Revisiting parcel limits

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Sudane - I understand you are preferring absolute numbers, so 226 parcels instead of 100%. What I do not understand is how you transformed the lookup table. I calculate 96% of 226 = 216,96 instead of 222. Or 50% of 226 = 113 instead of 119. Could you explain what you have done?

Anyway, there is an easy way to change the formula from relative percentage to absolute numbers. I do not want to bore you with the details (or should I?)

The formula for absolute numbers is

y = -(10 * x / 113) + 26

with y = parcels a person can own and x = occupied parcels

To find the thresholds i transform the formula to

x = (26 - y) * 11,3

Now I take your 5 tier distinction and determine the occupancy.

y = 10 -> x = 180,8
y = 9 -> x = 192,1
y = 8 -> x = 203,4
y = 7 -> x = 214,7
y = 6 -> x = 226,0

So my result is

1 - 180____26
181 - 192___9
193 - 203___8
204 - 214___7
215 - 226___6

Feel free to simplify it to 3 tiers.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sudane Erato »

It's entirely possible my math was faulty... as noted, its not my strong suite.

I took your formula, y = -0.2 * x + 26, and thought I'd make a spreadsheet out of it, cause I'm better with those. So to do that, I needed a direct relation between x and y. Since we have 226 parcels, I used the following math to get my "direct relation", and then plugged that into my spreadsheet:

(-0.2 * 100 / 226) = -0.088496, which I rounded to -0.088 (the 100 is because we have to translate a percentage into a decimal)

Here's the spreadsheet:

Column E has the number of parcels occupied, 1 - 226. Column F has the formula, (E8 * 0.088) + 26, which should be an exact translation of your formula. I then did the "clumpings" manually, Columns H and I, cause I couldn't figure out an easy way to do that with formulas.

Maybe you can figure out how my chart gets away from your formula. Again... not my strong suite. But... whichever chart you use, and the two are fairly close, I think the principal of fairness is achieved, as well as out goal of having parcels always available for new citizens, AND enabling existing citizens to buy as much land as they can afford.

Sudane..........................

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Ah, I get it! Thanks! Sure, we can use your application as well.

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Bagheera
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Bagheera »

So, I think I understand the concept of parcels allowed in relation to percent occupied. My one concern still is that someone might buy up all the fachwerk under such a formula and create a constriction on new people who are curious about CDS but want to dip their toe in before they make a major investment.

One feature we currently have that encourages newcomers to CDS: Someone who starts with one small parcel and then, after they decide they want to stay, they become more invested. Our smallest parcels cater to these newcomers who often become long lasting citizens and important to the fabric of our community.

Based on this, I suggest adding a second component beyond the quantity of parcels allowed in relation to percent occupied, which is that no one person may own more than X "starter parcels" with X and "starter parcels" being up to the community to define.

For me (my input as one citizen's opinion): starter parcels would be the fishing village and water plots in LA, the smaller storefronts inside CN, and the fachwerk in NFS and maybe the mews in AM. I might also add the Monastery plots since there are so few of them (it wouldn't take much for one person to take over all of the Monastery parcels). Starter parcels could also be simply defined by quantity of prims. If I were defining X (being quantity of these types of parcels allowed to be owned by a single avatar), I'd say no less than 2, no more than 4. That's just my opinion.

Usually I Dislike a Cloud Sky
Tonight I Realize That a Cloud Sky
Makes Me Appreciate the Light of the Moon
- impromptu poem composed by Gen'i
as depicted in Yoshitoshi's 100 Aspects of the Moon
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that we remove the individual region covenants, which would address your concern about the parcels inside the NFS walls. I think those are the most popular of what you refer to as "starter" parcels. As for the other regions...

I'm concerned that what you are suggesting regarding limits on ownership of these parcels almost certainly would affect current landowners. Are you proposing that citizens be required to divest themselves of some of their currently held land, depriving the community of the rental that they are paying, when there has been no issue with, or complaints about, a shortage in small parcels? It is doubtful that I will ever support taking land away from citizens without a TRULY compelling reason, whether or not I happen to be one of the affected citizens. (Full disclosure: I am quite possibly one that would fall afoul of your proposed limit.)

I hope we can keep this plan relatively simple. The more convoluted it gets, the less likely that it will ever come to pass.

User avatar
Sudane Erato
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:44 am
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sudane Erato »

I quite agree with both Bags' thoughts and also Sylvia's concerns. Earlier I had said that issues of limits of categories, such as how many parcels within the city walls, or how many prim parcels for each parcel owned... etc... as Sylvia says, issues related to the specific covenants of each sim... these issues should get embodied in different rules, which all landowners must comply with as well as the limitations of total ownership which this topic considers. Personally, I'm a very strong supporter of the rules limiting how many parcels one person can own within the NFS walls (two, I think??), and I think it was I who originally proposed that there should be only 1 (or was it 2?) prim parcels allowed for each parcel owned within the walls.

I'm also concerned, as Bags is, with disruptive people buying up large amounts of land in order to manipulate voting. But I think the formula's proposed here, AS WELL AS parallel rules relating to the specific environments of the 6 sims, should well, and simply, respond to all these concerns.

*** Confirmed Grump ***
Profile: http://bit.ly/p9ASqg
Gareth Kanarik
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:32 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Gareth Kanarik »

I'm chime in (new guy again!) and ask if it wouldn't make sense for the NFS limits to be one residence and one business location?

For at least this part of the discussion, I totally understand the need to protect the availability of those parcels for newcomers. but, what about someone who wants to both move here and move a business here? Wouldn't that opportunity make someone new become more vested in the interests of the community? For the disclaimer part of this, I'm not one of those folks, but I think that option is an important one. The current limit on two NFS allows that, I think it would be important to retain that rule.

Last edited by Gareth Kanarik on Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Han Held
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Han Held »

God knows I'm not the brightest bulb in the shed, but this is literally the first I've heard of the fachs being intended as "starter" parcels. The impression I have -and have had, is that the Platz was intended to be a commercial area and showcase for the CDS?

I didn't know we had starter parcels of any sort here, I definitely wasn't pointed to any when I landed in 2015.

---
"I could talk talk talk, talk myself to death
But I believe I would only waste my breath" -Roxy Music "Remake, remodel"
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

I was wondering the same things, Han. I have never thought of any of the parcels as "starter" or especially meant for or more desirable to newcomers. My own observations are that new citizens come here and wind up with all different sizes (and numbers!) of parcels from the start, and I think the region covenants are fine for protecting whatever it is we want to protect inside the NFS walls.

User avatar
Guillaume Mistwalker
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Guillaume Mistwalker »

You may have noticed, but I have been quiet. That is because I wanted to wait and see what ideas you would all come up! I have gone ahead and drawn up a bill which, in fact, draws on many of your ideas (and, in Han's and Tan's case, shamelessly uses your language). Attached below is a proposed text of a bill I have drawn up, since this proposal would entail changing the estate's master covenant.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dV9 ... sp=sharing

I am not hard-pressed to stand by the language and specific clauses, but let me explain why I chose what I did.

First, I think we are all agreed that the parcel limits need to be relaxed some. I liked Han's suggestion, but some have had a problem with allowing one citizen own 8192m² in one sim! Instead, I opted for Tan's original wording, but I raised the parcel limit to 12 instead of 10 because we already have a citizen at 13 parcels, according to Sylvia. (Obviously, none of us have noticed.)

Second, I agree with Tanoujin and Sudane that we need to develop a system to prepare for the eventuality that we might have high demand in the future and need to reinforce stronger limits. So, why not just use the system we have now—if it is currently too restrictive? It has worked well enough for us in the past. I do not like the idea of a formula because (1) who will be enforcing those limits and rules? and (2) it causes a lot of confusion and potential strife. It could also appear to be unequal. Instead, I have opted for a flexible yet rigid system where the RA, spurred by an interested party on the RA or from the Executive Branch, can choose the limits between the new/reduced limits and the old/tighter limits. Obviously, however, I do not envision the RA changing the rules in the near future, and indeed I believe making the RA required to change the rules (as it already is) is a check on the limits changing frequently.

Third, I also believe in the relaxation of limits on urban parcels, and it seems many people have also wanted to raise these sorts of limits. I have, for example, restricted parcels on the Platz, on the Forum, and on the Harbor to one per person). But other urban plots I have limited to three (in NFS, the limit is two). I have not, however, specified on a limited area (in NFS, the limit is 1024m²). I think these limits will help us restore occupancy in LA and in CN in particular, and I am willing to entertain suggestions on a limited area per region.

Fourth, since it was raised, I wanted to include a third section dealing with another realm of parcel limits: limitation, whether through law or through spirit, on buying and selling parcels for the specific purpose of passing them on to new citizens in order to build a voter base. This is and has been tantamount to electoral fraud here in the CDS. In the course of preparing this bill tonight, I compiled a chart of the changing population of the CDS overtime (below). You can witness for yourselves how, during times when CLEOPATRA was with us, our population exploded and, for the brief time she inexplicably left us in 2013, our population fell tremendously, only to soar when she returned. This is and should be seen as related to the problem of having a "whale" and I believe this merely reaffirmed what we have known for a long time now: that CLEOPATRA Xigalia bought and sold parcels at reduced rates or for free to her friends and those who she knew would vote for her or vote in her interests. It is a matter about the integrity of our democracy and our financial welfare.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

But I did not include this third section because, though related, I thought it best to focus on the pressing matter at hand. I know that the text of the above bill may be imperfect and may need to be improved, but I hope to revise the language and the clauses as needed in order to prepare it for a vote in the RA.

Please provide me with your constructive criticism.

C. Tib. Curio

Gaius Nebuliens Curio (Guillaume Mistwalker)
si enim pecunias aequari non placet, si ingenia omnium paria esse non possunt, iura certe paria debent esse eorum inter se, qui sunt cives in eadem re publica. (Cic. De Rep. 1.32.49)
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

If I'd known I was going to be quoted, I'd have checked the numbers that my tired brain gave you last night. :lol: The more accurate tally is that there is one tenant with 11 parcels, which is still over the current limit, which was the point we were discussing. However, I still like your proposed limit of 12 because it would not require any of our current citizens to give up any of their currently held parcels!

My main concern throughout is that we keep this simple. Whatever we decide upon has to be monitored by someone, after all, and none of us (as far as I know) get paid for the work we do for CDS. Your proposal fits that "keep it simple" request. However, I do wonder if we'd want to extend that one week limit referred to in section I.3.c a bit since not everyone is in world often, and if someone was on vacation when a new limit kicked in, they might not even be aware of it until too late.

Which brings me to another question: What happens if someone does not comply when they are told to give up a parcel? Do the EMs just go in and abandon a parcel for the wayward citizen? Do we hope for an appearance by the Chancellor to make that decision? I'm not clear on who is going to monitor any of these plans, and what power they would have to act when a change is needed.

Other than those questions, I like what you have done here. Although the formula that has been presented earlier in this thread is interesting and I like its flexibility, that same flexibility might make it a PITA for whoever would have to monitor the parcel counts.

User avatar
Tanoujin Milestone
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 535
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:42 pm

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Tanoujin Milestone »

Interesting proposal, Gaius. Would you define „occupancy“ further? One way is to divide the number of occupied parcels by total parcels and multiply with 100%. This would leave area considerations out of account. But there is also the possibility to take the „average occupancy“ from the Casper website. This would be occupied area divided by total area of rentals multiplied with 100% - at least I believe so. It differs a lot!

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
Ian Maclaren
User avatar
Guillaume Mistwalker
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Guillaume Mistwalker »

Sylvia Tamalyn wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:12 am

However, I do wonder if we'd want to extend that one week limit referred to in section I.3.c a bit since not everyone is in world often, and if someone was on vacation when a new limit kicked in, they might not even be aware of it until too late.

Which brings me to another question: What happens if someone does not comply when they are told to give up a parcel? Do the EMs just go in and abandon a parcel for the wayward citizen? Do we hope for an appearance by the Chancellor to make that decision? I'm not clear on who is going to monitor any of these plans, and what power they would have to act when a change is needed.

I think both of your concerns are interrelated, Sylvia, and I think this is best left up to the Executive to decide. It would be unpopular, assuredly, to take away someone's parcels, but we can restrict someone from buying more parcels in the future until they have sold off their excess. Practically, this means that the EMs could "flag" someone and that someone would have to check BOTH the number of parcels owned (which, from what I gather from you, is easy through Casper) and the area of land which they own. In extreme circumstances, though, the Chancellor may decide to work with the affected citizens to reduce their plots owned.

Therefore, in this regard, I do not think it is best left to wonder what to do is someone doesn't comply about giving up a parcel. The Chancellor will decide! BUT, I suppose I could add wording making it clear that the citizen will not be able to purchase land in further excess of the limit.

I am willing to extend the one-week limit. Perhaps a fortnight?

Tanoujin Milestone wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:53 am

Interesting proposal, Gaius. Would you define „occupancy“ further? One way is to divide the number of occupied parcels by total parcels and multiply with 100%. This would leave area considerations out of account. But there is also the possibility to take the „average occupancy“ from the Casper website. This would be occupied area divided by total area of rentals multiplied with 100% - at least I believe so. It differs a lot!

Whew. I think the best way to look at it is with the occupancy by area, not occupancy by number, but I am open arguments. OR, we could do both and, since the RA must enact further changes in rules under this proposal, they can weigh the merits of the two systems and better take into consideration future demands in our housing market (or, certainly, propose their own in the future!).

Gaius Nebuliens Curio (Guillaume Mistwalker)
si enim pecunias aequari non placet, si ingenia omnium paria esse non possunt, iura certe paria debent esse eorum inter se, qui sunt cives in eadem re publica. (Cic. De Rep. 1.32.49)
User avatar
Sylvia Tamalyn
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 458
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 8:07 am

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Sylvia Tamalyn »

Guillaume Mistwalker wrote: Wed Aug 02, 2017 8:05 am

Therefore, in this regard, I do not think it is best left to wonder what to do is someone doesn't comply about giving up a parcel. The Chancellor will decide! BUT, I suppose I could add wording making it clear that the citizen will not be able to purchase land in further excess of the limit.

I am willing to extend the one-week limit. Perhaps a fortnight?

Both of these suggestions sound reasonable to me. To clarify, though, are you saying that the purchase restriction would also be enforced solely by the Chancellor? So even though we would say a person is flagged and not able to buy more land, they would actually be able to do so unless/until the Chancellor makes the block "official"?

User avatar
Guillaume Mistwalker
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 pm
Contact:

Re: Revisiting parcel limits

Post by Guillaume Mistwalker »

What I had meant, rather, is that it is a matter of policy concern for the Executive, but I suspect that EMs would likely defer to the Chancellor. I tend to think that it is better for people to make decisions at the time, but we can add some clearer guidelines.

Gaius Nebuliens Curio (Guillaume Mistwalker)
si enim pecunias aequari non placet, si ingenia omnium paria esse non possunt, iura certe paria debent esse eorum inter se, qui sunt cives in eadem re publica. (Cic. De Rep. 1.32.49)
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”