ratings reform revisited

Oh, certainly! Let me clarify about neg rates. Unless someone has a significant percentage of neg rates as compared to their positives, I don't pay much attention to negs received.

What's critical is negs they have given to others. If I see someone with 50 or 100+ negative ratings given to others, I consider myself 98% certain that I'm looking at a griefer of one stripe or another. Passing out the odd negrate is one thing, but using in excess says a whole lot about a person. In a world without physical violence or death, the negative rating is the one nasty thing that someone can do that gives them control over others. When someone does that with great frequency, one can draw significant conclusions from the behavior. I'd hate to lose the ability to see concrete evidence of someone's tantrums.

They'd use scripts. But yes it would require programming time and would degrade The Asset System beyond the idea's worth.

I revert to my previous statement that the entire rating/bonus system should just be abandoned lock, stock and barrel tomorrow.

These are good ideas. An event posting fee would trim the list very reasonably wouldn't it. I'd even be willing to post class and building contests events again if I knew that posting to the events list would be a useful endeavour.


I already pay monthly land taxes of 0.7% in real dollars. Are you suggesting that I pay an additional sales tax when I purchase land or sell it?

The events list is filterable, such that if a person clicks on "educational" then a person sees all the educational activities available, so I don't think it's necessary to try to get rid of having so many events. In fact, I think the more events you have going, the more populated, dynamic, interesting, and engaging an online environment looks (and is).

Particularly I don't like the idea of charging to hold an event, since events are the fun available in the environment, and nothing should artificially cramp that fun, nor should that fun be limited to those who can afford it.

This filtering is how it is supposed to be, at any rate - when I checked the events the other night the filter wasn't working. I put in a bug report.

coco

I wanted to remind everyone to refrain from personally attacking one another.

*rates Jeska*

Since I am newer here and have not read the thousands of posts before this, I would be interested in being pointed to or seeing any post from a Linden stating what types of accounts or game playing styles incur losses for the company. As far as I can see all references to Linden Labs loosing money on everyone but the Aschne Chung's of the game is anecdotal at best. There are games out there like Guild Wars that charge NO monthly fees at all to play and streaming updates from an asset type server. Granted the technology of the game is much different but if companies are able to put out online MMORPG's, without monthly fees, that can host tens of thousands of gamers without incuring losses, why does Joe Gamer need to be paying $50 a month to Linden in order for the company to survive? Until I hear what types of accounts incur a loss from the Linden's themselves, I really question what type of account causes a loss outside of opinion and subjectivity.

As Linden Lab is privately held, you are very unlikely to get the numbers you desire, Xtropy. The belief that US$10 one time basic accounts are "loss-leaders" is a common speculation and one I believe likely. The basic accounts are hobbled in exactly the way one might expect if LL was trying to get people to become familiar with the game and then buy in with a monthly subscription.

I think it fair to assume that LL is not bleeding huge amounts of red-ink on their operations overall, but we don't know and won't know.

Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy. Thanks Aimee.



I was just throwing out some ideas that came to me at the moment - some silly, some not-so-silly. I like Aimee's refinement of "vanity services" as a potential L$ sink.



First off, welcome aboard Xtropy! Before the ratings reform several months back, some citizens (and certain ones still now) would buy a US$9.95 account and get the benefits of a premium account through rate mining WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. That costs Linden Lab $10 per person doing it per month - and there were a LOT of people doing it, some with multiple accounts. Linden Lab has been making these policy changes to close that loop hole.

Some people continue exploit this loop hole, but it is more difficult given the new cost of rating at L$75 per triple. Once bonuses are gone, rates will be genuine. Also, consider that for $9.95, one can get unlimited storage, unlimited bandwidth, unlimited access to the system, unlimited updates and so forth... that's not going to be making any company money! Its clear, as Malachi stated above, that the $9.95 account is meant to get people to TRY Second Life for an extended period of time. If they want to be more than a casual, BASIC player... the intent if for them to become a premium player, whether they hold land or not. If everyone in SL had $9.95 accounts with a one-time fee, well, SL would not exist.

Regards,

-Flip

Flip, respectfully - people don't 'exploit' this loophole anymore. And if they are, at *twenty-five times* the previous cost, that's hardly not paying for it.

At least in the circles I travel in, most folks are pretty judicious about the rates they give out.

Sorry if I'm comming across defensive on this - but I'm a member of a whole generation of SL'ers (Jun-Dec 2004) who used the rating system in this way out of ignorance.

These days I rate only if its something really special. And I don't neg rate under any circumstances at all. I think a lot of folks from my 'class' are that way as well.

I sent my stampede of ponies to trample them
numberous times until they withdrew the negs.



...


Heh... only an example of possible misuse

I'm fine with LL giving $L back to monthly paid accounts.


I'm not so fine with LL handing out "free" money (continually) to the
Basic Accounts that only paid $10 one time. After all, if someone
pays $10, and gets all these bonuses and stipends, etc then at some
point the $L handed to them exceeds the US$10 they paid in.
At that point... the money that someone ELSE is putting in is paid
out to the free account in a socialistic manner.

Another way to look at this is that SOMEONE is having to pay real
dollars to LL so they keep the lights on and stay in business.

If we have tons (and I do mean *tons* -- since I last weighed it)
of free accounts who never put more new money in, then those
people who ARE putting money in are having to pay a higher
price to cover the cost of LL doing biz.

If, for example, we have 2,000 free accounts (yes.. WAY under
the real number) and they were all required to pay $5/mo for
access to the system, then LL would be getting an extra $10,000/mo
to hire more staff, upgrade systems, pay out more stipends,
increase the $L wages for educators, mentors, other helpful people
and make SL a better place overall.

If these "slackers" are so cheap that they aren't willing to
spend a measly $5/mo to help support such an awe system
as SL, or contribute to it's well-being, then do we really want
those people in SL anyway?

Gabrielle

I support the changes and add to it removing the rating system all together but please give us a stipend increase. As people have stopped rating because it costs so much, and I've lost many of my ratings because of the 6 month rule I've watched my weekly stipend drop, hence less money to spend. Before everyone attacks with the "if you want money make something for people to buy" argument, just remember the less money the "consumers" are getting the less they will buy affecting the "creators" income as well making prices go up more, etc, etc, etc......

I'm gonna have to agree with Aimee, Enabran and others here as well.

I don't think any rating system is going to be "perfect" and certianly
what might be perfect to one person might be a total flop to someone
else.... right now we have a way of working with that... and my way
is not to pay much attention to ratings (because I feel the current
implementation is a flop).

Aimee's ideas are much better for a ratings foundation, and perhaps
if any adjustments need to be made at all, then we can discuss
pros and cons and compromises. Those who want no rating
system can still ignore it as most of us do now.

Actually I rate quite a bit and get rated, this leads to a bonus which I use to rent my land on Orion rather than use USD.

-Blue

I think SL should be "free" (ie one time pay) to those who want to access it. You are very limited on a basic account accept for storage... but I thought storage was cheap?

Is it really so hard to make a system that will kick off greifers and encourage the creative?

how about a bad egg has a big name.. like.. you can read it from a sim away after getting over 30 neg rates!

On 8/9/2005 Tuesday I'd like to see a meeting held at noon game time or earlier.

Far from a telehub so that banned greifers can't come back easily!

Anyplace is fine.. hey.. my house?

What if having enough neg rates allowed anyone to map you

Or you showed up as a red dot!

You know we DID have the author of "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" in game.. why not ask if SL can use "wuffie" by name.

Posting ...

educational events FREE

parties and contests $L20

Tringo $L1000

Hmmm... I just saw this (old) thread pop back up!

/20/d9/17689/16.html

Are we talking about the same thing at the same time
in two threads?

Heya Travis!

I understand people were often using this out of ignorance, but it was still a loop hole. The people I refer to now are mostly those who, after the announcement but before the rate hike, rate whored like I've never seen before! Also, now that ratings are NOT decaying after six months ("Its broken", people continue to benefit from the previous behavior to this day.

I don't mean to say that every who gamed the system is evil by any means! But I still think its a perfectly logical business decision to close loop holes like these.



That is admirable, however, I'm betting you're the exception to the rule. In my personal experience, I have rating encounters far, far less than before the change. Add to this that the land auctions for L$ from the Lindens are gone, and you still have a HUGE L$ sink missing from the economy, which was my point.

Regards,

-Flip

Very good idea. I was wondering about that too. Unless the new version is a very long way off.

Personally, I spend most of my lindens on texture uplodes which are a sink. It seems that the people that create the content that people buy are mostly the ones removing this money from the economy in creating new saleable items. All those texture, and sound uplodes cost quite a bit of money.

As you said anyway, ratings are underutalized now anyway because of the cost so they're not a very effective sink at the moment anyway.