Yet Another Disillusioned Mainland Land Owner

[Rowan Amore]

One can hope but I still have my doubts about what you're truly advertising.  It's not property management but land flipping so anyone looking for the former.will be sorely disappointed, I'm afraid.  

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

One can hope but I still have my doubts about what you're truly advertising.  It's not property management but land flipping so anyone looking for the former.will be sorely disappointed, I'm afraid.  

 

The only property I manage is my own. 😁

[Rowan Amore]

So again, what ARE you advertising.  Ads are designed to sell a.product or service.  Since the only property you manage is your own, there is no real business?  It's very confusing.

12 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

The only property I manage is my own. 😁

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

So again, what ARE you advertising.  Ads are designed to sell a.product or service.  Since the only property you manage is your own, there is no real business?  It's very confusing.

 

Well if i tell you what I do, that is advertising and is only allowed in the business forum

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Well if i tell you what I do, that is advertising and is only allowed in the business forum

False. 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

Here is a list of all the 16 sq m microparcels currently for sale by all sellers, for under $2000 L. I'm sure there's even more at higher prices

When you consider mine are always listed for $500 L, any interested buyers will check out mine first.

Like i said, $500 L is the sweet spot.

The first two on the list are interior parcels, and so are grossly overpriced, I know because I checked them out

 

Edited June 7, 2023 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Well if i tell you what I do, that is advertising and is only allowed in the business forum

Nope.  But thanks for your recent posts.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

False. 

Maybe you are right, but I don't want to find out

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Here is a list of all the 16 sq m microparcels currently for sale by all sellers.

When you consider mine are listed for $500 L, any interested buyers will check out mine first.

Like i said, $500 L is the sweet spot.

 

 

That's nice.  They aren't here trying to justify what they do as a business, which you've made clear, since you only manage your own property, yours is not.

Nor are.they here telling everyone to "suck it up".   Not sure what you hoped to accomplish with this thread and you're last one but it sure has given all.of us a clear picture so for that, I thank you kindly and exit.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

That's nice.  They aren't here trying to justify what they do as a business, which you've made clear, since you only manage your own property, yours is not.

Nor are.they here telling everyone to "suck it up".   Not sure what you hoped to accomplish with this thread and you're last one but it sure has given all.of us a clear picture so for that, I thank you kindly and exit.

I didn't tell anyone to suck it up. I simply don't share the majority opinion that ad parcels are a blight on mainland that should be banned.

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I simply don't share the majority opinion that ad parcels are a blight on mainland that should be banned.

Some of us said neither. 
I may believe they are a blight "in general", especially when used as You use them. That's not the same as saying "they are a blight on mainland" period.

Neither do I believe they should be banned. 

I think ad parcel owners should take personal responsibility. Not their neighbors.

[elleevelyn]

8 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So, you are saying I could be banned for buying land that others end up not liking what I do with it?

That really doesn't seem fair.

LL has stated quite clearly that I can own up to 50 networked advertising parcels, so potentially 50 people could be upset and abandon their land.

I'm sorry, but following the rules isn't a bannable offence, since all my ads comply with all the rules set out for networked advertising.

In this case its not community standards, its rules regarding networked advertising.

this is what you will argue at arbitration should you ever get banhammered

the Linden arbitration FAQ is here: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Terms_of_Service_Arbitration_FAQ

 

[Coffee Pancake]

Nahhh .. ban them

and force available Li to 0 when less than 512sqm is owned on a region

[norajulian]

On 6/4/2023 at 11:26 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

As for selling land for only $0.5 L per square meter, go take that one up with the hundreds of land flippers operating in SL

I’m late to the party, so I skipped 5 pages but.. 

Are you aware of what a land flipper is? Because it seems like you might need to come to a self-realization, if you are indeed reselling these plots. 

I’m confused by your confusion on this entire thread (albeit, I didn’t read 1.5-6, so take that with a grain of something spicy). 

Just another feisty forum weeknight. ❤️ 

[Rowan Amore]

Land flipping is when an investor buys an undeveloped piece of land, and then resells it at a higher price. The investor can make improvements to the property, but it’s common to resell the land without doing any work on it.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, norajulian said:

I’m late to the party, so I skipped 5 pages but.. 

Are you aware of what a land flipper is? Because it seems like you might need to come to a self-realization, if you are indeed reselling these plots. 

I’m confused by your confusion on this entire thread (albeit, I didn’t read 1.5-6, so take that with a grain of something spicy). 

Just another feisty forum weeknight. ❤️ 

Yes I'm a flipper, I buy these parcels for $250 L and sell them for $500 L. In fact I'm in the process of setting them all for sale right now

Edited June 8, 2023 by BilliJo Aldrin
spelling

[BilliJo Aldrin]

7 hours ago, elleevelyn said:

this is what you will argue at arbitration should you ever get banhammered

the Linden arbitration FAQ is here: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Terms_of_Service_Arbitration_FAQ

 

No one gets banned for following the rules. Adjacent land owners can file an AR on an individual ad board. LL will look at it and say no, it conforms to all the rules, sorry.

That's what happened in 2020, I'm guessing they got so many complaints that they finally changed the rules.

😂

 

[Extrude Ragu]

I don't think it's wise to laugh off the concerns of residents at large. Any good business owner knows it's unwise to make too many enemies. If you make enough enemies, it won't matter whether you operate in the rules or not, the rules will change to deal with you, because ultimately LL too is a business and an unhappy customer base is bad for business. There is precedent for this happening, and it happened recently - Just look at what happened to that infamous bot operator.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

I had a thought. If neighboring parcels all put up screens that together prevent anyone - at all - from seeing your adboards, what would you do? 

[Love Zhaoying]

14 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

My bad, no, having an ad board beside another parcel for sale will not affect the ability of me to sell the parcel. Ad board owners don't care what is beside them, even if its another ad board.

Your answer implies that you think the "for-sale" microparcels will only be purchased by other users for "adboards". Do I understand you correctly?

Prior to your reply, my assumption was that the neighbors may theoretically wish to purchase the microparcels to merge with their land, fix "cutouts", and AVOID their use by adboards. (Even though I listed a host of reasons earlier in your thread why someone may not want to do so: increasing land tier, etc.)

 

[Qie Niangao]

32 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I had a thought. If neighboring parcels all put up screens that together prevent anyone - at all - from seeing your adboards, what would you do? 

This used to come up a lot, even before Jack established the adfarm policy. Local landowners would often surround the ad towers with their own builds, just to hide them. Incredibly, those landowners would get AR'd by the adfarmers and Governance would take down the blocking structures to comply with a completely imaginary "policy" that even 16m parcels needed to have at least one side left open to walk in and out of the parcel. (They didn't actually care that the blocking structures were phantom so anybody could walk through them—except the ad towers themselves weren't phantom and completely filled the parcel anyway.)

This didn't apply to roadside parcels, though, because the landowner couldn't block the roadside faces of the ads without encroaching on the Gov's roadway. These protected faces were why adfarmers favored roadside parcels. It was obvious even then that nobody looked at the towers as actual advertising, but they needed to be visible to serve their real business purpose: extorting landowners into buying microparcels at exorbitant prices. 

We warned Jack that making it illegal to sell the ad-bearing microparcels themselves would not do much good, and you'll notice that there's no such rule in the policy. That's because, as we see in this thread, it's just as effective to sell other microparcels that could become ads, as long as there are enough ads around to remind landowners of the threat. Instead, they used this language:

Quote

Finally, if a review your land transactions shows that your primary purpose in placing the advertising content is to force the sale of land rather than genuinely advertise, this will be deemed to be a violation and dealt with accordingly.

It's unlikely anybody in Governance today remembers that this was intended to be more restrictive than a ban on sale of ad-bearing parcels themselves. Anyway, when reporting an adfarm parcel, there's not much use citing the fact there's an ad on land that's for sale: that's not covered by the policy. In the actual terms of the policy, for sale microparcels should be reportable whether they have ads or not, but there will need to be some re-education at Governance for that to work as it should.

[Love Zhaoying]

43 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This used to come up a lot, even before Jack established the adfarm policy. Local landowners would often surround the ad towers with their own builds, just to hide them. Incredibly, those landowners would get AR'd by the adfarmers and Governance would take down the blocking structures to comply with a completely imaginary "policy" that even 16m parcels needed to have at least one side left open to walk in and out of the parcel. (They didn't actually care that the blocking structures were phantom so anybody could walk through them—except the ad towers themselves weren't phantom and completely filled the parcel anyway.)

This didn't apply to roadside parcels, though, because the landowner couldn't block the roadside faces of the ads without encroaching on the Gov's roadway. These protected faces were why adfarmers favored roadside parcels. It was obvious even then that nobody looked at the towers as actual advertising, but they needed to be visible to serve their real business purpose: extorting landowners into buying microparcels at exorbitant prices. 

We warned Jack that making it illegal to sell the ad-bearing microparcels themselves would not do much good, and you'll notice that there's no such rule in the policy. That's because, as we see in this thread, it's just as effective to sell other microparcels that could become ads, as long as there are enough ads around to remind landowners of the threat. Instead, they used this language:

It's unlikely anybody in Governance today remembers that this was intended to be more restrictive than a ban on sale of ad-bearing parcels themselves. Anyway, when reporting an adfarm parcel, there's not much use citing the fact there's an ad on land that's for sale: that's not covered by the policy. In the actual terms of the policy, for sale microparcels should be reportable whether they have ads or not, but there will need to be some re-education at Governance for that to work as it should.

WOW!!! Thank you so much for the detailed and informative history!

I wonder if we could convince the OP that "for sale microparcels should be reportable whether they have ads or not", since their primary motivation in making certain decisions is apparently that "it is not against the TOS".

 

 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

WOW!!! Thank you so much for the detailed and informative history!

I wonder if we could convince the OP that "for sale microparcels should be reportable whether they have ads or not", since their primary motivation in making certain decisions is apparently that "it is not against the TOS".

 

 

So, you want to make it illegal to sell micro parcels? Is that correct?

[BilliJo Aldrin]

2 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

I don't think it's wise to laugh off the concerns of residents at large. Any good business owner knows it's unwise to make too many enemies. If you make enough enemies, it won't matter whether you operate in the rules or not, the rules will change to deal with you, because ultimately LL too is a business and an unhappy customer base is bad for business. There is precedent for this happening, and it happened recently - Just look at what happened to that infamous bot operator.

 

I consider the networked ad rule change in 2020  was directed at me personally. I won't go into details, because  that's against the forum rules.

Land flippers have been pissing off residents for years, I doubt anything will be changed because of l'il ol me.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Your answer implies that you think the "for-sale" microparcels will only be purchased by other users for "adboards". Do I understand you correctly?

Prior to your reply, my assumption was that the neighbors may theoretically wish to purchase the microparcels to merge with their land, fix "cutouts", and AVOID their use by adboards. (Even though I listed a host of reasons earlier in your thread why someone may not want to do so: increasing land tier, etc.)

 

Why would the ajoining landowner buy them from me, when they could have bought them from the previous owner at a lower price.

As I said before, cut off 16 sq m at the rear to buy the 16 sq m at the front, no increase in total holdings, no increase in tier.