Stipends and Economy

So much of the disagreement here, and the see-sawing of the argument, is because we really need to separate two things which are being joined together.

The reason the ratings bonus has to go is because it is unfair - nothing to do with the money supply. This is a matter of principle unrelated to anything else. Equal treatment of residents. Unless you want to put the cost of rating people back down to $1, the way it was when people built up their entitlement, new people simply cannot access these bonuses. That is not fair.

It just so happens that LL currently need to reduce the money supply at present. So its a convenient time to remove the unfairness described above. Of course people here can argue against reducing the money supply. But just because you argue that, don't get muddled and think that justifies arguing against the removal of unfairness. They are two totally separate issues.

Ok - so you want more L$ distributed to non-creative residents, and think that will help the economy ? Fine, argue for across the board fairly-distributed increases. Redistribute the unfair ratings money, but fairly.

Just dont please get muddled and argue for the continuation of unfairness. It's simply wrong. Unfairness is wrong, period.

THATS why the ratings bonuses must go. Only reason.
It should still go even if we happened currently to need to INCREASE the money supply.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you are referring to this comment given in answer to your Hotline query:

Robin Linden: There are two remaining sources: weekly stipends and traffic payments. Both these sources ebb and flow with population. I have no reason to think at this time that we'll eliminate either source, although it's possible the amount could change if necessary to manage inflation. (link)

If that is the comment to which you're referring, I'm disappointed in your spinning the answer in this way after I specifically pointed out in another thread (post) that the response was neutral: LL can either cut or increase stipends to stabilize the economy. That you focus on the negative and now post that skewed comment here is both disingenuous and dishonest in my opinion.

I suspect most everyone knows that Volume Rules. After all, it's why Wal*Mart is so successful. However, I believe there is a fundamental error in your thinking if you believe that solves the economic issues.

Can Second Life currently handle 5000 users? 10,000? 500,000? 2,000,000? Sadly, we don't know the answer to even the first number. I suspect the answer to anything higher is "No". Point is, the balancing act goes beyond just the economy. It includes things like a) can SL scale to accomodate significantly more users b) can LL grow their staff to accomodate all the customer service issues that come with those users c) can LL weather a lawsuit brought on by the MPAA or RIAA when the numbers get so large it attracts their attention and their wrath ...

If it was only an issue of getting more users, LL's job would be much easier.

{emphasis mine}

Wow. You come to SL to "enjoy the social intreaction(sic)" but no where do you point out that interacting with other players costs money. However, lack of game money will somehow drive people off the game "due to the lack of funds to participate in the game". Wow. I've never paid to have a conversation with someone, or to skydive, or roam the world looking at interesting builds, or drive my freebie boat on the water, or go to some club and look at the crazy decked-out av's, or ...

I do agree on one point: "Doesn't make any sense."

If this is so then they need to pull their adds off of game sites like Applegames!



Why on earth would I pay someone to work another job???

And for those who are saying you can have fun in SL without $L...well, I suppose it depends on what you find fun. I love shopping for clothes, both in SL and RL. My RL funds do not allow for much clothing shopping so I was thrilled to be able to do so almost non-descriminately in SL.

When you have on one hand the people who have the time to create incredibly intricate clothing, or very detailed buildings, or the time to do custom builds, or the talent to write amazing scripts, or even the time to go run a little dance animation at a local club hoping for tips (if your husband or wife feels this is an ok thing for their spouse to be doing) you have a chance at making a decent living in SL. If, like me, you work a job in RL, go to graduate school, and have a child, you don't have the time to put into learning scripting, building detailed creations, or working on fantastic textures (which by the way spends more time in photoshop than it does SL) Does that automatically make me a leach on the system because I have a family, job, and go to school but still want to enjoy the game that I've been playing for over a year? If I could afford to stay home and hand paint custom skins, do custom builds, create textues, and figure out how to script, I would, but even then I don't know that I'd have a chance at competing with the established creators. Do you think it's fair to weed out people that have RL responsibilities, RL jobs, and relatively little RL time to spend because they don't "want" to work. Trust me in my case it's not necessarily a "want" issue it's a "can't" issue. I resent being told to get a SL job and quit asking for handouts when I do the best I can with the little time I have. Though it's hardly enough time to do anything "quality" enough to be of any use IF/WHEN they take away stipends completely.

IF/WHEN that happens at the very least a new player or an old one with no $L left will have to pay more money to get the $L they need to upload textures to create something, in the hopes that it will earn them some $L.

Would you really? If you gave up (or had to give up) your RL job to make a living in SL, isn't it possible - even likely - that you'd have to convert ALL your earnings into US$'s to pay for RL things? Would you then be able to go shopping for fun when you had to pay the rent, or the electric bill, or health insurance? Do you think it's fair to see SL from only one point of view as you appear to be doing? to weed out and dismiss those that actually depend on SL who can't have fun the way you want to? to ignore their situation regardless of how that situation came to be? Might there be those unable to find work in RL? or are perhaps physically unable to work their RL job due to some workplace injury or other happenstance and for whom SL is a necessary activity?

There's often multiple sides to every story. You seem to focus on only your pov... your wants; just like how you spun that Linden comment. Why?

Maytag Washers should stop advertising on CBS News because laundry is not a current event.

Again I think one of the points was missed. People with basic accounts will start 'hording' what little L they come by now. They won't spend it, they won't use it execpt on something really darn important to them. If the 70/30 split is accurate then around 70% of the lindens out there will be jealously guarded, never to be taken out of circulation through sink holes.

In other wards, people having to save thier L$ like that, are not supporting the merchants, or the content builders. The value of L$ won't improve because people won't be spending them out of circulation.

And the one person said it best, if it's not a game then stop advertising on game sites.

And why should we have to pay to just have to work. Some people do work hard RL and do not want to have to do that also on SL.

I don't really know quite how to put this, Darm, without sounding unfriendly. Do you think you have sufficient understanding of economics, and how this slightly sophisticated, non-obvious stuff actually works? Sufficient understanding, that is, to keep posting so emphatically and confidently on the topic ?

This stuff isn't easy - it is NOT obvious - and I, and everyone else, need(s) to work really hard to think clearly if we are to make useful contributions on it.

Still, I suppose if you think of SL as a game, and only a game, postings like this one are just stuffy spoilsportism. Forum posting must just be a game too ?

I don't mean give up my RL job to make a living in SL, I mean if we were a one income family and I did not work. When I said make a living in SL, I meant make enough $L to continue to be able to make purchases, upload pics and textures, etc.... I in no way ever want to depend on SL for my RL income because as someone said earlier (either here or in another thread) SL could up and disappear with no warning and take that income with it.

It's not me focusing on my wants (what's pov?) It's putting my situation out there for the people who don't relate to it to consider. Maybe there are others like me out there, maybe there aren't. I've had to consider a lot about the side of SL where people pay RL bills with money they've made off SL. I had never considered that people would actually depend on SL for RL money. I've read a lot about it lately and come to realize these people are out there. I'm not saying they shouldn't be considered. I'm just saying that when LL makes decisions about stipends and the like they should take all situations into account and not just cater to the business people, however valid their side may be because I believe people like me have situations that are just as valid.

music, I am going to sound really cold here, but I see your post as no different from me saying "It's unfair that Joe Smith can afford a porsche and I'm stuck here driving a chevy" or "it's unfair that movies cost $9 a ticket because I like to see a lot of movies and don't have a lot of pocket money."

If you cannot afford to play SL the way you want to play it... i.e. spending money of clothes that someone put a lot of time into making... then you either need to figure out how to make SL enjoyable (as Jillian said, it CAN be fun basically for free), adjust your expectations for your SL budget, or stop participating in SL entirely.

in RL, if I can't afford that armani shirt I think is really cool, I don't buy it. period.

Well, be thankful...
I was 2 pages in to a long, detailed reply about some/various
rediculous comments from (a couple posters in this thread)
who really seem to really have not much of a clue as to what
they are talking about.

I was collecting my data/sources for my reply..
One of which was the Leader Board:
http://secondlife.com/community/leaderboard.php
which shows various people in SL who are "hording"
tens of MILLIONS of $L... how could someone even suggest
that newbies (or vets) who find it hard to come across $L
will horde THAT much!? Much less the fact that in itself,
that is a form of sink which could be HELPING the economy.

But, alas.. you've been spared....
Because as soon as I took a look at Darms profile and saw
the rating scores: + 1027/984/479
I instantly knew this had nothing to do with trying to be objective
or fair, but rather with the hopes of preserving the current
"bonus" $L being recieved.

The bottom line is.... there is NO POSSIBLE way for a new
person joining SL to get those kinds of ratings in the world
today. It is simply not fair for you to be adding those kinds of
large bonus $L from ratings to your pocket when a friend
of mine who started recently and gives away thousands of $L
a week.. and super nice to EVERYONE only has +17/17/6
and at $25 per rating point.. and the way $L are so hard
to come by these days, let me tell you THAT is amazing.

Anyone who continues to advocate keeping the bonus $L
for high ratings.. who has super high ratings themselves
while knowing how hard it is to get new ratings NOW should
be ashamed of themselves. I certainly have lost respect
for you and have to wonder if you truely earned those ratings
or did you get them from rating parties and just gaming the
system.. and now upset that your lazy source of income is
now vanishing?

I think that's all I have to say here.

Gabrielle

Well, be thankful...
I was 2 pages in to a long, detailed reply about some/various
rediculous comments from (a couple posters in this thread)
who really seem to really have not much of a clue as to what
they are talking about.

I was collecting my data/sources for my reply..
One of which was the Leader Board:
http://secondlife.com/community/leaderboard.php
which shows various people in SL who are "hording"
tens of MILLIONS of $L... how could someone even suggest
that newbies (or vets) who find it hard to come across $L
will horde THAT much!? Much less the fact that in itself,
that is a form of sink which could be HELPING the economy.

But, alas.. you've been spared....
Because as soon as I took a look at Darms profile and saw
the rating scores: + 1027/984/479
I instantly knew this had nothing to do with trying to be objective
or fair, but rather with the hopes of preserving the current
"bonus" $L being recieved.

The bottom line is.... there is NO POSSIBLE way for a new
person joining SL to get those kinds of ratings in the world
today. It is simply not fair for you to be adding those kinds of
large bonus $L from ratings to your pocket when a friend
of mine who started recently and gives away thousands of $L
a week.. and super nice to EVERYONE only has +17/17/6
and at $25 per rating point.. and the way $L are so hard
to come by these days, let me tell you THAT is amazing.

Anyone who continues to advocate keeping the bonus $L
for high ratings.. who has super high ratings themselves
while knowing how hard it is to get new ratings NOW should
be ashamed of themselves. I certainly have lost respect
for you and have to wonder if you truely earned those ratings
or did you get them from rating parties and just gaming the
system.. and now upset that your lazy source of income is
now vanishing?

I think that's all I have to say here.

Gabrielle

Ellie Edo

In answer to you question about economics, yes I understand them. Post didn't offend me at all. A valid question and will give you hopefully a valid answer:

If SL had originaly been marketed a purley a economic facility I'd have no problems with the changes at all. Point of fact it's marketed as a virtual social gathering facility with the potential for making RL$ from added content. )Potential, the exact works Linden Labs used, and probably still uses, does not garuntee it.)

And the changes there implementing very well may harm the social aspects.

All I have been saying all along, if the social aspect is harmed and people leave, it will impact the mechants.

You seem like a leveled headed sort, IM me in SL some time, would love to talk.


Gabrielle Assia

Quite frankly I don't care if you respect me or not. I didn't start this thread to earn or keep respect. I knew when I started this that i was putting my fanny in the fire and that any dirt weather real or imaginged that was out there, would probably be dug up.

So I've been around almost a year and have high ratings? And how many of them do you think I actually IM'd some for? A big fat ZERO, it is not my resposibily -AT ALL- that in the old time walking into a club of 40 people, yeilded 20 or so +3 ratings. For myself I still rate. Infact I rated a person +3 this just this morning.

However totally glossed over the fact that I'm advocating either -replacing- the Bonus's with something else, or perhaps make it more appealing for the Basic's to convert to full accounts.

Stop picking nits and looking for totaly unrelated stuff to try an make ideas and suggestions presented look bad.

Some good idea's have been presented and it seems that with the ececption of a few, they fall on def ears that just want to slight others for thinking the Lindens arn't entirely perfect.


And to put a nail into the coffin, I am also a merchant in SL and find these changes will be as uneffective as the last ones in January that did nothing to correct the situation. Expect harm in 'simulator' business because customers no longer have any lindens. Had to shut down 2 stores because of the lack of business after the changes in January.

Only have one store left and and the -only- reason that is still up is because some nice people arn't charging me the typical 100L a week rent, which I might add would be impossible for Basic users to even -afford- on a measily 50 a week stipend.

So just how -are- they supposed to even get started in the new plan? (Meant Retorically)

Oh and on the subject of generosity, I typically give away major sums of cash, taken people on shopping trips, provided funding for clubs I liked, etc etc etc.

I've given any number of new folk that caught my attention in the range of 200 to 3000 L$ at times.

In one week alone gave someone over 8,000L$ just because I wanted them to have an fun time in the game. And I did that one before I was even highly rated and barly two months on the 'simulation'.

So kindly dont sit there and even try to insunate I'm not generous. Thats just outright wrong, and doesn't belong on the forums at all. And also goes to show the debths some people are going too, to try and dance around the issue. Or burry it in felgercarb.

How is "You should earn your money instead of having the system provide it" dancing around the issue?

Jeffery:

It isn't, thats not what a I was refering to by 'Dancing' in that statement. I was refering to the atempts of draging dirt out, and some of the freeloader name calling, to the end of trying to burry the content of the topic.

Sorry for the confusion there man.

But as you brought it up, as origianlly 'Advertised' my one time payment said I got certain things, which we are no longer getting. So we -did- pay for it.

As I pointed out in a later post it will be next to imposible for a 50L a week Basic to even begin setting up some kind of shop. Had not even thought of that.

Now that I look at it thats about the -worst- thing that can happen to SL. If they can't even get started then thats going to be a major problem.

So there is another, more important good and very valid reason for a stipend beyound 50L for basic's. It will prevent a stifling of talent.

Now that I think on it more a larger the 50L stipend would also help prevent some esbalished content makers from having true monoplies in SL. Maybe that's while they are trying to drag out the dirt and burry the issue so vehemontly....prevent the little guys from ever getting started...

Conspiracy theories don't add credence to your arguments, and making such accusations strikes me as unessesary flaming.

The current argument against that is that a basic user wanting to start a business can purchse $L from other players via GOM, IGE, etc... I don't agree that they should have to, but we're loosing that argument.

Ok in all fun Jillian I was thinking of replaying:
"I never once said any thing about consiricies, was simply thinking out load on forums. Why are you so defensive?"

To be honest it was meant as a jest, and ment a little to show I could give as well as get if it came down to it.

If you notice I'm not the one out there digging for anything I can find to use against others. If it was an honest conspiricy theroy I'd have to change my name to Hoagland then start takling about Hyperdimensional this and that and the other thing, and get a spot light on Coast2Coast AM.

You have to admit though the 50L stipend is going to limit basic new builders the ability to function. Thats not good.

(As to the buying lindens from GOM, IGE, etc thing? Quite frankly I have no idea who they are, who they are afilliated with, nor do I care to. They are not a Linden Labs provided service so don't think they belong in the issue at all.

I'll not trust anyone with my real dollars that cannot produce 1. A valid business licence from thier home state, 2. an Insterstate Commerce permit, and 3. A Registered company Trademark or DBA name, 4. A Businness Partner Agreement or Contract with Linden Labs. Asking someone to trust anyone without those four things to me is highly irregular. So to me they don't figure into the issue at all until one of them can produce all four legal documents.)

There is no such thing as "it's too expensive", when you go beyond basic necessities; only "I can't afford it."

Actually i've looked at the joining dates of everyone thats for this change and most have been a member for a year or more, those with the major building-scripting skills or have gotten the negative ratings. were as the people who could really use the cash, who are fairly new are against it. Yeah so go and talk about how unfair it is.

And Yes it is a game, no matter how realistic they make the clothes and objects. Last time i checked i dont have a button in rl that lets me fly around, and no matter how many times you fall, crash, get shot you dont die. Thats not realistic so hence it is a game. Its basically just a multiplayer chatroom version of sims2 without the npc's.

Alot of people are taking this game far too seriously, which is only going to hurt the community in the long run.

I really dislike the silly game/not game argument, but I just had to comment that I think this is the first time I've seen this particular definition used. "Game" as "not-real". Doesn't really work well. I like "Game" as "leisure time activity" much better.

On topic: I think you need to take another look at how this game is set up. The game's economy exists as an intergal part of how it functions. It is what encourages content creation. If the economy fails, it all fails. So it's not being taken too seriously, it's just we like playing this game and would rather it not fall apart on us.

With respect, Greylan, that doesn't tell you much. If we look old, we are at least that old. But if we look young, we may not be.

Bit like RL, really

This is what I deserve. I am entitled to compensation for the time I come and spend here. As a Junior Engineer, my firm bills my time out at $105/hr. I'm not greedy, I get paid only about $26.00 an hour. I spend about 15 hours a week playing SL. That means, assuming a stable exchange rate is $4.00 per 1000L, my stipend should be about 97,000L a week.

This is for the time I spend evaluating the SL platform, shopping for, and showing my approval of user created products, and generally making myself available for conversation. Ultimately SL is going to be sprung on the world as a tool to replace the internet, right? Linden Lab will be rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Why should they not pay me for contributing my time to the development of this "platform." After all, the time I spend here is time taken away from other work. And work and profit are obviously more important than simple entertainment.

Basic accounts are now free. Even more reason to curtail the bonus money awarded basic residents -- imagine, with all the growth that free basic accounts will stimulate, how much inflation would happen if stipend bonuses were allowed to continue.