Land and 2nd Accounts

Em . . . no. I could call auctions unfair for the same sorts of reasons. I sit and watch a sim full of new land, then all of a sudden the whole thing turns into someone else's land cause they had enough money to buy it on auction.

This business about older players knowing the land better than newer ones, and thus shouldn't have at First Land with their alts, is really a very, very tangential and weak consideration.

I would venture to guess that at more people choose their alt's first land in order to be next to the land they already have, than choose their alt's first land because they have been sitting there waiting for, and trying to swoop down on, the most valuable possible land so they can sell it and make a profit. Though I'm sure it happens.

I made my alt, I needed my land to be contiguous. Course, maybe I'm just stupid, and would have done better to use what VERY little land knowledge I already had after five months of playing to try to make some money from buying and then selling the First Land.

I really don't think most people's goals are that, though. I think people who are investing in an alt are likely doing it for the same reasons I am - to expand their store, to make another worker for their store - or to expand the place where they already have a residence so they can have more land and put down more prims.

That's why I think that consideration is really quite minor. The whole need for land, I think, is much more about actually needing land than it is about eyeing fine parcels, hanging about the game 24/7, and then getting a waterfront place before some hapless newbie can.

Also, I was anything but a seasoned buyer - having bought nothing but my one piece on my regular account, and a few pieces around it from neighbors. I'm not in the land business, and I don't think most people are. I doubt most people five months old and wanting to buy a piece of First Land with their alt next to their first First Land are in any significant way more savvy about "the land game" than someone buying their first piece of First Land.

coco

I disagree with April.

I consider myself a fair and honest person always.

If I decide to purchase 4 more premo accounts, I think I am more than entitled to that first land plot on each of them. It's not about land whoring, its about getting what you pay for. If I'm dropping an extra $40 a month, a first land plot on each of those accounts is miniscule in the big picture.

There always seems to be first land available. Until the availability of first land becomes dried up (which it won't) then we can talk. LL will always accomodate the new players. Why be denied whats rightfully yours?

It's not a big deal April, really.

http://secondlife.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=First+Land

NOTE: Once you have purchased a First Land lot, you will never be able to purchase another one - the program is for first time owners only.

Hello,

I was trying to get some clarification dealing with First Land. Currently the only main statement about First Land states:



I take the words "first parcel" and "who have never owned land" to mean that a person can only buy First Land once, no matter how many alternate accounts they create. Is this correct?

Or can a person buy first land, then create an alternate account and buy a 2nd plot of first land?

Thank you for your help on this clarification!

The First Land Program was created to assist first time land buyers in locating their first plot of land and providing it to them at an affordable rate. While the system does allow any new Premium account who has not yet owned land to purchase First Land, the intention of the First Land Program is to provide land for those Residents who are just entering the land market.

Just to note, April - I wrote that Wiki page (as there wasn't anything else available at the time on First Land), and I'm not a Linden, so I want to make it clear that the article isn't proof of LL policy.

My intent in writing that final paragraph was to make it clear that there are checks in place to prevent you-the-avatar from purchasing more than one First Land lot. As "first time owner" is slightly ambiguous in that it does not distinguish between "first time avatar" and "first time player", it was misleading of me to imply that the last half of the sentence followed from the first half.

I'm not sure how to amend the post, though.

While the system does allow any new Premium account who has not yet owned land to purchase First Land, the intention of the First Land Program is to provide land for those Residents who are just entering the land market.

Because I care about the First Land buyers I have a bee in my bonnet? Wow, that's pretty interesting. I guess caring about anything in this game would garner the same response? One would say you have a bee in your bonnet about Linden's owning land, but that one would not be me. We can all have concerns. If there were no concerns, there would be no need for the Forums other than to say woot and what have you. I am sorry my concern does not meet your criteria. Please post a list of acceptable things to be concerned about and I will try to stick to your guidelines, okay?

In the meantime, Robin did say First Land was for First buyers, not alts. I can't seem to make search work right now. I've tried it on 3 different computers, 2 macs and 1 pc and still can't get it to work. Otherwise I would link to Robin's statement.

I want to try to prevent others from having the same type of experience Coco had when she tried to look for First Land and none were available. I want people to enjoy Second Life as much as I do. And I don't like seeing new people being taken advantage of.

I can repeat my other issues, but they are listed in my previous posts.

Just to note, April - I wrote that Wiki page (as there wasn't anything else available at the time on First Land), and I'm not a Linden, so I want to make it clear that the article isn't proof of LL policy.

My intent in writing that final paragraph was to make it clear that there are checks in place to prevent you-the-avatar from purchasing more than one First Land lot. As "first time owner" is slightly ambiguous in that it does not distinguish between "first time avatar" and "first time player", it was misleading of me to imply that the last half of the sentence followed from the first half.

I'm not sure how to amend the post, though.

My honest fear for the future of first land. So many will abuse it (because it is hard for the Lindens to tell when it is an alt buying a 2nd plot of 1st land - or a true new account that is on the same credit card - ie: spouse).. so many will abuse it and this feature will be taken away.

Coco, I think you may be missing my point.

I am not directly comparing keeping mistakenly sold land with taking advantage of the one first land per premium account loophole.

What I am am comparing is that LL has said, in both instances, that we can, but they would rather we didn't.

And to be perfectly honest, I don't need them to even say it to know that *I* don't think it's a fair use of the system, especially when we know for a fact there are periodic shortages.

Now, as for the red herring that some are throwing out there about reselling or keeping first land - what is the difference? If you are of the mind that you are allowed FIVE first lands, why does it matter if you sell them or keep them? If we extend the logic being used by some here that this is a "right" of a premium account, then you should have the right to resell too.

By the way, the ability to get multiple first lands hasn't always existed. There was a limit of ONE per household in the first incarnation of the program - the fact that ONE RL entity can get more than one is a loophole created by LL's realization that multiple UNIQUE PHYSICAL ENTITIES within one household may want an account, and to accomodate this, they lifted that stricture. Now we see that some sophists will go overboard literalist on this, and use it to their advantage. Not only that, they will argue for weeks in the face of statements indicating that LL wishes us not do this. LL has never said that you they intended for one first land per premium alternate account. Never. It has been said that it is possible, but that it is wished that we wouldn't. That's not good enough for some though, and justifications abound. Since those who these justifications are being tossed at aren't going to change their minds (April, Pendari, myself, and others) I wonder who those peddling the justifications are really trying to convince. Hmmm. Oh well.

How I feel on this issue is clear to all I hope, and there is no need to further debate it. Have fun with your multiple first land parcels, knowing that there are periodic shortages and that new players (you know Coco, those players you are 'so" worried about having a good initial impression and experience) have to sometimes wait weeks, which may diminish their enjoyment of SL - especially when faced with the info that established players are taking more than one candy bar from the honor box.

Thank you for supplying the quote.

I remember that quote.

However, April said, " No Coco, they already said it was released according to original accounts, not alts. It keeps track of alts."

However, that quote doesn't say anything about it being released according to original accounts, not alts - or that it keeps track of alts.

We still don't know the formula by which First Land is released. It is safe to assume that it is released either in accordance with demand for first land, or in as a percentage of that demand, discounting for alt demands.

However, if it is by the second method, that would guarantee frustration to new players, so I doubt it is that.

In any case, we still don't know the way they decide how much first land to release, and THAT is the link, if any, I was asking for.

coco

You are right, Nolan - the eventual selling, or not, of the First Land shouldn't be a factor in this discussion.

When I refer to First Land abuse, in terms of flipping it, I am referring to the practice of getting a bunch of alts, using them to get First Land, selling them for a profit, retiring the alts, wash, rinse, repeat. Which itself is against the rules, since we can only have five alts per our whole lifetime!

A gentleman would not do that, Nolan.

It matters naught that you "didn't know then" because you are still trying to justify it NOW, when you have info in front of you that says LL wishes we wouldn't do as such.

How does one get more alts from a credit card when the limit is reached? LL allows 5 per card, I dunno that you can delete and then make more, maybe you can. I haven't been informed of this. If it is possible, I believe that it takes months for accounts to decay - I know people that have reactivated dormant accounts months later, by paying up their back tier owed, so it wouldn't be a very viable exploit unless it is possible to say "delete this account now". If that is possible, I agree with you, it is wrong.

However, If it is possible to do this, then by the same logic which you apply to first land, it then becomes a "right". So it should be ok anyway - right?. LL allows it, therefore, it's fair game, ethics be damned.

At any rate, I see this point of yours as a deflection and not germaine to the real issue here - players receiving more than one first land, then defending their actions, even after having been told LL would rather they DID NOT. That is how I have always seen this point, everytime you drag it out on the carpet. Non sequitur.

I am fine with accepting that you didn't know. You didn't know, fine, but you do know NOW, and you continue to act as if you are right and everyone who disagrees with you, including LL, is wrong. See it's not about LL being wrong or right, it's about LL's intended purpose for the progam. They can't be "wrong" about it. They simply wanted to give NEW SLers a head start, and are now having to face that their generousity will be taken advantage of, especially with regard to wanting to allow multiple people who live in one RL dwelling access to the First Land program. I know that you know that they are caught in this conundrum, and THAT is what is so frustrating about watching you try and martyr yourself for weeks on end over it.

Pot, meet kettle.

Furthermore, I never claimed to be a model of perfection, unlike you, who cannot even cede that you were wrong on this issue. Instead you tell LL THEY are wrong, for wanting to run their program as they see fit. Can you imagine if everyone had 5 alts and they all grabbed up a first land, even to hold forever? It would be a nightmare, but you don't care about that, you care about being a literalist to avoid having to admit that you used the program in a manner inconsistent with LL's wishes.

And for Pete's sake, don't YOU lecture ME about having a holier-than-thou attitude. You reek of it. You wear it everywhere you go.

I think you are wrong, and become more wrong the longer you carry on about this. Instead of just saying "Ooops. LL doesn't want us to do that, I won't do it again.", you have to go on and on about it for months with all sorts of diversions - uninformed crap about "4096 accounts" even though tier didn't even exist at the time those accounts were sold, and other stupifying justifications. You would rather just point uninformed fingers at others and say that LL is "wrong" about the way they would like a program that they set up to help FIRST TIME PLAYERS to run. What a pompous outlook.

Of COURSE I'm justifying it now, Nolan!

A system where there are unspoken rules, and expectations known only by a few, whereby those who know them can then browbeat endlessly someone who makes a supposed mistake, is one that needs changing.

"Even after being told" - no one is being told! I was not told! Those explanatory comments from Robin, both on these forums and in the Metaverse Messenger, ALSO do not constitute "being told."

Being told means adding "but not your alt" everywhere, including on the in-game messages. Even better, being told means not making it possible.

You can't have a game where you buy the account, and you get things with an account, and then expect people not to use these things. Not to mention, then drag them over the coals when they do.

It's just not cricket. Things just don't work that way.

Yes, I think they are wrong about this, and I think you are wrong about this, and neither they nor you have convinced me otherwise!

love ya, Nolan, always will.

coco

Being told means adding "but not your alt" everywhere, including on the in-game messages. Even better, being told means not making it possible.

Yes, I think they are wrong about this, and I think you are wrong about this, and neither they nor you have convinced me otherwise!

Yes, I KNOW (now) that they have said it is wrong.

I am saying to you, I disagree with them.

coco

Coco, LL created a program designed to help First time Land Buyers get land at a cheaper price without having to compete with experienced players. And you are saying they are wrong for creating a program to help new players?

Please don't say that. Considering your powers in other areas in the Forums, the Lindens will undoubtably hear you and close the program because you say it is wrong.

Please take it back. It's a good program designed to enable new people to own land without making a big investment. They can actually use their signup bonus and not have to worry about buying Lindens yet. This encourages new residents to stay by positively enhancing their Second Life experience. To take it away because you say the Lindens got it wrong would be a travesty.

This really saddens me.

Heavens, Lisse!

That sentence -

NOTE: Once you have purchased a First Land lot, you will never be able to purchase another one - the program is for first time owners only.

- is just flat-out incorrect.

Of course you will be able to purchase another one. If you want to amend the post, I would advise something along the lines of what Robin said in her quotes, something that says the original philosophy behind the problem.

But of course you will be able to purchase another one. The program - as it is set up - is for new accounts, whoever they are.

coco

I don't want to see it gone, either. But if it's a choice between that, and giving people (not you, April), a chance to browbeat others who have innocently done it, then hell yeah, it should be gone.

coco