Niresha Posted October 5, 2017 Share Posted October 5, 2017 (edited) So today I decided to visit the NCI Sandbox at Kuula and the first thing I see is two large rotating floating "For Sale" signs with one with so much glow, I could not even really make out it said "Sale" on the sign. On clicking on the about land, it's a 256 square meter parcel with an asking price of $30,000L. Would this be considered an Ad-Farm and in violation of the TOS? Edited October 5, 2017 by Niresha removed name from picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinRey Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Niresha said: Would this be considered an Ad-Farm and in violation of the TOS? That's hard to say. LL defines ad farm "advertising or content intended solely to drive an unreasonable price for the land parcel it is on". The advertising sign in itself is definitely violating several points of LL's official policy: Quote ... In addition, advertisements must comply with these requirements: They must be grounded to the terrain, not floating. They must extend no higher than 8 m from the ground. They must contain no rotating or flashing content and no particles. They must not dispense unsolicited IMs, note cards, landmarks or content. They must emit no light sources or glow (full bright is acceptable). Advertising hoardings must be Phantom. Ad content must be clearly General in nature. Ads must not contain sound or temp-on-rez content. Ban lines should be switched off. All advertisers must make a reasonable attempt to fit in with the local area and to respect the wishes of Residents living nearby wherever possible. ... Whether LL will actually react at all to an AR, is another question of course. Usually they won't. I once had some land at Ddalgi and two of my neighbors there set up some huge floating ad signs, one of them complete with light and particle effects. When I contacted LL about it, they told me to derender the filth. When I asked if I was suppsoed to ask all my visitors to dereender too, they didn't reply. Then some land flipper bought more than half the neighbor sim, On Dok, split it into 512 m2 parcels with a 16m2 cutout in the middle of each and added for sale signs like the one in your picture one each and every one of them. After I had AR'ed all the ToS violations three times with no reaction from LL, I gave up and left. Didn't take long before everybody else in that area followed my example. Only a few Rip van Winkle builds left in those sims and the neighbor ones now. But of course, a complaint from NCI is a completely different than one from some nobody who only owns a 4096 plot and they make pay attention to that. Edited October 6, 2017 by ChinRey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Dakota Linden Posted October 6, 2017 Moderators Share Posted October 6, 2017 Greetings! If you file an Abuse Report, someone from the Governance Team should investigate and if the signs are found to be in violation, they will be removed. Unfortunately, the team can be busy, so if the signs are still there after a week, try reporting them again. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indy Melody Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 I am familiar with this parcel as I own land in Uli, so on April 30th, I im'ed the land owner to make an offer on the parcel which is a 256 square meter parcel with 87 prims and was set for sale at $25,000L. [2017/04/30 05:47] Indy Melody: Hi [land owner], does the and in Uli belong to you? [2017/04/30 05:47] Indy Melody: Land* [2017/04/30 05:50] [land owner]: yes [2017/04/30 05:50] [land owner]: are you interested in buying it [2017/04/30 05:50] Indy Melody: it says make offer, would you take 5000L for it? [2017/04/30 05:51] [land owner]: The lowest I will go is 16,000L Within a week of making that offer, the price for the parcel was set at $90,000L and a large floating green glowing sign that said Freebies was placed over the building (drawing new avatars from NCI to the parcel to elevate the visitor count of the parcel). About four weeks ago, the price was set at $70,000L. On Sept. 24th, the land owner im'ed me the following: [2017/09/24 09:55] [land owner]: (Saved Sun Sep 24 05:56:53 2017)We dropped our land price near NCI to 35000, this week only. We want to buy a friends place if this one sells. I felt like the seller is trying to force me to purchase that parcel at an overpriced rate just to get rid of the ugly signs so I just closed the IM from the seller and ignored it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoiraKathleen Posted October 6, 2017 Share Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Indy Melody said: I am familiar with this parcel as I own land in Uli, so on April 30th, I im'ed the land owner to make an offer on the parcel which is a 256 square meter parcel with 87 prims and was set for sale at $25,000L. [2017/04/30 05:47] Indy Melody: Hi [land owner], does the and in Uli belong to you? [2017/04/30 05:47] Indy Melody: Land* [2017/04/30 05:50] [land owner]: yes [2017/04/30 05:50] [land owner]: are you interested in buying it [2017/04/30 05:50] Indy Melody: it says make offer, would you take 5000L for it? [2017/04/30 05:51] [land owner]: The lowest I will go is 16,000L Within a week of making that offer, the price for the parcel was set at $90,000L and a large floating green glowing sign that said Freebies was placed over the building (drawing new avatars from NCI to the parcel to elevate the visitor count of the parcel). About four weeks ago, the price was set at $70,000L. On Sept. 24th, the land owner im'ed me the following: [2017/09/24 09:55] [land owner]: (Saved Sun Sep 24 05:56:53 2017)We dropped our land price near NCI to 35000, this week only. We want to buy a friends place if this one sells. I felt like the seller is trying to force me to purchase that parcel at an overpriced rate just to get rid of the ugly signs so I just closed the IM from the seller and ignored it. Initially, I thought that if a person wanted to try and sell a 256 sqm parcel for $30,000, more power to them (though realistically I think they'd have to wait a long time to get that price). However, your interaction with them and the actions they took afterwards (the increase of the price along with the addition of signs that seem to be in violation) paints a different picture, and I would have had the same reaction you did, to close the IM and ignore it. I'm not one to suggest filing an AR unless there is a clear reason to do so, but your observations about the sellers actions in this particular situation lends more credence for filing an AR over the sign violations. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niresha Posted October 7, 2017 Author Share Posted October 7, 2017 Signs are now gone thankfully. I still find it amazing that the seller would think they could get the equivalent of $125 USD for a 256 sqm parcel with 87 prims. Especially when doing a land search, a person could purchase for less than L$30,000 a beach waterfront parcel over 15000 sqm with over 5000 prims. I think the parcel will be for sale for a very long time as you pointed out moirakathleen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 On 10/5/2017 at 9:59 PM, ChinRey said: When I contacted LL about it, they told me to derender the filth. Well, that Linden should get a stern talking-to. The Linden viewer doesn't know from "derender" so that's not a solution available to customers who use the official product. I don't know how I missed this thread until now, it being adfarm-related and all, but I'm glad the signs are gone. There's apparent ambiguity about how small a parcel must be for the "networked advertising" signage rules to apply, and it seems LL hesitates to remove parcels from sale unless there's clear "land splitting" involved. In any case, nobody representing the Lab should ever recommend using features available only on third party viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinRey Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 13 hours ago, Qie Niangao said: Well, that Linden should get a stern talking-to. The Linden viewer doesn't know from "derender" so that's not a solution available to customers who use the official product. To be fair to LL, what I was talking about happened four years ago. Considering @Dakota Linden's post and the fact that they reacted this time, they've probably managed to get their act together since then. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niresha Posted October 8, 2017 Author Share Posted October 8, 2017 Well, I guess this rotating sign placed today is not as bad as the previous ones, at least it is not glowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niresha Posted October 9, 2017 Author Share Posted October 9, 2017 Funny, yesterday morning the parcel was priced at $25k. Yesterday afternoon, price was $28K. Today, it can be purchased at the new bargain price of $38K. Seriously? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Niresha said: Funny, yesterday morning the parcel was priced at $25k. Yesterday afternoon, price was $28K. Today, it can be purchased at the new bargain price of $38K. Seriously? I imagine that since they were reported they now know someone doesn't like it, so they are hoping said someone will buy them out now that the sign is allowable. Things like this are why I love Firestorm's ability to permanently derender something. Edited October 9, 2017 by LittleMe Jewell 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niresha Posted October 9, 2017 Author Share Posted October 9, 2017 Maybe it doesn't apply here but this term comes to my mind, "land extortion and harassment". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleMe Jewell Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 15 minutes ago, Niresha said: Maybe it doesn't apply here but this term comes to my mind, "land extortion and harassment". Oh, it pretty much applies. They've just managed to keep it within the realm of 'permissible'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now