|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Gordon Wendt added a comment - 05/Jan/08 09:10 PM
I have my doubts that this is really any more enforceable as anything else that's ARable but it is just as enforceable I think so that isn't a criticism. I think this is a good idea, though it's essentially just a reinterpretation of an existing rule (number 6 as you pointed out) so hopefully LL will see that there's support for them broadening their interpretation, it has my support.
there are regulations governing billboards in real life. before these regulations went into effect the roads across america looked really bad. more and more communities are having to create ordinances and spend money to enforce them in regards to ugly stupid signs. why? because they are a problem and only a total idiot cannot recognize this problem.
ad farms should simply be banned. along with the accounts that create them. they do it to extort money from adjacent parcel owners. therefore they should be gone from sl forever. if ad farms have the right to be seen then parcel owners have the right to not see them and thus have the right to box them in so they cannot be observed at all. it goes both ways. therefore there is no win. delete them. i guess the lindens never venture outside of their sims where there are no ad farms. i guess the lindens have never experienced the ugliness of this situation. i think linden sims need to be carved up and a bunch of spinning ad farms be introduced into their private kingdoms so they too can see what it is like. but then they are not trying to run a business or have an escape from rl harshness so maybe they won't mind the ugliness. perhaps thats the issue. LL is trying to create a commerce platform yet they are not engaged in commerce within that platform and thus are not competent to make any commerce related decisions about what goes on inside SL. eat the dog food or get out of the way. I find the add farms to be ridiculous, and any lindens I've spoken too about this tend to skirt the issue. I think the add farms and especially the ones with the smiley and star of David are deliberately placed to spoil folks views and 'blackmail' them into parting with 10k. When I was shopping for mainland, and discovered this,my opinion of sl dropped a little. I think all parcels should have a lower limit of 512. Imagine person A buys a parcel, who perhaps has worked and saved and then to find the view spammed, I know I would be upset. I call it a digital ghetto... I wouldn't be surprised if it were larger land barons behind it, it would cause a class division and up the prices of parcels with coastal views etc.
While free enterprise is basically the rule of SL, the ad farms are truly a blight. We have rules in SL, and I see no reason that one can not be created to deal with these. My fear is that if the policy becomes one of dealing with them under current TOS, then that is all that will ever be done.
There is no justifiable reason for having these eyesores. They are ugly and truly ineffective. I have been in SL going on two years and have never clicked one yet. I make a point of boycotting anyone who's are on them as well. I think treating them as spam is appropriate, but I think a new rule needs to be put into effect, similar to the zoning rules now in place for mature / pg parcels. My proposal would apply to Mainland only and be as follows: The other issue which causes a harm to small parcel owners (512m2) is the darn fences. But that is another issue. DRD Torley and others who are likely to close this proposal, I'm going to ask you, preemptively NOT to do that.
Some will think that because of Jack Linden's announcement on the blog, we're "done" now with this proposal and it is "resolved": http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/02/13/mainland-and-the-ad-farm-problem/ Absolutely not, do not touch it, and do not freeze its votes. My proposal was for application of the TOS to the entire problem of ad farms, and use of Community Standards 6. Jack's plan is not for application to all ad farms situations, or for use of CS 6. In his blog, you can see he is for using other TOS language, like "harassment," and only using it on situations that can be shown to be deliberate harassment to buy back the view at a price. That's fine, and we can be glad the Lindens have at least take some small step towards mitigation, but let's be clear here: o Many ad towers aren't for sale, but are just as onboxious – in fact, likely some of these adsters got a heads-up that this policy was coming, because about 6-8 weeks ago, two of the most notorious, one of who always had land set to $9935 (Chrischun Fassbinder) suddenly took the price off many parcels, and then put in even higher ad towers! Ditto his partner Ancient Shriner. They added obnoxious Orwellian posters satirizing the idea that people "tell you what to do with your land," etc. Jack's blog concept doesn't apply to this situation, yet under my proposal, it would. o Other adsters use somewhat larger parcels and – again, almost as if they got an early tip-off – they've switched to a new tactic calling their areas "mini-parks" and putting trees on them. They still have one big tall, ugly spinning ad, but with the trees, the sign "mini park" etc, Kalyrra and others can easily pass under Jack's concept. But they wouldn't under mine, because a definitive reading could be made: on a sim where these ad "parks" don't own but a fraction of the land, they are able to DEVALUE the rest of everybody's land, especially right next to it on 4 sides. I can prove this over and over again – land won't rent or sell next to such situations. o Some of the spammers will simply put their land to $200 or even $16, just to sell it. Under my proposal, they'd be disallowed due to spam – the sheer repetitiveness. But Jack's concept sticks narrowly to the concept of "harassment" and "high price" – and would then be forced to leave these big farms alone. With Jack's policy, Umnik could be forced to remove the 4 corner pillars of his ugly ad farms, but the guts inside the 512 that he cuts up to $200 a piece could be left – and all his alts/secondaries/tertiaries like Ahatine or Torus or Keno Tidewater couldn't be denied their spot as they bought them and aren't reselling for a high price. In short, I'm quite disappointed in this new policy because it has gone in the direction not of perfectly good existing language, like "UNDESIRABLE advertising content" or "spam" or "repetitive" or "interfere with the enjoyment of SL" etc. but has gone in the direction of solving only some really obvious situations. All to the good, but it only emboldens those cynics all the more to skirt the TOS. "o Some of the spammers will simply put their land to $200 or even $16, just to sell it. Under my proposal, they'd be disallowed due to spam – the sheer repetitiveness. But Jack's concept sticks narrowly to the concept of "harassment" and "high price" – and would then be forced to leave these big farms alone. With Jack's policy, Umnik could be forced to remove the 4 corner pillars of his ugly ad farms, but the guts inside the 512 that he cuts up to $200 a piece could be left – and all his alts/secondaries/tertiaries like Ahatine or Torus or Keno Tidewater couldn't be denied their spot as they bought them and aren't reselling for a high price. "
I'd have to argue against this part. 200 L$ is quite a reasonable price for 16m of land, and I would gladly pay that. The problem with selling is that they often set unreasonably high prices in the thousands, but if the price is reasonable, the problem is solved. I'm not surprised you're showing up here, WarKirby.
You're wrong. It's not about the price when it is at $200; it's about the cutting. Cutting land up into 16m pieces is a malicious act to force people to buy up the view. It could be $1 and be a vicious act, frankly. Because at that price, bots can pick it up, all kinds of people whittle away at the 32 slices, and you are left with a big checkerboard of idiocy, part ads, part people fighting ads, possibly a few who thought this was a way to get prims. If you want to sell land for $12.5/meter, keep the parcel connected, it will sell at that rate, no need to cut it. If you are in such a hurry you have to cut to sell, why are you in the land business if you can't keep a trading tier? If you are inefficient with your trading tier and can't make your margins, get out of the land business. Well, LL has taken a small step towards helping to resolve this issue. Its not much and is going to be a pain in the butt for residents to implement. But I figure its worth it and perhaps with enough complaints LL may go further http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/02/13/mainland-and-the-ad-farm-problem/
Oops sorry! Did not see that this link was already posted It is clear that no real action will be taken on this issue without a lot of voices being heard. While I applaud LL for at least starting to examine this issue, it is time for action.
I don't see the ad land owners or their clients as evil, simply as business people using a tool that they have found, and erroniously, I think, feel it helps them. As a community, we have a right to set standards, the TOS refers to this repeatedly; Community Standards... I have added more thoughts and suggestions on my blog. Feel free to ad yours and adapt any suggestions you deam appropriate. http://drdahlgren.wordpress.com/category/mainland-ad-farm-issue/ Remember, this is supposed to be our community, but we can not expect LL to act on the words of a few vocal residents, it needs to be a united voice. - ELIMINATE THE AD PARCELS !!! DRD Much as I hate ad farms - why don't we wait a bit and SEE what the Lindens do with this, rather than jumping on them before they even start and tell them they're not doing the right thing.
Frankly, Prokofy - if I were a Linden, I'd eliminate most of the ad farms, EXCEPT the ones around you - lots of unintended consequences are possible, and I suspect the Lindens want to be cautious. Look at some of the recent rolling restart issues, and you might understand WHY they're getting more cautious. Start by ARing some of the absolute worst offenders, as strictly as you can match the parameters they've laid out - then over time, push the edges out in gentle manner so things can adjust in a smooth manner. SL wasn't built in a day, even if many islands look like they were. The problem with using the AR process and criteria set up by LL is this: When informed that an AR had been filed on several of his 16m2 ad parcels, priced at L$14k, L$14K and L$28k, the owner replied - Great, now I know which ones to take off sale first. By taking them off the market, they comply with the TOS as Jack Linden laid it out. The eyesores however still remain.
I am certainly not saying LL is doing it wrong, and in fact I give them a lot of credit for discussing the issue at all. I and many I know simply believe that only way to deal with them is to remove them from the landscape with a policy that is clear and concise. By leaving it up to an interpitation of the TOS, the policy as described will address the very worst of the offenders, and then all they need do to comply, is remove the parcel from the market. DRD If the purpose of these ad farms is extortion, what is the purpose of not setting them for sale anymore since then the adjacent parcel owners cannot buy back their view.
The purpose of taking them off sale is to be cynical, cunning, annoying, and even diabolical, that's what. Not hard to figure that out. In fact, some of them started doing this six weeks ago, indicating that they probably got an early tip-off from a leaker somewhere at the Lab – or just used good horse sense as the Lindens yakking this up at office meetings in recent months and the handwriting was on the wall.
That's why you need my proposal, and not Jack's frankly. Under my concept, if you see a repetitive ad spammer, it doesn't matter if it is set to sale or not – it's spam, it's repetitive, and it can therefore be removed, just as email spam is deleted. In fact, with the wonderful phrase "undesirable ad content" already in the TOS, one has only to enforce it, by reviewing ANY petition from ANYONE who has undesirable ads next door to them, and removing them if they indeed are shown to be undesirable. Not hard to do! I figured that for some it would be that way, but your other proposal
Linden Labs so you have outlawed ad farm extortion, which on the face of it seems a good idea, however this has just meant the Ad farmers have teamed up to work together still having one plot for sale at a ludicrous price while the others just make a mess of their surroundings, the land appears to be being used genuinely as an advertisement.
This is all just a thinly veiled attempt by the Ad farmers to still apply the same pressure using the loop hole left by Linden Labs of allowing genuine adverts while the prices of our views are advertised elsewhere on the empty plots. A maximum size of advert should be enforced to prevent the restriction of others views and enforced by removal if this sizing is not adhered to. On the whole my experiences have been pleasant in Second Life however this particular issue leaves a bad taste as it does seem Linden Labs has deserted the actual game players, in favor of a few greed driven people who no doubt have made a small fortune on the back of making others miserable. So please Linden Labs do something for us and make the game even more of a pleasure! Ads rezzed out in world - on a parcel 'owned' by another user being treated as spam?
Please. They 'own' the parcel - they do not need your permission to build whatever they wish to. The only exceptions to this are covenant lands. Yes - the practice is a rather foul one .... But come on people! I can see the logic (false logic) in this as it plays out ... Ad User: "I've just bought a small plot of land and would like your permission to rez out an advertisement." .... Sorry - in real life an ad board can be put up with the permission of the city government ... or without permission so long as it follows building codes. Care to guess who gets to decide who can and cannot build on land that you 'own'? Yourself, Linden Lab and any covenant that may be in place. That's it - end of story. I still believe the answer is quite simple, prohibit the breaking the of parcels into less than 512m2 UNLESS you own the land on all sides OR 3 sides if bounded by Gov Linden property. Prohibit more than one such sub-parcel in any 512m2. No code changes, just ad to the TOS and allow AR to resolve the issues. People who want to post ads can, but they will have to spend some tier to do it, just like I do for my 8k parcel they surround with their crap. This would of course apply only to MainLand. While I am normally loath to tell people what they can and can not do with land they own, RL or SL, there are Zoning Restrictions in RL to prevent just this type of situation. If the Ad Spammers had not gotten so out of hand, action would not be needed. Unfortunately, most simply have no consideration for those around them. Why should I, with an 8K+m2 parcel, have to look at a sex ad placed out on my boundry by a person with 16m2. Sorry, I totally believe it is time to make the 16m2 extinct.
I have seen a few decent ads, they do exist, but by and large, they are just eyesores that should not be allowed to continue. DRD Universal, as usual, your appearance in this thread is suspect, as you stalk any thread where I post and try to incite hatred. Um, apparently you fail to realize that the Lindens already created a policy that in fact opposes this very spin you are giving on the right to do WTF you want on your land which is held so sacred in SL.
The Lindens now say that in fact you cannot cut up land and put extortionist prices on it to force people to "buy back the view" – this is now an actionable TOS offense and they do discipline people for this offense now. That has led to a huge decrease in ad-cutting and extortion, but it hasn't ended it, as unless you AR the offense, sometimes repeatedly, the ad farmers feel impunity. They remain on a number of sims, although less present on the newest sims. So there ARE "building codes" and they are enforced. As noted, the policy did not go far enough in penalizing recidivists who in fact merely returned to land they had cut and extorted for months and then took the price off and put up even huger and uglier towers. There's quite a bit of that going on now. These are the very same people now commanding $100,000 for a 1024 in Bay City. DR I had a proposal elsewhere on the JIRA about enabling 512 m2 not to be cut further, but the Lindens did not seem to find it feasible (there isn't any technical reason why it couldn't be made so but there was an enormous amount of screaming from tekkies claiming "legitimate" uses for 16 m2 and "inability" to sell land not linked – claims I found that had no merit myself.) I could also warn you that some of the extortionists who ran the 16 m2 rackets merely linked up their 16 m2 and made them 256 or even 512 or larger, put less higher prices on them, and continued to mar the view and incite people to buy back the view – so it doesn't solve the problem. The TOS enables the Lindens to take action against those who disturb the peace and interfere with the enjoyment of SL. Those are very overbroad considerations, yet as some keep insisting, as a private company, they have the authority to enforce just such overbroad considerations. They should do so consistent then with some basic notiong of zoning, that is, you cannot disrupt, devalue, and interfere with all the other landowners on a sim by buying a 16 m2 and menacing with a sign. Such signs don't even get any clicks, but are there more due to the persistent of spammers in the belief that maximizing their surface view over SL will overall net them some income. In this regard, the Lindens could be dealing with this problem more effectively by focusing on the few egregious and heavily repetitive offenders, understanding they are dealing with spam kings, and discipline these accounts due to the nature of their repeate and serious offense, rather than looking at each new offense in isolation. That would serve as a deterrent to the further devaluation of land and the disturbance of the peace. Why is this in VWR and not MISC? Any objections to the move?
It is placed in VWR because most proposals related to land seem to go in VWR. There doesn't seem to be any valid reason to placing it in MISC, which may downgrade it in fact as to visibility, given that "MISC" sounds like "any everything else".
It has been placed in VWR since January 2008 without incident, so I see no reason to change it except to satisfy some desire for a power play. Your appearance here suggests you are going around policing my proposals and nit-picking. Stop it. Dearie, adding my opinion to a JIRA issue is not staking or 'inciting hatred'. Please come off your high horse.
I am well aware of the current Terms of Service changes .... Guess what? Barring ANOTHER change to the Terms of Service to ban ALL ads - legit or not - this problem will continue. As it stands right now, ads placed on anything above a 16m2 parcel are well within the ToS wording. Simple fact, simple statement. Is it fair? No. Should such extreme measures be taken - removal of ALL ads - to remove this problem? No. Should it be handled on a case by case basis? Yes. If you disagree? Fine by me - disagree and leave the speculation concerning comment motives at the door. Using such speculation in a counter argument is - so far as I am concerned - an admission of 'defeat'. Not that it will stop me from responding in kind mind you. Have a nice day Dearie. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Open
Normal
Apply Existing TOS Restriction Against Repeated Transmission of Undesired Advertising Content, Inworld Against Ad-Farms 
