What do you think about basic stipends?

Yes, but the sellers who go elsewhere will get a lower rate and make less money. Those who are patient will get the full amount. If anything, those that are impatient and sell at a lower level will reduce the time that those who want more money for the L$ will wait for it.

Yes, some will go elsewhere, but it's their choice to sell at that rate. They will push the rates down elsewhere, and dig their own holes. The peopel who sell below the current rate are hurting themselves and everyone else. Let them lie in their own bed.

If they want their financial situation to depend on a fake currency that doens't even have half an economy to hold it up, that's their decision. But frankly, I think that's nuts.

If you are one to actually believe that as of this post, 44 premium members have voted to only 10 basic members...

I have some very valuable telehub land I'd like to sell you.

Think about it for a minute...

...would anyone have anyreason to mislead in picking the first three choices?

Now can you say the same about the final choice, which not surprisingly, is overwhelmingly distancing itself from the rest of the choices.

Basics know that the only choice that has any real meaning in this poll is the one indicating that premium members are fine with the stipend.

Hence the predictable result.

It's their choice to sell on LindeX too. Rather than asking LL to rig the market to your liking and kill everyone's liquidity, I would encourage YOU to set up a fixed rate currency exchange where everyone will always sell for L$250. Either you could buy for L$251 and sell for L$250 yourself, or you could queue sellers at L$250 for months until someone stupid enough to pay that price comes along.

I don't want to wait for months to sell for L$250 on LindeX, I value liquidity. If I can have 99 cents for something now, or a dollar three months from now, I'm taking 99 cents any day, and rasing my in-world pricing just a tiny little touch to compensate for the penny.

Votes include names, just click on numbers so you can see if any basic member voted for the 4th choice

SSshhhh...

Fact: Each premium member has the potential of having anywhere from one to four (and in some cases more than four) additional basic alts. Just one of those things that make you say ... hhrmmmm

Which is why I think that rather than getting into a pissing match by trying to come up with a way to tax income or capital gains to pay for stipends, or dumping the premium accounts completely and having everyone buy Tier and Lindens (and increasing their cuts from tier and Lindex to compensate fo rthe lost revenue) Linden Labs is using the exchange rate as a tax.

A month ago I'd have picked a different choice.

I think it's not at all surprising that the majority of the people voting in a poll in the "Land and the Economy" forum are premium members.

You miss my point entirely. But let me try to clarify.

First of all, I think we can all agree that for the most part, there is no such thing as a strictly premium member. it has been well documented that most premium members have basic alt accounts.

So for purposes of this poll...

If residents A through Z have only one premium account, but multiple basic alt accounts...

1. Should residents A through Z be considered premium members or basic members?

2. Could the fact that chosing anything other than choice "D" on this poll, thereby advocating the potential elimination of a basic stipend subsidy amounting to several hundred extra linden per week for some "premium" members, have a bearing on how they chose on this poll?

3. Could this undermine the credibility of this poll?

Moral of the story?

There's more to this poll than meets the eye.

Premium.
Are you implying that there's enough people here with half a dozen credit cards all packed with Alts (at a cost of $40 (or L$12000) per card) to throw the poll off?

I can assure you I'm not one of them, if so.

Your point of view is noted. But not exactly accurate is it?



The only implication here is the one you made. I merely stated fact. And those facts are...

1. Most premium members have basic alt accounts.

2. Basic alt accounts generate revenue.

3. Premium members may value the revenue said basic alt accounts provide.

4. They may not be willing to part with said revenue.

and...

5. Do the above facts present the potential for a skewed poll?



ok.

Shaun, you are right. My "silent majority" conclusion is not the only explaination for the discrepancy.

Although, you would need to hold a view quite a bit stronger than I do to bother logging through alts to vote in an ultimately quite meaningless poll. Sorry I just don't see the point.

Also, I am surprised those darstardly "socialists" have been able to corner the market in using "many tactics to skew things in their favour."

And when 99 cents take a while to sell, you'll post at 98 cents. Then when 98 cents takes too long to sell, you'll post at 97 cents... etc. etc. Hence the L$ falling and everyone getting bent out of shape. The amount you have in-hand is not the driving factor for your decision to sell below the market rate. By your own statement it's the speed of your transaction. Since most people want their money *now* they will do the same as you. You will be in a price war with other sellers, and you'll force the price down and down.

I'm just suggesting a solution. Sounds to me like you're fine with the current situation. Personally, I don't care as I'm a buyer not a seller, but I like a good discussion.

The cause for the Lindex decline is certain people putting up large (3 million+ L$) blocks at 300. I don't know why everyone's still obsessed with L$50/wk stipends.

A "wall" is built at low amounts and the wall takes forever to get eaten through. This is because there are certain people who benefit from the Lindex being low. It makes their deals look sweeter. I don't really need to name names. People should have figured it out for themselves by now.

Don't believe me, fine. Look at the 90 day market history, and observe how the later half of it looks like a 'suspension bridge' held up by posts at 300. But it's ok, nobody will listen to this, either.

But this whole "It's the stipends!" crap has been pleasingly and sufficiently distracting to the public, much to the delight of the folks trying to drive the L$ down.

And, Lewis, you mentioned that the "big sellers simply adjust their prices". That's a load. I don't know of any sellers who have, ever. Our avs have always been L$900; that was $4.15 at one point, now its $3.10. If we went up to $1000, and the 'usd$ cost' of the avs went up to $3.50, people would throw an absolute unmitigated fire and brimstone fit. We already have people regularly saying that our 'extortionate' price of US$3.10 is "highway robbery", "rape", and even "terrorism".

These are probably the same people, however, who thinks that $4.50 is 'reasonable' for a Starbucks, which will give you a buzz for an hour and then be transformed into urine.

I'm one of the premium members who voted that I'm fine with the stipends, but there is no way on the poll to explain why. I do think the stipends should stay, at least as a temporary enticement to get people to upgrade to premium, or at least a payed basic. I have a basic alt (Payed basic) and no, he didn't vote.
Anyways to get to what i was thinking when I voted, I see no problem with keeping the stipend, but with adjustments to how everything works.

1: Non payed basics get L$50 per week for the first.....say 3 months, then drop down to L$25 per week for another...say 3 months...then drop it to zero after that point, or just keep supplying them the L$25 either way, it would cut the largest part of the L's going into the system in half

2: Payed basics get the L$50 per week....why not they payed into the system, give them a little bit of a reward to continue playing and consider upgrading at some point rather then alienating them

3: Premium with 512 tier or less gets L$250 per week, it will give them more incentive to pay a little more and go into the next tier to get the L$500

4: Premium with +512 gets L$500 per week. Now you could go into higher tiers such as +sim gets say $L1000 per week to create even more incintive

Now since keeping these stipends flowing into the system does weaken the value, LL should help out those willing to make the leap into higher tiers and provide ways to pay for their land with L$, even if it's just a percentage to get some off the market, or take full payment in L$ destroy so many and put the remainder on the market at a price where they will earn their US$ back. At first it may be slow for them to recover the funds, but since they will be eliminating the large stock piles of L$ in circulation this way, and there will be fewer sellers of L$ in the market since most people selling the L is doing it to cover tier, it should quickly turn around.

This can be argued against in many ways I'm sure, and if it can be, I know it will be in here. I think alot in here would argue to the death whether the sky is really blue or not (Even if they both agree), but at least it's a suggestion that should benifit all and not just pointing out all the problems.
Anyways, take it as you will

I think the basic stipend is fine. Not everyone who plays SL makes money from it, in-game or out. Not everyone who plays is a content creator with something to sell. Some people play just to have fun, socialize, and/or escape, for a time, the daily routine of their everyday lives. For these players, the stipend is helpful. And I really don't see how a small stipend could possibily harm other players who have the time and talent to use SL as a business venture.

A side note: I read a statement in the forums (not sure where or when) that the average SL player is financially well-off. Although that may be true for the majority, there are players in SL who don't fit into that category, and who truly can't afford to purchase Linden dollars frequently in order to have money to spend in-game.

I think it would be a mistake to remove stipends.

Sign me up for option 5: The stipends are a problem, but fix the money sinks instead.

And, those 'deleted USDs' would have to be IN your wallet before they could be deleted.

Thinking that you're entitled to the historic value of the L$ when you sell L$'s is unsubstantiated by law, rights, or the TOS. We get what we get. Sometimes more, but more often less.

LL has the right to mint L$'s as they like. If they choose to continue devaluing the L$'s to subsidize everyone else in SecondLife... and they think LL and most of SL benefits from it, why should they stop?

If basic members didnt get money, there would be less of them.

The world would be emptier, and I, (a premium player who also pays for land and buys lindens occasionally to pay content providers) may leave as it would be too empty.

Content providers create content, but people in themselves are also content.

Yes, I am, after all its part of the premium package whose description is here:

http://secondlife.com/whatis/plans.php

It includes a 500/week stipend. Yes, I'm paying for my stipend.



Not really. Just keep the lindens in game and use your rl bank account.. its a game to me, not a profit machine

I am a premium member and basic stipends should be removed. - 9.71%
I am a basic member and basic stipends should be removed. - 4.85%
I am a basic member and basic stipends are fine. - 14.56%
I am a premium member and basic stipends are fine. - 70.87%

That's about where I figured the numbers would be.

I predicted the outcome long ago.

Surely, you read my posts?

Most people, including myself, know very little about basic economics, much less it's more complicated innerworkings. Why would you expect them to agree to "relieve themselves" of the income that basic stipends provide, when they don't understand the benefits of such a sacrifice?

SL's economist, a professional in the field, stated that she is "fairly certain that stipends are contributing to the decline of the linden."

The fact that this statement hasn't had more of an impact (and this is what this poll clearly indicates), are a good indication as to how much people really care about SL's economy, or their willingness to sacrifice, or otherwise do whatever is necessary, to do something about it.

In what way is it not accurate?
The first is a fact.

The second is a fact.

The third is a supposition.

The fourth is a supposition.

The fifth is a leading question.

No, you didn't "merely state fact". You stated a mix of facts and speculation and finished it with a leading question.

What bothers me are the people who want to relieve themselves of the benefits that other people's basic stipends provide, when they don't understand those benefits.
Is the decline of the Linden a problem, or merely a politically acceptable way of taxing profits?

Specifically as it applies to this poll, you have a person who is subscribed to "ONE" premium account, and at the same time subscribed to "ONE or MORE" basic accounts, and to you it is accurate to describe this person as a premium member "only?"

In the least, you should be able to admit the obvious ... and that is that they are a combination of both. But to assert that they should be classified as "only" premium members, specifically as it applies to this poll, is well...woefully innacurate.



Thank you for admitting the obvious.



Thanks again for admitting the obvious.



To say that "Premium members "MAY" value the revenue said basic alt accounts provide" is a fact. "May" implies that they may, or they may not. Given that there are no other options left other than those of "they may" or "may not" ... how is this not a fact?

Had I said premium members "would" value the revenue...could be considered a supposition, but this would more accurately be described as an assumption.



See above.



The question "Do the above facts present the potential for a skewed poll?"... is not a leading question.

A leading question in this context would read...

"The above facts present the potential for a skewed poll, don't they Argent?

Even so, are you implying that the framing of a question in a leading manner somehow negates the point that it is a fact?



You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you Argent? <leading question

Not understanding the ultimate benefit, yet willing to take chances in an effort to effect a desired result, is by definition the epitome of sacrifice. All people don't posses this admirable quality of character. Some people are actually bothered by it.



According to SL's economic expert, she is "fairly certain that stipends are contributing to the decline of the linden."

Whether thats viewed as a problem or not, is up to the individual. You obviously don't see it as such.

What "only"? They may be a premium member, and a landowner, and a furry, and a performance artist, and a Volvo owner, and an avid philatelist. Where did "only" come from all of a sudden.
"Premium owners "MAY" beat their kids" is the same kind of fact. So is "Premium members "MAY" be podiatrists and thespians". or "Premium members "MAY" be members of organised crime syndicates". Not every statement that's true under the rules of logic is a "fact". In fact, if a statement isn't falsifiable it's NOT a "fact".
I disagree, but that's irrelevant, because whether it's a "question", a "leading question", a "supporting question, or even a "guest question", it's a "question", not a fact.
No, I'm stating that a question isn't a fact.
Apparently, since I'm still trying to get a straight answer instead of more twisted logic.