Group Dwell Feature Proposal -

We are about to add a new feature and wanted to get your opinions before making a final decision.

Currently, nightly dwell on group land is converted to L$ before it reaches the group and the L$ are distributed to all members equally. The dwell does not get reflected in the individual members' records.

We plan to change this so that both the dwell and the resulting L$ are distributed to the members. Our sense is that they should be distributed in proportion to the member's land allocation contributed to the group rather than equally to all members.

We want to encourage residents to own land in groups and we think that proportional distribution would mean residents would be more likely to contribute land allocations. The more they contribute the more dwell they would get back. It also increases the chances that members who contribute large amounts of land allocation would show up on the monthly top 25 dwell list that results in US$ awards. Groups would also be able to add members who don't contribute allocations without worrying about reducing dwell payouts to contributors.

We are especially interested in hearing from group members about other aspects we may have overlooked. Thanks.

It would be even better if there was an option to have it the proportional way -or- split evenly. People contribute what they can to a group project, sometimes it is land, other times it may be hosting an event or building.

I support this idea *if* there was a way to choose the distribution method: equally or proportionally.

I'm with Juro on this: Some groups make a conscious decision to split all benefits equally, and to be forced to do it based on land allocations may go against what that group is trying to do. It's certainly a good option to have, it's always better to have more choices, but the old way should be a possibility too.

We had assumed this is how it was done all along and divided Venice equally between all the members of the group.

I think the members online time should be taken into account as well. I shouldn't get equal dwell for an event on Venice land just because I own a portion If I was not online. Taylor throws many events and I throw none, hell I rarely log in anymore and see no reason I should get a portion of that dwell.


Xavier

I think this would be an improvement, and would welcome it.

I also agree with Juro that making it an option would be even better (either proportional to donation or even split of dwell).

I see no need to split it in relation to online time (as suggested by xavier) since if your willing to invest (RL monthly cash, or your lifetime allowance) in the land you should see the benefit regardless of if you manage to be online that day/week/month or whatever.

Great idea Haney! I like the idea of having the option too, as it would allow more self governing of groups.

I also think Xavier's idea isn't neccessary, while it could be good, I think it would be too confusing and could result in some serious disagreements.

I think Haney's got a good idea here. Dwell should be disbursed among land owners, not group members, otherwise it becomes nothing more than a bonus-a perk to being in a group and defeats the purpose of dwell.

Occasionally I am getting a small amount (hardly significant) but still I don't feel I have earned my right to it, just because I'm in the group.

Just some ideas to throw out, how would "proportionally" be determined in terms of dwell? Is it going to be fairly distributed if someone builds for 4 hours vs another member who holds a 1 hour event? Both have contributed, but the event holder most likely produced the dwell revenue to begin with.

Oh I don't know, don't ask me, what do I know? LOL



Lia

i changed my mind. forget the whole thing unless you can implement grim's idea (read below) to let the officers set a percentage of the dwell to be distributed proportionally and the rest to be distributed evenly (or vice versa).

i do like the idea of distributing the dwell to the members so that it counts toward our personal totals. that is a good idea.

*edited to implement the 180 method

Luskwood is owned by 4 people, we all know eachother very well. We don't have even contributions to the land, but we all contribute.

For example, I built the walkway in Luskwood. Arito built the giant tree. Liam built the stage. This is all a lot of work that went to the group.

Liam doesn't have a lot of land contributed because he's currently unemployed.

But he does a lot of work for Luskwood.

Eltee Statosky owns most of the land in our group, but the avatars that Arito, Liam and I work on bring most of the folks to the area who create the dwell.

The four of us -want- dwell to be split evenly. I don't want to speak for Eltee here but I'm 99% sure that she doesn't want 90% of dwell going to only her. Luskwood is -our- project. And we've never had a problem with dwell from it being split evenly.

In a group, it isnt the land that creates dwell. Let's say a group member contributing only 512m2 on a 15000m2 plot, plans, hosts, conducts an event that brings an immense amount of dwell?

Why should most of the benefits from that event go to the majority land owner? They may not have even been online at the time of the event.

We don't want our dwell dictated for us. We don't want Linden Labs *forcing* a hierarchy in our group. We're equals in our group, and I find it a bit insulting that LL would come in and say who deserves more and who deserves less, just based on who pays LL more.

Group dynamics are different from group to group.

If this proposal does go through, all it means is that we're going to have to spend a painful amount of time every few weeks re-allocating the dwell until it's even. Which would probably mean Eltee having to sit down with a calculator and going through 'account history', tallying up the dwell that she received, and then having us report to her on the dwell that -we- received.

Please don't do this LL. And if you do, please make it an option. I think my mantra should be "make it an option", because so many problems could have been avoided just that way.

YES! OH GOD YES!!!

Khamon that's fine for a group where one person leads and you have a bunch of members,

But for an egalitarian group (we're four officers, we have no members, just four officers) this doesn't work, and can be disastrous.

I'm fairly certain you meant to post this in one of the threads about XXX animations, right?

What about... instead of measuring the amount of land a peron donates in total, what about measuring the proportion of her land that she donates to the group...

So if I donate 90% of my land, I get 90% of what someone donating all their land gets...

Not everyone can afford to tier up to the stars, and some fortunates have 8 times the amount of others to donate as a basic...

I would say the option to have it split between all group members or on Land Allocation would be the best.

Personally, I would like to see it go to all group members. I would hope though that we can accomodate both sides of this fence.

Bob my worry here is that it's counter to what LL wants to do.

They want to encourage people to contribute more land and tier up. :\

Perhaps in our case we can write a script that all four group members 'wear' that keeps track of dwell, and calculates what the even proportions would be at the end of the month or something.

.... 9_9

Even if it is counter to LL's best interests, there's nothing STOPPING us from redistributing the dwell evenly. Though it would be a pain. Seems like all this would do is cause more hoops to jump through.

How about an option that xx% be split based on land contribution, and the remainder be split between all members evenly (including those that also got a percentage for land contribution.)

xx% being variable, of course.

*Edit*

Oh, and this actually solves the other debate, as well. The percentage for land owners could be set to 0% to make group dwell work as it does now, or 100% to work as Haney indicated in his post.

Oh goodness! If there is ANY way to make this NEW allocation system optional...PLEASE consider it.

My group is split this way:

One member puts up the land

One member completes the build

One member host the events.

two of us have NO land at all allocated to the group...

while we dont really do what we do for the dwell, I would like our 'partnership' to be negotiated by us as partners;

a non optional change at this point would call for a complete re-working of our agreement/ understanding/ contract for us.....

but I can SO SO see how groups that are run differently would and could better benefit from the change proposed here.

Any way to it optional????

Just my two L$

~Alana

Even if event fees were always applicable, it just doesn't work out.. There was an event I had on our land at one point, took an immense amount of work to prepare for and nearly gave me an anuerysm pulling it off, but it worked really well in the end - and the only reason it worked was because I gave away not only the prize money but also the land fee and a chunk of my own personal money, with the idea that I'd make it back in dwell. Under the proposed system, that'd be the end of that.

And there's also just the fact that not all land draws are 'events'. Builds attract people. Stores and businesses attract people. And I think if a group's members all contribute equally to the land's 'dwell draw' then there's no reason they should not get equal distribution of dwell.

It's just kind of creepy to have LL come in from the outside and assign value to each of us as people within the group, and say who deserves to get what, based on only one criterion. Groups are supposed to be self-governing. The more options we have, the better.

But for some reason, there always seem to be people who actually disagree with the idea that 'more options are better', and want it their way and only their way, for themselves and everyone else. And that's why I'm afraid this might go through. Solipsism is the new fad, it seems.

no need to speak for me michi, or liam... as the majority holder of land in the group i can say quite factually i don't want a bloody *DIME* more than the other members.

I'm a little further along than some'f the other members are RL... so i can afford to foot a little more of the bill than they can. Thats fine by me.. i love what we've all done there.. and i love how much everyone else has done to make our part of lusk such an inviting and cool place to be.



i agree that in *SOME* group projects, this would make sense.. as it would really help eliminate 'freeloaders' who jus latch on and suck up dwell for everyone elses hard work.... in a group of equals tho... this system would essentially punish members who have less spending cash RL... and i simply cannot accept that this would be a tolerable 'replacement' of the current system.

now i don't know enough about groups in SL in general to determine which kind of group is out there more... mabye luskwood is one of many who consider themselves all for one and one for all, as it were... mebbe we're unique...

in either case i think i can stand up, as the 'majority' holder of land in one of the more successful SL theme areas and say damnit don't give me linden bucks i do *NOT* deserve compared to everyone elses' hard work

I think that may add too much complexity. In RW, I can be a silent partner in an enterprise, contribute very little actual effort, but receive a proportionate share of the reward by virtue of being a part-owner or partner.

Generally, I think the proposed new policy is a good idea, with the following caveat. Aggregating too much land into group holdings will have the following effects: a) decreased supply will drive up prices for remaining small plots for single owners, and b) result in less diversity of build types (i.e., lots of malls, markets and gathering places; fewer homes, parks, playgrounds, etc.). My two cents, anyway.

*Edited for clarity.

Mnnn, not really sure about that one, though. If group members tier up to be more 'even' in response to this, the ones who held the majority could then tier down. They're going to get the same amount of money overall to support the chunk of land regardless of how it's spread around members(Yeah, I know there are slightly different land rates dependant on what tier you're on, but for groups with large amounts of land it's negligable), because there's certainly no land available for expansion anymore.

I think their intentions here are mostly to make things more 'fair'. Unfortunately, by only taking one aspect into account(and one that does very little to reflect who's actually responsible for bringing dwell to the group) all this would do in a sizeable number of groups is make it -less- fair.

Let us work out where our assets go within the group for ourselves. We're big boys and girls. We can handle fairness and partnership arrangements on our own. At very least, and at risk of sounding like a broken record: PLEASE make this an option. It does LL no good to enforce it and just creates unnecessary hassle for a lot of people who, until this proposal came along, didn't even think of dwell distribution as an issue and were doing just fine as it was.

You know, if it isn't broken...?

Haney, will groups be eligible for the Dwell Incentive Program (i.e. the $US rewards)?

I mean otherwise, this is just a small tweak and pretty insignificant as a motivator of new behavior. The 10% land discount was much more important. And news that events may no longer carry their own reward is also much more significant.

i'm inclinded to agree with the point that no more land will be purchased as a result of this. group members will just find a way to reallocate themselves and balance their contributions.

if prims, percentage of time etc get added to the mix to make the distribution "fair," the system might as well stay as it is and go out evenly to everyone.

i do like the idea of distributing the dwell itself to individual members so that it counts toward their personal totals.

oh hellz ya!

hey juro that means u get less dwell..HAHA

Sounds like it's a sensible suggestion to me. Group members who don't contribute land shouldn't get an equal share of the dwell.

I imagine there are exceptions, however. Could this be a radio button in the Group dialog box?