Proposal - a covenant for mainland

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Well I mean good point, but I mean its better to have this kinda discussion.

I have no problem with discussing it or I wouldn't participate in said discussion.

[Aethelwine]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Again, these are subject to opinion.

There is no mainland covenant so LL can certainly add one if they wish but it will change the product dramatically to do so.  If after all this time they haven't added one then perhaps there is a reason.

Being subject to opinion is not insurmountable, after all the test for whether something should or shouldn't be changed is ultimately the bottom line... whether the change increases revenue or reduces it.

There are mainland policies that amount to a covenant

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies

A fairly limited one, but it does exist.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Aethelwine said:

There are mainland policies that amount to a covenant

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies

A fairly limited one, but it does exist.

No it doesn't.  Those are not a covenant and mainland does not have a covenant.

A covenant describes what residents are allowed/not allowed to do with regards to the land.
A policy describes how LL will treat certain situations.

They have different focuses.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

No it doesn't.  Those are not a covenant and mainland does not have a covenant.

A covenant describes what residents are allowed/not allowed to do with regards to the land.
A policy describes how LL will treat certain situations.

They have different focuses.

As long as it doesn't break the TOS, its literally a free for all. Which is totally fine. And if someone doesn't like it, they can move to Belli, move to a community of regions, or go invest in their own sim. 

[Aethelwine]

One perversity is the way land value works and especially along a river... the fact a parcel is on a protected waterway means it will have a higher value... but on a river system the value is very much dependant on the neighbours along the waterway and how they use their land. The land market then becomes a gamble because there are risks outside your control. The market can correct for that and it does such that you get lower values the further you are from the open waterway... But the perversity is that it creates a financial incentive for someone to buy in to the area put banlines up over the water, not mark it and put their land up for sale at an inflated price. There is a financial incentive in the way the system works to people being anti-social. It works more clearly along waterways but to some extent it works elsewhere too. With Ad farming they introduced a policy to mainland to cover that. The perversity of a financial reward for being obstructive however still remains in the system.

I don't have a solution to that full problem but I can think of ways that could be mitigated for example with zoning along waterways to restrict banlines.  

[Gabriele Graves]

13 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

One perversity is the way land value works and especially along a river... the fact a parcel is on a protected waterway means it will have a higher value... but on a river system the value is very much dependant on the neighbours along the waterway and how they use their land. The land market then becomes a gamble because there are risks outside your control. The market can correct for that and it does such that you get lower values the further you are from the open waterway... But the perversity is that it creates a financial incentive for someone to buy in to the area put banlines up over the water, not mark it and put their land up for sale at an inflated price. There is a financial incentive in the way the system works to people being anti-social. It works more clearly along waterways but to some extent it works elsewhere too. With Ad farming they introduced a policy to mainland to cover that. The perversity of a financial reward for being obstructive however still remains in the system.

I don't have a solution to that full problem but I can think of ways that could be mitigated for example with zoning along waterways to restrict banlines.  

You are still coming from the point of view that it's a problem that needs to be solved.

This is functioning as intended.  When someone buys land on mainland, this is what they are buying into whether they realise it or not.  That's the deal, take it or go find a better deal.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to put up banlines near the rivers or why they do so, they can still only affect the land that they paid for.  They are only obstructing their own land, that they purchased.

You'll never stop people leveraging what they have for financial gain.  No policy or rules will ever stop that or ever has.

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You are still coming from the point of view that it's a problem that needs to be solved.

This is functioning as intended.  When someone buys land on mainland, this is what they are buying into whether they realise it or not.  That's the deal, take it or go find a better deal.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to put up banlines near the rivers or why they do so, they can still only affect the land that they paid for.  They are only obstructing their own land, that they purchased.

You'll never stop people leveraging what they have for financial gain.  No policy or rules will ever stop that or ever has.

This is the same thing in RL. So if you want something cheaper, you don't look for prime real estate. 

[Qie Niangao]

15 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

This is the same thing in RL. So if you want something cheaper, you don't look for prime real estate. 

Preventing Mainland from evolving to meet demonstrated market demand is certainly a good way to maintain margin for Estates, if that's the objective.

That sure worked for adfarms, back when they drove many landowners from Mainland to Estates.

And I'm really not seeing a real difference between regulating Mainland microparcel advertising and establishing a minimum altitude for skyboxes, or a minimum delay for security scripts. (And how any of this could qualify as enforcing a "theme" is completely beyond me.)

[Gabriele Graves]

Someone really ought to read the title of the topic for enlightenment

[Qie Niangao]

5 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Someone really ought to read the title of the topic for enlightenment

What are you on about? The thread is about a possible mainland covenant, which would be one way to constrain behaviors the market finds undesirable. Mainland policy does the same, as do "zoning" restrictions in certain parts of Mainland (having the advantage of being mechanically enforceable by the platform itself). But you keep confounding "covenant" with "theme" which seems mere semantic cussedness.

[Gabriele Graves]

26 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

What are you on about? The thread is about a possible mainland covenant, which would be one way to constrain behaviors the market finds undesirable. Mainland policy does the same, as do "zoning" restrictions in certain parts of Mainland (having the advantage of being mechanically enforceable by the platform itself). But you keep confounding "covenant" with "theme" which seems mere semantic cussedness.

You clearly haven't read and/or understood.  I haven't confused covenant with theme at all.

I didn't even mention themes until much later in the discussion when posts telling people what they could and could not put down on the ground started to appear.  Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes.

The conversations about zones in this topic haven't been just limited to what is able to be mechanically enforced either which is some of what I was responding to as well.

I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!

The OP clear states:

On 10/2/2022 at 7:33 PM, animats said:

So, a proposal: gradually apply parts of the Bellessaria covenant to mainland.

Sure, it only outlines a few areas such as orbs and skyboxes but are we to naively believe that's where it would end?  When Bellisseria was introduced the covenant was much smaller than it is now.

Some people would love mainland to become Bellisseria-like judging from some of the posts and that would require themes and starting to adopt the covenant would be just the beginning for those folks who want to make mainland pretty.  So my responses were also shaped by that.

If you had read through my posts properly, you would have seen this progression and these responses.

It pretty much seems at this stage you choose not to understand my posts where others have.
 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Sammy Huntsman]

5 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You clearly haven't read and/or understood.  I haven't confused covenant with theme at all.

I didn't even mention themes until much later in the discussion when posts telling people what they could and could not put down on the ground started to appear.  Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes.

The conversations about zones in this topic haven't been just limited to what is able to be mechanically enforced either which is some of what I was responding to as well.

I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!

The OP clear states:

Sure, it only outlines a few areas such as orbs and skyboxes but are we to naively believe that's where it would end?  When Bellisseria was introduced the covenant was much smaller than it is now.

Some people would love mainland to become Bellisseria-like judging from some of the posts and that would require themes and starting to adopt the covenant would be just the beginning for those folks who want to make mainland pretty.  So my responses were also shaped by that.

If you had read through my posts properly, you would have seen this progression and these responses.

It pretty much seems at this stage you choose not to understand my posts where others have.
 

I don't know about you, but if there is a covenant, especially when you are living with other people. There is usually a theme enforced within the covenant. I mean all Chung parcels tell you that you must stay in the region theme, or risk having your items returned to you. And even within the Bellissarian convenant, there are rules put in place to try and get everyone stay within the basic theme. So yes if you had a covenant, there would for sure be a theme that people would have to follow. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

13 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You clearly haven't read and/or understood.  I haven't confused covenant with theme at all.

I didn't even mention themes until much later in the discussion when posts telling people what they could and could not put down on the ground started to appear.  Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes.

The conversations about zones in this topic haven't been just limited to what is able to be mechanically enforced either which is some of what I was responding to as well.

I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!

The OP clear states:

Sure, it only outlines a few areas such as orbs and skyboxes but are we to naively believe that's where it would end?  When Bellisseria was introduced the covenant was much smaller than it is now.

Some people would love mainland to become Bellisseria-like judging from some of the posts and that would require themes and starting to adopt the covenant would be just the beginning for those folks who want to make mainland pretty.  So my responses were also shaped by that.

If you had read through my posts properly, you would have seen this progression and these responses.

It pretty much seems at this stage you choose not to understand my posts where others have.
 

I also want to add, to who you were referring. Maybe we compel creators to create orbs that warn people when they get within a distinct radius of the parcel, that this parcel has an insert time eject. So they know that they can avoid that parcel. Or better yet. People could do what I would do. Which compels people to be courteous. By putting the orbs parameters pretty close around the house, followed by a sign saying trespassers will be ejected. And even having parameters pretty close to the height of the house. So Planes can fly over head.

[Aethelwine]

7 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You are still coming from the point of view that it's a problem that needs to be solved.

This is functioning as intended.  When someone buys land on mainland, this is what they are buying into whether they realise it or not.  That's the deal, take it or go find a better deal.

It doesn't matter if someone wants to put up banlines near the rivers or why they do so, they can still only affect the land that they paid for.  They are only obstructing their own land, that they purchased.

You'll never stop people leveraging what they have for financial gain.  No policy or rules will ever stop that or ever has.

I very much doubt the Lindens intention is to create risks that undermine the value of the product they are selling.

Markets are regulated everywhere to limit profiteering and destructive incentives. There are always loopholes that can be exploited, but their effectiveness is limited by regulations.

[Aethelwine]

6 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The OP clear states:

Sure, it only outlines a few areas such as orbs and skyboxes but are we to naively believe that's where it would end?  When Bellisseria was introduced the covenant was much smaller than it is now.

Some people would love mainland to become Bellisseria-like judging from some of the posts and that would require themes and starting to adopt the covenant would be just the beginning for those folks who want to make mainland pretty.  So my responses were also shaped by that.

If you had read through my posts properly, you would have seen this progression and these responses.

It pretty much seems at this stage you choose not to understand my posts where others have.
 

A slippery slope argument is the weakest form of argument. It is bascally denying the possibility of change without putting any thought into weighing up the outcomes.

There are already already restrictions, like the parcel cutting policy.... they haven't become a slippery slope preventing you from doing whatever you wanted to do have they?

[Qie Niangao]

5 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You clearly haven't read and/or understood.  I haven't confused covenant with theme at all.

I didn't even mention themes until much later in the discussion when posts telling people what they could and could not put down on the ground started to appear.  Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes.

The conversations about zones in this topic haven't been just limited to what is able to be mechanically enforced either which is some of what I was responding to as well.

I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!

The OP clear states:

Sure, it only outlines a few areas such as orbs and skyboxes but are we to naively believe that's where it would end?  When Bellisseria was introduced the covenant was much smaller than it is now.

Some people would love mainland to become Bellisseria-like judging from some of the posts and that would require themes and starting to adopt the covenant would be just the beginning for those folks who want to make mainland pretty.  So my responses were also shaped by that.

If you had read through my posts properly, you would have seen this progression and these responses.

It pretty much seems at this stage you choose not to understand my posts where others have.
 

Are you reading your own posts? You keep saying stuff like this, repeating even here: "I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!" Easy: Bellisseria growth compared to Mainland. That was the whole point of the original post. You claim the covenant is not the magic bullet, so you did the market analysis? Where's your data then?

You also keep saying "theme" like "Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes." That's why I had to bring up the adfarm ban: it most certainly told people what they can and cannot build—indeed the clause about connecting to the ground is practically a nascent skybox regulation—and if not having adfarms is a "theme" of Mainland, I don't know why anybody would object to that "theme" unless they're actively anti-Mainland.

If this is really all objection to the theme-specific clauses in the Bellisseria covenant: Yeah, they're fussy but nobody is talking about putting anything like that across Mainland—not even the city-zoned areas.

Yes, I mentioned mechanically enforceable, platform-native constraints (call them "policy", "covenant", or if you must, "themes") just to demonstrate that there have been building restrictions on Mainland for many years in the Nova Albion sims, for example. And you know what? Nobody proposes to make all of Mainland no-terraform.

Maybe there are posts somewhere in this thread wanting continents full of truly Victorian-themed McMansions or something, but that's not what the OP proposes, nor especially the two parts of that proposal that I've supported here.

[Gabriele Graves]

20 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

A slippery slope argument is the weakest form of argument. It is bascally denying the possibility of change without putting any thought into weighing up the outcomes.

There are already already restrictions, like the parcel cutting policy.... they haven't become a slippery slope preventing you from doing whatever you wanted to do have they?

Those policies are not a covenant, it's not the same at all.  There is literally a precedent to draw against for how much more restrictive they are and grow to be.  Hardly a weak argument.

[Qie Niangao]

On 10/2/2022 at 3:33 PM, animats said:

[…] gradually apply parts of the Bellessaria covenant to mainland

but "gradually" here doesn't refer to introducing more parts of the Bellisseria covenant over time. Rather, the next few paragraphs explain how (only) the specified parts of the covenant can be introduced gradually during transitions in Mainland ownership, so as to minimally inconvenience existing landowners.

Is that where this "slippery slope" business arose?

[Gabriele Graves]

27 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Are you reading your own posts? You keep saying stuff like this, repeating even here: "I have to laugh at "the market finds undesirable" - citation please!" Easy: Bellisseria growth compared to Mainland. That was the whole point of the original post. You claim the covenant is not the magic bullet, so you did the market analysis? Where's your data then?

Are you?  I said that exactly once.

You are equating the popularity of Bellisseria with your reasons why and the OP's reason why.  That is something you cannot possibly prove, you only have a theory regardless of posturing.  I've already given my thoughts and opinions, yes opinions as to why, go read them.

27 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

You also keep saying "theme" like "Once you start telling people what they can and cannot build, you need a theme or themes." That's why I had to bring up the adfarm ban: it most certainly told people what they can and cannot build—indeed the clause about connecting to the ground is practically a nascent skybox regulation—and if not having adfarms is a "theme" of Mainland, I don't know why anybody would object to that "theme" unless they're actively anti-Mainland.

I've already explained myself and my thinking about themes, I don't feel the need to repeat it and it's clear you didn't read it.

27 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Maybe there are posts somewhere in this thread wanting continents full of truly Victorian-themed McMansions or something, but that's not what the OP proposes, nor especially the two parts of that proposal that I've supported here.

I've already explained about this too.

I see no value in going down this rabbit hole with you any longer as you as I have taken great pains to explain myself on request and you are still acting dismissively like this.

Fine, I get it, you don't like my opinions, just move along then.
 

Edited October 6, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Qie Niangao]

7 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

citation please!

31 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I said that exactly once.

I mean, come on:

On 10/5/2022 at 2:11 AM, Gabriele Graves said:

If there really was a generally much more desire for additional rules then it would be quantifiable and easily shown here as evidence.

20 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Unfortunately for you there is a gaping hole of evidence

14 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is just an opinion that not everybody shares with you so why should this view prevail?

13 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

you think that the mainland masses wanted mainland to be transformed into such a continent as if it were a given and it's not.

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

a) It would be quantifiable - not necessarily easily but it would have to be possible.  I don't have a clue what it would actually be but if it wasn't possible then all claims about it being desired are baseless.
b) If it can be quantified then it can be presented easily as evidence that is convincing.

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Again, these are subject to opinion.

9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

baseless claims being bandied around.

There's no point arguing that others' opinions are baseless when there's also no data supporting the opposing view. Sure, it would be handy if the Lab had done the market research (they probably have) and shared the results publicly (they never would) so we could have a data-driven discussion. Meanwhile, as they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marianne Little]

I for one, would like a continent with the few rules, as the OP mention.

But I would not put such a covenant on Mainland. I would rather call it Mainland 2.0 or something other than Mainland. Let Mainland be Mainland.

I am not saying this because I will benefit from new land with rules. I will not pay tier to LL because of 25%VAT. I do not pay VAT on transactions between residents.

And I am sure that a new Mainland, but with a few rules, will be wildly popular. Too expensive for me. I predict that land prices will be higher than traditional Mainland. Rentals will demand higher rent, and have no problems getting tenants that will pay.

Renting Mainland is the cheap option for me, so on Mainland I stay.

[Qie Niangao]

8 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

I predict that land prices will be higher than traditional Mainland. Rentals will demand higher rent, and have no problems getting tenants that will pay.

A "Mainland 2.0" continent is more realistic than getting the Lab to change all of Mainland at this point, but I'm not so sure about the economics here. As you say, land prices and rents would be higher on a dedicated Mainland 2.0 continent—if there's scarcity compared to Old Mainland, but I don't think that would happen if all Mainland were blessed at once. There's a finite demand for Mainland and quite a stock of inventory.

I suppose in theory a more blessed Mainland could draw over some Estate dwellers, or encourage existing Mainlanders to expand their holdings some, but would it drive so much additional demand to raise prices? It seems to me more of a survival thing, retaining more Mainlanders who are otherwise shedding tier and settling in Bellisseria.

Certainly basic Mainland rentals are the least expensive option, but they're pretty much at the floor, just covering cost of tier. I guess if a Mainland 2.0 were introduced with current tier pricing while Old Mainland got a tier discount (maybe Premium bonus tier got twice the area on Old Mainland or something), that could get very interesting. Might get easier to choose a prime Bellisseria houseboat! 😉

[archangel969]

No, as many here say, mainland is freedom and anarchy and it should stay that way.

Where I live is 'the wild west' from SL but yet I love it here. Of course there is ugliness, but there are also beautiful things. And I love the freedom.

Edited October 14, 2022 by archangel969

[Dune Ravenwood]

Keep your stiffling rules out of the glorious Mainlands!!!!

[Prokofy Neva]

On 10/2/2022 at 3:33 PM, animats said:

The popularity of Bellessaria seems to have come with a decline of mainland. This is a problem for both LL and SL users. Parts of mainland are great. Parts of mainland are a mess. Bellessaria, on the other hand, looks consistently good. So, a proposal: gradually apply parts of the Bellessaria covenant to mainland.

Start with abandoned land. The new covenant would apply to any land purchased from Linden Lab directly. See how that works out.

Next, for part of some continent, apply the new covenant on any change in ownership. Again, see how that works out.

Next, apply the new covenant on any change in rental.

So, this doesn't affect builds that have been around forever. But when things change, the new rules begin to apply .

What to use from the Bellessaria covenant? The rules aimed at de-cluttering land:

• The privacy wall rule: "Privacy walls or fences should fit the theme and extend no more than 4m above ground level".
• The skybox rule: "Skyboxes ... only allowed above 2000m to keep the skies clear of physical/visual obstructions and casting ground shadows."
• The security orb rules: "Minimum of 15 seconds". "Cannot include 400m to 2000m." "Does not add people to parcel ban list automatically."
• The map ad rule: "Using prims or objects on parcels meant as advertisements on the world map is prohibited."

Ban lines would still be allowed.

These rules have been in effect for Bellessaria for years now, and don't seem to cause problems. So they shouldn't be controversial. They're all objective, and easily enforced.

Comments?

 

No.

The Mainland does not need a covenant and if it has one, it turns into Bellisseria.

It's not practical to make a patchwork of former abandoned land with rules, surrounded by other land bought on the auction long ago or recently or from other residents, that has no rules.

If you want Mainland to have rules, buy enough of it and buy the view from it, to make your world. That's what I do with my rentals, and thousands of other people do with their communities or their solo homes.

The nature of the rules is not the issue -- I don't allow security orbs except 500 or higher in skyboxes -- and that seems "low" but is actually out of the view for most people -- 2000 is simply not practical when you have an entire sim of small lots of 1024 or so, of 10-20-30 or more people, all of whom want to be in the sky. People who airily discuss 2000 sky limits have not had to deal with an entire sim or sims where they had to supply skyboxes for everyone.

 I don't allow privacy fences -- somebody else might.

Etc. The point is, buy land and make your rules. Abandon it if other people's rules or lack of them don't suit you. That's freedom. That's the Mainland.

The Lindens could have zoned back in the day. They didn't. They could zone even now, they have so much abandoned land. They didn't. They are funneling everyone to Bellisseria. So the task is not to bring Belli rules to the Mainland which LL won't enforce; the task is to get LL to provide other more basic improvements like nice community centers, roads, etc. as they do for Belli, on the old legacy continents.