Astroturfing the Stipend

It's commonly believed that Linden Labs pays special attention to the concerns of forum posters when setting policy for Second Life. So it should come as no surprise that people are attempting to game the forum system to create the illusion of public support for their special interests. In RL politics, this is known as "astroturfing"--faking grassroots support for a position.

It appears that a _very_ small number of forum users are posting a large number of threads agitating for the removal or reduction of stipends as a way of controlling "inflation" in the L$. (I put "inflation" in quotes here because--so far--there has been little or no real in-world inflation; what the anti-stipend voices call inflation is actually a small decline in the value of the L$ versus the US$.)

It seems likely that these threads are being generated to make it appear that lots of forum regulars are very concerned about the issue. The reality is those threads usually consist of a small number of anti-stipend campaigners--and their sock puppets--making deliberately outrageous and inflammatory statements ("stipend is WELFARE" in order to generate as many responses as possible.

Most players with enough intelligence to look beyond their own narrow way of playing the game (ie they speculate on the SL money market) will realise that the more L$ you get for your $, the more money people will get to spend buying stuff from other players, and stimulate the game's real economy - not an external one which shouldn't exist in the first place.

Lewis

Let value flow.

Stipends are LL's way to make it flow. If you stop the flow you stop the life in SL.

speaking of the pot calling the kettle black lol

You are SO right about Astroturfing. It happened with the events grants a year ago too--same 3 or 4 people yammering on about the need to get people off welfare, etc.
The result of that was a year of much less diverse events offerings and the proliferation of commercial events (and no, i'm not "against" commercial events, but just "for" a diverse slate of events). I think we're just now making a comeback from this.

I'm all for increasing the playtime requirement before a basic account can receive stipend though, if there is evidence to support the widespread claims of account farming. I just don't want to see the baby tossed out with the bathwater.

Anyone calling for the removal of the stipend without providing for a viable replacement means of scaling the currency supply is a horse's ass and should be ignored.

How about income tax on Ginko interest to pay for the stipend.

There is a possibility that the Sky is Falling brigade have a vested interest in the failure of SL, wasnt it bandied on various sites, blogs and forums, SLs first credible rivals will be out by the end of this year...... just sayin'

Holy cow, I certainly hope not.

This is not the impression I'm getting.

Perhaps some are reacting a bit overzealously to the suggestion of a removal of the $L50 basic stipend, which does appear to have wide ranging support judging by responses on threads started by myself and many others on these forums.

However, with the exception of RBD and perhaps one or two other people that I'm unaware of (personally I only know of RBD), not many are advocating for the complete removal of all stipends.

But this is not to knock on RBD, because although his ideology on matters having to do with the economy are too extreme (from at least my point of view), he should nevertheless be allowed to express it just like the rest of us.

I say lets remove the dwell bonus! I almost never see those residents asking for that!

More likely - after the OMGZORZ sell sell sell campaign - it is MORE likely that they want no money going into the system and to profit as the pool of L$ decreases... then if the new problem isn't fixed, they leave with a pocket full off USD.

There is no way either a content creator or a land baron would want anything that would discourage a new resident from getting involved in SL.. absolutely no-way unless they were utter boneheads...

And new residents use la stipend to get a taste of what is out there.

So more than likely they are just profiteers looking to game the market to put some USD in their pockets.

I'm not against the $50 stipend for Basic members, I simply think that the Basic membership should be time-limited to ca. 90 days... at which point they are given the choice of upgrading or losing the stipend permanently.

At one point Merwyn, the basic membership was a $9.95 one off payment, much like additional basics are now. I know quite a few people who are free basics, Merlyn, many of whom produce really cool stuff in the sandboxes, and others who regularly buy off the lindex to spend money......
These people are content creators and consumers within SL too.
Why should our attitude towards them be any different from someone who paid for their basic in the pre free account days.
As to the camper phenomenon often cited to back up this case, those who place camping chairs are premium members with land, and its not the free account holders who created the camping phenomenon, so again nwhy target them.
As a side note, i know a few premium account holders who go off camping too (not myself i hasten to add)
Nothing is as black and white as it may seem.

There are valid reasons for the existence of the stipend and there are valid arguments for its removal. LL is taking a long hard look at the way the economy flows, where it needs to go and how best to foster that.

All the astroturfing won't change the quantitative analysis that LL is currently doing.

I see a lot of screaming from both sides and it is most often based on personal bias, not objective analysis.

Changes will not be made based on the whims of RBD.

Gabe, LL better be taking a look at more than just the way the economy flows. There is more to stipend than economy considerations.

There is - will people quit? Will basic players give up, having no money at all, before they get hooked? Will premium players tier down, seeing not enough value in 512 free land to continue paying?

Yes, yes, and yes.

coco

don't tap the fish tank...

if you could present this as a meaningful marketing strategy... ll might go for it.

ll could probably use more upgrade paths.

Yes, all the possible ramifications that changes in monetary policy will have on user retention, population growth, and citizen spending are being looked at (or at least to the degree they can legitimately forecast any effects). They do not take a move of this nature lightly and are fully aware of the myriad economic AND societal implications any change will have.

I still encourage you to state your points and make sure they know how you feel.