand that our fees are high, though, since SL is basically a big R&D house.

Fairness how? Reworking land tiers... how? I would like to see evidence to back both of these, please.


Taxes are fine, but the simple fact of the matter is - those with more money are simply more adept at gaming the system. I task you to solve that problem as opposed to this straw man argument that's been discussed already.



That's fewer renters. Supply and demand dictates that as prices go up, the number of purchasers go down. What you are suggesting is not a movement along this line, however; you're suggesting a supply curve shift versus equal demand. The result would of course be fewer people paying higher prices, which screws over those residents that are poor.



False. This formula neglects the fact buying more sims will be seen as less lucrative, and as a result, a lower land turnover rate on the whole and, well, a smaller grid. If that factor could be held constant, this might work.

In the short run, you would look at the loss of service of ~7-10% of sims, assuming the rough amount allocated to group land.



It is just not that simple.


If you wanted to effectively do this, you would do the following.

Instead of abruptly swooping out of the sky and saying "your ten percent is now gone," you would instead phase out one percentage point every month for the next ten months or a half a percentage point for the next twenty months.

This would give the market adequate time to adjust and hopefully fall in line with the inflation of the US Dollar.

If it weren't for the troup land bonus, many regular users wouldn't have any place to live at all!

When I was a Basic, I lived in Meins, a place Nexus Nash and Adam Zaius ran. Places like that are available partly because of the group land bonus, and if not because of that, that helped keep our rates low.

Now I have my own land, but I still live in their place, on Azure Islands, and I still like the fact that they can offer more due to the group land bonus.

Besides, seems reasonable to me to have an incentive for people to group up. Promotes cooperation and all that. Plus, the more land people buy, the more land they tend to buy, and the 10% group bonus I would think provides that much more incentive to buy. And then rationalize buying more.

I just don't accept that it benefits rich people and not others. I'm sure not rich.

coco

Considering "gaming the system" means "cheating"... what does that tell you about this?


I don't see how "gaming the system" is a straw man argument. I think it's central to the issue - as I stated from post 1.



Incorrect. That assumes that prices are equal for everyone; we've already established that the 10% bonus breaks that assumption.


I think I did account for that when I said this:
"Supply and demand dictates that demand will decrease. Hence, there is a balancing, and LL is taking in about the same revenue as the first place - assuming people generally want to spend a certain amount of money."


What if you implemented the discounts from the get-go?


That's an excellent suggestion.

I never stated a timeline to do such, and I would agree that gradual changes are often easy for the community to handle.

Two supplementary links and I think I'm done with this thread:

Not necessarily - there is one important difference. "Gaming the system" is synonymous to min-maxing.



I would suggest checking this assumption again. I posit that the majority of land is held by a smaller collective of landowners, most of which make use of the 10% bonus; it would be stupid not to. This variable would affect the entire market in the form of a shift.

Here's my rationale. As the net cost of land increases, less land will be bought. Therefore, the entire market will see less land being supplied from LL, as land is added to exactly meet server demand. Here's a blurb from the posted link:


And yes, you did (kinda) account for this, but I'm just making sure we're on the same page here.

The bottom line is irrelevant - I like to make sure the forethought is there. If I were a professor, I'd be one of those nasty ones that would give you an F for not showing your work.



At that, I think we're in agreement, so I'll be taking my leave of this thread until something else comes up.

Key differences:

-When RL money is involved, it ceases to have RPG gaming rules apply. In RPGs you go around murdering people and monsters and stealing gold, too, but that wouldn't be acceptable in SL if possible.
- Min-maxing applies to traits, not possessions.



If indeed the majority of people put all their land in group to take advantage of the 10% bonus, then you could buy 512m of land, check leaderboard, and see your rank be fairly high on the list. -- This would be because people show up as having 0 land if it's all deeded to group. This is, however, not the case.



But LL isn't a stupid computer. They would know that this is a special circumstance, and could lower prices to meet lower demand - as I said.


I graduated college so that I didn't have to write essays anymore unless I wanted to or I was paid to.

Private Estate sims do not get the group bonus.