First land abuse?

There is loads of stuff in the police blotter on first land abuse.

I wonder what this is. I presume that there are technical reasons stopping players buying more than one first land parcel on the same account - and therefore that this is the use of alts. Is using alts to get more than one piece of first land against the rules? I've not seen that written anywhere. As several have been suspended for 7 days I presume they are repeat offenders.

Normally people think of first land abuse as getting cheap land for resale. The debate on whether it is worth the cost of all those $9.99s makes it seem unlikely.

However if we think of first land abuse as a cheap way of getting a large swathe of land for use rather than resale then it may make sense. You see 10 contiguous first land plots. You create 10 alts on several credit cards. You buy the parcels and sell them to your main account. You then cancel the alts. If this is mature land I think you'd still make money on it.

----------------

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Suspended 7 days.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Suspended 3 days.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Suspended 3 days.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Suspended 7 days.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Warning issued.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Hantu
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Warning issued.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Ku
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Warning issued.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Samia
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Warning issued.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Pryeri
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Suspended 3 days.

Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Violation: Land Abuse: First Land
Region: Bombyx
Description: Land Abuse: First Land violation
Action taken:Warning issued.

I noticed that earlier tonight, Roberta! I, too, figured it must be people buying up first land as alts. I didn't realize it was against the rules (and I have not done it), but I suppose it is against the rules by sheer virtue of the whole principle of "First Land." I figured they were cracking down cause maybe a lot of people had gotten extra alts during the free trial and were using them to pick up extra first land.

In any case, this means there will be more First Land available for new players who are really looking for their first bit of land, which hasn't been easy to find.

coco

And how would it be enforced if it is against the rules? What about those family members that have accounts on the same credit card, are they not each entitled?

When there was enough first land available for everyone, I really didn't see much of an issue. Now that it is so scarce, anyone using an alt to pick up first land is a selfish b*stard. But I am sure it's not against the rules still.

I agree. What I don't understand is what the stuff in the Police Blotter is. What is first land abuse anyway?

I know some of the folks who got suspended. There was a bug that many plots of First Land were allowing *ANYONE* to buy them.

ANYONE. Even if you already owned land.

The people in question bought up most of a batch and resold it at a hefty profit.

Aw, man! Why'd you have to go and ruin a perfectly good thread with facts.

Hmm, a glitch caused a banning? I remember a thread where a girl accidently mismarked the piece of a big peice of land due to a software flaw that made the land the cost of the small parcel that was connected to a large parcel.

If LL made a mistake that allowed people to buy first land, I don't understand how it's the fault of the person buying cheap land. If one looks at land to buy, and the "buy" button is highlighted, who's fault is it if they pay for it? This seems to be a matter of mismarking the price. It shouldn't be the buyer's responsibility to look at who is selling the land. I never look at the seller's name. If it's cheap and I have room in my tier, I buy it. I wonder if there is a rule somewhere that says you can't buy land without verifing who is selling it and that it's not first land...

Just wondering

'cause I'm pure misbegotten EEEEEVIL.

I prefer to use the proper form of Ms. Bea Gotten.

I thought maybe First Land Abuse was when you buy your first land and build something really ugly on it.

But I guess it couldn't be that.

Obviously it's an exploit and these people knew it. You use an exploit prepare to get banned. I don't see the problem here.

All I know about the situation is what's reported in this thread. However, if it is indeed the case that a bunch of people bought a bunch of 512m^2 parcels for L$512 each and resold for a profit, I tend to believe they knew exactly what they were doing and that it was wrong.

HP

I agree...

This case may have been unscrupulous people taking advantage of a FL bug, but there _are_ alts out there doing exactly what Roberta suspected in her first post:

/130/f7/53390/1.html

Unless someone can think of a better explanation that fits those facts.

I sure hope the Lindens take a look at my thread and do something about that if they're cracking down on FL abuse.

The listing for first land specifically states that it is for those who have never owned land. The entire reason the program was created was so that brand new people, who had very little money, could afford to buy a small piece of land to be able to experience what it was like to buy land and be able to build on it.

It was never meant as a way for those who have been here a long time to be able to find a way and buy cheap land just by creating an alt. It defeats the whole purpose of why the program was created. If it was meant for everyone plus their alts, then why would it not be listed as an advantage of creating multiple accounts?

I think there is some ambiguity over whether it is limited to those people who have never owned land, or for those avatars (or accounts) that have never owned land. I seem to recall this having been discussed before, with a pronouncement from LL that it was per avatar. I have been looking for that and have not found it yet. In any event, here is the same question hotlined in July:

/invalid_link.html

Unanswered, of course.

It doesn't really matter why LL introduced the feature. Groups, for example, were introduced to encourage people to collaborate on projects. Is it immoral to use them for some other purpose, like renting land to tenants for profit? Is it illegal?

I think it is reasonable to assume that if the UI allows you to buy first land, you are allowed to do so. I am not suggesting it is "correct", only that it would be a reasonable thing for somebody to assume, given LL's lack of clarity on the subject.

There is a concept in law that when there is ambiguity in a contract that creates an advantage if reasonably interpreted differently, that the reasonable interpretation that is most advantages the party that did not draft the contract controls. Because LL drafted the TOS, any ambiguity in the TOS is required to be interpreted in favor of the subscriber. (This is true only for genuine ambiguities with reasonable interpretations. You can't just make up your own meaning. )

Buster

If memory serves, not too long after I made that hotline post, there was a Town Hall meeting - and I posted the same (shortened) question there.

I think I did get a response at the Town Hall that followed - but for the life of me, I can't remember what it was. Anyone have a transcript?

/120/f4/54734/1.html

That's the transcript - search for Travis on that page and you'll see his discussion of first land and alts...

- Jon

I found what I think you are referring to Travis. Though I think it deals more with the economic aspects rather than policy clarification. It does seem to hint at the fact that First Land is not meant for alts to use though!



Full transcript found here: /3/8c/54736/1.html

Thank you for the reminder of that town hall!

nothing there on whether alts are allowed to buy first land or not.

Here's my personal take on the whole thing. None of these ideas are backed up by hard facts, as there are few:

-Alternate accounts are allowed to purchase first land at this time

-The original 'spirit' of First Land was to offer new residents a way to own land inexpensively before they've had a chance to establish themselves. (Something I was asking for clarification on in my original hotline post)

-Linden is well aware of Alts purchasing First Land, and doesn't especially like it, but hasn't chosen to do anything about it yet either.

This topic was discussed by people on both sides of the fence on this issue for 28 pages over in the general forum in a thread. Five minutes after Jeska locks it and edits out personal attacks, this thread from over 2 months ago is resurrected. Seems kind of cheeky.

This thread got refered to in the other thread. If anything, the other thread should have started with a post to this one. My opinion of course.

Noooo, it's where you take your First Land and neglect to feed it, and tie it up and lock it in a closet, and burn it with cigarettes, and perhaps do unspeakable things to it in the dead of night when no one can hear it scream.

Oops, sorry... got that confused with what Panda does to Nolan.



P2