The Monastery on an homestead sim

[Arria Perreault]

At the RA meeting of the 31th May 2009 the question of the homestead sim in the Monastery proposal was discussed. I would like to give some points:

- this proposal is under construction since several months and ready since March 2009
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2395

- It has always been clear that the Monastery will be a homestead sim. The reasons are

- density: the Monastery must be on a quiet place with space around, so people can also walk around
- regular traffic instead of events: the Monastery have organised few events and less and less with the time. It hosts mainly exhibitions that get a regular amount of visitors each day.

When I have entered this proposal, I have set some conditions:

My offer is valid if:
- the new sim is an homestead sim.
- the new sim is situated south to Locus Amoenus and west to Alpine Meadow. I have already contacted people working on GMP in order to make the proposal compatible.
- the name of the new sim includes the term Monastery. As definitive name, I suggest "Second Monastery"

A full sim for the Monastery is a completely other project, with an other conception of the Monastery and the parcels around. If this sim is a full sim, the temptated could be big to modify the density and to make it higher.
The use of 15'000 prims could even not be easy with the relief that we have created. We have respected the GMP and made the slop so that the next sim can still go higher. In this sim, there is room. We can always find a use for prims, like furnitures or complex sculptures. In this case, I think that it is wise to have the Monastery as it is now (same amount of prims) and 6 normal parcels.

I don't think that homestead are so bad. They are even perfect for some kind of projects like the Monastery sim.

Linden Lab has made a good offer for homestead sims:

https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/ ... y-1st-2009

We have few time to get a homestead now. That is why I have officially requested the LRA to call a RA meeting in one week.

[Arria Perreault]

The RA will have to make a final vote on the Monastery project. As Monastery curator and responsible of the project, I inform about following points:

Homestead/Full sim

Since the beginning, the Monastery sim was a homestead sim. There were a lot of opportunities to discuss this point, in the RA, in the Guild or in the forums. There are good reasons to choose a homestead instead a full sim. I have explaned them above. I think that a lot of people have understood these reasons since the beginning. I am maybe not a specialist of real estate in SL (even my knowledge in this domain is not equal to zero), but I consider me as a specialist of museal activities. I know exactly what are the needs of a cultural place like the Monastery, which is absolutely not based on events, but on a regular slow traffic. The Monastery has also a different strategy to get its audience, using more Internet than SL channels. And it works: people visit us because they know us in the Internet. The renters of the small parcels of the sims will not have bad consequences, because they will be rarely there at the same time. I don't see more than 3-4 poeple at the same time in our sims, except when when there are events.
The Monastery is now on a full sim and will not be moved on an other full sim. It is too much work to get the same conditions. Homestead was one of the basic conditions I have set for the project. The CDS is free to build a full sim on this place south to Locus Amoenus. If it is the case, the Monastery will stay in Alpine Meadow. And I will not pay the tiers for four months if the Monastery is not on this sim.

Relief and work

I would like to say again that Ulysse Alexandre and I, we were ready to do all the work on this project for free. This work includes: the terraforming, the roads and any public installation. The CDS will have only to set the parcels. It was a good deal for CDS.
If the RA refuses this project, Ulysse and I, we keep the intellectual property of the relief and the conception of the sim. I would like to say that we have made a real hard work with this relief, in order to solve the issue of the big mountains that will come south. So CDS will have to start a project from zero for this place.

Future of Monastery place

If the RA refuses this project, the Monastery will stay in Alpine Meadow. Any other project of homestead sim for the Monastery, if there are, will be launched outside CDS. I will never launch an other project of sim in CDS (neither for the Monastery, not for Nea Hora).

Conclusion

I am sure that the Monastery contributes to the image of CDS. The current project is honest and in favour of CDS. The Monastery will only rent a parcel, wich is comparable to the current one. The CDS will have a new wonderful sim. The horrible visual gap from Locus Amoenus will be solved (if you say nay, it will take months and months until a new project is done). This sim is also a transition to our highest mountains.
In conclusion, no project is perfect, but in this case, there are more reasons to say AYE than nay.

[Rose Springvale]

From Moon Adamants reply to the Chancellor on March 26.

In reply to your questions again:
1. the decision to hold NGO-run sims, be them full or homesteads, is a political question that does not concern the Guild - it can be solved by the Legislative power, proposed by the Executive power, or, since last RA meeting, publicly referended. We will do our work as usual when such proposals appear to make sure they comply with the plans in force. As for low densities sims, according to Timo's plan and common sense they should appear at the top of the mountain range and at the pelagic sims. Nevertheless. we must not confuse low density with the question homestead/full sim: a full sim can have a large multiplier and allow a low density while being economically viable, such as happens in AM.

I am seeing your post Arria that CDS is to take this as you present it or leave it, and that you threaten to leave CDS if the RA doesn't do exactly as you outline. Is that correct?

I guess i'm just trying to understand process, as that is what makes this a democracy.

[Timo Gufler]

As long as I have lived in the CDS the monastary plan has been either discussed or postponed. For some reason the discussion have been quite heated sometimes that may signal of strong feelings for it and against it. It must be said that the plan have had challenges about geography, finance, politics and traffic. My observation is that Arria has done her best to overcome as many of them as possible to make her dream to come true and to contribute the community. I also fully understand her feelings since she has used the last nine months for planning, waiting, fighting, replanning, waiting and, unfortunately, fighting again. Anyone would be very frustrated in her position.

The current plan may not be perfect from the CDS point of view but I think it's good enough. If we are ready to compromise our ideals a bit in case of the Monastery plan we won't only get a beautiful sim but also keep having a very unique building with it's own character, community and events that enrich greatly the CDS.

I don't know how others feel about the situation but these were my thoughts about it.

Timo

[Arria Perreault]

I am seeing your post Arria that CDS is to take this as you present it or leave it, and that you threaten to leave CDS if the RA doesn't do exactly as you outline. Is that correct?

It is not correct. I am not leaving CDS. I am only talking about the Monastery. I have only told that:

- if the RA refuses my proposal, the Monastery stays at Alpine Meadow
- if the RA refuses my proposal, I will analyse again the situation of the Monastery. If this analysis shows that the Monastery need to be set on a homestead sim, I will try to find one outside the CDS, mainly because I am tired to fight to get one in CDS.
- if the RA decides to set a full sim, I will not move the Monastery. The homestead sim was one of the conditions of this current proposal. If it is a full sim, it is another project and I will let the Guild or someone else to manage this project.

I am not talking about my own personal presence. It is nevertheless true that if the RA refuses my proposal, I will not make other proposals for sims, mainly because I am tired. In this case, I hardly see me too doing any other projects.

The RA is sovereign and I will respect its decision. I have no problem with that.

As citizen, I have the right to be tired. I have made a lot of efforts in order to help CDS to open a new sim and until now I did not even get the chance to do it. CDS is based on volunteering, but volunteering is not really encouraged.

[Ulysse Alexandre]

As I am also concerned with the Monastery Project, as one of its builder, I can only say that with the landscape and all the planning I can imagine for it, the Monastery has to be build on an homestead sim, as I don't need to have more than 3700 prims for realising it. A full sim , with 15'000 prims, means a very different project. I don't know why, after months of discussion, this point has to be discussed again.

[Claude Desmoulins]

One thing I've learned working on other projects is that having more capacity than you think you need is often a good thing. Even if you don't need 10K prims for the Monastery now, what's the reason to not have that capacity in the event that plans later change? Is this a matter of economics - $95 or $125 (homestead) v. $295 (full) tier?

[Patroklus Murakami]

One thing I've learned working on other projects is that having more capacity than you think you need is often a good thing. Even if you don't need 10K prims for the Monastery now, what's the reason to not have that capacity in the event that plans later change? Is this a matter of economics - $95 or $125 (homestead) v. $295 (full) tier?

I think that's part of it Claude.

My understanding was that the Monastery proposal was based on the economics of a homestead sim. If you change to a full-prim sim you change the economics so that a 'light-use' educational and exhibition space and a small number of supporters' homes becomes unsustainable. Now, you could always add in more lots in order to make it pay but then... you'd get Alpine Meadow Mk. II and what would be the point of the move?

Now there seems to be the semi-proposal that we might make use of the non-profit entity which will be set up to own the AA sims if and when they merge with the CDS. This will retain the educational/non-profit discount which AA currently enjoys and could be used to buy a full-prim sim which would then have lower tier. The problem is.... this is all 'jam tomorrow', no jam today! We don't yet know if AA will accept the terms of the offer the RA passed yesterday. We don't know if someone will challenge the merger proposal, or some element of it, as unconstitutional, illegal or whatever. So, we would be holding up the Monastery project for something that may never come to pass.

I hope the RA will meet next Sunday and agree to the Monastery on a homestead as proposed. That seems to have the support of the RA members who have commented to date.

[Rose Springvale]

Thanks Claude, that has been my ONLY point on this project. ESPECIALLY if the project is able to use non profit pricing, the difference is even more dramatic: Tier for a non profit full sim is $147.50 (with no changes scheduled). Buying a homestead is 375 usd regularly, (262 for non profits) A full prim sim is 1000 regularly, and 700 for non profit. The suggestion was made at the meeting that we go ahead now as is and "upgrade" at a later day... which costs the difference between the original purchase price and the current cost of the product you would upgrade to, plus 100 usd. So to buy now a homestead sim and upgrade it later costs 725 more. "later."

I don't blame you all for being tired. I'm tired too. But mostly i'm tired of us looking at this as a personal thing instead of a project and trying to figure out why someone is trying to slow it down or stop it (which is NOT happening,) instead of trying to make it better. Team work is about finding solutions that improve.

Even if you don't want any more prims,and wouldn't change ONE flower (yeah, i'm betting there are plans for LOTS of rose bushes!) there are so many uses for other prims. We have NO workspace in CDS... one idea... why not put a sky sandbox at 1000 m and let people have room to learn?

My other objection which I HAVE watched for an opportunity to discuss, brought up several times privately and gotten "oh. hmm" replies... is that the side of the terrain beside the current LA harbor..west side i think.. will repeat the exact problem we have with the AM view now. If you don't want to use the original Terrain plan, which i thought was fantastic, then at LEAST we should require that the sim side is closed, which is VERY easy to do at the opening phase, but very hard to do later. And if a mountain sim eventually joins next to it, it isn't hard to reopen or make valleys to keep the project interesting. And if the next sims that are added are Nea Hora or pelagic sims along the harbor, we dont' have to deal with the NEXT generation of ugly views.

I suppose these are the kind of details that are "not my business." I'm not sure where that line is arbitrarily drawn.

I will say thank you to Aria and Ulysse for considering other opinions.

[Arria Perreault]

At the beginning, it was mainly (but not only) a question of money. The value of the parcel of AM was the same as the former value of a homestead sim. But LL has changed prices. I had to find another financial plan, based on CDS average prims price. And it works too.

There are nevertheless other reasons:

The Monastery needs its own sim. It's easier to advertise and attract people. It needs also space around, so people can walk around. Now the audience of the Monastery stay in the walls and rarely goes out.

This sim has also to be a quiet place. Only 6 plots are available for rent (and the Monastery). The rest is landscape: mainly slope and a lake. There is a flat place for the Monastery, just down a pass, and a place for a hamlet or little houses. Having 15'000 prims will give us more problems than solutions:

- first: it is clear that Monastery cannot increase its possibilies (and the number of available prims) without paying more tier. Even on a full prim, the Monastery will not have more possibilities.

- second: what to do with the rest of the prims? Public places? The trend in CDS is to minimize public places in new sims, because we have already a lot (especially in NFS and CN). We can also waste them for landscaping? The relief of the sim doesn't allow that: it's mainly nature, slope, lake. We only need little bridges, roads and some trees. So the only way to use these prims are to set them to parcels. This will increase the number of parcels to rent. This sim will be similar to Alpine Meadow. As the Monastery is already on a similar sim, why should I make efforts to move it? The Monastery will not have better conditions in this new sim, except a bit more of space around.

It is clear that a full sim is an other project that not fit for the Monastery. If CDS will set on this place a full sim, it is its right. In this case, the Guild or an other person will have to make the conception of this new project and the Monastery will stay in AM.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Pat you make a good point about the uncertainty of what may or may not happen re: non profit status. I'm not sure the extent to which Virtus intends to do events in the Monastery space, but I notice that homestead sims have a 20 av limit. Maybe the option to upgrade later (esp. if not for profit status comes to pass) is enough . Arria, thanks for your clarification. I think I understand better your conception of the project.

[Rose Springvale]

What about a sandbox?

what about a ski lodge high up the mountain? Far from the quiet of the monastery?

NFS has basically NO public prims.. we will be hard pressed to hold oktoberfest this year at all. CN is another story entirely.

I'm NOT suggesting that there be allowed any increase in the cost to the monastery. if that is the issue, then rather than limiting the type of sim in your offer, why not limit the use of the balance of the sim? All that open land is wonderful.. for walks,rides, skiing. Your original plan contemplated skiing.. has that become a negative now too?

6 small houses... with each owner having one guest at the same time .. means you can only have 8 people in the entire rest of the sim. Monastery, gardens, or just taking a shortcut. Anyone trying to cross the borders to fish in the lake or ski the slopes will get that nasty Region Full message.

Homesteads just don't do a good job for rental property or public buildings. I say this from experience both as a private owner of homesteads and as an estate owner where they are included. Al Andalus has them because we got them when they were a more flexible product. We keep them because we were able to lock in a very favorable rate. When that rate no longer applies, it is my intention to work for the same treatment on operational sims there as i am advocating here.

I'd go so far as to say that there is a homestead open in the al andalus project that could be used to house the Monastery in the interrim, but that won't be my decision to make.

[Arria Perreault]

My other objection which I HAVE watched for an opportunity to discuss, brought up several times privately and gotten "oh. hmm" replies... is that the side of the terrain beside the current LA harbor..west side i think.. will repeat the exact problem we have with the AM view now. If you don't want to use the original Terrain plan, which i thought was fantastic, then at LEAST we should require that the sim side is closed, which is VERY easy to do at the opening phase, but very hard to do later. And if a mountain sim eventually joins next to it, it isn't hard to reopen or make valleys to keep the project interesting. And if the next sims that are added are Nea Hora or pelagic sims along the harbor, we dont' have to deal with the NEXT generation of ugly views.

I suppose these are the kind of details that are "not my business." I'm not sure where that line is arbitrarily drawn.

I will say thank you to Aria and Ulysse for considering other opinions.

We have follow the current version of the GMP:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2409

This relief is already the result of a lot of discussions...
Near LA harbor, there is a water sim with a low density. I don't know what we will have on it, a boat or a lighthouse. But it will be a problem for few people or for nobody. The sim west to the Monastery is also a hill. On this place, it is possible to set a full sim and make something similar to AM.

I think that time is also a important thing to take in account. This current proposal can be done in few weeks.

[Arria Perreault]

Pat you make a good point about the uncertainty of what may or may not happen re: non profit status. I'm not sure the extent to which Virtus intends to do events in the Monastery space, but I notice that homestead sims have a 20 av limit. Maybe the option to upgrade later (esp. if not for profit status comes to pass) is enough . Arria, thanks for your clarification. I think I understand better your conception of the project.

I have studied the way people visit the Monastery last year. In one year, we have around 1000 unique visitors, that means around 3 people a day. This is comparable to the attendance of some small museums in rl.
If each owner is at home with a friend and there are 3 visitors in the Monastery, that means only 15 people in the same time on the sim. So this limit is not a real problem.
As already told, the Monastery activities are not based on events.

[Cindy Ecksol]

It's time we stopped confusing people with classic logical fallacies (I counted at least two, perhaps three in this posting), and focused in on reality. Most of us are interested in the long-term growth and development of CDS, and I'd like to take a few moments to address Arria's concerns in that light.

Homestead/Full sim

Since the beginning, the Monastery sim was a homestead sim. There were a lot of opportunities to discuss this point, in the RA, in the Guild or in the forums. There are good reasons to choose a homestead instead a full sim. I have explaned them above. I think that a lot of people have understood these reasons since the beginning. I am maybe not a specialist of real estate in SL (even my knowledge in this domain is not equal to zero), but I consider me as a specialist of museal activities. I know exactly what are the needs of a cultural place like the Monastery, which is absolutely not based on events, but on a regular slow traffic. The Monastery has also a different strategy to get its audience, using more Internet than SL channels. And it works: people visit us because they know us in the Internet. The renters of the small parcels of the sims will not have bad consequences, because they will be rarely there at the same time. I don't see more than 3-4 poeple at the same time in our sims, except when when there are events.
The Monastery is now on a full sim and will not be moved on an other full sim. It is too much work to get the same conditions. Homestead was one of the basic conditions I have set for the project. The CDS is free to build a full sim on this place south to Locus Amoenus. If it is the case, the Monastery will stay in Alpine Meadow. And I will not pay the tiers for four months if the Monastery is not on this sim.

The fallacy here is an irrelevant conclusion based on appeal to authority

Arria claims to be an authority on "museal activities." Therefore anything that she says about the requirements of a museum in Second Life is certainly the only correct opinion about such activities. In particular, she claims that the increased resources of a full sim will somehow create adverse conditions for a museum, but she does not specify what those adverse conditions might be. No one else has been able to imagine what they might be either, and I've certainly been asking around. Is it really true that it would be inappropriate for a museum to be sited on a full sim? Can Arria bring individuals who run full-sim museums in SL to the RA to address this issue? I know of at least one Homestead sim project similar to the Monastery that is not happy with the restrictions of a Homestead sim, but I do not know of any full-sim museums who are unhappy with the conditions there. And I can think of many benefits of having those extra prims. Rose mentioned most of them in her posting, so I won't repeat here.

Arria also claims that there is absolutely no need for full sim resources because she will not be staging any events. But we know that this is not exactly true: Arria was eager to participate in the Grand Tour in February, and I am not aware that anyone, including Arria, was upset because so many people visited the Monastery on the Tour. This would not be possible on a Homestead sim due to the 20-av limitation. Rose even pointed out that if Arria hosts a moderately successful exhibit there might be times when it would be difficult to even walk across that territory. In my mind these limitations are compelling enough reasons for making sure a sim with an attraction sits on a full-prim space, and the opportunities Rose mentions (sandbox, skiing, etc.) make the concept even more compelling.

Relief and work

I would like to say again that Ulysse Alexandre and I, we were ready to do all the work on this project for free. This work includes: the terraforming, the roads and any public installation. The CDS will have only to set the parcels. It was a good deal for CDS.
If the RA refuses this project, Ulysse and I, we keep the intellectual property of the relief and the conception of the sim. I would like to say that we have made a real hard work with this relief, in order to solve the issue of the big mountains that will come south. So CDS will have to start a project from zero for this place.

I think I would call this the fallacy of the false dilemma. Arria proposes that either we take the Monastery and its plans (her intellectual property) and implement it OR we have no options for that spot in the grid. That is, of course, patently false. If the Monastery doesn't go in that spot, sooner or later something else will. Our Guild is perfectly capable of working out reliefs for whatever sim is desired in that space if and when the community chooses to build it. If the Monastery sim does not go in that space, there is no need for those reliefs, so no threat to Arria's intellectual property simply because we choose to build something other than the Monastery there.

Future of Monastery place

If the RA refuses this project, the Monastery will stay in Alpine Meadow. Any other project of homestead sim for the Monastery, if there are, will be launched outside CDS. I will never launch an other project of sim in CDS (neither for the Monastery, not for Nea Hora).

I'm not sure what this fallacy is, but it definitely is one. There are so many assumptions here, I'm having a hard time sorting them out. First, the implied assumption that CDS would move the Monastery without Arria's cooperation -- false, I'm sure. Second the implication that Arria could easily go off and build a Homestead sim elsewhere. She could certainly go off and build elsewhere, but she would need (as she does here) the cooperation of the owner of a full sim, so her "threat" to build elsewhere encourages me to do nothing more than shrug and wish her well. We are supportive of her concept (and willing to indulge her by allowing her to build it exactly as planned but with 4 times the resources she requested), it fits extremely well in CDS (and probably not so well anywhere else), and I think most of us would be more than willing to approve it if Arria would be willing to accede to the community's concerns about the drawbacks of a Homestead sim (rather than a full sim) located in that place. In short, a proposal to site Arria's proposal on a full sim has far more benefits to Arria's project than it does to CDS, so I'm still scratching my head about her outright refusal to even consider siting it on a full sim. If there is really little difference between the economics of a full-price Homestead sim versus a reduced-price full sim, I can't imagine why the community would want a Homestead in this place. And if Arria isn't interested in indulging the community by allowing us to give her more than she's asking, I regretfully conclude that it really is her prerogative to go find a deal more to her liking elsewhere. CDS will be slightly worse off for lack of this interesting project, but not so much worse off that we should allow our better judgment about infrastructure to be overridden when the infrastructure decision is rightfully the community's to make, not one individual's.

Conclusion

I am sure that the Monastery contributes to the image of CDS. The current project is honest and in favour of CDS. The Monastery will only rent a parcel, wich is comparable to the current one. The CDS will have a new wonderful sim. The horrible visual gap from Locus Amoenus will be solved (if you say nay, it will take months and months until a new project is done). This sim is also a transition to our highest mountains.
In conclusion, no project is perfect, but in this case, there are more reasons to say AYE than nay.

And I still do not understand (nor does anyone I've spoken to) why approving this project with a full sim rather than a Homestead should make a particle of difference. I love the concept of the project, I just don't like the idea of a Homestead sim in the very center of CDS at a place that SHOULD have full resources. Either the Monastery is going to be part of the community, or it is not. If not, then it may as well stay where it is. If so, then it's up to the community, not Arria, to decide whether it can make the underlying economics work. Homestead sim or full sim, the project will be built out in exactly the way that Arria has proposed. Why having more resources available for landscaping and such or even for a 1000m skybox "sandbox" for the community is a drawback that Arria would refuse to build on a full sim I still can't imagine. Either I'm missing something big, or Arria is trying to interfere with the approval process in a way that no one in our democratic system should be allowed to do.

Cindy