First land abuse?

There's a proverb that goes: If the water is cloudy, the snake can strike both ways.

Yessssss!

I'm getting the feeling that the true controversy here is much less about abusing first land, and much more about whether there can be such a thing as "Gaming the System", and if there is - whether that's ok.

Deja Vu: $1 Ratings 'Abuse'.



Alts buying First Land *is* contrary to the original spirt of the program.

However, if it is even possible to game the system, the person responsible is Linden, not the 'gamer'.

IMHO, If the rules are unclear, the solution is to clarify & tighten them - and if anyone needs to be bashed, its those who wrote the rules - not those who are abiding by them as written.

I think we need a glossary.

If you are a single-bodied first life human, and you have two accounts in Second Life, are you one "resident" or two "residents"?

I've always thought the answer was two, but it appears I may be in the minority.

We have 50,000 thingies in SL.

This thread was referred to by somebody else in the other thread who was not the O.P. of the other thread.

The O.P. of the other thread referred to yet another thread, which had to do with GOM, and started slithering off to this topic when the O.P. of the first thread responded to a question about posting under a different screen name.

Which is one reason the O.P. took the discussion out of that thread and put it onto General. Because it didn't belong in the GOM thread.

The O.P. was not even thinking abut this thread, which was buried at the time, and dredged up only to quote the O.P.'s post on it of some time ago.

O.K.?

coco

Every thread in the forums is not about you.

Regarding this topic itself, it is reasonable for a person who was not around when the First Land was first instituted to assume that the "true spirit" of First Land for new residents meant it was intended for any and all real, permanent, actual new accounts.

Just as in any other game, when you buy a new account, you generally get everything that comes with it, despite the fact that you already have another account. I have NEVER seen it otherwise.

It is reasonable for the person not here since the beginning of SL to think that "gaming the system" would mean something on the order of buying up many accounts to get their perks, then canceling them. Which would hardly be in the spirit of anybody's anything, if you have any good sportsmanlike behavior.

It is unreasonable to expect any players who were not here when the First Land was first started to be aware of its history and original intention - whether or not that still obtains, a matter which has yet to be answered. It is unreasonable to expect any planers not here when First Land was started to somehow understand that this is not intended for any new (real) account, simply because the wording on the materials states something about being "for a person who has never bought land."

One reasonably assumes such terminology merely reflects the same terminology used in ANY OTHER GAME, where, when you go to get a second account, everything reads as if you are brand new, and it is all brand new and exciting for you.

I agree with Travis's analysis of the situation, and would add that if there is any more interpretation of "First Land" than the ordinary gamer might assume - i.e., he gets new account; he gets new account privileges, with the generally-understood assumption he doesn't intend to dump said account or get more accounts than allowed - then it should be spelled out.

For example:

"Please limit your purchase of First Land to your first account only."

Absent such a statement (which many would not abide by anyhow), it is unreasonable to expect a player to make that leap himself.

To the accuse another player of lacking ethics, gaming the system, and other such horrendous things - simply because that player came in AFTER the First Land was in place as it is and interpreted the materials to mean any new account was eligible for First Land - is just plain mean.

And in this particular case, this go-around (I wasn't here for the earlier go-arounds on this topic), such was done specifically because a few players are determined to find chinks in this player's armor, when this player has never in the first place claimed to be a saint.

This player does claim, though, that her interpretation of First Land was not only reasonable, but is doubtless the same interpretation of many, if not the vast majority, of other players, at least of those who came in when First Land was already a part of the landscape.

It is not kosher to expect new players to somehow have this history to call upon. when the interface, the written materials, and the way all OTHER games are handled would indicate that all accounts (limited to five) are entitled to First Land, one time.

To then be told I'm lying, or hypocritical, when I am NOT lying or being hypocritical, just adds more insult to insult.

If the Lindens choose not to answer this issue now in the Hotline, my guess woulc be maybe because to make those who knew the history, and abided by it, feel like idiots for doing so, and yet, on the other hand, they don't want those who didn't know about it feel guilty for not doing so.

And above all, they want those new, permanent, premium accounts - alt or not - FAR more than they care whether somebody saves 1500-2500 on a piece of 512 land.

coco

Like it or not, Weedy, I AM on these forums; I do participate in them; and I was the O.P. of the thread is being discussed here and its placement.

You can follow me all around the forums with these unnecessary and insulting comments, but you can't erase me from them. So why don't you just give up? Go make your own posts. Say something useful in them.

coco

Pfft. Speak for yourself, not me. This "Do as I say, not as I do" shit is real old.

If god can be three persons in one, why can't I . I demand equal treatment.

Having you make some comment like this after all my posts is what is getting old.

coco

This thread is not about you, or me.

At least I know the difference and won't allow a derail. I'm outta here.

First Land

Second Life's "First Land" program allows Residents to purchase their first parcel of land below the current market value. Parcels are 512 square meters and sell for L$1 per meter to those who have never owned land. Please note: First Land plots are subject to availability. A snapshot of the available land can be viewed by:
http://secondlife.com/land/index.php

I bought my "First Land". I picked it out and paid for it. After that "I" no matter how many different names I have, it is still me doing it.

I'm sorry Coco, there's no way around this. And if I'm not mistaken, you asked for opinions about this.

I wouldn't have felt right if I had done it.

I believe the problem here is the wording. It doesn't say per person. It says per resident. What the heck is a resident? Is it an avatar, a person, or a vegetable? The language is specifically ambiguous. Since those accounts are billed seperately, from where I'm standing, each one of those accounts is a 'resident'. When and if they change the language to specifically say something such as 'One household member' or 'physical entity' or something not as vague and ambiguous as 'resident', then maybe it can be resolved. From what I've seen though, everyone seems to be inserting their own personal interpretation of this feature, rather than asking for clarification of something that seems purposefully ambiguous.

I apologize to the people who HAVE asked clarification for this, and recieved none. It's really, really obvious by now, since people have been asking for months, that the Lindens do not plan to answer that question at this time.

Okay, but think about it. The program was designed to help people learn about land owning inexpensively. Is the knowledge kept in the avatar or in the person behind the avatar?

So here is an interesting view:

*** entire discussion is hypothetical since I am not an alt ***

Lets say I was an alt for a primary account. The primary never bought first land because they didn't know about it during their first 60 days. Now I buy first land. Does that make it wrong? Only one land purchase per RL human behind the AV, so I haven't gone against the spirit or the apparent rules of first land.

Continuing the discussion, so creation of the next alt and buying land goes against the spirit of first land, but not the apparent rules?

*ponders*

And therein is the problem. I personally would only buy first land one time regardless of how many alts I may have. Ethically, it seems inappropriate to take advantage of the system. But I can certainly see why others would think they could.

I keep seeing people use the words 'spirit of' and 'designed' when talking about first land - and yet the language is still ambiguous. Why? With something as lucrative as first land abuse, and reselling for profit, of all things in the game, why is this language ambiguous in the first place? This is completely insane to me. There are 500 zillion things in the game which are less profitable, yet totally clear. To me, the issue is black and white - either this is abuse, or it isn't. With something this profitable and obvious, the language should be completely clear, or I see absolutely no reason to expect people not to abuse it. The fact that Linden Labs has refused to comment on the matter for months is a pretty clear indication they either want the system working exactly like it is, or.... someone is profitting pretty well off of it, and they would like to keep it that way without changing how the system works, because for the moment, it is working fine, as far as they are concerned.

Instead of making excuses for LL by saying vague phrases like 'spirit of' and 'designed', complain! There's no reason at all that something so exploitable for profit should allowed to slide just because of some sort of ethical 'grey' area - because that grey area shouldn't exist in the first place! The fact that first land is only restricted per avatar, and not per payment method, as is the 'first free account', should be an good indicator of what Linden Labs allows at the moment.