Land Committee Meeting

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Fern and Sudane,

Thank you for your input and feedback in this very important matter. I will address both of your questions, concerns, suggestions in one reply. As Sudane points out each SIM was priced as an individual unit as it was brought inworld. Each SIM's tier was calculated based on the amount of billable land (tier paying citizen owned land) to cover the entire cost of that SIM to Linden Labs. The result of this method can be seen by the wide difference in the Tier per SQM rate of our current 5 SIMS.

• NFS L$ 1.77
  CN L$ 2.26
  AM L$ 4.68
  LA L$ 3.61
  MON L$ 5.73

Sudane I have allowed for the future acquisition of new SIMS in my report. Worksheets NEWSIM1, NEWSIM2, and NEWSIM3 are examples of SIMS modeled after 3 of our current set-ups at my new proposed tier rate. You point out later in your post "Inevitably, however, tier prices WILL rise if we add new SIMS, because all new SIMS will cost us full tier, while right now NFS, CN, and Monastery are all heavily discounted and keep our costs lower as a result."

My response to this is no it will not rise. 3 of the original 5 SIMS are based on earlier pricing by LL. The other two, AM and LA we are already paying current costs to LL. NFS, CN, and MON will retain the tier structure that we approve for them now, regardless if we bring more SIMS inworld because their costs have been grandfathered in.

Sudane I agree with you that we need to establish a target ratio of sold land to unsold land, meaning tier paying citizen owned land and publicly held land. This is especially true if we do make the change to a more unified tier rate for all SIMS. The more publicly held land than the higher the tier cost will be to the tier paying citizens. This is reflected in our varied tier rates that we have now that I presented above. Currently here is a list of all 5 SIMS's privately held land, this is based on the CDS Master Parcel List in my report and does not reflect any inworld situations we are currently under.

• NFS 37168sqm 56.71%
  CN 41616sqm 63.50%
  AM 27648sqm 42.19%
  LA 29184sqm 44.53%
  MON 6144sqm 9.38%

Even when I was developing my 3 new SIM proposals I was trying to find a happy medium between private/public land. SIM 1 has 45,568sqm of private land. It's a single prim SIM with 2/4096sqm parcels, 4/2048sqm parcels, 15/1024sqm parcels, and 27/512sqm parcels. SIM 2 has 38,912sqm of private land, single prim. 4/2048sqm, 10/1024sqm, 20/512sqm, 40/256sqm. SIM 3 has 27,136sqm of private DOUBLE prim land. 1/4096sqm, 4/2048sqm, 9/1024sqm, 11/512sqm. Private land percentage for these 3 are 69.53%, 59.38%, and 41.41% respectively.

Sudane the other point you mention about a ratio of either tier costs to other costs or a ratio of total revenues to other costs is interesting. I can see using this ratio scenario for budgeting purposes but I don't think it would be feasable to use it as a calculation to figure tier rate. The tier rate calculated would not take into account the difference between single-prim sims and double prim sims. Using your example of US$1,250 all 5 of our SIMS would be taxed to our citizens as $250.00 each. That would result in the problem we have now with such a variety of tier per rates. An excellent idea for budgeting but not for setting of tier.

Now I'll address the issue of single prim vs double prim and and setting tier rates based on PRIMS vs. SQM. In my report I used the United States Dollar as the control of all pricing because that is how we pay LL for our estates. Whether the rate of exchange is 256lindens or 285lindens we are still paying LL US$295.00 for a full sim, that is the constant. We can base our tier rate on prims but first we must establish that control mechanism which needs to be the per sqm rate because that seems to be the standard in Second Life. Once we establish that control than it's just a matter of simple mathematics.

In US dollars a full SIM costs $295.00. That is a cost of $0.0045013427734375 per sqm (295/65536) which is the same as a cost of $0.0196666666666667 per prim. (295/15000). So where is the difficulty in the pricing of a single prim SIM and a double prim SIM? Linden Labs charges $295.00 regardless of whether the land is single prim or double prim so your control is the per sqm rate. Even though you're allocating double the prims the amount of sqm stays the same. That's why there is an increase in cost to a citizen for a double prim parcel but not quite double the amount of a single prim parcel of the same size. I will point out that if you look at the sheet titled Tier Charts in the top left corner is my proposed new tier structure for original 5 SIMS* the difference between single prim tier pricing and double prim tier pricing is very close to double. Look further down to proposed tier structure for all new SIMS for the CDS the difference between single and double isn't as near to double but is still a considerable amount.

Now I do believe with the Hippo system you have the capability of assigning how many prims goes to each parcel. If I am correct than this would be an excellent way to make available extra prims for a monthly fee to an interested party as long as the publicly held land had a surplus available. For example in NFS I believe we have what is referred to as microplots that are plots citizens can purchase for extra prims. We'd turn those microlots into publicly held land and than allocate the prims to whomever wants to rent them on a monthly basis (no different than currently paying tier but they're paying for prims instead).

Fern I have punched in your numbers into my spreadsheet and I will send you a copy of the workbook with that sheet in it. It's titled Fern's Proposal and is the last of the worksheets. Using your suggested rates of L$ 1.77 for single and L$ 4.25 for double, based on the CDS parcel lists in my report would result in the following.

• NFS no increase or decrease in tier
  CN decrease in tier of US$ 75.82
  AM decrease in tier of US$ 40.56
  LA increase in tier of US$ 79.80
  MON decrease in tier of US$ 95.48
  Total Savings $132.06 or about 8%

Again this empasizes the unique situation we have with the original 5 SIMS and the way they are parcelled out. That is why I proposed a set rate for NFS and CN that are the same, another set rate for AM and LA which are also the same, and than just an entirely different scenario for MON due to its unusual situation. All future SIMS brought online wouldn't be this difficult to price out. Here is my savings based on these proposed rates.

• NFS decrease in tier of US$ 25.30
  CN decrease in tier of US$ 112.97
  AM decrease in tier of US$ 182.09
  LA decrease in tier of US$ 56.96
  MON decrease in tier of US$ 19.16
  Total Savings of $396.47 or about 23.3%

I'm going to end this post for now, I have a midterm this week to study for. I will address other points of interest in my next post along with any new ones added due to this post. I look forward to any and all feedback.

Trebor
******ATTENTION I had to edit this document because for AM I accidently put in the public land of 37,888sqm as the sqm of privately held land and NFS private land is actually 37,168sqm which is 56.71%. The correct amount of privately held land in AM is 27,648sqm which is 42.19%. Any calculations in this posting have been recalculated if they were affected.********

[Sudane Erato]

Trebor, I have to say that I'm finding your proposals and explanations very confusing. And I wonder if others find it just as confusing.

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps we could separate into 2 topics the question of "reforming" current tier rates and the question of structuring tier rates on future sims? Maybe if we impose this limit on ourselves the discussion will get a bit more comprehendible.

Sudane the other point you mention about a ratio of either tier costs to other costs or a ratio of total revenues to other costs is interesting. I can see using this ratio scenario for budgeting purposes but I don't think it would be feasable to use it as a calculation to figure tier rate. The tier rate calculated would not take into account the difference between single-prim sims and double prim sims. Using your example of US$1,250 all 5 of our SIMS would be taxed to our citizens as $250.00 each. That would result in the problem we have now with such a variety of tier per rates. An excellent idea for budgeting but not for setting of tier.

This makes no sense to me . My proposal was for setting a tier rate "per prim" based on how many prims on a sim were available for private ownership, and Fern proposed modifying this to base it on how many prims were actually *under* private ownership. All prims in all full sims cost the CDS exactly the same amount, so citizens would pay exactly the same amount *per prim*... there would be no variation at all. The only problem with that proposal is that prims on homesteads cost us much more per prim than what they cost on full sims (full sim prims are 295/15,000 = US$0.012 per prim while homesteads are 125/3750 = US$0.033. These are full SL prices.)

Now I'll address the issue of single prim vs double prim and and setting tier rates based on PRIMS vs. SQM. In my report I used the United States Dollar as the control of all pricing because that is how we pay LL for our estates. Whether the rate of exchange is 256lindens or 285lindens we are still paying LL US$295.00 for a full sim, that is the constant. We can base our tier rate on prims but first we must establish that control mechanism which needs to be the per sqm rate because that seems to be the standard in Second Life. Once we establish that control than it's just a matter of simple mathematics.

Yes, of course... we could do it this way. But I fail to see how setting the "control", the "taxable basis" in RL terms, yields anything other than a tier rate for double-primmed sims which is exactly twice what it would be on single-primmed sims. (And 8.5 times that on Monastery) Unless I really don't understand what you're proposing. It is absolutely true that people tend to think in terms of square meters, rather than prims. But it is critical to understand that a double primmed parcel is twice the value of a single primmed value of equal size... by value I mean what it costs the community each month in tier.

In US dollars a full SIM costs $295.00. That is a cost of $0.0045013427734375 per sqm (295/65536) which is the same as a cost of $0.0196666666666667 per prim. (295/15000). So where is the difficulty in the pricing of a single prim SIM and a double prim SIM? Linden Labs charges $295.00 regardless of whether the land is single prim or double prim so your control is the per sqm rate. Even though you're allocating double the prims the amount of sqm stays the same. That's why there is an increase in cost to a citizen for a double prim parcel but not quite double the amount of a single prim parcel of the same size. I will point out that if you look at the sheet titled Tier Charts in the top left corner is my proposed new tier structure for original 5 SIMS* the difference between single prim tier pricing and double prim tier pricing is very close to double. Look further down to proposed tier structure for all new SIMS for the CDS the difference between single and double isn't as near to double but is still a considerable amount.

... sorry... but I just don't understand this...

Now I do believe with the Hippo system you have the capability of assigning how many prims goes to each parcel. If I am correct than this would be an excellent way to make available extra prims for a monthly fee to an interested party as long as the publicly held land had a surplus available. For example in NFS I believe we have what is referred to as microplots that are plots citizens can purchase for extra prims. We'd turn those microlots into publicly held land and than allocate the prims to whomever wants to rent them on a monthly basis (no different than currently paying tier but they're paying for prims instead).

There is some merit to this idea. Sadly, however, the Hippo system ONLY counts the prims on the parcel of land on which it sits, and allows the owner of the Hippo system the ability to deduct prim overhead from that figure, and then reporting if the tenant exceeds a preset figure. I do wish that your idea *would* be feasible... it would make management much easier.

And with regard to microplots, these are no longer real parcels. The NFS prim parcels are real, and allow the owner 33 extra prims for their in-town home. There are also prim parcels on CN and AM. Conceivably the prims on these parcels COULD be managed differently, but I'm not sure how the Hippo system would help... they only count prims on their own parcel. The advantage of the current system is that the parcel owner CANNOT add more prims without buying the extra parcels, while with a prim allocation system such as you describe someone would always be needed to manage that.

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

[FernLeissa]

Hi Trebor,

I just saw your post, so let me think about what you've said. Thanks for running my numbers

Hi Sudane,

Yes, rumors have reached me about you and the reserve fund .

I don’t want to use reserve funds to cover tier payments. I was thinking more along the lines of spending down reserve funds for a sim expansion and of not factoring monies for expansion into new tier rates. If we expanded (or had some spending emergency) and thereby spent down the reserve fund to point X, then we would trigger a tier rate review by the RA. I hear what you say about the problems of reinstituting a tax after it’s been rolled back, but part of the purpose of being in CDS is to learn about how to be a self-governing democracy, so I’d rather risk the mess. And besides, we’ve always got rl strategies we can employ to distract citizens from the tax hike. Perhaps an invasion of Caledon. Huum.. there’s a use for our reserve fund  Just kidding.

I would like to see the new tier rate set to cover public lands, events, executive branch stipends, public works improvements and a small  amount to reserves. But not expansion.

Also, I think part of the reason we haven’t spent money on events and publicity is that we currently don’t have enough active citizens to do all the work that is needed to get the events going. Getting new, active citizens is not just a tier rate issue, but reduced tier might be one of several things we can do to grow in size and put on more events.

I don’t want more complicated, so I agree… we should use all potential private prims as the tax base, maybe factoring in some sort of expected vacancy ratio. (I am going to suggest that we convert a small number of private plots to public but that’s another topic )

I’m assuming that the old LL discount rates for NFS, CN and Monastery will expire on Dec 31, 2011. Correct? Or is our discounted rate something other than the non-profit rate LL was offering to many different sim groups until this year?

Fern

[Sudane Erato]

I’m assuming that the old LL discount rates for NFS, CN and Monastery will expire on Dec 31, 2011. Correct? Or is our discounted rate something other than the non-profit rate LL was offering to many different sim groups until this year?

No, the discounted rates we receive are not related to "non-profit-ness". Rather they are "pre tier increase of October 2008" rates, called "grandfathered rates". When LL made their most monumental and utterly stupid mistake of their short lives and almost doubled tier rates in one fell swoop (destroying land values and laying the groundwork for the disastrous land market we see now), they back-stepped under the PR storm that ensued and grandfathered the old rates for sims then in existence. They claimed this was only for a short while, to save face, but as the months went by, and the number of sims dropped drastically, they at least had their dim eyes open enough to see that eliminating the grandfathering would be even more disastrous. So... until last June, those sims which had pre-existed the rate change stayed at the old rate (with some exceptions).

Since the sims were at a MUCH lower tier rate (195 instead of 295), they became quite valuable and generally sold at a premium over what LL offered a new sim for. But, then, the powers that be at LL in what has become now a pattern of dim-witted decisions about land, last June eliminated the "transferability" of the grandfathered state. Since then, any sim which transfer owners immediately moves to full tier rate. Pray for Rudeen's good health!

We were fortunate to buy Monastery on the open market just before that policy went into place, which is why it too costs us the grandfathered rate of 95/month.

LL continues to claim that the grandfathered state is temporary, and as of today we are assured only that it will last until Dec 31 of this year. But this has become a regular pattern, and in the face of declining numbers of sims, and also the declining numbers of grandfathered sims as owners drop away, unable to transfer their grandfathered status, it seems that the pressure is off to actually eliminate the status entirely.

But... who knows? LL has yet to make an intelligent decision regarding its land policy. Why should that change now?

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

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Trebor, I have to say that I'm finding your proposals and explanations very confusing. And I wonder if others find it just as confusing.

Thank you Sudane, your comment brought back my memories of my youth when one of my teachers taught us about the acronym KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). I do tend to get complex in some of my writings so I will attempt to dumb it down so to speak. That is not an insult to anyone reading this post.

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps we could separate into 2 topics the question of "reforming" current tier rates and the question of structuring tier rates on future sims? Maybe if we impose this limit on ourselves the discussion will get a bit more comprehendible.

Excellent suggestion, what’s the sense talking about future SIMS when we need to address the current SIMS in our possession?

My proposal was for setting a tier rate "per prim" based on how many prims on a sim were available for private ownership, and Fern proposed modifying this to base it on how many prims were actually *under* private ownership.

The one negative with that proposal Sudane is that we would still be pricing the tier rates on an individual SIM basis and it was my understanding we wanted to have a more uniform tier structure across all SIMS.

All prims in all full SIMS cost the CDS exactly the same amount, so citizens would pay exactly the same amount *per prim*... there would be no variation at all.

That is incorrect Sudane we don’t pay exactly the same amount and that’s what makes it difficult in calculating a new tier structure, that and the fact that with our current SIMS we have no consistent private to public land ownership ratio. Here is where our current situation is unique. Our two single-prim full SIMS cost us less than our two double-prim SIMS. NFS and CN costs us $195.00 while AM and LA cost us $295.00. I have figured out a way to lower the tier on these 4 SIMS and have them at the 2:1 ratio Sudane wants.

Sudane you are absolutely correct, whether we set our tier to per/SQM rate or to per/PRIM rate when the math is done the total in US$ will be the same. When we pay US$295.00 on a full SIM we are paying for either 65,536sqm or 15,000prims, whichever way you want to look at it. So CDS pays LL in US$ 0.00450/SQM or US$ 0.01966/prim. So yes, regardless of the cost to CDS for a SIM, any double-prim parcel we collect exactly double the amount of tier of a single-prim parcel whether the rate is set in SQM or PRIM. For a homestead SIM at the current rate of $125.00 CDS pays LL in US$ 0.00190/SQM or US$ 0.03333/prim. This is where your target ratio of privately held land and publicly held land will come into play in future endeavours especially if we maintain a 2:1 ratio on tier settings.

There is some merit to this idea. Sadly, however, the Hippo system ONLY counts the prims on the parcel of land on which it sits, and allows the owner of the Hippo system the ability to deduct prim overhead from that figure, and then reporting if the tenant exceeds a preset figure.

So if I understand this correctly 512sqm will always have 117prims on a single-prim SIM and 234 on a double-prim SIM. The only way you can obtain more PRIMS is to purchase more land in that particular SIM, if that’s correct than it will help me with future calculations.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Fern,

I don’t want to use reserve funds to cover tier payments. I was thinking more along the lines of spending down reserve funds for a sim expansion and of not factoring monies for expansion into new tier rates. If we expanded (or had some spending emergency) and thereby spent down the reserve fund to point X, then we would trigger a tier rate review by the RA.

I agree with you about not wanting to use reserve funds to cover tier payments. Keep in mind that with our current population base and the possible restructuring of tier to make the CDS more affordable, we may experience a few months where we’ll be dipping into the reserves to cover our expenses. There is nothing wrong with that as long as we work through it. Financially we are in the perfect situation to expand the CDS by two or three SIMS. We have the money available to purchase the SIMS, perform all the work in building them, not have to pre-sell them before we bring them in-world, and still have enough to open them with 2 months tier in reserves.

I would like to see the new tier rate set to cover public lands, events, executive branch stipends, public works improvements and a small  amount to reserves. But not expansion.

Also, I think part of the reason we haven’t spent money on events and publicity is that we currently don’t have enough active citizens to do all the work that is needed to get the events going. Getting new, active citizens is not just a tier rate issue, but reduced tier might be one of several things we can do to grow in size and put on more events.

In actuality as the 2 months of reserves for each SIM are met the funds over that amount will accumulate, like they have been, which makes them available for future expansions. Some seem to be against any expansion plans of the CDS. They state that “the democracy is what we came here for...not shops or events.” The CDS was created and developed as a democracy and is its claim to fame. Why does expanding our borders turn us into just another big SIM project? Are we going to dismantle the democracy with expansion? Of course not, our own web portal gives us proof of that.

“One of the defining characteristics of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators (C.D.S.) is its citizen-oriented system of government. All decisions concerning the operation and expansion of our community are addressed by our three branches of government...”

Did America dismantle its democracy as it grew from 13 colonies to 50 states? No it didn’t. The more people involved in our democracy truly makes us a democracy. The NFS being a German/Bavarian Estate doesn’t make us a German themed estate. We don’t promote ourselves as a Greek or Roman themed estate because we have Greek and Roman themed SIMS in our estate. Our estate, community, whatever you want to call it, is that we are a democratically ran entity. As a growing community we have to realize that in order to attract more citizens we have to offer more than just the democracy. Unlike other estates in Second Life our citizens do have a voice and it is up to them whether they choose to use their voice or not. Even now I’m sure we have citizens who have never voted or attended an RA meeting. Others may have never been to an event either. But the opportunity is there for them to participate if they so choose.

Thank you,
Trebor

[Sudane Erato]

That is incorrect Sudane we don’t pay exactly the same amount and that’s what makes it difficult in calculating a new tier structure, that and the fact that with our current SIMS we have no consistent private to public land ownership ratio. Here is where our current situation is unique. Our two single-prim full SIMS cost us less than our two double-prim SIMS. NFS and CN costs us $195.00 while AM and LA cost us $295.00. I have figured out a way to lower the tier on these 4 SIMS and have them at the 2:1 ratio Sudane wants.

Of course you are right. But consider this. In future years, when the CDS is 50 sims, the fact that 2 of those sims might cost us 195/month, and the other 48 sims 295/month, makes the 2 at 195/month pretty irrelevant in the overall financial calculation. What is the point of this conversation? We wish to find general assumptions that we can use in order to apply a fair rule for making the price of land the same in all our sims. People want a simplified and consistent tier structure. Then use the fact that 15,000 prims cost US$295.

There exists in the general person's mind that somehow "money" is an exact thing, that the value of something ultimately comes down to the exact penny that its worth, and that if somehow I find myself paying $0.99 for something that is actually $0.98, then I am cheated. Well, I've been doing the financial management of small, mostly non-profit, organizations since the late 1970's, and I can tell you with the benefit of that many years of experience that managing money is an exercise in determining fairness, that it is not precision machinery, but rather closer to the intuition of art. The management of money is the management of feelings and a sense of "rightness", translated into seemingly hard numbers. The absolute most important thing about gaining a community consensus around how our money is collected and spent is to collect and understand how people feel about how their money is used, and what they understand, and what is fair.

For this we need some basic principles, and an application of those principles to our situation. The reality of our current finances is that they evolved from the multitude of historical events, at which at each time the financial arrangements were felt to be fair and reasonable. They paid for our sims, they enabled us to survive and grow. In recent years the weakness of that legacy has made itself more and more clear, and we see we must reform. Reform means that new principles must be arrived at that people understand and accept. Yes, people want the calculations behind the principles which they debate about. But the principles come first. It's these principles which I think we should be discussing here, and its those principles that I feel are unclear.

In RL, in general, taxes are based on the "value" of land, meaning, in theory at least, how much an owner would expect to get were they to sell that land and put the money in the bank. I say "in theory", because of course we all know that assessments are wildly political, and for the protection of the politicians, are often much lower than the market value of the property. Vast amounts of money are spent by owners in RL on legal fees to lower the assessed value of their property, in the US at least.

Here in SL we have a huge benefit. It is we, the "owning entity", who must pay taxes to Linden Labs, and except for the grandfathered sims, those "taxes" are uniform across all current and future 16 acre land areas that we call sims. Yes, we do indeed pay only 195/month for 2 of our full sims, a lucky break. Let's use that lucky break *not* to muddle and confuse the possible uniform application of a fair tax rate, but rather to give ourselves a little bit of lower end flexibility when we get to figuring the minimum percentage occupancy below which tier must be recalculated. Or when figuring the target ratio in the budget of tier cost vs other expenses.

So if I understand this correctly 512sqm will always have 117prims on a single-prim SIM and 234 on a double-prim SIM. The only way you can obtain more PRIMS is to purchase more land in that particular SIM, if that’s correct than it will help me with future calculations.

That is correct if we use the native SL system for the management of prims, as we do now. If I try to add a 118th prim to a 512 sqm parcel which already has 117 prims on it, I cannot. Simply not possible by the SL server code (unless the sim owner changes the sim-wide prim multiplier). However, if I buy another parcel on that same sim, then the entire prim capacity of that new parcel becomes available to me on my old parcel. Again, this is native SL server code. This is the principal behind prim parcels.

Your proposal in the earlier post suggested letting the prim-counting ability of the Hippo boxes manage the prims an owner uses differently. It's a neat idea, and theoretically feasible, but only at the cost of a much more significant "human management factor". SL simply doesn't give programmers enough access to the parcel parameters to enable this all to be accomplished by computer code.

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

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Of course you are right. But consider this. In future years, when the CDS is 50 sims, the fact that 2 of those sims might cost us 195/month, and the other 48 sims 295/month, makes the 2 at 195/month pretty irrelevant in the overall financial calculation. What is the point of this conversation? We wish to find general assumptions that we can use in order to apply a fair rule for making the price of land the same in all our sims. People want a simplified and consistent tier structure. Then use the fact that 15,000 prims cost US$295.

Two points I’ll address quickly. First point, we don’t have 50 SIMS. If we did than the law of averages would apply and I wouldn’t be doing 40+ hours worth of work attempting to find a tier that satisfies everyone. We have 5 SIMS that were all developed and priced separately with no consistency from one SIM to the next. Second point, for you to ask me to take these 5 SIMS and use the fact that 15,000 prims cost US$295 and make double-prim tier twice the amount of single-prim parcels would result in a large INCREASE in tier for NFS and CN, a considerable drop in tier for MON, and a slight decrease in AM and LA.

What I have come up with reduces tier for all 5 SIMS with the rate for a double-prim parcel double the amount of a single prim parcel for our 4 full SIMS. City planning for all future SIMS whether they are Full SIMS or Homestead SIMS will involve a more uniform structure that will make it simpler to establish a consistent tier through all our SIMS, or at least I hope it will. Here it is in as simple as possible terms. The tier price for NFS and CN is US$3.25 per 512sqm and the tier price for AM and LA is US$ 6.50 per 512sqm. Of course I have broken this down to a per SQM or a per prim rate and it is all calculated in my spreadsheets but I assumed the easiest way to explain it was to break it down to 512sqm.

Monastery I was able to reduce tier from $69.52 to $60.70 for the Monastery parcel and a reduction from $11.61 to $10.12 for the remaining 6 parcels. Currently our cost to LL for all 5 SIMS is $1,075. At 100% occupancy with our current rates we collect $1698.11. With my new rates explained above we would collect $1,343. I will point out one other thing I found out while researching Hippo. We will be able to set a 3.5% rate on top of tier to pay for the transaction fee when converting Lindens to US$.

I feel my proposal for a new tier structure for the original 5 SIMS of the C.D.S. is now complete. I welcome any and all feedback before I present it to the RA but I do feel that the goals have been met. First goal was tier reduction for everyone, across all 5 SIMS. Second goal was a uniform tier structure for all full SIMS with the added goal from Sudane of double-prim rates being double the single-prim rate. If anyone would like to see my competed work, send me an email [email protected]. The report contains worksheets for our current SIMS that mimic the CDS Master Parcel List but freshly updated, a worksheet containing the pertinent information on the estates I used as a comparison, a sheet showing LindX Data, a comparison sheet showing our SIMS with the rates of the estates used for comparison, a conversion of our financial statements in a spreadsheet version showing monthly gain or loss percentages, four worksheets showing calculations for 4 different proposals for new tier, a tier chart worksheet that shows in one simple chart all 4 proposals plus current tier and tier to LL, and a % of occupancy worksheet for current tier and proposed tier.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

At the RA meeting yesterday May 16, 2011 my tier proposal was brought to the table. It's been requested I run the numbers reflecting a 75% breakeven/occupancy rate. Here are the results of my calculations. NFS and CN US$ 3.49 per 512sqm. AM and LA US$ 6.98 per 512sqm. MON US$ 10.36 per 512sqm. At 100% occupancy the tier collected for each SIM in US$ is NFS $253.35, CN $283.67, AM $376.92, LA $397.86, MON $124.32 total for the month is $1,436.12 which is a savings from our current tier of $261.99.

Personally I like my original tier of US$3.25 NFS & CN, US$6.49 AM and LA, and $9.99 MON. I feel 75% is to conservative. I understand some are concerned about depleting the reserves to pay tier but may I point out that even if we were $200-$300 in the negative, we'd still be able to continue operating for a few years. I know that's not the point but a few months of negative income, which we aren't currently under, isn't a matter of grave concern. I do have one question for those who have lived in C.D.S. for years. Are we currently dealing with the lowest percentage of occupancy in the history of the C.D.S.? If the answer is yes than I see no reason to be as conservative as 75%. My original tier proposal with a breakeven point of 81% should be sufficient.

Is their spellcheck in this forum program?

[FernLeissa]

Hi Trebor,

I've looked over your earlier spreadsheets with other community tier rates as well as those where you broke down the C.D.S. numbers on tier. I've also looked again at the postings on this forum.

You have convinced me that your suggested tier reduction of US43.25 NFS & CN, US$6.49 AM and LA and US$9.99 MON is reasonable; where we would have a breakeven point at 81%.

I do not want to adopt a program of deliberately depleting the reserves to pay tier, but I feel we are being too cautions and that in itself is its own risk.

Reducing tier and bringing our rates more in line with other communities is one of several building blocks that need to be put in place in order to increase the number of citizens participating in this community.

Thanks btw for all your hard work.

Fern

[Sudane Erato]

Please forgive me for dragging this discussion on. It continues to cause me concern.

I belatedly finished the April 2011 financial reports today, and I decided to look back over recent months to explore how the proposed tier changes would have impacted our finances should they have been put into place earlier. Please have a look at this chart,

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads ... utput=html

As noted at the top, this chart simply applies the proposed tier changes to our finances back in September 2010. I think that its fairly obvious that the impact on our bottom line would be considerable should either of the proposals have been implemented then.

Our cash is now at about L$3.5M, so that the 8 month loss shown in the chart would be about 7% and about 12% respectively. Yes, of course we could absorb this for 96 to 168 months, depending on the tier reduction chosen. But, at the end of that time, and sooner of course if we bought new sims, the tier would need to go back up.

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

[Beathan]

Sudane,

I see your point. However, I think that we should explore additional revenue sources in addition to traditional tier. We need to worry about our maintaining tier comparable to other sims, which is difficult in the depressed SL economy. That said, if we reduce tier to stay competitive, we need to engage in revenue replacement to maintain fiscal responsibility and flexibility. This should be the primary focus of the RA this term -- to relieve the pressure on the land committee to provide all (or the vast majority) of the operational revenues of the CDS.

I think that the starting point can be the proposal to allow clubs in the sims as a special, premium use (one per sim). Licensing special, premium uses, subject to regulation, could provide a supplemental source of revenue. Having these uses socialized could also provide a revenue source to the extent they are successful. Privatizing successful socialized special uses could also provide a cash infusion if necessary.

So, based on this, I think the RA should consider passing legislation allowing not just clubs, but other, similar, special uses, on a premium basis. Further, the RA should launch a pilot project to develop some of these uses on currently unoccupied land with the intent to either used them as a socialized revenue source or privatize them for a cash infusion and premium continuing tier payments.

Beathan

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Sudane,

No reason to ask for forgiveness in dragging on this discussion, it is a very serious discussion that many of our active, in-world citizens felt needed to be addressed. There is also nothing wrong with going back to September 2010 and running what-if scenarios as you have done. What I’d like to point out in response to your posting is that you’re assuming that our occupancy or lack thereof is going to stay like it is which I feel is a rather unrealistic expectation. If for some reason it did remain like this according to your calculations we would still exist on the grid for another eight (8) to fourteen (14) years. One of the main points in addressing the tier issue was to improve the C.D.S., not for the C.D.S. to “just exist.”

If I was elected to the Representative Assembly I had planned on some proposals to improve the C.D.S. Having not been elected I will present my proposals here in the forum, as a citizen, to open up the avenues of discussion. I would like to point out that not all of these ideas are original ideas of my own. Some have been gathered by reading various writings in the C.D.S., others from interacting with my fellow citizens, and others from my observations of other successful estates in-world.

I can only assume, because I’ve only been a citizen for one year, that we are currently experiencing our highest vacancy rate ever. I have no records to research if I am correct on this point but from what I’ve been able to gather I am probably correct. Some may see this as a negative. Snide remarks can be made such as “the C.D.S. is doing so well, just look at all the parcels available for sale,” or others such as “wow the C.D.S. has a whole 55 citizens and 30 of them actually participated in the most recent elections.” This is the time when we need to turn a negative into a positive, to broaden our horizons, to take the C.D.S. to the next level.

The foundation has been laid. We have an effectively ran democratic form of government that makes us almost unique in Second Life. There may be other forms of democracy in-world but the C.D.S. is the oldest functioning democracy in Second Life. We have a constitution, a set of laws, and a currently being revised covenant for our lands. Unfortunately if you’ve joined Second Life over the past three (3) years you probably aren’t aware of our presence. In-world, in my opinion, the C.D.S. hasn’t done much of anything to make ourselves known the past few years. If it did than surely we wouldn’t be experiencing the vacancy level we currently have. Instead we’d have a waiting list of wanting to be active participants in our community.

This past election saw many of the 8 candidates either mentioning expanding the C.D.S. or belonging to factions whose platforms contained expansion as one of their ideologies. The naysayers would say “how are you going to expand when you can’t even keep the current 5 sims populated enough?” And they would be correct in that point if we didn’t take corrective actions before we start expansion.

The first action we’ve taken is by addressing the tier. Our goal here is to make our current 5 sims more uniform and competitive, tier wise, in-world. This was a challenge due to the way these sims were brought in-world and the monthly cost of the sims to Linden Labs. This goal was accomplished mathematically by creating a uniform single-prim rate and an exactly double the amount double-prim rate. I must point out to my fellow citizens that any new sims brought in-world probably will not have these same rates. New sims will have to be configured in a more uniform manner as far as the ratio of prims/sqm’s to public/private lands, in order to maintain the tier structure of a 2x prim being double the tier of a 1x prim.

The second action we’ve taken is exploring the use of the Hippo system in-world. If and when this is brought online, estate wide, it will provide a more transparent system and open up opportunities with some of Hippo’s other optional equipment. I hope when this issue comes to the RA for approval it is passed. I understand the initial set-up of the system estate wide will be a long and arduous task. I would encourage Sudane, Tor, and Anna to put together a paper explaining what tasks need to be performed to bring Hippo in-world and then I would encourage my fellow citizens to volunteer some of their time in order to accomplish these tasks. We can get more accomplished with 30 people than with just 3.

My first suggestion involves renewing interest in the C.D.S. grid wide, showing people who we are and what we are all about. This is accomplished by various forms of marketing. We should establish embassies in some of the more successful and well known estates in-world. I know our current Chancellor has spoken with some estate owners who would more than welcome a C.D.S. embassy in their estates. We set up the embassies to be an information portal, sort of the way we are set up in Anzere. We could have an events board and an advertising board showcasing our various merchants. We could even host simple events at our embassy locations that mirror events we have in our estates like Oktoberfest and Flotilla.

Another form of marketing I feel would be very effective is the development of promotional materials. This is where we get creative and use all of our creativity to turn a negative into a positive. Following is a hodgepodge of ideas that I hope will lead to more discussion on the development of these promotional materials. The first piece could be done as a poster or a full page advertisement in in-world publications.

Start with questions such as:
• Do you want to be part of an estate where your thoughts and opinions matter?
• Do you not only want to live in a sim but actually be a part of the sim?
• Are you an artist, a musician, a designer, a builder, an educator looking to lay down roots or expand their presence on the grid?

It is an unprecedented time in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, commonly known as the C.D.S. The C.D.S. was founded in 2004 and it is the oldest functioning democracy in Second Life. In the C.D.S. you are not a renter, you are a property owner, and a “citizen” of the C.D.S. Citizenship gives you the ability to influence what happens in the C.D.S. As a citizen you have the ability to chair or belong to various commissions that address in-world issues such as land use issues, commerce and social events. If you choose to you can stand for election to the Representative Assembly, one of the 3 executive branches of the C.D.S. that represents the concerns and interests of the C.D.S. citizenry.

Currently the C.D.S. consists of five (5) sims. (Here is where we place a description of the sims and brag about their beauty and significance.)

For the first time in many years the C.D.S. has available land for purchase in all 5 sims. We’ve aggressively reduced the prices on all available parcels (need to address this for all parcels, currently some have been reduced and others haven’t) and we’ve restructured our tier making it more affordable than ever to be a citizen in Second Life’s oldest ran democracy.

So what’s on the horizon for the C.D.S.? We’re looking to grow our community. We’re looking for citizens who enjoy being in-world and being active participants in the communities they live in. Is it a requirement to participate in the “democracy” of the C.D.S.? No it’s not but the opportunity is there if you choose to do so but in essence by becoming a citizen you are participating in that democracy whether you choose to exercise your rights as a citizen is entirely up to you. You may only want to be a merchant in our community selling your latest wares, or builds, or fashions. You may want to be an academic who enjoys holding weekly or monthly chat sessions on various real life current events. You may be an artist, a painter, or a sculpture who enjoys hosting events showcasing your works and or the works of your fellow artists, builders, and sculptures. Of course there are some things you can’t be in the C.D.S. We are not an adult sim catering to the likes of strip clubs and real life or in-world pornography. We are theme specific on each of our sims and we do have a set of covenants to insure our original visions are kept in check.

In growing our community we are also looking to expand and open some new sims. The most exciting thing about expansion in the C.D.S. is that it is a very citizen involved endeavour. (this is where I need someone to explain how this is done, the committees, voting on the next sims theme, stuff like that).

So I ask all Second Life members reading this. Are you ready to broaden your horizons? Are you ready to share and contribute your thoughts, talents, ideas, views, and opinions with other real life individuals from all around the world? Are you ready to be a part of history by becoming a citizen in Second Life’s oldest functioning democracy? Are you ready to not only live in a community but actually be a citizen of that community with the ability to influence what may or may not take place in that community? Than come and explore our lands, visit our web portal, and meet with our citizens. The Confederation of Democratic Simulators where your thoughts, opinions, ideas, and talents can make a difference.

I have to end this discussion for now as real life work is calling. I have more ideas to present though not quite as involved or intense as the ones presented here. I look forward to as many people as possible contributing to this post.

Thank you from your fellow citizen and proud member of the C.D.S.,
Trebor Warcliffe

[Rosie Gray]

Trebor, you have presented a lot to think about here, with many very good ideas. Here are my thoughts in response to the tier question:

Although I very much understand Sudane's trepidation with the idea of reducing our revenues (being the fiscally conservative person I am), I agree with you that we do need to reduce our tier payments to become more competitive with other SL communities.

What I’d like to point out in response to your posting is that you’re assuming that our occupancy or lack thereof is going to stay like it is which I feel is a rather unrealistic expectation. If for some reason it did remain like this according to your calculations we would still exist on the grid for another eight (8) to fourteen (14) years. One of the main points in addressing the tier issue was to improve the C.D.S., not for the C.D.S. to “just exist.”

If this is true, then there is no reason for us to not move forward with reducing tier, in my mind. There seems little point in keeping money for future expansion or to cover shortfalls in the future if we are robbing today of its possibilities. The CDS has become stagnant, and attracting new citizens should be a priority.

I also think that the CDS has much to offer, and we do need to reach out to other groups that may have similar priorities. Your mention of Embassies is timely, since I've recently set up a small Embassy at the Unity Station Hub, that I found through the SL Left Unity Feminist Network. http://slleftunity.blogspot.com/ I think this kind of thing is a great way to reach out.

Perhaps we need to be a little bit brave, or this dream we call the C.D.S. and all it represents will wither away and die.

In the spirit of community,
Rosie

[Sudane Erato]

What I’d like to point out in response to your posting is that you’re assuming that our occupancy or lack thereof is going to stay like it is which I feel is a rather unrealistic expectation. If for some reason it did remain like this according to your calculations we would still exist on the grid for another eight (8) to fourteen (14) years. One of the main points in addressing the tier issue was to improve the C.D.S., not for the C.D.S. to “just exist.”

I think we must be VERY careful not to make the direct assumption that lowering the tier will increase occupancy. It might. That would be a great result from implementing what you advocate.

But I personally don't feel that our decrease in occupancy is due to our "high tiers". Whether I'm right or wrong, I think prudence dictates that we plan for the possibility that lowering tier MAY or MAY NOT increase occupancy.

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