You say you don't want to devalue the linden, but the freaking title of your post is "What can Linden do to DEVALUE the $L" ?
again....
W T F ?
As someone else mentioned, you wrote this in English (at least the English I was taught to read), and both your post and counterpost both point to devaluing the current linden dollar to US, something which I am sure 98% of everyone on these forums does NOT WANT.
Please re-read your post, reflect, realize, maybe next time, just maybe, I will think out what I am saying, or not smoke a bussel of whatever it is you did smoke, before posting on the economics of a virtual game that makes a lot of people real money.
And just to point out one of the best discrepancies with your "increase the value by decreasing the value" ideas....
[/QUOTE]
OMG. Does anybody here understand what I wrote? Who said I'm giving advice about anything. I have yet to see how you guys read my posts in plain English, and assumed I wanted the L to go down. And furthermore, presuming I am directly giving advice about how to go about it. I've asked how you came up with the interpretation, and yet to see an explanation. I even predicted these misinterpretations might occur. Which is why I stated in my opening post: “When I say best interest of Linden Labs, this does not mean the best interest of the player.” Moreover, it does not necessarily mean it is not in the best interest of the player. When I am stating such. It may or may not be in the best interest of the player, myself personally, or anybody involved. It is simply stating how Linden Labs could possibly devalue the L. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I’ll state it very clearly: Personally, I couldn’t say enough how important it is to me that the L value goes up. If it goes up to $1 = 1L, I’d be the happiest person ever. I’ll state it very clearly: Personally, I couldn’t say enough how important it is to me that the L value goes up. I loose money if the L value drops. There is no reason I would want the L to drop in value. If it goes up to $1 = 1L, I’d be the happiest person ever.
My theory about the different interpretations is that the interpretation paradigms diverge between objectivity and subjectivity. The point was about how Linden Labs can devalue the L. Not necessarily saying they should or shouldn’t do so. Not necessarily stating that you or I would benefit if they do so. When one looks at it from a subjective paradigm (which myself, and hopefully anybody in a proper discussion would want to refrain from), one might not just take it for what it says: “how they might do it”. One might further presume that I want them to do it.
Why anybody would want to look at it subjectively, and add on presumptions that are unnecessary is beyond me.
I do not know how to write so that people would not make subjective conclusions. I really should not have to explain in my writing that the reader should refrain from doing this. I never do this. I state points objectively without ad-hom or any other subjective discrepancies. Furthermore, when I read something, I read it for what it is. I will make effort to accommodate people because I care about the state of the economy. Especially because I am participating in profiting from it.
If this was a reading comprehension exam, I might ask some questions about the above post:
1. Did the author state how Linden Labs might be able to devalue the L?
A. Yes
B. No
2. Did the author state that it would be in his best interest or the player’s best interest for the L to drop?
A. Yes
B. No
Answers: 1. A, 2. B
3. What was the author's intention?
Well the answer to this is that there were alot of different points and intentions in that one post. My intention was more to describe than to persuade with ragard to explaining how Linden Labs could devalue the L.
When discussing strategy, you would be setting yourself up for death if you were to only look at what you want, and your circumstance. Of course it is important to look at all the factors. This is the purpose of why I opened discussion on how Linden Labs might lower the value of the L. Getting back to this, many believe it is in Linden Labs best interest to control the value of the L, and lower it. Preferably, I believe, under $2.91 for 1,000L. Then again, I am not sure if this is in their best interest or not. The point is, it is reasonable to see that Linden Labs would want to keep the L value low. Therefore, I posted how they might do this.
The going theory for some is that as long as the Ls are low, more people can buy land. Therefore, Linden Labs banks off of the tier charges. Linden Labs wants every player to buy as much land as possible. The more land each player owns, the more fees they pay.
Therefore, they will try to keep the L value low. I would counter this, and say that land values go up anyway to accommodate the drops in L. But there is more to it. In this month of September alone, I counted over 40 new sims. This can be interpreted as Linden Lab’s way of keeping the land values low, and the L prices dropping. When there are a lot of Ls in the economy, and lots of available land, the L value drops.
From: musicteacher Rampal
Please share this thing that would be in all our interest except for yours!!
The last thing I was reluctant to state because I would lose money is this: It is totally in Linden Labs best interest as well as the player’s best interest to make sims free for claim jumpers.
1. Just create a sim, and section it off. Then make it available for players to claim it.
2. If you are a premium player, you could claim jump any land there for 0 payment to Governor Linden. All you would have to do is accept any tier charges for owning land.
3. If you are a basic player, you could claim jump the same way, and all you would have to do is accept the upgrade to premium membership.
1. This is in Linden Lab’s best interest because they profit from more premium players and more tier income.
2. This is in the best interest of the players because they can have the freedom to get more land which they might not have the Ls for otherwise.
3. This is not in the best interest of Boyfriend (that’s me) because Boyfriend’s makes money by selling his land. Therefore, nobody in their right mind would want to pay for Boyfriend’s land because they would be able to claim jump it for free. This is one reason I was reluctant to state this earlier. Another reason is because this is somewhat of a feature in my plans for creating a 3D internet.
(Instead of the World Wide Web which is connected by browsers, I have been dreaming since the 90s about creating a 3DW using a 3-D interface for people to “surf”. Virtual land ownership would just be part of the 3DW in the same way a person owns a website on their server or their host’s server.)