Indigo Mertel wrote:I am one of those people who actively worked to clean up and beautify the corner of Mainland where I live. For the past 4+ years I have worked hard and spent tons of money to consolidate land, remove ugly builds, merge micro-parcels. I have been following this thread with interest because I have invested a lot into Mainland.
IMO, though zoning could bring some apparent benefits I don't think it's a viable solution. I'd like to suggest a different solution.
April 28th 2008, founding day of the East River Community. We started with 1/2 a region.
In 2008, I and a few friends founded the East River Community. I believe our community is based on a model that may work on a larger scale to improve Mainland. Today the ERC is a federation of groups with a common charter and a steering committee. Candidates (groups or individuals) who want to be part of the federation must comply to some requirements set in the charter.
Our goal is to create a positive, friendly environment and a cohesive ambient, preserving our area from the uglyness so diffused on Mainland. We have a set of rules to regulate the relations of land owners but our charter is also made as to keep the red tape as low as possible.
Though we don't actively pursue affiliations of new members (but we welcome new ones), our model is working pretty well and those who know our community agree it is one of those gems that can be occasionally found on Mainland.
Map of the ERC, August 2010. The community is a lot larger now, spanning about 6 regions... but our cartographer is a bit lazy...
In my opinion this is a model that Linden Lab should encourage. Rather than forcing zoning on everyone and forcing lots of people to adapt -- while at the same time forcing Linden Lab to police zoned areas -- I believe it would be more productive to encourage people to form self-regulated communities.
Linden Lab should only set some basic rules (land preservation being one) and offer incentives to encourage people to aggregate (say, a discount on land tier, better land management tools, etc.). Communities such as ERC offer a good environment, better land value and automatic zoning. They are autonomous, self-regulated and run by enthusiast people who invest work and money into the community. Committed people who take the wealth of the community at heart.
Muirhead Village at night.
Anything forced from above on a reality as complex as Mainland, and Second Life in general, is bound to fail and make lots of people angry. The best solution, imo, is to encourage people to aggregate and form self-regulated communities based on some common values.
This is what LL would hope that we would do. Govern ourselves, and make the mainland pleasant to live in. I enjoyed reading your post enormously, and looking at the photos. It's very heartening.
While it might not be everyone's cup of tea to be governed or have such a closely-knit feeling, for some people it works well like that, just like in real life some areas have a very successful neighbourhood watch scheme (or neighbour-watch-each-other scheme as my brother calls it in his area).
I live very independently, on a small chunk of a very landlocked sim. For some reason, the people who have purchased land on the sim have tended to bunch up very close to me, but we rarely see each other, and I like that. It feels a bit like a holiday caravan park, where everyone's accommodation is slightly different and quirky, someone will bring a fountain or a flamingo for decoration, a couple of people keep pets, but the sim I am on is not unpleasant, except for the vast stretches of abandoned land that have never been turned around for auction or put up for sale.
The group I am in that works towards making mainland a tidier and more pleasant place to be doesn't have a cluster of sims as yours does, and works in a different, but effective way.
I just feel no one of us can fix the world, but if we all make our own bit pleasant (real and virtual), we can all enjoy the benefits of that.
Qie Niangao wrote:Whether there's an opportunity to spur better Mainland development top-down through market force incentives or something like "zoning" or bottom-up through community formation, it will not matter if Linden Lab doesn't follow through.
And things will continue to get worse on the Mainland if Linden Lab keeps introducing new things that actively undo what little they've been willing to do to date.
Here's an example:
How do you get a mess like this? Two simple steps: First, install a simplistic script that automatically sets parcels for sale after abandonment without any awareness of what it's just done in the vicinity. Second, fail to enforce the rules, including landsplitting, that were introduced to mitigate the violence done to the Mainland by adfarmers
I used to submit support tickets whenever I found these things, and indeed Support would take care of them. But it's just gotten to be too much. Here are two more I came across in recent travels, still in the same state today:
Without follow-through, it will hardly matter what new Mainland ideas are adopted.
This is one of those issues that does actually tee me off about LL. I hope that didn't cause anyone to fall off their chair in surprise, because I usually get accused of backing LL up 100%.
Great photos, Qie, illustrating one of the issues of mainland that in my opinion LL do need to address. It's obvious that someone has gone to the trouble of cutting up their land prior to abandoning it in such a way that it will probably either sit forever looking barren and ugly, or more likely that slivers of it will be bought by people who will make bits of the sim look ugly with just vendor boards, that aren't in breach of ToS, but just look ugly if they're not housed inside a building, and that will make the rest of the slivers unsaleable, and the sim even uglier.
Of course, LL hope that someone with a conscience, and with money, will come along, "do the right thing", and buy all those parcels of land, piece them all together, and either use them, or cut them into usable chunks and attempt to sell them on.
This I don't find acceptable. I would even volunteer to go around resizing these bits of land and setting them for sale, putting small pretty gardens on them in the meantime, if LL would trust me to do that (which, of course, they would be foolish to, because I'm just a resident, and someone they do not know if they can trust in such a way). As a result, the sim would be more aesthetically pleasing, and be more likely to appeal to someone looking to buy land.
I still submit support tickets when I see land cut like this. I usually have only 50% success rate, so I don't go out of my way to look for them, unless that's my half hour wind-down session.
>> While it might not be everyone's cup of tea to be governed or have such a closely-knit feeling <<
Very true, Marigold. In fact, I don't think there should be a "one model fit all" solution, nor I think the model I suggest would be the solution of all problems for Mainland.There will always be areas which will remain chaotic and poorly maintained. Just consider the vast amount of land owners who are just out of the loop, with very little involvement in SL. That's fine, some residents appreciate the chaotic nature of Mainland, so there is space for that as well.
However, by offering benefits in joining a community many land owners are given a reason to join one, or get some people together and start a new one. This would give a spin to a positive trend that may have good results. Our community is proof of what benefits our model brought to our area. You should have seen how the regions in our district looked like 5 - 6 years ago, total chaos.
Our model works because our members are encouraged to take pride of all the work they put into their land and being part of a common project, we share resources and support each other and the benefits are visible. And, note that I said their land, because our charter says that each group or individual remains the sole owner of the land. Our members are not forced to submit their land to a common group, they keep full control of it. This is why it is a federative model.
In my opinion, the model I suggest is what would bring the most benefits without forcing everyone to adapt. LL should encourage people to form self-governing communities, not forcing them to adopt it. Those who don't want it should not be forced to be part of it. And, by being self-governing bodies it would be up to their members to decide the level of involvement they want to have, or how close-knit they want to be. Some don't like the idea of being part of a community? Fine, call it a land trust, the result is the same. 
The only things that should be a requirement are some basic rules with the purpose of improving Mainland. Thus, offering benefits in exchange of better land management.
