There are two points here I want to illuminate that show that this assessment may be misdirected.
Primarily: While LL's abuse tolerances may be remaining manageable (processing of abuse reports, etc) - to individual residents, and in-world organizaitons, this may not be the case.
And how would we handle the increased technical support load?
... How about: How would we in world handle the increased load? It's been made pretty clear that we, in-world, have been sorely unequipped to deal with griefers on our own land for a while now.
We were already at our wits end BEFORE this change came into place. Now, the level of griefing (with still no improvement in what we can do to combat it!) is becoming intolerable.
But -- Daniel and Robin say that griefing isn't really increasing!
But it is. And it's simple. Let me explain:
When Robin and Daniel talked about griefing increases, they have spoken every time of ratios . The idea that the griefing incidents "per 100 unique residents" has not increased may be true.
But LL has to understand that while resident count may be increasing along with AR count, keeping the RATIO the same -- those getting hit are not expanding along with that!
This is explained in Gwyneth Llewelyn's excellent followup comment to Daniel Linden's blog, seen here.
I.e., Mainland Project A's "griefer absorption ability" is not increasing whatsoever with the rising population and AR count!
Fact is, before this change, Luskwood got "hit" 2-3 times on weekdays and 5-6 times on weekends. Now we're seeing more like 3-6 times on weekdays and 8-10 times on weekends. For us, the problem has nearly doubled.
Let me give an example that I gave in the forums earlier:
A small town has a population of 300. A bank in that town gets robbed once a year for $10,000. It figures it into the cost of doing business, and continues on.
That small town's population increases to 300,000. Now, the bank gets robbed 1000 times a year. (Ridiculous, I know - but this is just for the sake of argument.)
The "crime" or "griefing" ratio per-year-per-unique-resident is the SAME as it was before, but that bank must now "absorb" ten million dollars of losses a year!
LL's answer would be as if the police said to this bank, "Well, the resident-to-crime ratio hasn't increased, so I don't see the problem..."
Now, to further exacerbate this: Griefing is NOT "evenly distributed". It's concentrated on popular, easily accessible (and rather defenseless!) areas. So even if the calculation included AR's-per-unique-resident-per-land-in-SL, the increase would STILL be very disproportionate.
Guys: It's great that LL is able to keep up with the ARs, and that by percentage, we aren't getting a larger "percentage" of griefers. That's good to know!
But, in the meantime -- just look at the forums, and see how people are coping with this change "on the ground".. look in world... There is simply no denying that individual areas, individual businesses and individuals themselves are simply getting hit MORE now.
Please, please consider this angle in your judgements, LL! That's all I ask.
Thanks,
