Group land bonus tier % - obsolete?

I confirm what Mr Queso just said, no bonus on private sims. That's why ultimately the group bonus will go away anyway, as SL evolves into a true platform (if that ever happens, that is ).

Thanks for saying that Cristiano. I can think of at least several communities who use the system in the way it was intended to be used. It would be a shame to see those communities take a hit if they were to abolish the group bonus.

Oh yeah. Well, allthe mainland places like that, then.

coco

I think this is a terrible idea, IMHO.

The concept that the only people to utilize the 10% group bonus is Land Barons is taking an extremely narrow, uneducated view of our world.

As an experiment, I right-clicked about-land on some of my neighboring parcels. Most of them are group-owned by various groups other than Anshe.

I find the notion of removing the group bonus to 'take away an edge from land barons' akin to cutting off our collective nose to spite our face.

I think getting rid of the 10% bonus sucks. What happens to all those people in groups that are up to the limit? Release the land or jump another tier? I pay $40 a month, the other 2 people in my group contribute their 512. I'm not jumping to the $75 tier for not evern 100 meters.

What Lola said. Bad idea Hiro. Just bad.

fabulous idea!

here's a link to an old discussion!

Is it time to End the 10% group tier bonus

Can you post some benefits? I really don't feel like reading a whole other thread about it.

you only have to read the first post. basically the 10% bonus by and large is not used for the intended purpose of cool collaborations, but as a money saving exploit. discount prices don't create cool content, creative people creates cool content.

furthermore, the bonus is only beneficial to top end users who are already benefiting from the regressive tier. regressive tier makes some sense since a player with one sim is likely to demand less support than 128 players with 512 plots. however the 10% bonus can only be benefitted from at higher tier tier rates. it makes more sense for a player with a 1024+512 to raise the tier to 2048 for 7 more dollars a month than to sign up two alt accounts for 20$ to gain 144 m2 (value of $ 1) to their tier. meanwhile, a player holding a sim tier like myself gains over 6000 m2 - a value of $ 20+).

some might argue people benefit from it so it should be kept. some argue that I benefit from it so my arguing against it makes no sense. i do benefit from it from time to time, but it doesn't make sense to have a discount on top of a discount that only players with high tiers can get. why would i want to be like one of the multiude of sub sim tier holders who subsidize my 10% bonus? either give the 10% to all players, or to no one - that is what i say. not just players around long enough and savy enough to figure out who land group tools work.

here is my mathematical analysis for why the group tier bonus is no longer even beneficial for collaboration, since regressive tier is more beneficial in lumping tier under one player(regressive tier leveraging), and island sims are a more attractive condition for large scale sim+ projects.
tier donations versus tier leverage

I dunno. I am not a baron, and I benefit from it. The two folks and myself who are grouped get an extra 1200 or so m2, which translates to well over 200 more prims. Being that I like to detail build, that extra 200+ prims would allow me to say, replace the alpha textured windows with prim windows... and I think you would like that, yes?

People also exploit many other loopholes in SL, should we take away things that benefit us all because of it?

I can't justify "buying" an island sim. I could afford it, but it's just not for me. I also don't really know anyone well enough in SL to go in on a sim with them. The ability to group main grid land, and receive an incentive for doing so, in my personal experience, does encourage collaboration. Take a look at the hill in Achemon sometime. It's growing into a larger themed area all the time. There are many other projects on the main grid which reflect this. If you pull their bonus, you force them to trim their content.

As far as barons benefitting more from it, I see what you mean. Perhaps a flattening of tiers is the answer there, I don't know.

We can't adopt a program that allows certain "types" of player to have the bonus, and others not. It would be a very slippery slope trying to determine who is and who isn't a baron. Even if the group bonus is removed, barons still benefit more than other players. As it is with most things in life, if you buy in bulk, you get a bulk discount. Unless one believes that gov't should step in and demand that everyone pays the same PPU, I don't see a problem with it, and therefore do not think a solution is required.

With all this talk of subsidizing, why don't you go after basic accounts too? Why stop at group tier and getting rid of discounts for more land. Why don't we pay even more money for less. Great idea!

I fully respect people's opinions on this issue, but really, like I won't go to my accountant to get an opinion on the best way to cure a toothache, this kind of discussion should be done by people who understand why the 10% group bonus is a vital incentive for groups owning land.

I'm clearly not the right person to discuss this, so I won't give an "opinion". Like many others, I have opinions on almost everything. I may even think that it is a bad idea to have cars with 4 wheels (why not 5? or 7? and why wheels with rubber tyres?) and voice my opinion on that, exercizing my right to free speech. Still, nobody would take me seriously if I gave my "opinion" on 5-wheeled, plywood-tyred cars.

In RL, we have "personal opinions" and "expert opinions". Slowly it's time for some people to accept that in SL the same has to be true. Run your own large-scale, multi-sim land operation with a group of hundreds of rentals, working full time on that, and you'll soon understand why the 10% bonus is more than necessary, it's vital.

Since I'm clearly not one of those persons, don't take my word for granted. Better: ignore me completely and just ask the ones doing multi-sim-wide communities. Most of them would be more than happy to properly explain this correctly (hint: some of them have already posted on this thread and were quite eloquent; others have their own blogs where they pursue this issue further). Learning from the experts never hurts. At the very least, you may keep your "opinions", but at least you'll know the worth of a "qualified opinion" by an expert.

I can only hope that if anyone at LL ever discusses this issue again with the residents (Philip has stated recently that he wouldn't remove the 10% bonus in the near future, and perhaps never — thankfully), at least they'll pick the right persons to ask for a qualified opinion. They should not be very hard to spot

Sorry for my bluntness. I guess it comes from recently reading a 100-post thread about the value of money written by people who never had Economics 101. It made me feel just like if I were sitting at a dentist workshop where all the keynote speakers were accountants.

If you are worried about exploiting then wouldn't it make more sense to try to stop 1 person from making a group with 2 alts? Maybe a cc or address check or something? But that's a lot more work for LL and not gonna happen. But I don't think the little guy should be punished because the big guys exploit it. My 2 cents - or less - you decide what it's worth.

I agree. I should've stated at the door that I'm no expert in this subject. I probably need a "this is my personal opinion" disclaimer in my sig.



I actually had a pleasant (no, really) conversation with He Who Shall Not Be Named on this subject last night. For those who aren't aware, he does own (and rent to others) a fair deal of land, and as a result has a fair deal of insight in the matter.

Now, I won't play at being the mouthpiece - that would be outright hypocritical of me. So for completeness, here's his side of the story.





As for points I personally took away from that:

1) The 10% bonus is given for land on the main grid only.

I wasn't aware of this until discussing the matter. This can be construed as an incentive to choose main grid land over those in personal sims. Not bad.

This helps equate main grid land to those in private islands somewhat, due to the loss of private estate tools and some of the flexibility of islands. But it still does not address the original intent of the "group bonus."



2) A Slow Phase-out would be difficult

This one actually lodged itself to the back of my mind from my last slew of posts. The 10/20 period thing is effectively pulled out of my ass; I'd been meaning to do a more meaningful calculation.

So I just pulled down some relevant price indices from the US Department of Commerce to see just how long it would realistically take for a 10% phase-out (or reverse phase-out) to roughly equal the inflation rate.

Doing some simple maths to compare Q4 2004 GDP PI versus Q1 2002, I came out to about a 6% inflation rate over two years. So realistically that puts the time at about 3-4 years.

And given LL's "planning," that's not too feasible IMO.



And why do it, anyway?

I still haven't seen a compelling reason to axe the 10% in the first place.

"Sticking it to the man" still just doesn't cut it, considering many of said "land barons" have moved on to private islands.

Gwyn,

I much respect your opinions.

In this case, you state them at length without ever explaining *why* the bonus is necessary.


People in this thread, by and large, have said 2 things to support the bonus:
1. It's necessary to sustain the current system.
2. Lots of people benefit from it.


But bottom line:
1. Status quo is never a sufficient reason to justify something. Slavery was a status quo for many years - and the Southern USA argued that their economy would crash without slaves to work plantations. In the modern day US, we hear big business argue that under-paid migrant "undocumented" (illegal) workers are vital for our economy. These are clear uses of the same kind of rallying for the status quo. It's not valid.

2. Okay, here are our three distinct possibilities, logically:
A. No one benefits from it.
B. Some people benefit from it.
C. Everyone benefits from it.


(A) No one benefits from it.
If no one benefits from it, then what's the point? (Though, while I list this possibility for logic's sake, I don't hear anyone stating this as a realistic one.)

(B) Some people benefit from it, but others do not.
If people benefit from it differently, we must examine how that difference is. If the difference is just, then the practice of the bonus is justified.

We have had people from both sides of the discussion state that some people use it as a sheer bonus, and some use it as a way to promote group builds. Perhaps the best opinion though is from Linden Lab. Going back to the link to Philip's statement, he stated clearly that the land bonus does not do what it's intended to do.

So assuming different people benefit differently from the bonus, it is *not* because it encourages groups to build. Instead - it is from the sheer desire to up your land by 10%. Some people are doing it, some people aren't. As Jauani points out, people benefit differently because of the already existing sliding scale.

I thus must conclude that if (B) is the case, then it is an unfair system that subsidizes richer residents at the expense of poorer residents - a corporate subsedy, so to speak.
(This was my original argument.)

(C) Everyone benefits from the 10% bonus equally.
If everyone benefits from the 10%, then why have it? Why not just decrease the price of land tiers 10% and eliminate the bonus? Why have another layer of beaurocracy when we already know it's not working as intended - to bring groups together.

...

Those are the only 3 possibilities. If you have another, state it. However, I have clearly shown that no possibility, given what we currently know, is a fair or useful system.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it, ya?


At least until it becomes absolutely necessary. Which it isn't.

It's broke. We've spent over a year adjusting our system to accomodate to it, pretending it isn't, and rationalizing why we shouldn't fix it.

so

what.


Hiro tell me in one sentence how this is bad. One sentence.

You have got to be kidding me. Slavery? Migrant worker exploitation?

What opprobriously inappropriate, irresponsible, and insulting analogies.

At least do me the coutesy that most have in this thread - and not be rude.

One sentence? Alright.

It is not right to have a 10% bonus that is a subsidy that many players - most casual - pay to players in groups - most not using the bonus for its intended purpose of bringing together cool group builds.

Or to boil it down more:

In general, casual players pay a small subsidy to less-casual players.

Do you have empirical data to back this statement up? If you don't, it's just an assumption, and then I would ask; why should LL change a policy that affects thousands of players based upon your assumption?

I'm not drawing an analogy by content; I'm drawing an analogy of logic.

By using slavery and migrant worker exploitation, I was choosing clear examples that I thought most people would be able to understand. I could have instead chosen a more vague example, like how taxpayers subsidize oil companies who then reduce part of the cost of gas, but ultimately earn more money - but that isn't as clear.

Perhaps a more neutral emotionally charged example, then, to show that sometimes a neutral analogy isn't clear:

You have 100 people. All of them buy widgets at price $X.

Widgets must be shipped to the people. That cost of shipping is handled by a scaled discount - you can pack widgets together and reduce the shipping cost.

Now the Widget company wants people to use their widgets together. Widget company wants to say "we'll give you an extra widget in a 10-pack if you use your widgets together". Unfortunately, Widget company has no way of enforcing that, so Widget company can only say "We'll give you an extra widget in a 10-pack if the addressee is listed as a group." They even announce what they are aiming to do.

Pretty soon, people catch on that they don't need to actual use widgets together to get the extra widget. People sign up for joint land just to get the extra widget. People forge fake names to get the extra widget.

Sure, there are still people using it properly, but since there is no punishment for people who misuse the widget bonus, they don't feel like they are doing anything wrong. And arguably, they are not.

One day, Widget company looks at its widget bonus program. It discovers:
- It turns out that Widget company has been paying more money making bonus widgets for all these people who aren't even using them together. Or for forged (alt) accounts.
- Widget company charges the same amount for widgets regardless of bonus.
- Widget company sets its price per widget based on its overall widget sales, regardless of bonus.
- In essence, people not getting bonus widgets are paying more per widget than people not getting the bonus.

Now, Widget company can remove the bonus and re-evaluate it's overall pricer per widget. Because the bonus is lost, the price would actually go down.

Let's take a mathematical example:

Assume shipping costs are the same for everyone - to take that out of the equation to simplify.

Let's say 50 people get bonuses, and 50 don't. Let's assume everyone buys 10 widgets, and each widget costs $1.

So 50 people are paying $10 each for a total of 500 widgets at $500, and 50 people are paying $10 each for a total of 550 widgets at $500.

The price per widget for the first set of people is $1/widget - 500/500.
The price per widget for the second set of people is $500/550 widgets - or 10/11 - about $0.91 per widget.

Now Widget company wants to re-evaluate its overall prices. It's currently making $1000, and wants to continue to make $1000. It removes the bonus, and now recalculates for total sales. As it distributes 500+550 = 1050 widgets, the new price per widget is:
1000/1050 = about 0.95 per widget.

The new price is set at 0.95 per widget. Supply and demand indicates:
1. The people who did get the bonus are now paying more. They will buy less widgets.
2. The people who did not get the bonus are paying less. They will buy more widgets.

So things sort of balance out in the end, and there isn't a disparage betwen what people pay for widgets. (Other than for shipping costs, which is understandable.)

No, but Linden Lab does. And hence, Philip's statement. But I've already said that.

I just reread the thread, and I don't see that statement. Perhaps I am missing it. Can you point me to it? I would like to see a statement for an LL employee saying that they know that alts are a problem with the group incentive. If you can provide that, I will thank you and go on about my business.

All I see is Philip stating the bonus is not going anywhere now, and that he would like to someday see a flat tier. The two are not interdependent.

Also, as LL has stated with reference to many issues involving "alts" (first land, suspesions, bannings, etc.), they have no method of determining what accounts are alts. None. They can't be in everyone's home sorting that out, so they err on the side of caution.

So Philip is saying 2 things regarding its functionality:
1. It's broken. (I don't think it does exactly what it is supposed to)
2. Even though it's broken, LL is sticking to principles for the time being.


Sure, but all the more reason why policies must be made to avoid the potential for alt abuse.