Lindex Could Possibly Close in v 1.8: LL might reverse position on Currency trading

The stipend cut hurt, I agree, but it hurt everyone, not just a few.

This hub change is taking money out of the pockets of those who bought hub land, then giving it to LL and people who own land far from any hubs.

Cristiano, the sad thing is at one time I suspect I might have argued with you.

Unfortunately, you are all too absolutely correct.

Even if this were true (and it's not)...

So What?

Woot!

They did not compensate me when they took away P2P roughly 2 years ago, and suddenly my shop was 4 sims away from the nearest hub. My shoppers had been able to come directly to my shop till then. If they compensate these land owners for changes, then they should compensate all land owners that have had to deal with changes over the last 3 years.

And personally I think it would be stupid for them to do that in an evolving world.

so now what is wrong with LL taking action to to build confidence in the SL economy despite legally being free of having to do so? is this a bad thing for secondlife? i would say, no this is a good thing. by being open to discuss this compensation, LL is building confidence that they do not want to be seen as bait-and-switcheroos.

lets take bumfield for example. LL says this project is an experiment to help build tools for players and also intended as an example of how LL would like land traders to pursue the market. philip has been on the record several times to say that they would like the land market to have some more value added besides just the liquidity aspect. that is why they added the "sell objects" check box.

now if i spend 6 months investing time in building content and deploying my business for this kind of market and they decide to remove the check box, wouldn't they have just pants me? all my investment would have been rendered worthless. what would that do for my faith in LL. what would that do for any other sensible investor watching? sure investing anywhere has intrinsic risks. LL is demonstrating that despite having no obligation to do so, they will do their best to limit our exposure when it is caused by their reversing decisions or changing directions. they are doing this to create confidence and build on partnership.
i want don't want to hear why you don't think LL is obligated, we all no they are not. i want you to tell me

a> why this action will not help build confidence and restore the faith of investors
or
b> how they will be bad for the development of secondlife, it's community, and linden labs on going partnership with the players who invest their time and energy here..

i don't care about land traders, anshe chung etc etc. i'm focused on the greater issue of how necessary changes in the paltform or redirections in policy which have linden lab encouraging players to invest in one thing, and then to have the rug swept out from under their feet. if LL wants serious investment from content creators, developers, and speculators, there needs to be some dialogue and faith about how LL can limit their exposure. otherwise what we will have is that many of the talented and savy people will remain on the side line and put there energies elsewhere.

i apologize for my theatrics yesterday. a good friend pointed out i have been expressing too much of frustration on the forum, of what seems to me to be blatant short sightedness on the part of many community members. i probably should have put a disclaimer in my locked thread

the L$ was game money back then.

Jauani,

It isn't about compensating a small group of players for a change. It is about where do you draw the line, without at the same time making other people feel sleighted? I don't see you clamoring for compensation to Francis Chung et al for the impact P2P will have on their ROAM device, or the makers of other devices that assisted with the laborious flight process.

It starts a precedent of every change that comes along that somehow forces someone to rethink, regroup, evolve should get some kind of hand out from LL. There have been myriad changes over the past 2+ years that have affected land values, have affected businesses, have caused people to lose and make money. No compensation was given then, and none realistically should be given now. Based upon polling on this issue, only a very small portion of people feel the hub owners are entitled to compensation. This is of course not scientific, but does reflect the general consensus about this issue.

If they go down the path of compensating users for changes, fine. They then need to be consistent and fair in its application, or they will create resentment when the next situation comes along and they don't rise to the occasion.

Its game money now too, unless you chose to make it otherwise.

This thread was started as a way to ressurect a previous thread that was locked.

As Jeska said, that thread wasn't appropriate for the SL forums and as such was closed.

Reposting locked threads isn't appropriate.

Thread locked.

-Pathfinder