Best Interest of Player's Versus Businesses

Postulates:
1. The best interest of the individual player is the most important thing in Second Life period.
2. The best interest of the business entity is not necessarily the best interest of the individual player.
3. The best interest of the business entity is usually not in the best interest of the individual player.


All business entities (profiteers) must understand that their whole cause is to make money. The only thing important to a profiteer is profit. Not the best interest of the individual. Nothing. Profit and only profit is in the best interest of the profiteer.

I myself am a profiteer in this game, and can understand this simple concept.
It appears that many profiteers that play SL delude themselves into thinking the best interest of their business in any way shape or form coincides with the best interest of Second Life. It does not. Never delude yourself into thinking so.

If a profiteer in believes in any way that their business is in any way relevant to the betterment of Second Life, they are SERIOUSLY deluding themselves. Again, all profiteers need to understand that your business is for your betterment/profit, and only for your profit.

The only thing that is really important to the Second Life is the individual player.

I never take profiteers seriously when they complain that such and such is causing them to lose business, and Linden Labs needs to do something about it. They may hate me for professing this, but in all honesty, it is completely irrelevant period whether or not profiteers loose money. Whether they go out of business or suffer because for whatever reason is, and should be totally irrelevant to Second Life.

Profiteers are in Second Life as part of the Second Life. But their businesses and profiteering is not the responsibility of Second Life. If they feel they can profit off of something, more power to them. If not, then do something else. It is in no way whatsoever anybody’s responsibility to ensure that profiteers in SL prosper. If they expect the community to support them, they do not understand who they are and what their place is.

Any feature that is beneficial to the individual is an improvement of Second Life. The effects of various business entities should never be taken into consideration when discussing the improvement of Second Life. Any improvement of Second Life as a whole should be 100% absolutely and utterly focused on the individual and only the individual.

Profiteers may come and go. Their profiteering is purely their privilege, and nobody’s responsibility.

Example:
I do not know about GOM’s feelings about Linden Labs implementing the currency exchange platform into Second Life. Second Life wants to implement currency exchange so that players can trade Lindens for Dollars within the game.
1. In doing so, Linden Labs will have usurped GOMs entire market (all of their customers).
2. GOM will go out of business because of this. (This is irrelevant.)

The relevant question is this: Will the individual benefit from such interface? I would say that the individual player of Second Life would totally benefit from having an interface within the game to exchange currencies with other players.


It is no doubt that Linden Labs saw the profit potential in currency exchange which they might not have foreseen had not GOM taken all the risks, and built up their business. Therefore, it is only natural that Linden Labs would want to cash in on it themselves.

The question is, does GOM have any right to this market? Does GOM deserve anything?
If anybody thinks so, they are seriously deluding themselves. If I were in GOMs shoes, I would most certainly be upset that I will lose my entire business that I built up. But I would never in my sane mind delude myself into thinking that this is unfair or that I deserve anything.

Remember: The only thing any profiteer deserves is whatever profit they are taking. Or “making” if you want to call it that. Nothing more. Nobody is responsible for compensating me for my loss because of new features that will benefit the individual. Such attitude is warped.

Regardless of the affect on profiteers, if it is a feature that will benefit the individual, it is an improvement to Second Life. By all means such feature should not be denied out of regard for any profiteer.

Anybody making profit from this game needs to stop looking at themselves as some sort of benefactor that deserves anything. Every one of us profit takers are beneficiaries of Second Life. We take profit as it comes, and if it does not come, we need to adjust. It is not unfair to us when we lose profit. Most importantly, by all means do not go as far as to deny what you know will benefit the individual, and therefore Second Life. All for the sake of your profit.

If you want to deny features that will hurt your business, know that you are doing so because it is in your best interest of profit to do so. Not because you are under some deluded impression that you deserve anything.

I cannot stress how important it is, when discussing improvements to Second Life, to put the individual before any business including Linden Labs itself.

what nobility

ok, let's get down to basics.

1. Second Life is voluntary. If one doesn't like it, do something else. If one seriously objects to Linden Lab's business model (and granted they are trying something unusual), then maybe some other pasttime would suit better.

2. if one DOES like SL, then you would expect that person to want to see the platform and the technology get better. Everyone has different priorities for bug fixes and feature additions, and LL has to do it's best to chart a middle path that also suits their own needs.

3. Linden Lab is a business, not a charity. Playing SL is something you pay for, not a government-subsidized right for every citizen. For the platform and technology to improve, LL's business needs to succeed. Top priority features are those that help LL long-term as a business. They will do things that make some customers leave, but LL's business cannot be held prisoner to any single user or group of users. But a lot of what LL does is mutually beneficial to both their business and the user community.

4. There is no "player" -- no SL everyman. There are thousands of people engaged in SL, all doing different things with different goals and different agendas. In most cases a "business" within SL is an "individual", so your logic seems flawed to me.

I agree that we don't need excessive hubris. We don't need people assuming that they are doing Linden Lab such a huge favor just by gracing Second Life with their presence or their time. The world is made up of many people, each who play a role and make SL a whole -- a fragmented, sometimes fractious whole, but a whole just the same. No one is indispensable, as much as we all want to be.


PS: among my friends in SL, I think we're all just really happy to have such a cool, creative environment to be part of. We have our frustrations, but we are here because the pleasure we get out of SL outweighs the frustrations.

No, I don't think that GOM has any "right" to that market, nor does GOM necessarily "deserve" anything. There were some claims made by one of the founders of GOM - which I have not seen contested by Linden Lab - which to my eye is a cautionary tale of those who would invest heavily in providing SL associated services:

1. Linden Lab requested that GOM, which had already been established trading currencies from other MMPORGs, bring their services to SL
   
2. Linden Lab worked with GOM to provide the minimal interfaces needed for GOM to operate in SL
   
3. Linden Lab invited GOM to come explain their operation to LL
   
4. Linden Lab had offered consideration to GOM for their concepts and processes which GOM found unacceptable
   
5. Linden Lab announced that they would be implementing their own player-to-player currency exchange very similar to the GOM model
   

I'm not in a position to know nor judge the acceptability or reasonableness of (4), nor is anyone else. But I have not seen a refutation of the other points and have some personal knowledge which does support some of those contentions. Does this mean that GOM is owed anything? No. Should third-parties investing in SL services be aware of this to factor into their actions? I think so. Does this mean that Linden Lab is bad or evil, or that their providing in-game currency exchange is bad or good? I cannot make such judgements.

Contrariwise, per declaration of Robin Linden on or about 27-Aug-05, telehubs would not be removed from SL despite high player desire for such in order to not aversely impact the value of virtual land surrounding telehubs.

I think personally, telehubs should be eliminated other than for those on the islands wanting to have a specific spot for player to tp to. Other than that, it would be in the best interest of the players tp to whatever sim square they click on instantly. Would this damage certain businesses? Yes, but that is irrelevant of course.

I agree with you about GOM, and you stated something very important.
When starting a business in SL, you should know in advance that you have no legal or ethical rights to anything. You are starting a business for your profit. Profiteers need to be aware that interfaces can and should improve with complete disregard to the effect on your business. This is something every one of us profiteers should know, understand, support, and be prepared for. Not something we should cry and complain about or something we should try to prevent.

Perhaps it is something we should not support, and try to prevent. That can also be the case.

Maybe it is in our best interest to try to prevent it. But again, in doing so, we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we are trying to prevent it because it is bad for Second Life. Anytime a profiteer tries to implement or prevent something, it is always for the sake of profit, and profit only wether it is for the benefit of Second Life or not.
This is why I find it absurd when profiteers complain when things happen that don't benefit them.

I agree that a business entity is motivated by profit, this does not mean that they ignore the best interest of the buyer. If you are smart, you do the exact opposite. The customer's best interest is a big part of how you make money in most sales.

It is true that profit comes back to your motivation, but trade is not always a zero sum game. You don't have to trick the player into losing his money so you can gain it. Most trade happens because both sides benefit. Most sellers try to provide something that large numbers of people would benefit from, so that they can make a profit. Entertainment counts as a benefit.

As a business person, you don't make money by saying I will make a profit with no concern for what the customer feels. If you piss off all your customers to make a quick profit, your business will fail in the long run.

GOM has made alot of their users happy. GOM will not automatically lose all these customers just because there is competition.

With the amount of money Linden Labs make off of SL's growing in numbers, I think Linden Labs is more concerned with getting as many new paying members as they can. They can only get new paying members if they make people happy. Profit and customer benefit normally go hand in hand. They are not in opposition to each other.

As for Linden Labs, their profit mongering is out of control.
The fact that they plan to incorporate a spread into their currency exchange interface is rediculous. As I stated in another thread. They can and should implement this interface without any spreads. This is something all players and profiteers should fight for.
1. It is great that theyare going to implement such interface.
2. GOM will go out of business because of it, and that is not relevant. They should be happy with what they made.
3. Linden Labs should not do the same thing as GOM in the sense of incorporating a spread. Any exchange between players should be an even exchange as a feature of the game. Not as extra revenue for profit mongers. The only fees that need to be deducted are any transaction fees for withdrawing money. Any money deposited can be done the same way the user normally pays for the game.

It is still a service. Does Linden Labs have less of a right to collect fees for a service than their residents do? This is another reason why it is good that Linden Labs is adding to the competition as well. Every new exchange of this type will make the fees go down for each trade naturally. GOM and Linden Labs are going to have to compete with each other to get the selling activity from the residents. I wouldn't be suprised if more currency exchanges pop up as Second Life grows and supports larger volumes of trade.

Yeah, ok, except that I actually like my customers and try to please them.

Oh, and there's this thing called ... um ... fun.



Listen, you've been here 5 days, unless you are an alt, which is entirely possible. Users create the content in SL. The better the content is, the better SL is. Easy stuff.



Yeah, okay. I agree with this; it's nobody's fault but your own if you lose business.



I suppose this is the crux of your post; thanks for your opinion -- I don't know if you read the other threads about this issue though. Maybe you should, just to get some background.



Do not tell others how to view their business, whatever it is.

Exactly.
As I always heard it, first rule of marketing is to find out what people want or need, and give it to them. Then bill them for it.

I find problems with this type of “you don’t like it, you can go elsewhere” attitude. I do not see how this is practical in any situation.


Yes. Linden Labs is a full profit company. That doesn’t mean we as users could care less. Of course we want to make them more user friendly like Google, and prevent them from becoming psychopaths like AOL, Yahoo, and other leeches.

I can easily sit there, rip you off, and tell you that if you do not like it, you can go elsewhere. But of course do it in a very subtle way. And even better, make you believe I am helping you. Even really good marketers do not understand this concept that can bring businesses serious profits. Especially in America where we are so subjective and have no sense of logic. Our reasoning is defined by: “they would never do such a thing”. Well, think again because they would and are. And if you do not understand this you might be too without noticing.

I'll try to illustrate this as clear as possible.

Many of things that can profit Linden Labs are not always fair to the individual or in the best interest of the individual. There are 3 major entities in Second Life:
1. Linden Labs
2. The individual (player or user or whatever you want to call it)
3. The businesses (profiteers)

So what is really in the best interest of the individual?
To get the most out of the Second Life experience at the lowest cost. (Whether playing for business or pleasure.) Whether you like the concept of the individual (everyman) or not, this is a standard.

Does the best interest of Linden Labs go hand in hand with the best interest of the individual?
No of course not. Yet many seem to believe so. The fact is that their best interests directly conflict:
A. It is in the best interest of Linden Labs to get the most out of the individual, buy providing the least. Revenue - Expenses = Profit.
B. It is in the best interest of the individual to get the most our of Linden Labs, at the least cost.

This is where the transaction between LL and the player is defined. A price is set by Linden Labs, and agreed upon by the layer. Simple.


Regardless, assuming they want to be ethical, Linden Labs has the responsibility of being fair to the individual, and facilitating fair game play in an environment of freedom. (Note: Being fair to the individual is in no way the same as having regard for profiteers. Profiteers are not the individual, and do not represent the individual.)

I’m not trying to be noble or whatever. I’m simply taking it from an objective ethical standpoint.

Linden Labs may well make much bigger profits if they take advantage of the individual instead of treat them fairly. It is very possible for them to do this. It is very possible for them to make much more money doing this than they would by being fair to the players. Especially if they did it using serious marketing tactics, as stated above, to make the individual believe they are doing so for the betterment of the individual.


From an ethical standpoint, Second Life (when I use this term I am referring to the community) is not Linden Labs. Speaking about improving Second Life is not the same thing as speaking about improving the size of Linden Lab’s profits.

To illustrate:
#1. Say Feature-X would be cool and beneficial to the individual’s experience in SL.

#2. Linden Labs calculates that Feature-X might cost them time and money to implement. But they project that their financial growth would be just about the same whether they would implement Feature X or not. Ultimately, there is no profit in it because it would cost them to do, but earn them nothing.

#3. Certain profiteers might go out of business if Feature-X is implemented.

So here we have it:
1. Is Feature-X beneficial to the individual? Totally!
2. Is Feature-X beneficial to Linden Labs? No.
3. Is Feature-X beneficial to the profiteer? No.

In conclusion, as long as Linden Labs can afford implementing Feature-X, and because it is to the benefit of the individual which should come first and foremost, there is really no reason not to implement it. If however, Feature-X would hurt Linden Labs financially, and they simply cannot afford to implement the feature, it is only fair that they wait until they make more money before implementing it. Improving Second Life is and only is improving the game play features for the individual.


What is a profiteer?
The profiteer is an entity specifically existing for profit.

As a player of course, we are all in to have fun. Even if we are there to make some Ls.
If you intentionally buy or sell something at no profit to you, you are not acting as a profiteer (profit taking entity). It is simply you as a player enjoying the game, and the community.

Perhaps you might engage in transactions or jobs here and there for fun and profit. Any changes of features and such do not really affect you. And really, you could care less if they did. That is because the improvement of Second Life outweighs the importance of whatever business you engage in. You understand that Second Life including its facilitators, Linden Labs, owe nothing to your business enterprise.

If you are doing large business or any small time business, you losing your business because of a feature that improves Second Life is not in anyway unfair to you. You understand that you do business in Second Life at your own discretion, and nobody has the responsibility of accommodating you.

A profiteer is really somebody doing something in Second Life for the sake of making profit. And having fun doing so. That doesn’t mean they do not play SL for other reasons as well.

You might have built your business from scratch, and went through a lot of things. And a new feature might put you out of business. To claim that anybody has some sort of obligation “not to do this to you” is absurd. We all should know and understand that whatever business we build and do is for our profit, and that is great that we can do that. Anybody doing business in SL, as long as they are in their right mind, understands that their business can be wiped out at any time by a new feature.

I see posts claiming that SL should or shouldn’t do such and such because doing so might cause businesses to suffer. This is insanity. What is really insane is assuming that it would be in all fairness to accommodate you so that you as a profiteer don’t suffer.

If you as a profiteer makes such complaints with intention to manipulate SL into accommodating you for your profit, that is one thing. But if you believe that making special accommodations for profiteers is in all fairness to you as a profiteer, and therefore, the improvement of Second Life, you are seriously deluding yourself.

well, it is boiling the situation down to brass tacks, I agree. The point is that the consumer here has the power. They can vote with their feet and their pocket book. SL is not for everyone -- it is structurally very different from other online "games" and thus won't suit everybody. You know what -- that's OK! There's nothing wrong with someone saying "SL is too boring or too expensive" and there's nothing wrong with Linden Lab saying "I don't need everybody on the planet as my customer right now."

The other point is that if you DO decide to stay with SL, it is in your interest to see Linden Lab successful and a profitable company. Anything else is a short-sighted "me, me" mentality ... like someone cutting down their entire forest for firewood and then wondering why they can't stay warm the next winter. That cuts both ways for customers and Linden Lab. It's a ridiculously cliche'd statement by now, but its true that good, longstanding partnerships are win-win on both sides.

I'd argue more with some other points, but I just don't see your perspective on business as very sophisticated, to be brutally honest. Sorry.

Ahem.

I'm sorry, but you had best learn the definitions of the words you're using. You're being unintentionally insulting. At least, I hope it's not intentional.

Main Entry: profiteer
Function: noun
One who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit esp. on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency (as during wartime) —profiteer intransitive verb


Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Businesses in SL provide a service to their customers. It's wrong to call them profiteers, because in RL, "profiteering" is charging an unfair fee for a service that isn't worth the money--price gouging, or deceptive marketting, or shoddy merchandise.

It is unfair to label quality businesses from which you buy stuff you like as "profiteers."

On the other hand, if someone sells you stuff with deceptive claims, or of low quality that doesn't do what it was purported to do, you have every right to be hacked off. People who get landed in the people traps at the teleport hubs have a right to be hacked off. Those businesses are profiteers

It is unfair to label businesses you don't do business with but whose customers are satisfied with the transaction profiteers.

Accusing honest businesses of profiteering either means you don't know the meaning of the word or are inherently hostile to anyone running a business.

Businesses provide a function by providing people who can't make stuff or don't have the time with the opportunity to buy quality stuff for a price agreeable between a willing buyer and a willing seller.

SL would be a much more boring place without the content provided by businesses in the way of quality stuff people want to buy.

That said, the players and residents might be a lot happier if SL had some better zoning.

SL might as well be a country. Investment enters or retreats from a country based on the stability of the government and stability of the business climate under that government.

Businesses, just like customers and governments, would like a free pass. Everybody would like a free pass.

But what businesses find essential is a certain stability of the rules. Not that the rules be static and never change, but that changes be measured and relatively predictable to reduce the risk of investing.

When rules change frequently, wildly, and arbitrarily, investment risks go up, and businesses and investors invest their time and money elsewhere. For example, people coding in SL might go code shareware, or start a garage band and sell their CDs over the internet, or freelance as graphic artists, or otherwise use their talents and time to make money elsewhere.

And when that happens, the people who want to shop at those businesses and *want* to buy their goods lose out---suddenly there are no jewelry vendors making new jewelry, and the freebie stuff looks like crap, for example. (not that it does, I haven't checked--just an example).

Of course, the lesson to be learned from the GOM event is that if LL asks you to come explain your operation to them, politely decline and begin divestment immediately. You may have more time to divest while they figure out how to duplicate your work. Or, if they will pay you a consulting fee you think is worth it, up front, when you have bargaining position to accept or decline, you might take them up on it. But definitely never explain for free.

Not that LL are bad folks or villains. It's just that if you run a business, you should consider all the implications before you choose to consult for free. You might still decide to do so, but better to think first, because you can't untip your hand.

BlueWillow

Divestment, in this case, is that GOM should offer less US$ for Lindens, just like Comics stores quit buying comics when the bottom fell out of the market. Unload their inventory of $L.

Cash out.

This is only true in the short term. If your logic is correct, then it would be great for LL to have 100's of employees working endlessly to provide a wondrous amazing product only to learn later that their wages for this project is US$1 an employee, because it was decided that the user would be charged 1 cent for joining to best benefit the individual. Do you think people would continue to pay for the running of the servers and continue to provide more when they recieve less? Suddenly the product disappears, and neither the creators or the users benefit. It is in the best interest of the individual to pay the correct value of the product they are buying.

The concept in trade is how do I provide people with something valuable, so I in return get something I value. I'm not saying trading is a selfless thing. I'm saying trading is a win-win situation, and it is not a win as much as I can hurt as much as I can situation. People who get taken advantage of may have been tricked into giving more than something is worth. It is every individual's responsibility to be wary that scammers exist. If you have come to think that Linden Labs has taken advantage of you, then you are a fool to continue to trade with them. As far as I can tell, Linden Labs is not corrupt in any way. I have never heard of any evidence they are cheating anyone in any way.

I agree with you GOM does not count as a case of cheating someone. It is a shame they did not buy the knowledge of those that own GOM, but like everyone else; they are free to choose what they do and don't buy. Some may say taking the rating bonus away is a cheat, but in the terms of service they reserve the right to make changes such as this. They have been conducting business in a legal straight forward way. To statement that they are profiteers is what is unfair.

Not that this is an accurate picture of the entire population of SL, but it is pretty telling.

/120/79/61708/1.html

I have recently begun to wonder why land near a telehub is deemed as more valuable seeing as how I TP to a hub, take off and fly away to my destination. I pretty much see NOTHING at a hub because it takes too long to rez. I never questioned the telehubs until someone started requestiong point to point teleporting. I figured they were just a way of life. Well, I ran this poll, and it seems to indicate that the majority of players do what I do...so if that is the case, what would make Telehub land so valuable? People in the thread posted above indicate that they do more exploring near their destination than they do near the telehubs because, generally speaking, the hubs are too laggy and take too long to rez.
Someone argued that the plots near a telehub get more traffic (dwell)...however, to get any $$ from traffic someone must stay on the land parcel for at least 5 minutes, how does that happend when almost 75 percent of the players fly right over immediately?

Now I understand there are certain activity sims, games, etc. that require a common TP point and those have value. My question is wouldn't it be more beneficial to offer a new $L sink by allowing people to pay $10L - $25L for point to point TP-ing than to continue protecting the seemingly imagined value of telehub land? It could be turned off in areas where the TP point is absolutely necessary to the function of the sim. Not even 10 % spend enough time to affect the dwell in a telehub area or to provide those places with any type of business unless that business was their desired destination. People who are really annoyed by telehubs have already found a way around them...they use ROAM.

I'd really like to know what businesses would be hurt if point to point TP-ing was implemented! Just to understand the importance of protecting the value of the land.

GOM is an exchange, not a store. GOM has no inventory. They hold accounts in both L$ and US$. The only ones able to cash out are the holders of those accounts.

Of course you do. What you are saying is simply not true. The point is that as a profiteer:
*If it is ultimately profitable for you to piss off your customer/customers, YOU DO IT.
*If it is ultimately profitable for you to treat your customers well, YOU DO IT.
*If it is ultimately profitable for you to take advantage of your customers, YOU DO IT.
*If it is ultimately profitable for you to be completely honest with your customers, YOU DO IT.

You make it seem as if I am stating that as a profiteer, you take advantage of your customers. That is not what I intended to imply. As a profiteer, the objective is to make profit. Doing so may or may not mean taking advantage of your customers. Therefore, you have to find the best strategy that works do the best degree.



What are you trying to get at?
First of all, I do not see how this is relevant. If users can do currency exchange in-game as opposed to using GOM, there is no reason to use GOM. It doesn’t matter how happy they are with GOM. There is no reason to use GOM if SL has a more convenient and affordable interface. SL has every reason to implement it. Therefore, GOM will be no more. GOM would no longer be necessary to anybody. Assuming LL does implement this within the game which they very well should.



I agree with this. The added competition would drive the spreads lower. That would be great, but it really is not necessary if LL simply creates an interface with zero spread. They can do this. There is really no reason I can think of for them not to do this. Just like there are no fees when we chat with each other. There are no fees when we transfer Ls with each other. They could so easily implement the ability to do currency exchange with no spreads as well. It would be easy for any scripter. Ergo, no need to worry about competition when currency exchange is free. This in every way would be great for us. There are different opinions about it. I am all for free currency exchange. I think it would be reasonable for us to have such interface without tacking on a spread, and unnecessary for them to do so.



This is by all means not the crux of my post.



It is not short sighted. It is not necessarily in the interest of the individual to see Linden Labs profit. It is necessarily in the best interest of the individual to pay the least to LL as possible. How hard is that to understand? You as a player, whether you intend to stay in SL or not, want to pay as little as possible for as much service as possible. That has nothing to do with your presumption of having a “me me” mentality. If Linden Labs is profiting at the expense of the player of course it is not in the best interest of the player. That is not a win win situation. It is uncalled for.

LL has 2 sources of revenue. Member fees, and land tier fees/island-sim services.
To be reasonable, where really does this “if you don’t like it you can leave” attitude get you?

A user might complain that LL is auctioning off mainland sims to the rich instead of making them available to all. A user might complain about LL would want to profit off of the currency exchange system that a user.
OK fine will if the user does not like it, he can leave. Give me a break and get real. You know very well that this attitude is not a win win attitude. This is a tyrannical attitude. My way or the highway mentality does not do anybody any good.

The individual knows that LL does make all the decisions and whatever. It changes nothing. What good is even having a community forum if you do not even listen to the users? LL even holds events to take into consideration the opinions of the users. Sure this game is not for everybody, but if LL would not be reasonable, this game would probably be for nobody. If they LL was so unreasonable as to abide by such my way or the highway attitude, I doubt very much they would be where they are today.

Your point from what I understand is that we would want to see LL profit. All good and fine if LL profits. Acquire more members, and make more money. The more the merrier. This does not mean we want to pull out our pocket books, and start donating to the LL fund. This certainly does not mean we will not complain when that profiting is coming out of our pockets. We are not here to as you say, “vote with our pocketbooks”. We are here to play this game as best as possible, and at least cost to us.

Ultimately, the individual wants more and better features, but does not want to pay for it. It doesn’t matter who you are. Everybody want more for less. Should the individual really care if Linden Labs profits or not? Probably not. If LL profits, the game might get better or it might not get better. If the individual thinks LL should profit, fine. If they could care less, fine too. The point is that nobody is trying to stop LL from profiting. LL may or may not profit. Life goes on the same either way.

What we do care about is when LL is going too far at our expense. Therefore, we complain or try to do something. There is nothing wrong with that. It is only natural. Telling us that we can leave if we don’t like it instead of listening to us gets nobody anywhere. It’s up to LL to decide if they want to listen or not. That does not mean we will not say what we want. That does not mean it is a “me me” mentality. Even if it did mean that, what isn’t a “me me” mentality? When LL goes overboard with their profit mongering, you do not call it a “me me” mentality. Of course I am going to speak out against things that unnecessarily affect the me or the individual in general.

If you want to flame me about how my business perspective is unsophisticated, there is no point in you participating.



Yes! Thank you! That is a perfect definition. Or were you trying to contradict mine? Similar really.



I see your point. Profiteer is a loaded statement I use. It may not have been fair to whichever “honest” businesses out there. The purpose of using the term was to illustrate that the sole purpose of a business is profit. The reason I do so is so that we as profiteers (business entities if you prefer) tend to delude ourselves into thinking we are doing anybody a favor.

1. Business entities exist for profit. Our businesses are not charities. Business entities are profit makers.
2. The existence of profit making businesses in Second Life is not an improvement of Second Life. The interface that allows us to do profit making businesses in Second Life is an improvement of Second Life.
3. If profit makers play a function in Second Life, it is only and should only be because the invisible hand market allows them to.
4. The best interest of Second Life is in no way shape or form equal to the best interest of the profit maker.
5. Individual profit makers need not delude themselves into believing that they are operating in the best interest of Second Life. The individual profit maker operates in the best interest of their own profit.
6. The attitude that we need to take steps to support the prosperity of businesses for the betterment of SL is a deluded justification. We only need to take steps to constantly improve the quality of the end user game interface/content. The prosperity of businesses should be left to the free invisible hand market. We should in no way support business prosperity, but leave businesses to the whim of the free market.

You are arguing that businesses play a function in SL, and it would be a boring place without them. Therefore what? It changes nothing. The best interest of Second Life remains in no way equal to the best interest of the businesses which is profit.
Feature Focus A: Improving the ability of businesses to provide content for the individual. (Improving business ability to profit.)
Feature Focus B: Improving the end-user interface, and game content.

FFB is very important with regard to improving Second Life. FFA should be left to the invisible hand of the free market.

What is freedom?
I’ve had to explain what freedom is in many places so we do not get our definitions mixed up. I will do it here.
Freedom is being able to do anything and everything you want to do as long as you are not maliciously physically harming any person or their possessions. There is a little more to freedom but that is basically it. (What I am basically proposing is that part of what makes you free is your lack of freedom to hurt others.) It’s a little contradictory, but I hope it makes sense.

With regard to SL, we can say that freedom is, for players, to be free to do whatever they want to do without limitation (Provided of course they are not maliciously abusing other players or committing any exploits/hacks. This is usually outlined in the TOS.)


What is important is this. When discussing an improvements, to know whether what you are discussing is for your business profit or for the betterment of Second Life(this being the freedom/gaming quality of the end user). As such, if you are asking for a feature or rule that will improve the ability of businesses to provide content, you are asking for support outside of the invisible market.



This is a completely different topic that I will not go into too much. I don’t know who you are or what you know about the concept of freedom. Such laws have practical purpose in RL due to the nature of our environment and city systems (although sometimes unjustly). With regard to SL I cannot stress how unfair zoning is to players. It is a limitation on what to do with their land. This is in no way conducive to the freedom of the individual. It does however have profitable implications for various businesses.



I would love for everything to be so stable that I would endure less risk, and maximize profit. But I am not going to delude myself by purporting that I want more stability so that businesses can prosper in order to maximize content for the end user. I want everything to stabilize because I need it to in order to maximize profits period. The same goes for everybody in business.

You suggested 2 things. Zoning and economic stability/standardization. Both of suggestions are not focused on end user interface/game play. They are both focused on business prosperity. Whether the end user benefits from this or not, the point is this. These features are profitable to you as a business. Therefore it is profitable for you to pursue them. You do not need to justify it.



This sounds like a tantrum. Sorry, but we do not need to learn anything from GOM to understand that businesses exist for profit. Therefore, if LL does something that causes us to lose profit, we need to get over it and move on. You’re entire rant about how LL took advantage of GOM consultation is so far from any realistic focus on the player. Whatever happened between GOM and LL is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there is a good possibility for players to have an interface that allows them to exchange currencies in0game.

You act as if GOM should have took precautions or that they should not have put such trust in LL. The only mistake GOM and any other business here can and will ever make is to lose track of the fact that we are here to profit, and that we are expendable.

What are you talkind about? What is your point? The fact doesn't change. Everybody’s best interest is to get everything in exchange for nothing.



The concept of profit is how can I get the most at the least cost to me.



This does not follow any pattern. You are saying that if Linden Labs took advantage of you costing you 1L, you would not continue to trade with them. You are a fool to discontinue because of that.



That doesn’t mean nobody else has.



How is that a shame? Buy what? What for? GOM’s business is currency exchange. They made profit from this business. Linden Labs implementing an interface into SL is a good thing for SL. GOM has no rights or claim over it. They do not own it. GOM is just a business proving service, and making money. Nobody is treating anybody unfair in any sense.

It is Second Life that allows us to have these businesses. Without Second Life, GOM would not have their $/L currency exchange business. It is a business that they profit through as they participate in Second Life.



Of course it is fair Linden Labs are total profit mongers, and have proven it.



1. What would be more beneficial is simply allowing players to TP wherever they want.
2. I easily say that land in a telehub is in high demand with good reason. Telehub lands naturally get more traffic than the regular sim. Doing business on a telehub sim is more profitable for the land owner.

1. yes that would be most efficient but LL does not want to do something that will help some but hurt others...I'm trying to figure out if it will actually hurt others or not...the value of telehub land may be an illusion being fronted by land dealers who want to make more off that land. I havn't heard one response from a person who owns land near a telehub saying how their location helped their business, and the poll I posted seems to indicate that people do not look around at the telehubs, they just fly away. So I'm not arguing that just implementing p2p TP would be a good move for everyone, I'm just saying that LL believes it will hurt people who own that land, probably mostly because they won't be able to make back the amount they origionally paid for the land. I hope to prove to LL that using it as a sink to further try to stabilize the economy would be a nice trade-off because it would help to bring the value of the $L back up. Probably a lost cause because many of the Land dealers are arguing LOUDLY against it and since so much of the $$ LL gets is from them they will probably prevail.

2. If you mean traffic in the sense that more people fly through them then yes..but if you mean traffic like dwell...maybe, maybe not...to get any $L from dwell someone has to be on a plot of land for more than 5 minutes...if 75% of the players are flying out directly to another destination....how does that increase the dwell? If telehub land gets more dwell it is only because there are stores that people want to go to in them. If those stores were not in the telehub sims then those sims would not get the dwell. Whether or not a telehub sim sees more traffic is irrelevant if the land owner sees the same ammount of traffic whether in a telehub sim or not. The dwell payment goes to the land owner, not the sim as a whole.

The paragraph I quoted is an example of you making a profit sound like taking advantage of someone. I think you see a profit as taking advantage of someone, because you do not see the trade as a win win situation if profit is involved. You think the profit is uncalled for.

We both agree profit is motvation. My point is that the more a person profits, the more they are motivated. The more Linden Labs profits, the more they want to provide Second Life. You reduce that profit, and they may stop providing the service and do something that makes them a better profit.

The my way or the highway is what sellers have to face, not buyers. It is the sellers job to determine what the customer wants. If they don't give the customer what they want, they lose the motivation of profit, and they will continue not to profit until they figure out what the customer wants. If the buyer doesn't get what they want, they go to the person that will give them what they want. The ability to go elsewhere is the only protection buyers have from being taken advantage of.

Yes you would be a fool for still dealing with Linden Labs if they intentionally took advantage of you by tricking you out of $L1. If they can trick you out of $L1 they can trick you out of more.

The point where we disagree is whether profit is the sole influence on companies with no regard for the customer unless it profits. Trade only happens when both sides benefit. If you gain nothing for what you give someone else when you knew you would get nothing, it is your fault. Trickery is not a business practice that will get you repeat customers. Trickery is uncalled for. Making a profit is not.

If you make a profit in a legitimate way, then the person you are making a profit from knows exactly what they are giving up in exchange for something else. Profit is never uncalled for unless you tricked the person into thinking they were getting something they were not.

Every company is motivated by profit. No company can force people to give them that profit. If people don't want to give a seller profit, that seller has to hit the highway and find out what people do want. It is all about what people want unless trickery is involved. You still have not proven trickery, so there is no call for you calling people profiteers and profit mongers. Just because you are trying to get a profit, does not mean that you are doing things that doesn't benefit them.

Your proof is a complicated issue that effects more than just one individual in different ways. You can't say it is proof that Linden Labs wants to profit at the expense of others misfortune, because the issue effects different individuals in different ways. Some of these individuals might even be non-business people. Anyone with land by a telehub will lose land value no matter who they are.

Your votes might be measured in how much you profit the seller, but the buyer controls what the seller provides. The seller can't force the buyer to want what he sells, so it illogical for your thinking that anyone but Linden Labs and other sellers are being faced with a my way or the highway scenario.

I've been working on revising this several times to see if I can actually get my point across.

The only time making a profit is uncalled for is when trickery is involved. If trickery is not involved, then both sides benefit. If I want $L1000, and you want US$3.50 and we decide to trade. We both benefit. I get my $L, you get your US$. If the price drops to L$1000 for US$1, have either side lost their benefit. No! I got my lindens through my choice to trade. You got your US$ through your choice to trade. My benefit is worth less, but I got the benefit I wanted in exchange for the cost I was willing to spend.

You are missing the whole point of trading if you think that people do not benefit each other from trading. If people don't benefit each other from trade then we should just get rid of money all together. What is the point. Is money just a means for one person to give one person as little as possible for as much as possible? No! Money is the means by which people give each other what they want.

Linden Labs is offereing you something you want through currency exchange. They might ask for something in return. This is certainly not uncalled for. It is not uncalled for one person to ask for something in return for what they paid another person.

Many people gave Linden Labs a large amount of money for land that had telehubs. Many other people gave those people lots of money to also own land near a telehub. Linden Lab does not want these people to feel tricked by removing the value of the telehub completely. Is that proof of someone only concerned about their profit? Are they not trying to make their customers happy.

This is several problems in one. one, Telehubs are a less than satisfactory solution to transportation. P2P is the correct course. LL should choose P2P for the good of SL as a whole, as well as most players. But a problem LL and a few players created was to create a premium market for Telehub land. So LL doesn't want to upset "numba one customa" and maybe a few others, so they keep telehubs, at the expense of SL an almost every other customer. Bad decision on LL's part, as usual. If they feel loyalty to one customer who bet on Telehubs, even though that person had a lot of forewarning to divest in that land, they should have made the right decision for SL and the community, and given that favorite customer some extra land to keep that person happy.

But they didn't. Poor judgment. Totally predictable.

LL rarely misses a chance at shooting themselves in the foot.

Just like the economy. They could fix it quite easily, but that would entail a decision to stop screwing it up. At best they don't seem to know, at all, what they are doing. By removing land from the L$ economy, it is exactly as if they had dumped a huge volume of L$ into the SL economy. Most land transactions are probably outside of the L$ economy now. Removing half of the transactions from an economy overnight is like printing twice the money and handing it out overnight. That's a technique one country would do to another as an act of war - flood another country with perfect counterfeit money to destroy their economy. Maybe LL really don't understand how that works. If that is the case, then Philip and crew are not bright people. Either that, or they knew what they were doing to the SL economy but really didn't care. For how they treated GOM, and the SL community in many matters, suggests that "don't care about anyone" could also be the problem.