No more basic bonus money

These ideas are Communistic. Unions are not needed. They have ruined RL enough.

Good. By giving away money to putz around it gave potential residents the wrong idea about what SL was.

You must work for L$. Effort = Reward.

End the Communistic BS.

Like i said, would be strongly inclined to do it myself ^^ because if the person is inexperienced, then i have zero trust in their ability to actually do such thing flawlessly, and am more than likely to wind up checking it after them anyway. Because the final customer isn't interested in who did the legwork, but in quality of end effect... so if my helper doesn't have the skill and messes up, it affects _my_ income. And if my hired helper is actually skilled to the point where i can trust them with this sort of work, then they have enough experience already to make on their own enough money to simply not be interested in the sort of payment i could offer for this sort of work.

Now, the other work you mention, the 'furniture mover'... if you hand someone a bunch of furniture and ask them to 'make it look good' then that's not furniture mover, that's room designer. Can you find a room designer who's gonna work for L$10? i don't know, kind of doubtful (in the time it takes to arrange that furniture into something good they could sit on camp chair and make quite a bit more than that) This is by no means a 'basic work a noob can do', it's just work that requires different set of skill that your regular builder/scripter/cloth maker needs to have.

Overall, i don't know really. I can think of few areas where you could probably utilize new people (mostly have to do with _finding_ specific things for your customer, or some basic service along lines of modeling outfits and such) ... but there just really isn't much of it :/

I certainly don't. In fact, I expect to pay for my entertainment. In games where there were no fee, I often didn't stick around. You mention a psychological barrier, but there are also "psychological" incentives for "getting ones money worth" that might draw someone in if they've invested the money to play.

I've had this conversation with friends before, and I'm puzzled that people balk at spending money for the hours of (potential) entertainment in SL, but think nothing of spending $8.50 to go watch a movie for 1 1/2 hours, or spend $60 on the new Tomb Raider game that takes less than 6 hours to finish. (I wonder what it is about the internet that makes the value of entertainment often seem less than worthwhile.)

I'm one of the people who really supports basic users not getting a continued stipend. They've paid nothing for the game, so I don't see why they should get a stipend. It made some sense when basic accounts were $9.99 but now? Not so much.

Ok done rambling,
Sun

Abundance of free alternatives. When you can have something for free, the amout of people willing to pay drops because there's little reason for them to pay for something when they don't have to.


I didn't pay Google anything. Yet they still let me use it day after day, as much as i like to. Must be a business ran by morons...

You personally may not pay to use google, but someone sure does. Ever noticed the ads? Google is by no means "non-profit."

You can use SL "day after day, as much as [you] like to." However, I don't get the comparison between Google and SL in reference to what I said, unless Google has started paying a basic stipend for using their service.


Sun

Of course; in the same way SL has both premium and basic access members. Basic members by their presence and activities generate incentives for the people who actually cover operational costs, to stick around. Much like free users of Google provide incentive for investors to buy the ad space. But with SL there's this idea that 'everyone should only get for what they pay themselves, so if basic members aren't paying, don't give them anything' ... even though it doesn't have to make financial sense on overall balance level.


SL provides stipends to allow users utilize services that otherwise have attached cost. Google skips this altogether, by removing idea of 'tickets' that you need in order to access the service they provide. But ultimately both provide their basic users with access to service despite these users not paying, because on the whole it's beneficial for them to do it.

I think a closer parallel would be the internet is second life, google is the interface that lets you fly around and look at stuff for free, adds will be... well... adds and store vendors, and content you have to pay for are like pay sites and stuff you can order online. Content providers pay for land on SecondLife to advertise and sell their stuff, like like advertizers pay google to store and display their adds.

So have freebie reselling thieves.

Ok so tell me..when are you going to practice what you preach and actually work on something?

Bill Gates once said that he could not understand why anybody would want more than 768K of computer memory......

Regarding your comments about Goggle. Print or store this post and then do some financial research on Google. The epic code is goog

I well remember buying Google at $260 odd and then selling them at around $400 because I thought they might have got a bit overheated. But....if we have another stock market "correction" and when the dust has settled I will be a buyer of Google again, and this time I will hold long term.

Do your own research of course and no investment advice intended. But I suggest you do some research because if you don't, this post of yours might haunt you for the rest of your life.....

Regards

Paul

Rasha I'd like to point out that your own arguments to get rid of the stipends pretty much clash with your agreeing with Dmitri. If the stipends are gotten rid of it'll be worse then it is now. And if these Employee's are made aware how you operate before hand and still want to work there what is the problem? Its not like they are getting into something they didnt know about. I do however feel alot of these places lapse in doing anything for their employee's and i think they should. While I operate in a similar manner to what Dmitri states I also work alot harder for the employee's and the money is all put back into the Club itself not to cover our tier or help pay our music stream.

In fact alot of the way we operate most of our employee's respect us for it. But i guess I'm a rare occurance . I try to tip employee's when i have spare money and i may do so more when me and my partners shop is up. To many places treat employee's as just that and its really worrying to me. Its a big reason i personally see to a bit of it. Sure some of what we do is hit and miss but ya know at the end of the day i can say im honestly much different even if it isnt showing much right now as we try to find our legs. Bit of trial on our end to test out stuff and move away from the "common" club scene of SL and try to do something more.

It's releaving to us to know that we can draw a bigger crowd with no events just based on music and people and what a club should be about. Sadly this is a rare occurance with clubs im guessing =/.

IMHO removing the $250L starting balance is a very bad idea. I know there's money trees and contests and so on but that's charity or begging in my mind and not the first impression you want people to have of SL.

LL has had a significant increase in new users since the simplification of registering. I think they'll closely monitor the conversion of these users into regular users and paying users. I think the numbers will show a lower ratio and hopefully a return of the starting balance.

I hope they are able to untangle the true new users from new alts since this lowering of the bar will undoubted result in a lot of alts initially.

Yup, i started off in Feb. 04 with $500L because I put the ball on the table and talked to the parrot. I think you got $L's for Alt. mouse looking around something too. guess they don't do that in orientation any more.