Limit minimal aggregated land size in a sim

I was thinking...

What would happen, if the minimal land one can hold in a sim would be limited to 64 or 128 square meters? (Or, even if you only held 16 sqm, you would have to pay tier for 64 sqm or 128 sqm).

It would have a positive side: 16 sqm griefers would probably be gone, because it would cost them too too much.

Any negative sides to this idea?

I own a 16m parcel on the northern continent that has nothing on it but a realistic-looking 3-prim telephone pole, next to the road. It blends with the surroundings fairly well, and you'd probably miss it if you wern't looking for it.

I bought it at the time the new continent came out.... why? Well.... I dunno - it was cheap, and I just wanted to own a tiny piece of what was then a new frontier.

Its not for sale, but if a neighbor next to it wanted it and asked me nicely, I'd probably sell it for what I paid for it.

So... would it be a big loss if I lost my "Telephone Pole"? Well... I guess not. But it is a little scary on principle that one could potentially lose land one owns due to a rules change.

This appears to be yet another attempt to codify taking down the "Impeach Someone" signs. As Travis neatly points out, making this new rule would also apply to utterly harmless uses.

The problem is the solutions. You cannot codify "This is aestheticly displeasing and should be removed". Even the Supreme Court of the US - who presumably is wiser than most of us - utterly failed in 1964 to codify "obscene" which gave us Potter Stewart's famous "but I know it when I see it" line.

The signs are bad in the sense that even the most ardent supporter of them hasn't said "yep they are good" (that I've seen). Arguments regarding "free expression" and slippery slopes have been used to justify not removing them, but the essential point remains: no one affirmatively likes them.

Just as the Supremes failed to make a "bright line" between "obscene" and "not obscene", they recognized that something which cannot be codified can still be judged. Similarly, I assert that there can be no rule that justifies taking down the signs without over-reaching into areas like the harmless telephone pole. However, this does not mean that a judgement cannot be made.

I will note that a judgement has been made, that the signs shall remain regardless of the effect on the commonweal. Personally, I think that was a weasely decision, but 'tain't my world to effect judgement upon.

I'd be interested to hear of other "good" uses of a 16m parcel. Probably you are right, but decisions for the masses often adversely affect a minority of citizens so if it turns out hat Travis's phone booth is the only looser then obviously it would be a fair decision to make.

I have the suspicion that the other users of 16m plots that will be affected are "legitimate" sign people like perhaps MetaAdverse and that *that* will be the big problem.

Personally I find their stuff just as offensive and believe it would be a good move to ban all 16m plots sepecifically because it would at a stroke, disallow this kind of billboard mentality. You only have to think about HTML on a prim to see what a nightmare of advertising SL will become if *something* isn't done to rule out *all* signs of this nature.

do not forget the few peoples that use 16 sqm land as communication nodes

You mean perhaps like this?

which makes me wonder why no one has build Times Square here--

I've bought a number of plots between 16m2 and 128m2 in my home sim of Kuula. I bought them for prims and to keep them from becoming huge ugly signs. The only thing I have on any of them is a tree or two. I would strongly oppose any effort to confiscate these plots.

I dont think confiscatoin was intended, just a minimum payment for a sim. If you were using them as prim farm, that would not apply.

Honestly? ONE 512m plot wouldn't be nearly as bad as 32 16m plots.

One plot in one sim can be ignored pretty easily.

The "impeach x" people probably aren't willing to buy 16,384m of land just to put up 32 advertisements.

What you could do is check to see if they've got land in multiple sims. If so, each one's minimum tier payment is equivalent to 512m payment.

For example: You own 1008m of land in one sim, and 16m in another. The total for your land is the same as the cost for 1024m. BUT if you've got 16m in one land, 16m in another, you're going to be paying the 512m tier.

Now, that's divisible by two, so that if they own land in 3 sims (e.g. it looks like they're spamming) then that would double it. The first two sims equal 512m equivalent, and then the third sim's 16m would default to another 512m equivalent. That way, someone with three 16m plots or four 16m plots (in four different sims) would pay for 1024m of land.

This prevents people from spamming in two ways:

1. it limits the number of sims they can spam and the amount. In order for them to get the most out of their investment, they'd have to have 256m in every sim they visit to spam in. Of course, this means that they're focusing 16 16m plots in one sim, thus concentrating the spam and giving the rest of the sim a break.

2. it discourages this kind of behaviour, cost wise.

Also, it wouldn't punish people who own honest land. Let's say Travis owns 1008m of land in one sim, and his phone booth in another. He's not going to pay a penny more than he already pays, because even though the land is in two sims and the default minimum has become 512, he's already paying for 1024 and thus there's no extra fee. Even if he expands into a third sim, purchasing 256m more, the 16m has linked with the 1008 to make an even amount, and he only has to pay for 1280m.

Two words: telehub land.

When telehubs disappeared, they became worthless. It's such a loss that someone even went so angry as to sell it for pennies! (Check archives in the forums.) And in the end, even the Lindens admitted that there's some truth in that land being lost as pricey 'telehub land', they offered a buyback at L$ 10/sqm (!!!).

So, been there, done that.

No, this proposition is better: there other small plots with sometimes annoying signs on them (lame adverts, etc.)

They're ugly, but, hey, the person's owning only a 16 sqm in your neighbourhood (sim) -- why would he care how the rest of the 65000 sqm land people feel in that sim? If it's ugly, so what, he doesn't have to look at it every day.



No, it actually seems Lindens are leaning torwards a change (see their followup post in Second Life Answers forum, if I remember right).

MetaAdverse won't be affected. They don't buy up 16 sqm plots. With metaadverse, the landowner can get a billboard, and get a share of the income from that board. But the board must be on his land. However, there are strict rules for MetaAdverse's signs: they cannot be floating, must be part of a build (at least a wall), etc.

I've never heard of this. Is this an alternate way to llEmail?

Would Object2Object communication make this use obsolete?

Me too! Please read again!

The proposition says, that you must have AT LEAST 128 sqm of land in a sim. Total! You can have as many small parcels as you like, but you'll be paying for at least 128 sqm in the sim.

This has come up on previous threads about 16 sm plots. There are a few business usages for them although I'm not up on the details. I believe that advertising, communications, and the monitoring of land sales are the main ones.

I'd like to know more details... if anyone can.

Advertising: MetaAdverse does fine without any 16 sqm plots, I think that's a good model.
Communications: need more details
Monitoring of land sales: hmm... what? Details? Anyone?

I used them as transport landing points for my intersim transport system - and when the scripting tport functions come in I will use them again for the same purpose - only faster.

I like getting a 16 x 16 plot in a sim I frequent for rapid transport - P2P won't change that for me - only make the system faster and more reliable.

Vending kiosks were something else I was looking into - as well as a networked system of updaters for products I have (certain functions only work when you're in the same sim as them).

I also developed 'ride' that utilized small plots too - similar to a rollercoaster, only much scarier

This is aleady the case in Monti, a 512m lot with biggest blue sign I have seen yet... on top of 5 smaller lots all with blue signs. I voted yes, because my neighbourhood is blighted by 16m lots, but the minimum would not affect the biggest offender, in Monti at least.

Well, I guess no proposition that should/might help the people overall comes without a kind of sacrifice

I am trying to collect a list of reasonable uses, and think about whether anything can be incorporated in the proposition. Or, maybe there are so many reasonable uses that it effectively nulls the proposition.

Vending kiosks: I don't exactly see why you need a 16 sqm land. When I had set up kiosks, I looked for malls, and rented vendor spaces there. It got more traffic and attention that way than if it was just a small parcel in the middle of nowhere.

BTW, do you have a 16 sqm plot in all 1300 sims (minus private ones)?

Though if i count right, 1000 sims of 16 sqm land is 'only' 16 000 sqm tier, that's a pretty pretty cheap price (compared to exposure). It's too cheap, that even malicious people can afford to pay it.

I think no proposition or rule will be perfect... This particular one would make it real pricey to annoy people on a large scale (in multiple sims).

As I said, 500 sims of 16 sqm land is only 8000 sqm, that's 40 USD/month, pretty cheap.

With my proposition, and the 512 sqm minimum parameter, the same would cost 800 USD/month!
For 1000 sims, it becomes about 70 USD vs. 1600 USD/month.

(With my original proposed minimum of 128 sqm, it would cost 200 USD/month.)

I'm trying to collect feedback, and then decide if this proposition is worth entering in the SL Feature Voting system, and also mailed into the linden emal black hole maybe, as an idea

Yes I agree... and I voted yes, because although it would not affect the blue signs in my area (but it may in others), it would affect the numerous wannabees that only own 16m total in the sim. I think it is a sound proposition.