% of land holders in sl

Sure does.

The people that own land represent 100% of the land owners. The 2% that gets the most traffic gets the developer bonus. Thats all there is to it, its not confusing at all.

Haha, you crack me up, hon!

You said "don't use swear words"... DUH

Then you say "I used swear words"... DUH

Yes, your smugness is truly mind-boggling. I am so happy you are finally seeing it.

(I'm not usually like this, but since Prokofy posts this way all the time it must be okay.)

Haahahahah you crack me up too hon!



I said don't call people names and use swear words like FUCK YOU DUH HON. That is done all too often without any discipline -- the favorite thing is for someone like Schwanson to say FUCK YOU PROFOKY and let that nasty statement sit out there for an hour then quick pull it back to avoid a mod erasing it or giving a warning about it. It's such a pathetic little game. That's what I mean. I didn't mean you could use swear words.

And the fact of the matter is, you all think it is fine to use swear words and call people names using them, so what the hell are you all getting so precious for all of a sudden???




I used swear words about a claim, not about a person. Big difference.



Nope, I'm seeing yours tho LOL.



Yeah, it's hard to take it when someone gives you a taste ofyour own medicine, eh?

Did you find an accurate way to determine how many players own land?

They didn't say it that way.

I agree THAT statement isn't confusing.

But that's not how they say it.

And knowing that they calculate dwell in a confusing and convoluted way to begin with, I think their statement about the developer's award is either deliberately vague or necessarily complex.

Therefore I want to eliminate the other possible reading of the sentence by hearing from Lindens, not other players.

you wrote: "Don’t call people names or use swear words – if you have to do that, you have already shown that you have lost an argument."
uh... i dunno where to start...

maxims. not rules.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=maxim&x=0&y=0

it's not "pragmaticism" it's pragmatics it's the field of study in linguistics that tries to explain how people understand sentences beyond the information in syntax and semantics.

i'm starting to think much of your problems are that you don't actually understand english...

Actually, not on this number, they're not. The number of people who own land, and how many new people are coming in who buy land, and of those, how many tier up and to what levels -- these are all jealousy guarded proprietary numbers because these are the numbers that the Lindens use to roll out land on the land auction.

If they gave out the numbers precisely, people would be able to calculate how much land they'll be rolling out, and be able to predict its effect on the market. Instead, they are able to keep everyone off balance, and keep the land barons from gaining too much power to set prices because the actual amount of land to be produced (which they claim is tied to numbers of new players) is a closely-guarded number.

This is why I"ve harped on this point so heavily because I want to see if they are going to come through with this number or not. I suspect they won't.

I don't see why we have to back into this number by using other figures taken from the dwelloper's thing to get what should be stated explicitly.

You don't have to be a math whiz to figure out that IF they mean this by their statement -- "if 2 percent of all land owners get the dwell, and X number get the prize, then we can extrapolate to get the total number of landowners"

That's all self-evident, I understood that ages ago, and the continual preaching about this and unseemly hectoring about this has no place.

Yet I continue to maintain that their statement bears another interpretation that I'd like them to clarify, and eliminate if incorrect.

And I continue to believe they are not telling us the full, updated story when they say that "12 percent is about right".

Just because I'm continuing to question this doesn't mean I"m stupid, or I've failed to undestand this math.

But it is monkey math if is a backwards way of finding out wht they could just tell us: what percentage of players buy land?

Sure, and if you had said "don't use swear words about a person," I wouldn't have a problem with your hypocritical proclamations about forum posting. But you didn't say that... no amount of gutless backpedalling disguised as clarification will change that you repeatedly said "Don’t call people names or use swear words – if you have to do that, you have already shown that you have lost an argument." with no other disclaimer. Perhaps your pontification should have read "Don’t call people names or swear at them." Big difference.


I wouldn't know... that was straight out of your medicine cabinet... hon. You tell me.


Since you're the one that has a problem with the way everyone else is doing their "monky math," I'd say its up to you to find an accurate way, or at least a way you consider accurate, as I am satisfied that an accurate way has already been demonstrated. Why don't you ask a Linden?

I think StoneSelf's algebra sounds right, but it leaves a few questions unanswered. How many people own land as an individual vs as part of a group, and how much land is owned by individuals vs groups? (These are in fact different questions.)

Also, something that might be skewing the numbers is that only people who contribute tier to a group get DI award dwell - so I bet people in a group that are getting a free ride on tier don't count as landowners in this calculation. And groups renting land from Anshe or other estate owners get no DI award dwell - all that dwell goes to the estate owner, so technically they are not landowners. So there may be a lot of people who get to act as landowners but aren't counted as such for this formula - in that sense Prokofy may be correct that these numbers don't tell the whole story.

good question to ask on the hotline forum.

*Shrugs*. I said exactly that. Don't call people name or use swear words in that process of calling them names. Pretty clear. If it isn't to you, well, what's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prokofy Neva
Did you find an accurate way to determine how many players own land?

Since you're the one that has a problem with the way everyone else is doing their "monky math," I'd say its up to you to find an accurate way, or at least a way you consider accurate, as I am satisfied that an accurate way has already been demonstrated. Why don't you ask a Linden?

I've asked the Lindens in the hotline to the Lindens. What I"m not going to do is fly all over sims and try to count landowners.

Yes, this is a good question. I hadn't thought of that at all. Group land is owned by all the members of the group in one sense, but in another, only owned by those members in it who pay tier.



I wonder how they characterize them, too.

.

It hardly seems that LL is counting them, no.

S

I continue to believe the numbers do not tell the whole story.

what you exactly wrote was:

Don’t call people names or use swear words – if you have to do that, you have already shown that you have lost an argument.

Yes, that's what I wrote. It means don't call people names, or use swear words in addressing them, like saying FUCK YOU.

Let me repeat what I already wrote: I said don't call people names and use swear words like FUCK YOU DUH HON. That is done all too often without any discipline -- the favorite thing is for someone like Schwanson to say FUCK YOU PROFOKY and let that nasty statement sit out there for an hour then quick pull it back to avoid a mod erasing it or giving a warning about it. It's such a pathetic little game. That's what I mean. I didn't mean you could use swear words.

I used the adjective "fucking" about something being "Fucking unlikely" because it ws truly unlikely. So?

However, Stoneself, sometimes it is good to break rules, even one's own.

It might be helpful to tell some people to go fuck themselves AND the horse they road in on. Sideways.

That might be beneficial from time to time.

However, I don't do that.

too bad you don't limit yourself to "sometimes"

My point is that is not exactly what you said. You are trying to say that's what you meant, but its not exactly what you said. Adding an addendum trying to explain what you meant is not the same. I suggested you could revise it so you could actually say exactly what you meant... but you show no interest in doing that.

What's funny, is that you are getting all worked up in this thread, demanding that there is more than one way to interpret a statement someone else made, but you don't seem to think that there could possibly be more than one way to interpret a statement you made. You don't see that as even a bit odd?

I'm forced to wonder... since you can't even admit when directly quoted that you said something... have you ever admitted that you were wrong in the forums? Do you believe that you have never been wrong, mistaken, hasty in posting... anything like that? I'm curious.

Ursula, do you have anything to contribute to the subject of this thread, about guessing about how many land owners there are?

I said what I meant, and I meant what I said The intent is clear, and the realization is clear. What's important to note about this transaction is your desire to play "gotcha". That's all it's about.

If I"m wrong about something, of course I note that. Who wouldn't? This isn't a contest to see who is the most cool, it's a discussion about the game.

I'm curious why you feel the need to "best," or "one-up" or "pounce". Could you just contribute to the topic of the thread, or move on?

Don’t hide an insult in a rhetorical question, or package a vituperative repost in an alleged generic statement that everyone can see is targeted at one person.

Don’t question somebody’s sanity or intelligence in responding to something you disagree with.

Hmm... I see. When you don't have a good answer, you start attacking the person, by asking about motives, whether they have anything to contribute to the subject at hand... that kind of thing. I'm not trying to "get" you, Prokofy... I'm trying to hold you to the same standards you are holding others to. You didn't answer my question about why you couldn't see that there could possibly be more than one way to interpret your comment, since you seem adamant that there is more than one way to interpet the 2% statement.

You keep insisting that what you meant is the only possible interpretation, even if it isn't exactly what you said. If you'd just admit that maybe you were wrong, and that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to think that what you wrote didn't mean what you keep saying it does, I'd drop it. That's why I'm doing this in this thread. The whole point is that you keep insisting that there's more than one way to read the 2% statement, yet there is only one possible way to read yours. Do you see what I'm getting at?

And the last bit... contribute or move on. That's rich... You don't like what I say, so I should leave? How many times have I seen you rail against people saying that to you? But maybe you're right... there's no point pounding my head against a brick wall.

? It's fine if you want to interpret my comment any way you wish, but I can also come back and explain what I meant, and the intent behind the comment. That's what I did already, twice.

Asking you to contribute to the subject at hand is a good way to get you out of your "gotcha" mode of vindictiveness and focus on the more generic question of how we can find how many land owners there are.



Yes, because I'm the one who knows my intent when I write something lol? That's all there is too it. The intent was to deal with the constant refrains of FUCK YOU PROKOFY that sprinkle the forums. The intent was not to somehow "shirk responsibility". The intent was not to deal with issues like using "fucking" as qualifier to an expression like "that is fucking way far off".

If you don't want to accept that, you don't have to. I'm explaining it to you, however.



Um, I don't understand how I'm "wrong" when someone wishes to read what I wrote in a different way? That's hilarious. Let them read whatever they wish. I'm here to bring them back on point and explain my intention, and the thrust of that "rule" I devised, which was, essentially, "don't call people names and don't say ' fuck you' to them".

If "fucking" is used in a post as a surprised adjective, that doesn't "disqualify" me or "make me a hypocrite" it's just a different kind of expression. My point still stands: I explained my intent, I explained what I meant, and if that doesn't satisfy you, you can go on claiming "gotcha" and claiming I'm a hypocrite, but it's a game you'll be playing without me participating LOL.

T

Nope. When I say there are two ways to read the 2 percent statement, there *are* two ways. Various people come back to me with the perfectly legitimate point of view of saying "No, Prokofy, there's only one way, and here it is."

And I, too, say that while my statement admits various interpretations, like anyone's statement, I'm here to come back at you and say, no, Ursula, this is what it's intention was.

And honestly, that's the only intention that seems tenable and makes sense. You can't cleanse everyone of their desire to say "fucking" as a qualifier. What you could move them towards is less use of the personally vindictive "fuck you".



When I say contribute or move on, I mean contribute to this topic, or move on to another topic. I'm not saying "leave the game" or "go away" or some such nasty thing, I'm saying just get on with your life, find another area on the forum to ply your arguments.

Honestly, you people are only interested in doing one thing: pecking me to death. That's all it is. Vultures pecking a person to death. Fortunately, in a virtual world, you can't do that.

BTW, I already put this exact same question, with more detail (about how to interpret the dwelloper thing) in the Linden forum. It was visible for about a day. You could see it featured as a kind of "headline" there.

Then it completely disappeared. Gone. Not in any category. I find that a little wierd.

Yes, I completely understand that that is what you meant. I believe that's what you meant, now that you have clarified it, and I'm not arguing that in the least. What I am saying is that you were wrong to repeatedly claim that it was exactly what you said, when it was obviously not exactlywhat you said. I even suggested that maybe you should change it to read "swear at them" instead of just saying "use swear words" and trusting that people would know how you meant it. Honestly, are you saying that the two phrases ARE exactly the same, or just mean the same to you, and might not mean the same to others? That is all I am trying to get you to see, that your intent, while totally obvious to you because you wrote it, might not be so obvious to everyone else.


Exactly. That was essentially what you were trying to get across... but that's not what you wrote. I'm not arguing your intention, but your assertion that you said exactly that. You do see the difference, right?


Ah, okay... so moving on to another topic, getting on with my life, finding another area of the forum... none of that means that I should "go away" from this topic right here? Move on and go to another area doesn't mean to go away, hmm?


I checked to see before I posted, as I didn't see a point in duplicate posts, but as you say, there is no evidence of it. I added a bit more detail as it occurred to me before I came back to this thread. Lets see if they answer mine, despite my lack of fetedness or status as any kind of baron. I agree that it is a bit odd that they would just flush the question without addressing it. If they have a policy against revealing those figures directly, couldn't they just state that instead of avoiding the question completely?

QUOTE=Prokofy Neva
What don't you get about this? There are two possible interpretations and it would be good to get clear answers No, there is only one interpretation.

The sentence admits for two interpretations. No it doesn't

It can definitely mean one thing or another thing. No it can't

It can mean "2 percent of all landowners in the game as a whole". Yes

OR it can mean "2 percent of the landowners who got the most dwell." No, you missed "THE", it reads "THE 2 percent of landowners..."

"The landowners who got the most dwell" is a SUBSET of the LARGER GROUP "a list of of all landowners." Correct, and the size of the subset is 2% Every landowner might get some dwell. But only a short list of landowners get the most dwell, and of these, two percent only are selected with the VERY most dwell. The part I've put in italics is a total fabrication on your part. Nowhere does the orriginal Linden statement sugest anything other than 2% of landowners


The list of those who got the most dwell is not the entire list of landowners. correct, it is only the top 2 percent I'd like to hear what they meant.. they already told you

QUOTE=Prokofy Neva
What don't you get about this? There are two possible interpretations and it would be good to get clear answers No, there is only one interpretation.


Um, it does lol. Just read it.



I could mean one or the other.



The definite article doesn't change a thing, it can still be read as I indicated.



No, they didn't. And I'm not alone in believing that the figure sounds too low.