Group Dwell Feature Proposal -

Um, this should be up to the groups to decide. Re: The statement on this board from the person contributing 10,000 of our 15,000 among four members.

How Ayn Rand this is; Eltee has better employment RL than the other three members, so therefore she's going to be exalted into a higher hierarchical status and reap the lion's share of the rewards of -all of our work- that makes Luskwood possible ... (clue: it ain't only land) even if she doesn't -want- it to be that way?

This is pretty screwed up right here.

I'd like to see some Linden response in this thread: I'm not even sure if an 'option' would be possible.

Also, this means that a person's name appears on the dwell boards, versus a place? No, we want Luskwood represented as Luskwood, not as four individuals. That's why it's a group, not... four individual plots, get it?

Maybe you should have quoted my entire post, because I followed that sentence with, "I imagine there are exceptions, however. Could this be a radio button in the Group dialog box?"

If that's even possible. I think dwell calculation is pretty structural, it works on percentages of people online, etc...

I'd basically end up being a radio button between two paradigms... I don't think that'd work but, that's why I'm hoping for some linden input.

I want to know, what makes you all so certain that these are the only two options that any group could possibly ever want.

The options I can think of:

1. Distribute to all members equally (current)
   
2. Distribute to all officers equally
   
3. Distribute to all land-donators equally
   
4. Distribute to all land-donators propotionally
   

"I want to know, what makes you all so certain that these are the only two options that any group could possibly ever want." Grim Said
---------

Indeed - Grim

Still chewing on this, but as of now I like the suggestions that allow for as much opt in/out as possible.


Started a thread to try to get additional input -

Perfect Group - Yours?

the best way i can think of would be rather than a radio button which is fairly unworkable.. allow it to be put to a vote.. either to the entire memebership, or just the officers (officer proposing the votes choice)

It should by *DEFAULT* remain as it is currently... it should then be votable to switch to a proportional system, a second vote for inclusion versus exclusion of 'members' would be in order as well

obviosuly for a new group being created, the creator has full discretion in the matter.


each group has a different ethic and mentality and no group should be forced into a position that the people who run it don't agree with :/

NO Why no? Are you going to vote yes to not recieve any more dwell money? IMO go with what haney said and KEEP it at that.

I like this idea. It allows for a choice between the two and also a mixture of both.

The more flexibility the better. There are so many different reasons groups come together that one solution will not fit all.

yes. what grim said. that's the best solution in the thread.

I for one have 1 group that I wish I would be able to set this via members or member standings...

When you guys decide to remake the group system, please make it folder based! Like the root is the general and he gets 50% of dwell, the next set of DIRs are his commanders they only get like 40% of the dwell, after this.. each commander has his or her own squad of privates.. the private class only gets 10%! I need to explain my idea to Phil, or Cory for this! Maybe next townhall! I'll bring drawings!!

come to think of it, i belong to a group that needs an intermediatry member status. semi-officers who could manipulate items and edit land, but not be able to buy or sell land.

that would be mondo nice it would.

actually i would indeed vote yes to give everyone else an equal share of the dwell.. especially *BECAUSE* the new system would give me about 80%

i want equal friends and partners MUCH more than i want 80%

can't put a price on some things yaknow?

hmm... Unfortunately Eltee, I dont think most people work like that these days.

Ryen, I want to hear from you a reason why we *shouldn't* be able to split dwell equally. Why Eltee getting 80% of the dwell should be ENFORCED, even if she, and we, don't want it that way.

that's an easy answer michi. haney stated it very clearly. it's because ll wants to encourage us to invest more allocation in groups. i'm not sure why, but they apparently think such enforcement is the way to do it.

having read our opinions, they will hopefully implement grims suggestion and make everybody happy. rest assured that our approval far outweighs their need to sell more allocation.

i dunno the problem becomes WHO sets that slider... and what does it default to?

a simple group vote seems alot easier


hell even better do somethin like okay whatever default it ON.. then for voting purposes.. you vote based on yer land share... so those of us with alot of land share who still want it equal can set it back

just.. we *HAVE* to have the option to not do this... to keep the way it is... too many groups now are built around this and not around some money grubbing dog-eat dog its MY damn money shut up and sit down kinda paradigm that this new model would seem to encourage *sigh* :/

Haney, the group controls as a whole are teh suck. You know this, and we know this. How about some finer-grained group controls for 1.5?
We could do it like RPG levels:
Level 1 people have rights X, Y and Z, level 5 people have rights A, B, and C in addition to those... level 15 people are "gods"... some IRC networks implement a system such as this for channel operator controls.
Democracy is fine and all, but not necessarily the best model for every situation.
Rights I would like to get a better control over:

- Can edit land pass list
- Can edit land options
- Can sell / release group land
- Can edit group terrain
- Can build on group land
- Can edit objects (but not scripts)
- Can edit scripts
- Can change permissions on objects / scripts
- Can return / delete objects on group land belonging to members
- Can return / delete objects on group land belonging to others
- Can deed land / objects to the group
- Can invite members
- Can kick members
- Can call a vote

Add your own!
A more fine-grained control of group money would be cool to have as well. This automated dividend was created back when hoarding money was a big no-no, and nowadays there is no reason why a group cant accumulate money, and why group objects cant use llGiveMoney to pay people from the group account.
I would like the ability to take money from the group account and distribute it to whom I see fit, to set a group tax (good for implementing rent payments!) and to select exactly who needs to pay this "tax" and when, etc.
You dont even need to code all of this. Give us an llGetGroupMoney function call that reports the amount of money available in the group account, and we can script a bunch of stuff around it to distribute money automatically.

After some discussion between the FairChangs, we have come up with our soloution.

Each group member (be they member or officer) has a slider or box where a % of the dwell can be allocated and a total at the bottom to check it comes to 100%.

This way groups can decide themselves as to how they want to divide the dwell. This gives total control to the group and allows for many different methods.

Only officers would be able to edit these settings.

The default would be all equal.

That's our 2 cents worth

groups used to be fun. now they seem like more trouble than they're worth. does everybody really have such terible problems now that we need intensive settings per member?

if my groups didn't get along any better than that, i'd leave them. it wouldn't be worth trying to fix with software settings.

I still want to see a reply from Haney on this. He asked us for suggestions, and we're not getting any response back. :|

I don't like the idea of SL becoming 'competitive' at all costs... It may mean more money input but the social fabric will tear.

I really don't like the idea of SL taking groups of people on equal standing in SL and *forcing* them to be hierarchical.

Particulary ironic since this move is supposedly intended to encourage group participation. :\

I'd like to find out a bit more what the thinking is here on LL's part. Is there a perceived benefit to a group combining land together versus simply having individual parcels? This would depend on the group, wouldn't it?

Right now, we've got incentives going in different directions.

There's a 10% discount on land allocations when you group it together. Incentive to group.

$US dwell rewards are only paid to individuals. Strong disincentive to group.

There are deep discounts for large landowners and island holders. This is a strong incentive for a group to take their finances outside of SL, and own the land through a single ingame account.

On the balance right now it makes more sense to group land if you are doing a single big build, and less sense if your aim is to get dwell. The $US dwell awards are handed out in a fashion where it pays off to have everything the group does be on a single landholder's land, and work out the sharing of any award outside the system.

If LL's aim is to correct this a bit towards encouraging group shared land (again, why?), then it makes sense to make it proportional to the amount of land donated. But as shown in this thread, that's not really what people want. Can you make a case here?

From the perspective of the major landholding group I'm in, Kazenojin, it may help to make any group proceeds proportional to the amount of land donated. We've got a single huge parcel with lots of donators to it. Unfortunately as time went on, there has been more building done by folks with no land allocation and less by the original donators. If getting dwell awards would encourage land donation I'd be all for it. I don't think it will, because we've never been about piling up the dwell. It's too minor of an income stream unless you're lucky enough to get the $US award.

I think this was long overdue here in SL. But I need to raise this issue for consideration.

We, as a couple in world (Reve Monde & myself), use our land to benefit all in Second Life as do so many others. We have done so without benefit of Incentive Bonuses and now without even Linden Support of our events. I think the group minimum should be two not three.

I think there is a need for couples to be able to own their land together without the need of a third member or alternate account to do so.

This proposal is a welcome one for us but I hope you will take this suggestion into consideration as well.

Maybe even a separate category for in world Couples. Giving 3 choices to residents. Privately owned land, Couples Land and Group Owned Land.

Anyway thanks for this proposal and you have my support .

So basically, you support the notion that groups that DO NOT WANT heirarchy and have actually pulled off an egalitarian setup and want to keep it that way should be FORCED to accept a heirarchy/personal worth scheme against their wills? Should be forced to compete with each other when they're beyond competing and are just in this for fun? Should be forced to lower themselves to squabbling over dwell and allocation and who deserves what?

You support -breaking- countless group dynamics that work just fine the way they are now just because this setup would benefit you?

*sigh*

Now, the group size issue is also kinda important, you're right. But I love how people bring up issues that affect them, but ignore the fact that the very thing they're throwing their support behind will cause innumerable other people issues of similar or more severe magnitude.

Not only 'couples' want equal representation. And actually, on that subject, why not call them 'partnerships'? Not all two-person-groups involved in projects are 'relationships'. Sometimes they're just two people working together, like in RL.

Give me a piece of paper that says 'reduce minimum group size to two', and I'll sign it. Give me one that says 'give people more options' and I'll circulate it to everyone I know. But what I will never do is support something that will benefit me at the expense of a good number of other people. That's called solipsism and while it's very popular right now, it's never been something I could get into, sorry.

I will -never- understand why people argue against -optioning- these things. What on earth is the harm in letting people decide things for themselves?

Is this getting to be a thread about how to encourage groups? If so, how about reviving one that would do a LOT more for any group that gets bigger than 3 or 4 members:

Communications!

The nature of SL as a part-time universe (for most of us ) means that getting a big group of friends together and keeping them all in the loop is really hard.

We've got group IM's, and if you work at it you can put together a conference that sends messages offline as well. But these have always been as annoying and buggy as they are helpful.

What we really need is a group message board integrated into SL. This would be a spot where group IM's could be logged for offline members to see later, but it would also store communications on a more permanent basis, and without spamming the email boxes of everyone around.

Here's what I picture:

Whenever a group member posts an announcement or starts a group IM session, all members online or off recieve a single message so they know to check the board. This board would be brought up for viewing inworld as a part of the usual Find or Groups functions. It would function like a forum, but be a part of the world experience rather than a separate location on the internet. In addition to being a shared storage point for IM logs, it would also be a location where extended group charters and bylaws could be written, where meeting announcements could be posted, etc.

Ideally it would also serve as a share point for group assets, such as scripts, or any other sort of game object. Textures, animations, invitations, notecards could all be posted and accessed by anyone in the group.

With this sort of communication format, groups, large ones especially, could do a much better job of keeping in touch. It would go a lot further towards encouraging large group projects than this minor clarification of dwell.