Group Dwell Feature Proposal -

Sounds good Haney..I support this.

Excellent!

This really is a critical issue - we need to be able to communicate to members of our groups in a way that really works.

Thank you Ananda for your proposal!

I certainly think this is a good idea, but I tend to think that what cie suggested (below) is a much better way of doing it.

Unequivocally, Cori? Without any options to opt out? Really? You support -this- method overriding the current one, no matter what the group situation?

All these people who just post, "I support this" - I think that's really a bit selfish considering it would upend existing groups.

The lindens will just see a bunch of "I support this", and in it will go.

I like this idea but I agree a feature where a certain person gets dwell would be nice too. I dont have events FOR dwell but when I do have events it would be nice to get the dwell that I "earned"

I think this would be a great idea Haney.

Seems fair to me that those that contribute the most should receive the most bonus.

But for some groups this might not work, so maybe a toggle that allows the officers to select either an even split or based on land contribution.

I like the idea, but I agree there should be options.

I also agree with Cienna. I think the options should be left up to the groups.

I do think that group owned land should be eligible for the builders incentive program even if it is a different category from the current one. I think this would in it self promote bigger groups, more land and new ideas.

I agree with the reservations that have been expressed in this thread.

I believe that such a system should only be implemented if it has the kind of options that have been outlined, the most useful of which seem to be Grim's.

I agree that Grim's idea would probably be a perfect solution; (% land based, % even distribution.) - Can we hear from a Linden on if this is even possible in the SL codebase?

As a member of the group Jazzy Jade Wolf that is structurally similar to Michi's group. I too think the distribution of dwell should remain what it is.

I know we are an exception at times. We are a goup of four people who have a RL close connection as well in game.

We even helped LL fine tune some of the aspects of land allocations because they "didnt expect to have a group that wanted to allocate all of thier land", so we became thier troubleshooters for a bit when the new group land features came out.

We dont have even allocations by far, but that is not a concern for us and never was. Like Mitchi pointed out, we all contribute in different ways and I think that is what makes a true group and not how much land or RL $ they have invested.

Some changes I can see that would be of benefit are:

A permissions panel when inviting a new group member that allows you to check off allowable permissions
-full perms
-edit land
-share dwell
-edit group objects
etc. to give the opportunity to invite group members who are maybe just adding a vendor or kiosk but not participating in the group as a whole.

Also group members should be allowed to move ANY object on thier land.

As it stands if the group decides to allow a vendor or other object placed on thier land, they cant move it during changes or renovations without having that party come and do it.

Also it becomes hard to keep track of the prims and use the send back feature for stray prims. We've had to "carve out" little pieces under these type of items to do this.

I'd also like to see the ability to set items that are for sale to be discounted or free to group members or officers in particular.

So generally I think we shouldnt change anything unless it can be fine tuned by the group officers.

Ok, so thats my two cents

Pahoa

Guess I'd better elaborate on this a bit. I have no objections to their being sliders, buttons, or whatever to share dwell equally among the group members.

I do however think groups need some major work. Groups of two should be alllowed as well. Let there be sliders and or buttons, and groups of two.

As to my prior post.. I posted this more along the lines of YES, lets do something as the present situation is not acceptable. End of story.

After spending a good 20 or so mins reading all of this there are a lot of good Ideas and a lot of bad ones.

Personally, the term Group means more than 2 in my opinion. However, I do believe that copulation of two's should be in order. So with that said I will move forward with my opinion on this whether its heard or not.

#1 to Respond to the aspect of Groups of two. I think that groups of Two should be made a seperate entity from a group such as Jazzy, Lusk wood and others.

Why? because groups of two are a coupling almost like a marriage of sorts. IRL Marriage constitutes a sharing of express privledges that just friends do not share.

OK What about the 2 person partnerships well if two people are that strong in a partnership that they do not want to allow other members then they should share in the same respects as a coupling because its a devotion of friendship.

A two person Partnership should not be entered in lightly because I feel that with a partnership of this nature it should allow privlidges that are not shared by a group of 3 or more because of the immediate closeness of friendship.

What should be allowed in such a partnership.

Full Mod Rights
Full Land Rights
Full Full Dwell devide rights.

Why is a 2 person Partnership different than a group of 3 or more...because Voting doesnt work with just two.
If there is a difference of opinion voting an Idea or person out is not an option.
Where as a Group of 3 or more it has to be a unanimous decision or it will or will not pass the vote.
So in essence a party of two is not a True group in the sense of the terminology.

#2 GROUP Control Panel.

I believe there should be options on the group panel that does what people suggest. IE for each member the Officers or an Officer should be the one in charge of assigning who does or does not recieve dwell. Basicaly here are a list of things I feel the officers should be able to do.

A. Land Dwell desimination.
1. 50% of dwell should be devided equally amongst those that have land with in the organization.
2. there should be a Controlable slider that determins a persons percentage of dewl that would be allocated by the Officers of the group.
To me this would be a fair way of dividing the dwell with in a group meaning.

If a member contributes land then they get a cut of the 50% dedicated to land holders automaticly.
If that same person contributes nothing more than land then they should not share in the other benifits of those that do.

Thus on that individual slider if the Officers deem they are not contributing to the "Other" 50% then they would not get a cut of it based on what the officers choose.

Now how does this apply to outsiders that work with the group thus selling Items in the stores well if they want to share in the dwell of the group they would have to join but on their permissions or dwell tab they would get a cut of the additional 50% not reserved for land holders.

B. All group memebers should be able to "MOVE" any object on Group Land. Not delete it...just move it to the borders of group land if it was nessasary during a renovation so to speak.

C. A Permissions setting for members joining. Meaning that they officers would give access to new members based on thier assigned needs. Permissions would include the following.
1. Mod permissions on any group object ..yes or now
2. Copy permissions on any group object...Yes or No
3. Temporary Full Mod rights based on a time frame.
4. Edit Land
5. Dwell based on the aforementioned.

Groups are very complex just as single avatars are. Trying to cover every aspect of group modification or group responcibilities is a hard thing to govern.

Think about what I have said here and let me know your opinions I am not perfect and may not have explained myself clearly.

Thank you for your time in reading this.

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

I agree with that, as far as the group complexity goes. Can't just cast one paradigm over all groups in the game. Some are simple moneymakers with a leader, some are equal share. Some are probably setups I can't even think of.

Maybe it's our exposure, too, since we've been neighbors with the Jazzies for a long time now... Their group is equal split, our group is equal split, and we thought it was pretty common. <:} Only now are we finding out that both of these groups may be an exception.

But, because of this group setup, Lusk has been a rather stable and planned-out sim, development wise. (SimFPS, maybe not.) Our groups have even cooperated to keep the landscape looking consistent - rivers, trees, bridges, etc.

The cohesiveness of the groups has made Lusk a better place to be, I think. Both Jazzy and Luskwood are groups of friendships that go beyond the game, and we don't really care if one of us has a little more land in or is in another tier. We're all working to make the place better. And like the Jazzies, we're friends outside of SecondLife, too.

I also agree with Shadow that a LOT of features and tools need to be looked at. I know Eltee tried to ask some of these questions at the last town hall and they were largely just glossed over; I know of very few groups that don't have some concerns about how groups work on SL.

That's just tools though. Our specific -social- group paradigms work for us, LL, please don't force us to change them. Some of us use the 'group' feature for friendship, social, and teamwork reasons. Some others I'm sure use it for profit and competition, but some really don't. I don't know how many times I've said, after dealing with griefers or the like, "Well, at least we have Luskwood." Yes, Eltee is supporting a large portion of our land right now; but each of us are doing the best part we can right now and she knows that, and we know that. We've even told ourselves that if any of us have second accounts, not to put them in Luskwood because it would give one person a higher proportion of the dwell. We don't want that.

We aren't competing against eachother. That's why we formed the group in the first place.

Good posts Shadow and Michi. To add to them I would like to see an additional box for something like "Vendor Member".

This would be if you owned a store or land where you permitted others to sell that you could add them to your group. They would not have any other group permissions. This would then allow the group officers to set "return objects" on the land that would not return the items belonging to Vendor Members.

If it was an optional thing it would be fine. However, to make it that way always will really penalize some folks that put in a lot of work on group projects. An example:

I bought and contributed all of the land for Tir na Nog, and formed a small group of three comprised wholly of those working on it. I bought the land and contributed it to the group, but another member did HUGE amounts of work on making it come to life, and therefore she should, in my opinion, reap any benefits that come about due to dwell on that land. To make it to where she got no dwell, merely because she didn't buy the land seems unfair and penalizes those that don't have a lot of land, but work very hard and creatively on group projects.

Make it an option...plese.

And I love the partnership idea. A two person group-like addition would solve a few problems. As Shadow suggested, it could give full Mod and Land rights and equal dwell division.
Also, if the partnership ended (as many are bound to do), any land owned by the partnership reverts back to the person that contributed it and any objects would of course be the property of the creator.

How about a 1 person group? I just want the financial paper trail that groups have access too, but I don't want to share power if I put up 100% of the front money.

How about a 1 person group? I just want the financial paper trail that groups have access too, but I don't want to share power if I put up 100% of the front money.

While I sure it would be a fairly challenging change to groups I would like to see them be scriptable.

As in, a user modifiable script that controls how such things money dispersal, land and other permissions, membership/officer addition/removal and such work.

If you want your money evenly divided, drop in the script that does that. Want it all to go to one person, simple little change. We could have all the group structures we want without having to bug a Linden for each minor change they haven't thought of.

This script would be, in effect, the charter of the group.

I imagine that group specific events would have to be created and it isn't really clear to me on which sim such a script would run. Perhaps a designated group headquarters?

-prak

bumping to ask if anything's been decided or done with this yet?

As an officer in my group and the main contributor of land, I am in favor of this. My fellow peers in my group sell a lot more than I in our shop and already make more money than me. I am fine with this but if I got more dwell based on my contributions, I would not hesitate to contribute even more land than I already do.


P.S- Koukla and Yuri, If you read this don't take it personal

With land worth as much as it is in some sims, it can take a lot of trust to commit to grouping your land with others. I finally decided to group my land with a couple of other residents whom I've known since beta or even longer, and I don't have any reservations; I would trust them with my possessions in real life, too. Grouping land is definitely the best way to go. If you can't find anyone like that to form a group with, an alt account is still only ten bucks.

This thread started in May and we haven't had any movement on this yet? Does it mean the final decision was no?



This works perfectly for me, but I agree it should be an option. There are definately different types of groups. I belong to two groups, to which I contribute 100% of their land - 11,000m2 in one case where I am the only officer, and 3,600m2 in the other where my RL spouse is the only officer (but has a basic account and cannot own land). I have no problem doing this, but I would certainly like to see more dwell from my group land than the average L$1 per night!

If a limited number of options are the only way to go, I'd pick:

1) Dwell goes proportionately to land contributors
2) Dwell goes equally to all officers
3) Dwell goes equally to all members (as current)

Otherwise, by making my land group land I am sacrificing dwell payments for group land bonus. Okay, maybe it's greedy to want both?

*Bumping* for Haney to see

Sounds reasonable to me, the more land you allocate into the group the better off you will be personaly. I never understood how someone with 10m got as much as someone with 50m. If groups still want to share an equal portion of their dwell they can divide up the money them selves. I like it!

Cath