|
|
|
Francis Kline made changes - 07/Jul/07 12:49 PM
kerunix Flan made changes - 12/Jul/07 09:14 AM
kerunix Flan made changes - 12/Jul/07 09:15 AM
kerunix Flan made changes - 12/Jul/07 09:16 AM
Francis Kline made changes - 17/Jul/07 03:09 AM
Francis Kline made changes - 17/Jul/07 03:11 AM
Francis Kline made changes - 17/Jul/07 03:24 AM
Just wanna add that, to be honest, I'm not sure I want to go back to the 512 sqm thinking. I like the idea of land in many different irregular shapes just like irl. Add-farms excist even irl so why not? It's ugly yeah, but being in an ugly area makes you wanna move and this will make the add-farm very lonely and abandoned in the long run. Advertisers want visitors and traffic so the abandoned ad-farm will cease to excist after a while.
Anniella, I am not sure how this solution returns us to 512 thinking. Parcels can be whatever size you want, but having a lot of parcels is an investment. At the moment, unlike in real life, adfarms are effectively free. Thus their is no real motivation for the adfarm owner to move it on if it is unproductive.
I'm voting no on anything that increases tier fees. There are good reasons for having large numbers of parcels (land renters, for example). I'd much rather see object muting (like in able's viewer: http://ablewhitman.blogspot.com/
 ) instead. This would not increase tier for nearly anyone, as the number of parcels would increase with the present area tier. I have never come accross anyone renting an area less than 256 for any reasonable use. The problem with object muting is that it would involve a large number of additional database calls to find if a certain object should be viewed by a cerain avatar.
OK I had not read up on the issue before commenting. Object muting on an indivdual basis like this is indeed a good patch. However it only works for land worth the effort of muting all the ugly signs (your home etc). It does not stop the mainland being an ugly place to wander.
This is a beautiful solution! I would append this proposal to add an exemption for groups like the Arbor Project, who own hundreds of small pieces in order to beautfiy SL...
oryx tempel made changes - 22/Aug/07 11:55 AM
In connection with VWR-1017: If ad farmers choose to dump, for example, 32 ads on a 512 to avoid this fee increase, using a "mute by owner" or "mute by parcel" feature would be much easier to implement and use. Easier for the servers to keep track of one large parcel rather than 32 smaller ones, and easier for the user to mute one large parcel rather than 32 smaller ones. Mute by object or parcel owner would be my preference, but that is another can of worms.
Rob Linden made changes - 22/Dec/07 01:02 AM
Rob Linden made changes - 22/Dec/07 01:23 AM
Rob Linden made changes - 23/Dec/07 12:14 AM
Rob Linden made changes - 23/Dec/07 12:31 AM
Anniella Winx, I really would have to vigorously oppose your whack at the 10 percent tier bonus for group land, which, if logically followed through, would lead to the punishment of groups, especially large groups, of communities that have gathered tier together and developed land together and gained prim land in particular in doing so – and all for the dubious notion of fighting ad farms. I'm all for fighting them, but not punishing group owners, who struggle enough on the mainland and definitely need this bonus to survive. Please leave it alone.
Francis, your proposal doesn't make sense because many land owners and managers make 16 m only for the purpose of putting rental boxes or pillars with FAQs or just have odd lots left over after parcelling wierd-sized items from the auction, and they don't put any ugly ad farm on them. They shouldn't be punished merely because they parcel land. I'm going to develop some alternative proposals. I like this solution, the only change I would suggest would be to change it so that users are limited to a number of DISCONNECTED parcels... that is, if two parcels touch on a side/corner, they would count as one for this purpose. This would still help to limit ads, while avoiding the burden on land renters.
"I have never come accross anyone renting an area less than 256 for any reasonable use"
I have several plots smaller than this so that the tenants on the shops I rent can change media and other options (banning griefers for example, setting landing points etc). The shops are 10x10 or 10x20 and I split off the smallest possible plot to let the shop fit into it (so a 10x10 is a 12x12 plot and a 10x20 is a 12x20 plot). I even have a 32m plot for an slexchange terminal to allow landing points to be set. Of course, these are all connected to the main mall but if my tier increasesd because of this I would not be overly happy.
sammy thielt made changes - 31/Jan/08 10:59 AM
sammy thielt made changes - 31/Jan/08 10:59 AM
sammy thielt made changes - 31/Jan/08 11:07 AM
Please review the Pjira Standards as posted on http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/PJIRA
"Examples of specific behavior or actions which may result in removal from the Issue Tracker:
In the Future, please refrain from making personal attacks.
Alexa Linden made changes - 22/Sep/08 03:40 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 12:02 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:26 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:39 PM
Sue Linden made changes - 13/Nov/08 04:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Open
Major
To combat Ad Farms and small plots: include number of parcels in tier as well as area.
If we want to get rid of that we have to get back to the 512/per piece thinking and not allow groups to get 10% extra but instead for example 512 sqm extra when a group owns more than 5000 sqm of land, 1024 sqm extra when they own more than 10000 etc.