What do you think about basic stipends?

I think you fundamentally misunderstood my comment. Would you like to try again?
What I think of it is irrelevant. The issue is how much of a problem Linden Labs thinks it is. It's actually arguable that they benefit from the decline.

A few posts earlier...

Question by Cheyenne Marquez:

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?

Answer by Argent Stonecutter:

Premium.




Thank you for further illustrating my point. But don't make a habit of it. It's no fun that way



This is true. Unfortunately for you ... it is also irrelevant.



Are you saying that a question can't be a fact?



Question of fact
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A question of fact is a question which must be answered by reference to facts and evidence, and inferences arising from those facts. The answer to a question of fact is usually dependent on particular circumstances or factual situations.

I have to go and help with dinner. Keep 'em coming

To me is looks very simple:

If you are playing for free (on a free account you have never paid for) you should not get anything for free from LL, or expect anything for free from LL, or feel entitled to it.

If you are playing on a $9.95 lifetime account I can see where your feel entitled to it, and I don't have a problem with it.

If you are paying on a regular basis for a premium account or are one of those lifetime premium Charter Members, then you should get your stipend, it is part of the package you are paying ofr.

IMHO LL should have gotten rid of the basic stipend when they started offering totally free accounts, and left it in place for those who previously had paid the $9.95. I thnk they just never bothered to think about it, I can see the conversations that day at LL:

Philip: "We should give out free accounts to boost our numbers!"
Everyone else: "Great idea!"

and it was so. For some reason I don't think I'm far off.

But that ship has sailed. Now you can join for free, play for free, and get free money every week, forever. Doesn't really make sense to me....

I think the chief distinction is do you PAY or NOT... Having basic 'alts' doesn't change the 'fact' that someone pays, or does not pay membership fees.

(For what it's worth, my basic account alt was locked in a vault and forbidden to participate in this poll. I answered as myself and premium and only once.)

You speak of facts, sacrifice and benefits.

Tell me. How will the majority of people benefit by losing their stipend?

How can you make it worthwhile to them to 'sacrifice' something of value to them so that the minority of people can make more money off of them?

Considering how many people on the land and economy forum are merchant-minded, I'm actually rather surprized the poll turned out as it did. I recognize fewer names on the "remove stipends" lists than I do on the "stipends are fine" lists.

I'd be just as inclined to say that those in a position to benefit from the removal of stipends would be inclined to use THEIR alts to skew the poll the other way.

We're skewed either way. Maybe, don't you think, it's a fact that it could balance itself out?

(I said 'maybe' ... that means it's still a fact right?

--
Flying Spaghetti Monster give me strength!

A premium account is worth L$500 a week.

A basic account is worth L$50 a week.

You can have a maximum of 5 accounts per household.

Therefore, that one premium is worth 2.5 times as much as all the alts put together, even if the member has the maximum possible number of alts.

Now, back to your argumentum ad astroglide...
Why? Two of your alleged facts are weasel-worded unfalsifiable statements. The suppositions contained in them are not facts, and playing semantic games with them doesn't make them anything but suppositions.
Yes. Now, a question can contain a fact, but that one didn't... it actually contained a third supposition.
A question of fact still isn't a fact.

Ooo this is just nauseating

Cheyenne, I'd be willing to make the sacrifice of my stipend for the economy - if LL did one of the following:


Gave premium members 1536 m2 free tier instead of 512 m2. Coninue current plan until end of contract life (they signed up for a year, their contract is a year)

Gave premium members 1536 m2 with the option of switching over now, paying stipend to those who did not want the extra tier but making it the new contract when it comes to renewal time (when renweal/repayment come sup, they don't have the option of previous stipend bearing contracts)

Cut the cost of premium and continue to pay stipends til the end of current contracts. At the end of which new rates kick in.

Cut the cost of premium without continueing to pay stipend for the contract life, but give a refund in USD for the lost stipend.


Even with these options... LL has a problem. Stipends bring 'new' money into SL to offset sinks. They would have to increase dwell (and thus popularity gaming) or bring some other form of money drop back or into the game.

It takes only one premium account with no alts to prove that statement false.



We can't even get an accurate count of what percentage of the population has premium accounts, how can we say most of those have alts? (or in a friendlier tone... could you point me at where it has been documented? )

Seriously though, any poll has the 'potential for being skewed' without stretching for motive or stealthy duplicate votes.

The question is... is that bias enough to completely invalidate the opionins it represents?

If I pay for 2 premium accounts, should I vote twice so that it more accurately reflects my position? Should all of a person's basic accounts vote seperately from their premium account?

Getting right down to your insinuation, let me ask: Do you feel that the majority of the respondents to the 'premium&stipends are fine option' are invalid responses?

<<< Premium member with no alts

*Grin* I was wondering who was going to step up first

Jopsy- You're an idiot... no poll could invalidate the opinions that it represents. Opinions aren't falsifiable in invalidatible.

*blush*

but but but .. I MEANT: The question is... is that bias enough to invalidate the poll as an reasonable reflection of the opinions it is representing.

Oh fine... that changes EVERYTHING.

Sorry.. I'll try better next time.

--
(and look, I didn't even use an alt to flame myself! )

Jopsy- You're an idiot... no poll could invalidate the opinions that it represents. Opinions aren't falsifiable or invalidatible.

*blush*

but but but .. I MEANT: The question is... is that bias enough to invalidate the poll as a reasonable reflection of the opinions it is representing.

Oh fine... that changes EVERYTHING.

Sorry.. I'll try better next time.

--
(and look, I didn't even use an alt to flame myself! )

Umm I don't fit your's or cheyenne's but i still prove it false.

Premium account with only premium alts. Voted for the fine option with only my main should i add my alt votes now?

ps. I don't think "MY" business draws any direct benefit from the basic stipend but i do think the over all economy benefits.

IMHO, a lack of reading comprehension is one of the major reasons why many of our forum posters may perceive a disagreement, when in fact there may not be one. Were these posters to actually take the time to understand what they are reading prior to responding, they may discover that there may not be a disagreement at all.

Indeed you can see many examples of this throughout this thread alone. Some of these examples have already been addressed. But to illustrate my point further, allow me to direct your attention to the most recent case. Take, if you will, the below statement quoted from an earlier post.



Clearly, by including the words "FOR THE MOST PART, the writer was conveying the point that there is a lesser part left over that is excluded, or otherwise not included in the stated point.

So that if the stated point is that "FOR THE MOST PART, there is no such thing as a strictly premium member," then there is a lesser part leftover that is not included, or represented in the stated point.

That lesser part could consist of anywhere from one premium member, to several premium members, to several thousand premium members that ARE strictly premium members. The exact number of strictly premium members consisting of the "lesser part" is not important, so long as that number was actually less than the larger number of non-strictly premium members consisting of the "most part."

One would think the above to be obvious and self explanatory right?

So please explain to me why one would respond to the above quoted statement with this...



It wouldn't be so bad if it were an isolated case. But it has happened repeatedly throughout this thread.

Indeed, it happened again a mere couple of posts after the above was posted in the form of this response...





Pleeeease stop it ok lol.

Lord knows these threads are confusing enough as it is

--
Tiz late... ZZZzzzz.....

Huh?

Since when does using words like "may," or "for the most part" constitute categorical negations?

If I use words like "may," or "for the most part" I do so for the sake of accuracy. Not with intent to deceive or as a matter of "semantic" word play. These words are chosen for a reason. Take them at their meaning, and refute the statements based on their merit. But don't disregard these key words, and then claim that they were used to deceive, and/or used as "semantic word play" as if there is some implied, or hidden, underlying motive for their use.



Thank you so much. If one does not understand a point, and/or believes that it may be deceptive or an attempt at "semantic word play," then a request for a clarification would go a long way toward a healthier debate, or discussion



Quoted for continuity purposes. To avoid duplication, your answer is included later in post.



Please point out to me were I stated that people with more than just one premium account are somehow "different."

While your at it, I am also very curious to see were I stated that people with more than just one premium account are more motivated to skew the results of this poll.

See, these are classic examples of assumptions.

To repeat briefly, and for your convenience, my point is simply that since "most" premium account holders also have basic alts accounts, and these basic accounts generate revenue, they may not be so inclined to pick any other choice other than the fourth, for fear that doing so may contribute toward the elimination of the revenue said basic alt account(s) generates.

There is nothing sinister implied by this point. There is no clear intent, or motivation, by those who pick the fourth choice to intentionally skew the results of this poll. People are simply looking out for their best interest. The resulting effect of this behavior, however, vicariously skews the ultimate results of the poll.



I believe that atleast 6 out of every 7 premium account holders have atleast one basic alt. You claim to to categorize this as an innacurate reflection of reality, but by your own statement ...



...it is evident that you do infact agree,

yet find lt beneficial to give me hard time anyways

I have more premium accounts than basic accounts. Does that make me more premium or less premium than Jonas?

I don't know if I can agree with this.

I heard someone ask about this at this week's town hall:

Linden could buy the stipend L$ off the market.
Then, as more residents join, the L$ could actually gain value instead of deflating as more accounts cause more money printing.

Worth considering. Can anyone get Alan Greenspan in here, he should have time now.

~Orange

According to you this would make you a premium account holder "only."

Cite, please.

They'd go broke even faster than they are now.

Omg, Again?

What do you mean "again"?

You pulled this "only" crud out of thin air. It ain't me that's making a big deal out of "only". That's your schtick. Give it a rest.

I said you HEDGED a Categorical negation. Hedge: An intentionally noncomittal or ambiguous statement. catagorical negation: "There's no such thing as"... You made a catagorical negation and then put a hedge in front of it.

It's kind of like saying someone is partly pregnant.

I believe that was my counterpoint actually. If premium+basic is likely to vote differently (and I assumed you were also implying that they were likely to use their basic accounts to add votes to the poll too), then what's to stop premium+premium, or basic+basic types from doing the same?



Actually no. The "And the ?conclusion?" I put there was what I assumed was your ultimate point. My conclusion came right after. I should have been more specific, sorry. My conclusion was that there are larger factors at work skewing the results of the poll (without having to worry the few premium accounts that are worried about the fractional revenue of their basic alts.

I'm perfectly fine with you believing 6 out of every 7 premium account holders have at least one basic alt.

The bit that just sparked off my rant in the first place was that instead of stating it as opinion you tried to endorse the point by implying it should seem obvious to everyone. (Unless you meant something else by "I think we can all agree... "! )

I neither think that premium+alts are in the majority, nor do I think the distinction between premium(only) or premium(plus anything) matters for this poll. And of those that have given the matter much thought, I would be surprized if more than a minority agreed with either point, much less both.

Anyway, I know I'm being somewhat of a stickler about this... My intent was to give you a hard time for passing off your opinion as a 'widely acceptable truth'.

Your opinions and hypothosis are strong and compelling enough without having to lend them false strength by trying to pass them off as fact or being widely accepted.

--
Good ideas, intuitive thoughts, gut feelings can be significant and relevant, even if only in a hypothetical sense. Things need not be 'fact' to be given seroius consideration.