Lock this too, Cyna..... it informs residents, after all

Since you have been talking about ideas, here is one:

To rule out mistakes, if someone set the price too low, there should be BIG a pop up, saying:

"You are bout to sell your land at bellow current market value, please be aware that your parcel will/could be snatched by a land bot user within one second after pressing SELL!
Do you want to proceed?"

Why not? There could be a software checking the current market, and keep updating info,
a bit like land bots do, right?!?!?!

I think that would do very well.

/Puts Elex down for comedy gold post of the year


I see this whole thing a little differently. It kinda goes like this:

Land seller improperly sets their land for sale, due to their own oversight. As a result, their land immediately sells to someone they didn't intend.

This is a hard scenerio not to feel compassion for, and its not nice to rub it in their face. However, I recognize that no one is to blame for the improper transaction itself other than the seller. Linden has already reached the point of diminishing returns when it comes to simplifying the user interface for land selling, so more changes aren't going to help.

The End.


:::::::::
::::::::
At the very same moment in the space-time continum, another, completely seperate event is taking place...
:::::::
::::::::


Someone(s) with a technical background that operates at a higher level than most residents is able to leverage those skills to create an advantage in the land market by utilizing landbots. Many consider this advantage to be unfair.

*This*, is really the 'moral' issue. Unfortunately, its getting blurred by creating an imaginary connection to the immoral act of 'stealing land'. No land is getting stolen from the seller. If anything, land is being stolen from the 'community'.

Here's the rub: The reason landbots seem so unethical, is because they are presently controlled by so few. If everyone had one, they would be at worst case status quo, and best, irrelevant.

Kinda like in 1977, good stock advice was the oracle of the elite. In 2007, that same information is a Google or a ScottTrade away. With the level of outrage, I'm surprised someone isn't working on a freely-distributable 'landbot for the masses' that would level the community playing field.

Chance Small. Land Scanners. History Repeats.

Actually they are benign. But the few of them who set their bots for mistakes and then ignore those pleading for them to give the land back are the unethical ones.

I cannot fault the bot runners who give back mistake land when asked, even though they dried up my profits and drove me out of the land business.

I think if we had 5000 people swooping in on other people, taking advantage of their mistakes and/or lag, and taking their land when they had no intention of selling it for $1, that yes, it would be just as much stealing as it is when only one or a few are doing it.

That sort of behavior I can safely say will NEVER become the status quo, because most people are simply too decent to do it.

This whole thing reminds me so much of such a simple analogy: Someone drops a $10 bill on the street. The guy walking past picks it up. Instead of handing it back, he says "Finders, Keepers," and walks away.

So childish. And yes - theft. A court of law would call that theft.

"Simplifying the user interface" is not necessarily the solution, much less the only imaginable solution, and certainly all possible manner of inhibiting instant sales to thieves have not been tried. Outlawing this sort of action by bots would be one obvious solution, for starters.

There is nothing imaginary about the immorality of people who run bots which do this, and what they do is theft.

Because we have one system doesn't automatically mean that system is perfect, and not subject to exploit; or that it never needs adjusting, or can't possibly be improved on or changed, or that there is no other possible system in the universe that could prevent this, and that therefore exploiting the system it is not immoral and isn't theft.

coco

Good point - that could almost be a third, seperate scenerio.. the buyer refusing to do the right thing.

But that doesn't apply to just land-botters. It applies to anyone that finds out that they participated in a transaction under false pretenses, and refuse to do the honorable thing. Agreed though - not honorable.

True. But the unethical land buyers of old don't get a chance to be dishonorable any more. Bots win every race. Most land barons have moved on now and have merged into civilian society...walking among us, hoping to someday swoop again.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that changes to how the *system* works couldn't also neutralize the current landbot problem. I'm only speaking in regards to simplifying the 'user interface'. I just dont see how we can dumb it down any further than it already is.

Ideas such as adding a delay in before land is revealed to search could certainly help. I just fear that without leveling the field for everyone, it'll simply become a technical arms race Linden can't possibly win. What will be the next market exploit for land after this hole in the dyke is plugged?

Travis, the argument about a "technical arms race the Lindens can't win" is always given, and I never buy it.

Thing is, if this is allowed to continue on, all we will have for SL is a game called "Dog Eat Dog." (No offense! )

The goal will be to come in and screw the next person out of their goods, much like you kill a person and harvest their corpose on a killing type game, only the stakes are higher - hundreds and even thousands of real-world dollars loss to the victim.

IF the Lindens view everything they don't want to bother with - don't want to code for, and don't want to take care of or even speak to - as a losing battle, then yes, they WILL lose the battle, and we will all be playing Dog Eat Dog, which is kinda what it's starting to be now.

The Lindens CAN fix this. They only have to want to.

They're quick enough to call it theft and immoral and all that when it's Bragg taking advantage of something that was JUST as possible as creating a landbot.

They even wrote a whole morals- and law-filled paragraph on the blog about that that could have been written about landbot thieves!

When it happens to them, it is illegal and immoral, yet when it happens to a resident, well, that is just part of an arms race they don't want to get involved in? Them's just the breaks?

Fine. But then we will be playing Dog Eat Dog, and I have to tell you, not many people actually want to play that game in a lawless virtual land, losing real money that they work hours in the real world to earn to whoever is the cleverest and least ethical thief.

coco

I think there are two issues here, should bots be banned full stop as they drive people out of the land business. Those opposed to bots on this basis could be seen as not moving with the times and that business moves on.

However I'm in the land game myself, I'm not competing with bots, I can't, I don't see them as part of the equation. Bots are premier league, I'm non league, completely different levels so on that basis I don't have a huge beef with their ability although I'd rather they could merely collate data rather than buy.

On the other hand they do undermine good will within the community, there aren't enough warnings about them and there have been accusations that they are resource hungry and therefore cause problems for the community (which I'm not part of), so in that respect, their activities should at the very least be questioned.

I've confused myself here!

Travis, I don't think they reached the limit with the interface.

They reached the limit on the interface by keeping it fitting with all their other windows and whatnots. And maybe that's the problem. People have dialog blindness.

Giant, colorful digits. Not sure about annoying sounds, maybe a cute cartoon Linden Hand with boggy eyes and a wide smile that says "Hey, it looks like you're selling some land! Would you like help?"

To stop people rushing to find the "OK" or "Cancel" buttons, they'll be renamed to "Iranu" and "Ufavu" respectively.

Which why there's a mod to the dialog that permits an object to dip into a resident's account.
This mod must be very irritating for some posters here who would have argued against it on the basis that despite the fact that people were losing money (spending money unintentionally), if someone clicked OK, then that was tough luck for being a moron.



The issues reported of land going for an intended bargain price go beyond dialog blindness.
a) They have absolutely no idea that a bot can pounce. There is no warning that this is a 'normal' part of the land sales process. They set a sale to the person beside them in the way that the interface makes easiest for them.
or
b) They are aware of the bot issue, but lag/typo or system glitches result in an error that isn't corrected in time.


It has been suggested that a warning about bots be inserted in the sale dialog. This to address (a) above.
It has been suggested that a short delay be introduced before Search insertion. This to address (b) above.


For whatever reasons, we have people here who seem to be working up to a posting along the lines of:
"Oh so what you want is for the Lindens to set up the sales for people via live help? "

I haven't seen the Linden drainer mod in person, what does the permission pop up ask? I do know I have received at least 25 warnings in world about it. All coming from various groups I am in. So why not send a landbot warning out in group notices?

Where do you stop adding warnings to the UI? When it is 2 pages long? 3 pages? When it is down to the fine print of a credit card contract? Sure it is just landbot now, but we all know that next month it will be something different.

Lag and system glitches, that is what they all say. Typos and not checking the work you have done, well that would be taking responsibility for your own actions. We can't have people taking responsibility for their own carelessness.

Yes, some do want Deus ex machina to save them from their own careless errors, they want Mommy and Daddy Linden to come down and make life fair. Can't you just see them laying on the ground, faces red, little fists pounding the dirt, feet kicking, screaming at the top of their little lungs. "Take responsibility, I don't wanna........."

OK. Chis's account has been terminated for creating Post #86 in this thread.
What? You didn't know about the Post #86 account terminator?
Tough. Take responsibility for your actions.

Then there should be a Post #86 Warning. "Warning. This post will be the 86th in this thread which will trigger the Forum Cornfield Law, Section 12, Paragraph 44, Line 13, Subsection 144(see footnote Q), resulting in terminatin of your Second Life. Do you wish to proceed? If so on your way out, please stop at the Home Page and order you First Bling, a great souvenier of your Second life Experience.

I wouldn't hold my breath on Linden Lab offering any kind of point-of-sale "warning" about bots. To do so would be to acknowledge that they are a problem, and I don't think they are prepared to take that position.

The "Sell" dialog is pretty damned straight forward as it is. Rusty suggested to force sellers to manually type "anyone" if that is the seller's intention. The dialog is already half way there, with a combo box from which you *choose* "anyone" or "specific user". This is quite similar to the sheepbot discussions, where one camp holds that if you set something for sale, expect that -anyone- can come along and buy it, and the other camp saying there's a reasonable expectation that only the person standing right next to me is going to buy it.

In the end, common sense doesn't seem to be screaming loudly enough that if you sell a parcel to "anyone", then "anyone" can buy it.

As for pricing mistakes, I am fairly convinced that simply adding a second field on the sell floater, "verify price" where the seller is required to re-enter the sale price for verification, would go a long way toward mitigating sale price errors. This attacks the problem both technically and psychologically - When re entering the sale price, the seller will naturally check the first field again, and be certain that the two fields match, and if they still don't match, the process will throw an error dialog at them, rinse/lather/repeat.

And of course, if there are bugs interfering with this process, and causing unintended behavior, these need to be seriously looked at, documented on JIRA, and resolved. Someone who regularly buys and sells land, and encounters these alleged bugs, needs to take on this cause. I suspect that the majority of problems arise from the old ID Ten T error, however.

Thanks, my alts have been wanting to come out.

i agree chris. the only other solution is a second pop-up asking if they are sure that they agreed to the first pop-up which now states what land they are selling, for how much and to whom.

then a third pop-up asking.. are you REALLY sure about that second pop-up.

and a fourth asking .. are you REALLY REALLY sure?

and a fifth ... ad infinitem.

NO mistakes will EVER be made. of course, no land will ever be sold either. sl will be populated with avies just standing around answering all those pop-ups.

I have some land for sale if they are interested......and a Bridge.

I bought that bridge my second day in SL. I have a whole collection of bridges, Golden Gate, London, Brooklyn, the one the goats used when the troll was bothering them. Do you think you could get me a deal on that building the big monkey climbed up? The 1933 version, not the two awful remakes.

Let me make a few calls.

how can YOU have the brooklyn bridge, chris? it was one of the first things *I* bought!

Your only other solution, your imagination.

This guy with a tag that said Lindan Laps sold it to me. I think his name was Grifter Lindan.I think he was in candy sales too, he kept saying "sucker".

ROFL!

Mandy C

Did he offer to be your friend for $1500 as well?