Land Cutting

[BilliJo Aldrin]

I looked at land for sale in the inworld search this morning and found a 64 sq m roadfront parcel listed for $160 L, which was a fantastic price.

So i jumped in and bought it. 

But then I thought, where do all these micro parcels even come from.

Checking the land for sale next door gave me the answer in this case. It was carved out of a 4160 sq m parcel, with the remaining 4096 set for sale.

Its obvious why this land baron cut the land, he figured it would be easier to sell at the 4096 tier level. And he is right. 

Now, should he have listed the 64 sq m parcel for sale?

It was his choice and he did, and I bought it.

Nothing wrong with cutting off a piece to improve your chances of a sale is there?

Now, I have a 64 sq m roadside parcel that I can sell. 

Why shouldn't I be able to cut it into 2 16 sqm 2x roadside protected parcels and list them for $500 L each?

I can sell the remaining 32 sq m parcel for basically nothing.

And don't tell me they won't sell, because they always do, usually to real  ad farmers that immediately relist it at double or triple the price I sold it for.

So my question is, when is land cutting legal, justified and permitted, and when is it evil, unscrupulous and a contribution to the blight of mainland?

By the way, there are already two ad parcels across the road.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin

[Qie Niangao]

Mainland parcels 128sq.m. or smaller should only be distributed by Governor Linden's Land team. It's fine if somebody wants to carve off and abandon a small bit from a larger parcel, but it shouldn't be possible for it to be set for sale; those controls simply shouldn't work.

That doesn't do anything about the existing supply of microparcels - and my group owns a few of those that are indeed handy for some specialized scripting uses. Without them, some things wouldn't be economically practical. But so what? We'd simply do without those things, happily, if it completely ridded Mainland of microparcel blight.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

I think I have discovered the proper price point for flipping micro parcels. My 2x protected parcels I have set for sale for $1000 L rarely sell, but drop the price to $500 L and they are snapped up quickly and reset for sale for $1000 or more, with an ad on top.

As usual, greed drives the SL land sale industry.

I'm no longer putting any signs on the for sale parcels either, only a rock as a "place locator" so that when the land is sold and the rock returned, I know exactly which parcel it was, and I can update my list.

So, I'm no longer blighting anyone's view, so that's not ARable.

And now that I have stopped abandoning the non protected parts, I think I'm finally following all the rules.

I really don't see how micro parcels are a  blight. In my opinion, If they follow the rules for networked advertising, they are a welcome addition to the landscape, adding variety and interest. I see them everywhere I go, and honestly seeing their ads is no different than seeing billboards in RL.

Oh, I'd welcome any input from any Linden that happens to drop by this thread.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin
closed a gap, added words and a picture

[Prokofy Neva]

On 9/22/2020 at 7:28 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I looked at land for sale in the inworld search this morning and found a 64 sq m roadfront parcel listed for $160 L, which was a fantastic price.

So i jumped in and bought it. 

But then I thought, where do all these micro parcels even come from.

Checking the land for sale next door gave me the answer in this case. It was carved out of a 4160 sq m parcel, with the remaining 4096 set for sale.

Its obvious why this land baron cut the land, he figured it would be easier to sell at the 4096 tier level. And he is right. 

Now, should he have listed the 64 sq m parcel for sale?

It was his choice and he did, and I bought it.

Nothing wrong with cutting off a piece to improve your chances of a sale is there?

Now, I have a 64 sq m roadside parcel that I can sell. 

Why shouldn't I be able to cut it into 2 16 sqm 2x roadside protected parcels and list them for $500 L each?

I can sell the remaining 32 sq m parcel for basically nothing.

And don't tell me they won't sell, because they always do, usually to real  ad farmers that immediately relist it at double or triple the price I sold it for.

So my question is, when is land cutting legal, justified and permitted, and when is it evil, unscrupulous and a contribution to the blight of mainland?

By the way, there are already two ad parcels across the road.

 

 

Because it's a nasty, unscrupulous, and unsocial practice, that's why.

I can't have any sympathy whatsoever for a land baron that cuts land that is "easier to sell" -- he has plenty of tier, can shift the tier around and do a variety of things:

o offer the 16 m for anyone who is on the sim who needs prims, i.e. not put it on open sale

o not abandon it but put his own tasteful sign on it

o not abandon it and do nothing, since it's hardly a big deal, even if he has 100 of them - that makes up 1600 in tier which is nothing to him.

 

If the person selling it is an end user, you wonder why how they paid tier if they only had the $25 tier level. So all the same applies.

If it is someone completely exiting SL and trying to just sell their land as an end-user (not a common use case as the first two use-cases I've cited are far, far more prevalent)

So I get it that you want to come in and make a buck with this really unscrupulous practice, which you want to blame other people for and which you endlessly want to aggressively justify (perhaps you have a guilty conscience).

But what you make from this business can't be that much as to justify doing it, when you could be a nicer person, pick up abandoned land and sell it or buy cheap and sell expensive, and be more respected and likely make more cash. But then, that would take more of a trading tier than apparently you have, and perhaps a personality change.

 

Cutting land is always evil and unscrupulous. Even when some people who think of themselves as good citizens put "Good Neighbour" obelisks on it which are just annoying and lower the value of the land around them.

If you "sell it for a lower price" than extortion, that isn't commendable because you are still selling it for more than $1/m which is costs to someone requesting it from the Lindens who has adjacent land or land on that sim. You're still selling it for more than it is worth and just trying to extort from people who want to "buy back the view" and are stuck with tolerating if not your sign, the sign of the ad farmers who but it and put up ugly signs.

You don't get credit for having nothing on your land when you sell it to people who put up ugly signs.

I agree with Qie that land under 128 should only be distributed by Lindens. I would even make it 256 frankly, as GTFO and others will buy it at 128 and despoil the view as well.

 

Just as you cannot put a search/places ad on a parcel that is under 128, so I don't think you should be able to put it to sale. That will end the problem pretty much although of course we'll find a new generation of edge-casers who will still blight from 128s.

Your need to keep trying to justify this behaviour on the forums lets me know that perhaps your conscience is bothering you, or people inworld are raging at you over your bad behaviour, so I suggest you listen to it and them.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Because it's a nasty, unscrupulous, and unsocial practice, that's why.

I can't have any sympathy whatsoever for a land baron that cuts land that is "easier to sell" -- he has plenty of tier, can shift the tier around and do a variety of things:

o offer the 16 m for anyone who is on the sim who needs prims, i.e. not put it on open sale

o not abandon it but put his own tasteful sign on it

o not abandon it and do nothing, since it's hardly a big deal, even if he has 100 of them - that makes up 1600 in tier which is nothing to him.

 

If the person selling it is an end user, you wonder why how they paid tier if they only had the $25 tier level. So all the same applies.

If it is someone completely exiting SL and trying to just sell their land as an end-user (not a common use case as the first two use-cases I've cited are far, far more prevalent)

So I get it that you want to come in and make a buck with this really unscrupulous practice, which you want to blame other people for and which you endlessly want to aggressively justify (perhaps you have a guilty conscience).

But what you make from this business can't be that much as to justify doing it, when you could be a nicer person, pick up abandoned land and sell it or buy cheap and sell expensive, and be more respected and likely make more cash. But then, that would take more of a trading tier than apparently you have, and perhaps a personality change.

 

Cutting land is always evil and unscrupulous. Even when some people who think of themselves as good citizens put "Good Neighbour" obelisks on it which are just annoying and lower the value of the land around them.

If you "sell it for a lower price" than extortion, that isn't commendable because you are still selling it for more than $1/m which is costs to someone requesting it from the Lindens who has adjacent land or land on that sim. You're still selling it for more than it is worth and just trying to extort from people who want to "buy back the view" and are stuck with tolerating if not your sign, the sign of the ad farmers who but it and put up ugly signs.

You don't get credit for having nothing on your land when you sell it to people who put up ugly signs.

I agree with Qie that land under 128 should only be distributed by Lindens. I would even make it 256 frankly, as GTFO and others will buy it at 128 and despoil the view as well.

 

Just as you cannot put a search/places ad on a parcel that is under 128, so I don't think you should be able to put it to sale. That will end the problem pretty much although of course we'll find a new generation of edge-casers who will still blight from 128s.

Your need to keep trying to justify this behaviour on the forums lets me know that perhaps your conscience is bothering you, or people inworld are raging at you over your bad behaviour, so I suggest you listen to it and them.

 

As I said in a different post, that which is not forbidden is allowed.

Land is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, no more, and no less.

You make your money your way, and I'll make my money my way.

Perhaps you can petition LL to ban all the things you don't like.

In the meantime, I'll follow the rules and carry on.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Prokofy Neva]

26 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

As I said in a different post, that which is not forbidden is allowed.

Land is worth exactly what someone is willing to pay for it, no more, and no less.

You make your money your way, and I'll make my money my way.

Perhaps you can petition LL to ban all the things you don't like.

In the meantime, I'll follow the rules and carry on.

 

Actually, we're not in that sort of legal regimen which you imagine, such as to postulate "that what is not forbidden is allowed". That's the regimen of the United States of America, and God bless it, but you couldn't cut land and put billboards up on it with the ease with which you do here, due to cost and regulations which are a good thing.

In fact, you are in a highly authoritarian setting where you can be banned 'for any reason or no reason', at the discretion of the company, which can be subjective and is even the subject of RL lawsuits, all of which have failed or were possibly settled out of court (although they did yield a useful ruling from a judge that the TOS is a "contract of adhesion," which indeed it is.

Yes, in a free market, a price is where a willing buyer and a willing seller meet. But the people buying your land in many cases are not willing; they've been extorted. They've been pushed into spending a lot of money not worth that because they don't want their view blighted. In some cases, their land is devalued, and they even abandon it, which is a terrible thing for the economy and caused by you and other unscrupulous land dealers.

It's not about "making money my way" in some kind of free economy with a legal regimen of this or that type because we're in an artificial situation entirely at the Lindens' whims, although they do try to be consistent and rational or they wouldn't keep customers. 

Yes, it's good to petition the Lindens for redress. I personally have seen this work a number of times over the years as I've posted about frequently. So some people may do this and may get some traction.

The Lindens are slow to put in new policies that require more work for them and sometimes scripting. They like to solve things by programming and not by policy because there are always people like you who say mischievously, "But what about this? But what about that?" and edge-case them to death -- and it's fitting, because they love edge cases themselves, all computer nerds do, and they build entire policies around edge-cases which is of course the bane of the Internet where we have to live, increasingly.

They don't have a really solid land cutting policy though they have certainly made progress since the days when they foolishly let land fall into 16m squares to be pecked at by any passing vulture.

They want to have some capacity for ads, given their reluctance to run ad networking themselves, which is truly a shame for all of us.

They don't want to overly police content so that they don't suppress creativity. For one person, an art deco tower is a monstrosity; for someone else, it's a vampire tower. People can more or less agree about misogynist grief towers, but not always, so they waver -- but hey, look, they didn't in a recent case I wrote about. We don't have a common-law system built on precedent with things like the law of discovery and adversarial defense and a jury system and all the rest. We have a civil-law system based on precise laws and a magistrate who adjudicates them as a Russian or Chinese judge would. Some people love such authoritarianism when it works in their favour.

In your case, you have exploited a vulnerability in a system, taken advantage of people, and you are trying to prettify it by calling it "free enterprise". If anyone objects, why, they must not support capitalism or free enterprise, even though in RL these systems have regulations that are right and just in a liberal democratic society.

It doesn't work, because you are enriching yourself (and I bet, not by much) at the expense of others -- whose losses, taken as a whole, likely dwarf your personal "riches". That's the sad part of it. It's not capitalism or anything like it. It's a game.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Actually, we're not in that sort of legal regimen which you imagine, such as to postulate "that what is not forbidden is allowed". That's the regimen of the United States of America, and God bless it, but you couldn't cut land and put billboards up on it with the ease with which you do here, due to cost and regulations which are a good thing.

In fact, you are in a highly authoritarian setting where you can be banned 'for any reason or no reason', at the discretion of the company, which can be subjective and is even the subject of RL lawsuits, all of which have failed or were possibly settled out of court (although they did yield a useful ruling from a judge that the TOS is a "contract of adhesion," which indeed it is.

Yes, in a free market, a price is where a willing buyer and a willing seller meet. But the people buying your land in many cases are not willing; they've been extorted. They've been pushed into spending a lot of money not worth that because they don't want their view blighted. In some cases, their land is devalued, and they even abandon it, which is a terrible thing for the economy and caused by you and other unscrupulous land dealers.

It's not about "making money my way" in some kind of free economy with a legal regimen of this or that type because we're in an artificial situation entirely at the Lindens' whims, although they do try to be consistent and rational or they wouldn't keep customers. 

Yes, it's good to petition the Lindens for redress. I personally have seen this work a number of times over the years as I've posted about frequently. So some people may do this and may get some traction.

The Lindens are slow to put in new policies that require more work for them and sometimes scripting. They like to solve things by programming and not by policy because there are always people like you who say mischievously, "But what about this? But what about that?" and edge-case them to death -- and it's fitting, because they love edge cases themselves, all computer nerds do, and they build entire policies around edge-cases which is of course the bane of the Internet where we have to live, increasingly.

They don't have a really solid land cutting policy though they have certainly made progress since the days when they foolishly let land fall into 16m squares to be pecked at by any passing vulture.

They want to have some capacity for ads, given their reluctance to run ad networking themselves, which is truly a shame for all of us.

They don't want to overly police content so that they don't suppress creativity. For one person, an art deco tower is a monstrosity; for someone else, it's a vampire tower. People can more or less agree about misogynist grief towers, but not always, so they waver -- but hey, look, they didn't in a recent case I wrote about. We don't have a common-law system built on precedent with things like the law of discovery and adversarial defense and a jury system and all the rest. We have a civil-law system based on precise laws and a magistrate who adjudicates them as a Russian or Chinese judge would. Some people love such authoritarianism when it works in their favour.

In your case, you have exploited a vulnerability in a system, taken advantage of people, and you are trying to prettify it by calling it "free enterprise". If anyone objects, why, they must not support capitalism or free enterprise, even though in RL these systems have regulations that are right and just in a liberal democratic society.

It doesn't work, because you are enriching yourself (and I bet, not by much) at the expense of others -- whose losses, taken as a whole, likely dwarf your personal "riches". That's the sad part of it. It's not capitalism or anything like it. It's a game.

Unless i'm mistaken, the land cutting policy is to combat people cutting off a small part of a large parcel, selling the large part at a reasonable price, then extorting the buyer to get them to buy that last small piece

I deal in buying and selling micro parcels, it really has nothing to do with land cutting policies.

All of my 16 sq m parcels I bought for about $100 L or less. Is that too much for a person to pay to protect their view? Obviously it is and they would rather whine when someone else buys it and puts up a sign.

I have enough available tier that I can keep a rolling inventory of about 50 parcels. I have 4 "homes" so these parcels don't cost me anything in extra monthly tier.

I enjoy finding the parcels cheep, buying them,  and reselling them for a small profit.

Buy low and sell high is no different from what any other land flipper does. 

 

 

[Prokofy Neva]

2 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Unless i'm mistaken, the land cutting policy is to combat people cutting off a small part of a large parcel, selling the large part at a reasonable price, then extorting the buyer to get them to buy that last small piece

I deal in buying and selling micro parcels, it really has nothing to do with land cutting policies.

All of my 16 sq m parcels I bought for about $100 L or less. Is that too much for a person to pay to protect their view? Obviously it is and they would rather whine when someone else buys it and puts up a sign.

I have enough available tier that I can keep a rolling inventory of about 50 parcels. I have 4 "homes" so these parcels don't cost me anything in extra monthly tier.

I enjoy finding the parcels cheep, buying them,  and reselling them for a small profit.

Buy low and sell high is no different from what any other land flipper does. 

 

 

No, that's only one of the purposes.

That's why you are not allowed more than one micro-parcel for sim regardless of anything else.

Yes, $100 is $6.25/m for a useless parcel -- and PS I'm glad you're admitting you are trying to force people to buy back the view by saying "Is that too much to protect their view"? Yes, anything other than $1 for land like that is unconscionable.

Since you don't say how large the parcels are that you own it's worthless information. 

You're also admitting it's a game, thank you.

Other land flippers are more scrupulous, belief it or not, and some of them make a RL living.

You sound like Mr. Hong Kong. I caught up with once at a RL conference. I asked him why he extorted land sales - he had 16 and 32 m parcels near my land selling for $10,000 and giant "Mr. Lee's Hong Kong" signs which were merely a reference to Snowcrash, the novel, and not really a business.
This is a man who had a computer programming job in RL that paid him handsomely so his answer was:

"Because I can. It's fun."

You can only have contempt for people like that, and so I do.

Each answer to you only legitimizes you and your little pathetic game, so I'm done now.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

No, that's only one of the purposes.

That's why you are not allowed more than one micro-parcel for sim regardless of anything else.

Yes, $100 is $6.25/m for a useless parcel -- and PS I'm glad you're admitting you are trying to force people to buy back the view by saying "Is that too much to protect their view"? Yes, anything other than $1 for land like that is unconscionable.

Since you don't say how large the parcels are that you own it's worthless information. 

You're also admitting it's a game, thank you.

Other land flippers are more scrupulous, belief it or not, and some of them make a RL living.

You sound like Mr. Hong Kong. I caught up with once at a RL conference. I asked him why he extorted land sales - he had 16 and 32 m parcels near my land selling for $10,000 and giant "Mr. Lee's Hong Kong" signs which were merely a reference to Snowcrash, the novel, and not really a business.
This is a man who had a computer programming job in RL that paid him handsomely so his answer was:

"Because I can. It's fun."

You can only have contempt for people like that, and so I do.

Each answer to you only legitimizes you and your little pathetic game, so I'm done now.

There is nothing that states you can only have one micro parcel per sim. The rules say that you can only have one networked ad or ad farm parcel per sim.

My parcels fit neither criterion.

For the purposes of this document, "ad farm" means advertising or content intended solely to drive an unreasonable price for the land parcel it is on, usually by spoiling the nearby visual environment for others. Advertisements themselves are not prohibited; Legitimate advertising or using small parcels for promoting events or stores is allowed. But when advertising crosses the line into harassing behavior or "visual spam," and the intent is purely to compel another Resident to pay an unreasonable price to restore their view, it violates the harassment policy in the Community Standards. Although difficult to define exactly when advertising crosses this line, the intent is to be as consistent as possible and Linden Lab will remove offending content that is reported.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Policy_on_ad_farms_and_network_advertisers

Are you going to report a simple landscaping element (a small rock) as spoiling your view?

I think not.

I can have as many micro parcels for sale on one sim as I wish.

The quote clearly says that micro parcels have their uses. I am doing a service by providing micro parcels for sale to someone who might have a use for them

So, I am legitimate business person providing and filling a legitimate need. If I wasn't, no one would buy my parcels, but someone always does.

Thank you for your kind words of wisdom Mr Neva. I wish you all the best in both lives.

[Qie Niangao]

10 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Is that too much for a person to pay to protect their view? Obviously it is and they would rather whine when someone else buys it and puts up a sign.

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So, I am legitimate business person providing and filling a legitimate need. If I wasn't, no one would buy my parcels, but someone always does.

Aww. Kidnapping so rarely gets the respect it deserves as an exercise in free market capitalism.

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

10 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Aww. Kidnapping so rarely gets the respect it deserves as an exercise in free market capitalism.

 

Kidnapping is a criminal act. I'm not breaking any rules.

[Qie Niangao]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Kidnapping is a criminal act.

Gosh, I wonder why

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Qui, the comment I made about $100 L not being too much to maintain their view was in reference to the land when I found it.

I've bought parcels cheaper than that that were right in front of someone's home.

Why would someone not buy a 16 sq m parcel that has the potential to ruin their view when it was on sale for only 25 or 50 L?

So, I buy it knowing I can turn a profit on it, then I'm called the heavy for doing it.

I'm really not responsible for others failing to act to protect the integrity of their immediate environment.

I guess they would rather wait and AR any sign that shows up on the parcel after its been bought.

AR's a free after all 😁

As usual, some people expect total control over their own property, but also demand control of the land around them.

Edited September 25, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin

[Qie Niangao]

The original post asked about land cutting, the act of creating more "potential to ruin their view" -- and there's some question why people find that reprehensible? 

And somehow we're to excuse it if instead of creating a brand new potential ruin, an old one is diced finer and the price to protect from it is hiked further?

It's extortion. Obviously. The whole thread is a troll, and Prokofy is right not to legitimize it with further response.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

The original post asked about land cutting, the act of creating more "potential to ruin their view" -- and there's some question why people find that reprehensible? 

And somehow we're to excuse it if instead of creating a brand new potential ruin, an old one is diced finer and the price to protect from it is hiked further?

It's extortion. Obviously. The whole thread is a troll, and Prokofy is right not to legitimize it with further response.

It actually asked a legitimate question.. where do micro parcels come from?

If you think the whole thread is a troll, I'm sure you already reported it.

I think we have gotten all we can from the thread, so I'll take my leave.

Have a nice day Mr. Niangao

[Rabid Cheetah]

14 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

In fact, you are in a highly authoritarian setting

 

The irony of karma, given what the tiny parcels were being used for prior to the rule change.  😁

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Why would someone not buy a 16 sq m parcel that has the potential to ruin their view when it was on sale for only 25 or 50 L?

Because it might bump them up a tier level. Shaving off land to keep within a tier level is another reason that small parcels are formed and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Because it might bump them up a tier level. Shaving off land to keep within a tier level is another reason that small parcels are formed and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet.

If not in this thread then in another one I said if a 16 sq m came up for sale cheap in front of someones house,  they should cut off and abandon 16 sq m in the back.

I know I would.

But on the other hand, maybe they don't know how to cut a parcel, or they simply feel entitled to their unrestricted view as is and will AR anything that messes up their view.

But, if they don't want to buy it cheap, I will.

😁

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

On 9/25/2020 at 11:08 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

Because it might bump them up a tier level. Shaving off land to keep within a tier level is another reason that small parcels are formed and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread yet.

I hate to double reply but I can be used as an example of land shaving. I had a 4096 on the same sim as my club. Over time I cut it down to a 1024, both to buy my Trump parcels, and because I was losing a tier donation. The only reason I kept the 1024 was to have spare prims for my club. 

Except for one part I listed and sold in five minutes to a flipper, the rest was picked up by flippers putting in tickets to LL.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin

[BilliJo Aldrin]

I bought the land for 160$ L, I sold all 3 parts for $1160 L total last night.

No bad for a rookie land flipper.

The person that bought the parcels rejoined them and put an advertising kiosk on it.

I'm happy, the buyer is happy.

😁

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin
fixed errors

[Patch Linden]

5 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I bought the land for 160$ L, I sold all 3 parts for $1160 L total last night.

No bad for a rookie land flipper.

The person that bought the parcels rejoined them and put an advertising kiosk on it.

I'm happy, the buyer is happy.

😁

 

 

Please see:  http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies#Policy_Prohibiting_Land-Cutting

The act of cutting down or sub-dividing parcels for resale is not allowed. 

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

20 hours ago, Patch Linden said:

 

Please see:  http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies#Policy_Prohibiting_Land-Cutting

The act of cutting down or sub-dividing parcels for resale is not allowed. 

 

Upon reading the entire section on land cutting, specifically the part that says LL can move any parcel less than 128 sq m if it impacts the enjoyment of second life of the owner of a significantly larger parcel, I realize that any or all of my ad signs, even if they are entirely within the rules, can be removed, and my 16 sq m parcel moved from roadfront to someplace else on the sim, I see no other option than to divest myself of all my micro parcels as quickly as possible.

From the above linked wiki:

------------------

Linden reserves the right to make parcel alternations as necessary to ensure residents’ enjoyment of Second Life. We want to keep Second Life beautiful too.

We therefore may, in our sole discretion, move any parcel of land that is smaller than or equal to 128 sqm where such land is interfering with the enjoyment of a significantly larger parcel of land or region.

-----------------

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by BilliJo Aldrin

[Obi Linden]

Hello!

We are locking this thread. Friendly reminder from our wiki on mainland policies: 

"Subdivision is considered "land cutting" when a resident extensively subdivides land into smaller parcels for the purpose of further "renting" or "selling" those parcels — and it is not allowed"

Best,

Obi