these are hard times and we all know it

[Kazimira McConnell]

Unfortunaly the fact t hat the linden is what made SL could also brake it. People cant afford as many luxuries and unfortunatly Sl is one of the first to go so the only way to make SL not the first is to make it less expensive. The only things I can think of to help with that would be to move over to the inworldz  system of renting servers and cleaning up SL code so we have all the features but it runs much smoother and with no data leaks or unneeded data transfers. By doing so SL will be low cost on a server and apparently the other server renting method is cheaper and very diffrent from the LL method so it may be highly useful for private sims and private land away from the mainland.

[madman626 Fall]

If it was`t for ppl who do rent or buy L$ , become Premium Members ,, or is a land lord  you wouldn't have a free SL to start with pretty sure LL don't run for free so has you call us * people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains * you are very welcome to play SL for free thanks to us that do put money in to sl with out us there no free game .

[mikka Luik]

Differing tier for commercial land brings up the whole zoning debate again too, always interesting to watch And yes gaming - ok I grab the tiniest possible to park vendors on at the commercial rate and next door I have my full not for sale displays all set to just that...policing that would be a full time job.

Smaller tier increments and a bigger allotment for lowest premium would possibly work

 

edit for my atrocious spellink

[JeanneAnne]

---

madman626 Fall wrote:

If it was`t for ppl who do rent or buy L$ , become Premium Members ,, or is a land lord  you wouldn't have a free SL to start with pretty sure LL don't run for free so has you call us * people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains * you are very welcome to play SL for free thanks to us that do put money in to sl with out us there no free game .

---

thank you very much for your generosity madman !!

please do continue to pay for my free cartoons

i surely do appreciate it

Jeanne

 

[JeanneAnne]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

once i had "land" offered to me for free .. i was kinda naive .. not too sure how tier worked .. so @ 1st the idea of free land sounded appealing .. but then i was informed or realized somehow that i would have to pay LL "tier" on "my" land .. whats w/ this? i thot .. is tier like property tax you pay to the government then? but property taxes are less than the value of the property & tier is much more than the value of the property .. so how can you say that you "own" virtual land when you constantly must pay the real owner for it ??

renting server space for coded cartoons is very much an affluent 1st world phenomonon .. only ppl rich by world standards could even contemplate paying for pixels .. with so much poverty in the world is it even ethical to pay for pixels? thats a question ppl who pay for the privilege of pretending to "own" someting that isnt even real will have to ask themselves

sometimes i expect to wake up & find that overnite people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains .. & they will feel silly & sheepish for having taken a cartoon world so seriously that theyve been paying real money for ther colorful illusions .. if this ever happens sl dies .. so i hope it doesnt happen .. but i really hav2 wonder what ppl are thinking when they pay that tier

Jeanne 

---

You seem to forget that different people use SL in different ways. Your way is fine for you but others prefer different ways. For some people, 'owning' land for various reasons is the prefered way, and the monthly cost of it is

very

cheap. It's extremely cheap entertainment.

You've no need to worry that the fog you mentioned will lift. It won't - because it doesn't exist. You seem to imagine that you are smarter or cleverer than those who actually put money into SL, but you're not. Just like you, everyone who puts money in is well aware that it isn't actually necessary, but they do it because they want to - because it's extremely cheap for their own particular SL entertainment. Using SL and never putting money in isn't smart or clever. It's merely a choice that everyone knows.

---

of course different ppl use sl in different ways .. thats 1uv the virtues of the game .. but whether you use it for music or still fotography or video or building or sailing or for virtual combat or for romance or kinky pixel slex or games or historical / fantasy RP or for whatever .. theres no need to pay for any of it

when you say that "the monthly cost of (sl) is very cheap" you sound like Romney saying that middle class income begins @ $200K per year .. you sound very elitist ... when millions of Americans go hungry & billions do around the world .. paying anything for cartoon entertainment doesnt seem so cheap

im not worried about the collective fog of self-delusionment lifting from around the brains of elitist ricos .. not because it doesnt exist but because its so deeply ingrained in the minds of the likes of you .. paying for pretty cartoons when you dont hav2 isnt smart but it must be very ego gratifying to the narcissistic personality ... you dont pay because you have to .. but because you can .. mwwah !! wallowing in privilege so you can convince yourself that you deserve the privileges you enjoy .. & boasting about how cheap it is for you .. while many go hungry ..

maybe someday youll realize how sick this all is

Jeanne

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

Actually there are a variety of ways people can approach SL. People can play completely for free, people can pay money in if they choose and people can actually make a living at it. It all depends on what you want to do. Actually a setup like that seems more egalitarian than models that some people propose like asking everyone to pay what would quickly end up to be hundreds of dollars a year to maintain the system and then forbidding them the chance to get any of that reimbursed.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Actually there are a variety of ways people can approach SL. People can play completely for free, people can pay money in if they choose and people can actually make a living at it. It all depends on what you want to do. Actually a setup like that seems more egalitarian than models that some people propose like asking everyone to pay what would quickly end up to be hundreds of dollars a year to maintain the system and then forbidding them the chance to get any of that reimbursed.

---

i think that if everyone paid roughly $200 per year it would cover SL operating expenses & no one would have any advantage or disadvantage over anyone else

as is .. some pay $295 per month to rent (excuse, to "own" LoL) a sim while others play for free

nothing "egalitarian" about the current situation whatsoever

Jeanne

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

[161488303349]

---

mikka Luik wrote:

Differing tier for commercial land brings up the whole zoning debate again too, always interesting to watch

And yes gaming - ok I grab the tiniest possible to park vendors on at the commercial rate and next door I have my full not for sale displays all set to just that...policing that would be a full time job.

---

is kinda interesting to talk about zoning. it also works pretty much

like at Linden Homes. is the odd new person who doesnt realise they cant set up shop in their Home but they get it after being told

can see where commercial being cheaper works as well. like the mainland double prim areas. while is no covenant they tend to end up commercial mostly

+

differential pricing and packaging tends to stimulate financial interest and activity. well seems like to me anyways

while is not all about the money for all us, it is for the merchant class and for linden as well

i am not a merchant or builder. like i dont make anything for sale. but i do think that the builder merchants are the financial lifeblood of SL. so i think that's where any effort to sustain SL longterm should go

people come to SL for all kinds of reasons but i think that the #1 reason out of all the reasons that people came piling into SL in 2006/07 and tiered up was. to make some dollars for themselves if they could anyway they could. for the less creative of us landflipping almost became a national sport for a while. well a sideline maybe (: but it also did bring a whole bunch of people who learned how to make stuff to sell

 

 

[JeanneAnne]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

---

yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be ..

Jeanne

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

---

yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be ..

Jeanne

 

 

---

Indeed - an equal gathering of a group of the leisure class.

[JeanneAnne]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

---

Indeed - an equal gathering a group of the leisure class

---

Absolutely !!

a bunchuv spoiled affluent 1st world whiners ... supporting rich 1%ers running a vampire CO2 spewing corporation

Indeed!

Jeanne

 

[161488303349]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

---

yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be ..

Jeanne

 

---

but i dont want to pay anything at all ever to anyone. i just dont value community enough to be worth anything to me. community sux anarchy rulz or something

[Knowl Paine]

I could be doing more to help promote Second Life.

Productive people, with access to natural resources, are the true sources of value.

A large percentage of Residents, visit SL for leisure, and recreation.

A second group of Residents, visit SL to provide leisure, and recreation.

 

I've only made that distinction, to show that a small number of Residents, concern themselves with the well being of the SL economy.

As Guest, they are not obliged to do so.

 

As the saying goes: We the willing, lead by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful...

 

We are our only hope. :smileylol:

[Melita Magic]

It is all subjective, Jeanne Anne. One person thinks a narcissistic personality is happy to pay for a hobby and share it with others. Another person thinks a narcissistic personality delights in baiting people on the same topic for over a year, solid. All in one's perspective.

One thing renting/owning/paying for a parcel affords the person so doing is the right to put up boundaries. Frankly, it's people who delight in doing their best to spoil others' participation in a perfectly harmless hobby who account for much of the ban lines in Second Life.

What enjoyment is there in trolling? I know there is fun in having a virtual sandbox to create within and to share or not share with others as one wishes.

If it is so sick, why are you there? Of course, the only rational answer is, you don't think it's sick. You just enjoy telling us it is.

[Phil Deakins]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

once i had "land" offered to me for free .. i was kinda naive .. not too sure how tier worked .. so @ 1st the idea of free land sounded appealing .. but then i was informed or realized somehow that i would have to pay LL "tier" on "my" land .. whats w/ this? i thot .. is tier like property tax you pay to the government then? but property taxes are less than the value of the property & tier is much more than the value of the property .. so how can you say that you "own" virtual land when you constantly must pay the real owner for it ??

renting server space for coded cartoons is very much an affluent 1st world phenomonon .. only ppl rich by world standards could even contemplate paying for pixels .. with so much poverty in the world is it even ethical to pay for pixels? thats a question ppl who pay for the privilege of pretending to "own" someting that isnt even real will have to ask themselves

sometimes i expect to wake up & find that overnite people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains .. & they will feel silly & sheepish for having taken a cartoon world so seriously that theyve been paying real money for ther colorful illusions .. if this ever happens sl dies .. so i hope it doesnt happen .. but i really hav2 wonder what ppl are thinking when they pay that tier

Jeanne 

---

You seem to forget that different people use SL in different ways. Your way is fine for you but others prefer different ways. For some people, 'owning' land for various reasons is the prefered way, and the monthly cost of it is

very

cheap. It's extremely cheap entertainment.

You've no need to worry that the fog you mentioned will lift. It won't - because it doesn't exist. You seem to imagine that you are smarter or cleverer than those who actually put money into SL, but you're not. Just like you, everyone who puts money in is well aware that it isn't actually necessary, but they do it because they want to - because it's extremely cheap for their own particular SL entertainment. Using SL and never putting money in isn't smart or clever. It's merely a choice that everyone knows.

---

of course different ppl use sl in different ways .. thats 1uv the virtues of the game .. but whether you use it for music or still fotography or video or building or sailing or for virtual combat or for romance or kinky pixel slex or games or historical / fantasy RP or for whatever .. theres no need to pay for any of it

when you say that "the monthly cost of (sl) is

very

cheap" you sound like Romney saying that middle class income begins @ $200K per year .. you sound

very

elitist ... when millions of Americans go hungry & billions do around the world .. paying anything for cartoon entertainment doesnt seem so cheap

im not worried about the collective fog of self-delusionment lifting from around the brains of elitist ricos .. not because it doesnt exist but because its so deeply ingrained in the minds of the likes of you .. paying for pretty cartoons when you dont hav2 isnt smart but it must be very ego gratifying to the narcissistic personality ... you dont pay because you

have

to .. but because you

can

.. mwwah !! wallowing in privilege so you can convince yourself that you

deserve

the privileges you enjoy .. & boasting about how cheap it is for you .. while many go hungry ..

maybe someday youll realize how sick this all is

Jeanne 

---

Are you suggesting that anything we spend on entertainment shouldn't be spent because others are unable to do it? If you are, I don't think you'll anyone agreeing with you - not even those who can't do it. Tell me, do you ever eat in a restaurant or cafe? You could spend less and eat at home. Do you ever buy a drink for pleasure? You could drink water and save the money. Do you ever have an evening out? You could stay home and spend nothing. Does your internet useage cost you you anything? Broadband? The computer? And does it entertain you? Do you spend anything on entertainment at all? Going out? TV? You do? Why, when so many people around the world go hungry? No, Jeanne, your argument is nonsense and you yourself are guilty of what you accused others of.

But just for your interest, Apart from the first few days, I've 'owned' land in SL and, by 'owning' it, I've made a great many thousands of US$ here. So I'm not exactly filled with the self-delusion you talked about. That doesn't exist in anyone, let alone me.

As you said, maybe someday I'll realise how sick this is. Perhaps you would be good enough to teach me - after you've stopped paying for any form of entertainment yourself, which, according to you, is sick because there are many hungry people in the world.

[Phil Deakins]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

---

yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be ..

Jeanne 

---

Ah. Now what about all those hungry people around the world who are unable to contribute? You've shot yourself in the foot there, Jeanne

SL costs every user money, unless they use someone else's computer, that is. There are people who are unable to spend money to use SL - can't afford a computer at all. Your reasoning in an earlier post is, because there are hungry people, nobody should spend any money at all to use SL (in mere entertainment), because it's "sick" - no internet connection, not even a computer.

Perhaps you'd like to decide what your arguments really are?

[Julez Andrew]

Thank you, it's interesting. The question is, if any free grid can have amount of content and social interaction / economy like SL.

[JeanneAnne]

---

16 wrote:

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now.

---

yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be ..

Jeanne

 

---

but i dont want to pay anything at all ever to anyone. i just dont value community enough to be worth anything to me. community sux anarchy rulz or something

---

i figure that many would leave SL if they had to pay .. thats ok tho .. others would be drawn to an egalitarian virtual world & wouldnt mind paying to be free of all the "linden love" nonsense .. im sure you could find free worlds online .. where you could seek community or solitude .. as you prefer

Jeanne

 

[161488303349]

I don't get it when you say stuff like: if we all pay then we wont have to pay

I sometimes think that you think that you some kinda marxist. doesn't really fit tho with what you say sometimes

bc marxism->communism isnt about anyone paying. is about labour. you get fed and clothed and a roof. medical and education and thats about it. just have work after that. if not want to work in a commune style living then you have to anyway bc nobody will carry you when all everyone has is their ability to work. like you get made to if you dont work bc is no way you can contribute otherwise

[JeanneAnne]

---

16 wrote:

I don't get it when you say stuff like: if we all pay then we wont have to pay

I sometimes think that you think that you some kinda marxist. doesn't really fit tho with what you say sometimes

bc marxism->communism isnt about anyone paying. is about labour. you get fed and clothed and a roof. medical and education and thats about it. just have work after that. if not want to work in a commune style living then you have to anyway bc nobody will carry you when all everyone has is their ability to work. like you get made to if you dont work bc is no way you can contribute otherwise

---

i dont know mucha bout Marx .. i do like his saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need" tho .. thats 1uv my favorite quotes .. when you say that communism is about getting fed clothed housed medical treatment & education .. that sounds better than many get under greed-based fascist corporatism .. but why does that have to be "about it"? why cant that just be the beginning? in exchange for what youre able to do why not get whatever you want .. so long as its no more than anyone else gets?

Jeanne

 

[161488303349]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

---

16 wrote:

I don't get it when you say stuff like: if we all pay then we wont have to pay

I sometimes think that you think that you some kinda marxist. doesn't really fit tho with what you say sometimes

bc marxism->communism isnt about anyone paying. is about labour. you get fed and clothed and a roof. medical and education and thats about it. just have work after that. if not want to work in a commune style living then you have to anyway bc nobody will carry you when all everyone has is their ability to work. like you get made to if you dont work bc is no way you can contribute otherwise

---

i dont know mucha bout Marx .. i do like his saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need" tho .. thats 1uv my favorite quotes .. when you say that communism is about getting fed clothed housed medical treatment & education .. that sounds better than many get under greed-based fascist corporatism .. but why does that have to be "about it"? why cant that just be the beginning? in exchange for what youre able to do why not get whatever you want .. so long as its no more than anyone else gets?

Jeanne

 

---

it ends with all the people who dont want to be in a commune style. is what I meant by anarchy. anarchism is an extreme form of self-expression. when is any effort made to coerce a true anarchist into commune style ways then most often they react quite violently

 

[161488303349]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

i dont know mucha bout Marx .. i do like his saying "from each according to ability, to each according to need" tho .. thats 1uv my favorite quotes

 

---

this is one of those noble ideas that don't ever seem to work out in practice. lazy people overrate their abilities and overrate their own needs

where it can work is like on Star Trek. Mr Spock says this all the time. it works on Star Trek bc no one has to work on there. they dont have to work bc they got replicators/machines that make everything they need

[JeanneAnne]

---

16 wrote:

---

---

with all the people who dont want to be in a commune style. is what I meant by anarchy. anarchism is an extreme form of self-expression. when is any effort made to coerce a true anarchist into commune style ways then most often they react quite violently

 

---

i use2 call myself an anarchist but then i found a better word .. autarchy .. i dont see any conflict between communal living & autarky .. every1 governs his or her own self & every1 has a say in decisions that effect the entire group .. if some1 is so independant that they dont even want to live in a group .. nothings stopping them from going it alone .. i dont see why SL cant be a communal group of autonomous self governing individuals .. i think itd be a much better place if it was

Jeanne

 

[161488303349]

---

JeanneAnne wrote:

i use2 call myself an anarchist but then i found a better word .. autarchy .. i dont see any conflict between communal living & autarky .. every1 governs his or her own self & every1 has a say in decisions that effect the entire group .. if some1 is so independant that they dont even want to live in a group .. nothings stopping them from going it alone .. i dont see why SL cant be a communal group of autonomous self governing individuals .. i think itd be a much better place if it was

Jeanne

 

---

so what happens when an individual disagrees with the group. do they just get ignored?

what happens if is like 49% disagree? do they get ignored as well? what happens if they choose not to pay the $200 each bc of that?