The schome community Go to the Schome Wiki
April 06, 2020, 02:00:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: To register for the wiki or forum email ONE sentence explaining why you want to join the Schommunity to Peter[dot]Twining[at]newcastle[dot]edu[dot]au
(Replace [dot] with . and [at] with @)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Plans for design and management of Schome Park in Phase 3  (Read 25174 times)
Achilles Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1687



View Profile Email
« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2008, 11:10:18 AM »

  • students were given the power to teraform on SPalpha?
==> can see problems with abuse of that feature

  • we did away with planning permission and moved to a system based on monitoring usage levels of builds and when we reach a prim count of 12,000 we removed the build that had been used least in the previous x days/weeks?
==> won't the last built build have the least usuage, and besides one person could just spend most of their time there to keep their build

  • we had a major project in Phase 3 focussed around the total re-design of SPalpha?
==>completely agree

  • we divided SPalpha up into 10 parcels and groups of students could 'bid' to have control of one or more parcels linked with a specific project they wanted to do?
==>hmm can see problems with the fact that people then argue they own the land and can't build anywhere but sandbox
atm that would be exile for 66% of the community potenally
and also if you mean that people could actually own them then you could get someone being hilarious and transfering their parcel to another account which schome has no control
in short 10% given away for free

[/list]

Logged

My posts are like buses...you wait days for a reply then they all come at once!
Dan
Hero Member
*****


Posts: 1242



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2008, 11:23:18 AM »

students were given the power to teraform on SPalpha?
==> can see problems with abuse of that feature

Challenges rather than problems maybe  ;)  Opening up the terraforming brings the freedom for greater student creativity.  That would certainly be a good thing.  I know I'd like to see what happened if terraforming was more accessible.

we did away with planning permission and moved to a system based on monitoring usage levels of builds and when we reach a prim count of 12,000 we removed the build that had been used least in the previous x days/weeks?
==> won't the last built build have the least usuage, and besides one person could just spend most of their time there to keep their build

You raise reasonable concerns Achilles but there are ways of rationalising the underpinning dataset so as not to 'victimise' the most recent build, nor promote the use of 'squatting' to raise popularity.  Merely as an example (I'm not proposing this) you could ignore the most and least frequent visitor to a parcel in order to limit skewing of the figures.  This would counter someone who simply sat in their parcel 24 hours a day to 'fake' high usage.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 11:28:10 AM by Dan » Logged

SL: Woop Superior (MG) / Woop Kamachi (TG)
RL: Dan
Achilles Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1687



View Profile Email
« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2008, 11:30:16 AM »


we did away with planning permission and moved to a system based on monitoring usage levels of builds and when we reach a prim count of 12,000 we removed the build that had been used least in the previous x days/weeks?
==> won't the last built build have the least usuage, and besides one person could just spend most of their time there to keep their build

You raise reasonable concerns Achilles but there are ways of rationalising the underpinning dataset so as not to 'victimise' the most recent build, nor promote the use of 'squatting' to raise popularity.  Merely as an example (I'm not proposing this) you could ignore the most and least frequent visitor to a parcel in order to limit skewing of the figures.  This would counter someone who simply sat in their parcel 24 hours a day to 'fake' high usage.

we enter the realm of statistics lol
a popular phrase however is coming to mind...

at any rate for it to work the system would have to clear and free from bias
« Last Edit: January 08, 2008, 11:32:04 AM by Achilles Schomer » Logged

My posts are like buses...you wait days for a reply then they all come at once!
Baso Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1426



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2008, 01:13:49 PM »

terraforming........howabout a teraforming parcel? so we can only do it there unless we know what we're doing....(so make a Schome Terraformers Group for those who pass the test on being able to do it well) that way we do get to play with terraforming and we dont mess anything up buy doing it incorectly :D
Logged

!!Baso!!
KitKatKid Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1467


Call me Kit :D


View Profile Email
« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2008, 04:06:10 PM »

Or let us terraform in the sandbox?
Logged

KitKatKid Schomer    My Twitter
Baso Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1426



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2008, 04:34:23 PM »

preceisely....that would be..perfect...but wht do you think of the Teraforming Group (for people who have proved they can do it without messing everything else up?
Logged

!!Baso!!
KitKatKid Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1467


Call me Kit :D


View Profile Email
« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2008, 04:45:34 PM »

Ive never terraformed before so I wouldnt have a clue how to do it!
Logged

KitKatKid Schomer    My Twitter
Marko Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 631


View Profile Email
« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2008, 05:07:28 PM »

students were given the power to teraform on SPalpha?

This might be interesting. It would allow the environment to be changed to better suit designs, and to allow more varied building ideas. It would certainly allow builds of the naturalist school to be better developed. In addition, it would help the progression of the ideas about ecosystems and geography study which we contemplated at the start of phase 2. If we can terraform, the possibilities for building are greatly increased. The only negative I can see is the possibility for some members of the community experimenting with the terraforming to the detriment of others' projects, and I think this is unlikely to have an effect, as it's harder to casually terraform than to leave inventory objects around. Overall, then, I think the idea's a good one.

we did away with planning permission and moved to a system based on monitoring usage levels of builds and when we reach a prim count of 12,000 we removed the build that had been used least in the previous x days/weeks?

I'm not sure whether this would help. Some builds aren't used very often, or may go for a long time without being used, and yet should still stay, because they may be very useful in future, or may improve the environment of schome park. Also, as far as I know, current usage monitors aren't very reliable, with the times given for the amount of time people have been in schome park varying widely, and even decreasing over time. Because of these two, I can imagine an increase rather than a decrease in the number of arguments over the presence of builds. However, it might be worth a try.

we had a major project in Phase 3 focussed around the total re-design of SPalpha?

That seems a good idea, and might result in a more organised development of the environment.

we divided SPalpha up into 10 parcels and groups of students could 'bid' to have control of one or more parcels linked with a specific project they wanted to do?

I disagree with this idea. Even if groups of students apply, the idea of collective building is still diminished. Also, the distribution of parcels leads to inefficient land distribution, with small builds leaving large amounts of land wasted, and large builds taking up a number of plots. If people have successfully bid for a plot of land, there is a strong tendency towards ideas of ownership, reducing the possibility of plot ownership changing according to need. Ownership of land is a bad idea in real life, and even worse in second life.
Logged
Kathy Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 665


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2008, 05:28:52 PM »

It might be harder to casually terrafprm than to casually rez objects - but it's easier to maliciously terrafprm than to maliciously rez objects, and also untracable. This is because an object that is moved underground by terraforming is automatically returned, thus making builds near the ground unsave. That said, I agree with the idea in principle.

I'm also in favour of anything that reduces the planning permission mess, which I find highly discouraging to building anything.

I'd expand on this, but I'm typing on my phone (which I have pretty much solely for the internet and music playing features, and never call people with) - and the keyboard is tiny, and doesn't really exist anyway. This is also my reason for not quoting.
Logged

Meep.
Decimus Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 3536



View Profile Email
« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2008, 05:33:05 PM »

It might be harder to casually terrafprm than to casually rez objects - but it's easier to maliciously terrafprm than to maliciously rez objects, and also untracable. This is because an object that is moved underground by terraforming is automatically returned, thus making builds near the ground unsave. That said, I agree with the idea in principle.
I think this problem is why it was suggested that most people are only allowed to terraform the land in a form of 'terraforming sandbox' (which I'd keep separate from the normal sandbox for the reason you just gave), and people who are known to a) be good at terraforming and b) be trustworthy are the only people allowed to terraform anywhere else...
Logged
Explo Schomer
SP Global Moderator
Hero Member
****


Posts: 2386


Nice, eh?


View Profile Email
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2008, 07:08:57 PM »

I'm obviously rather biased on the subject of planning permission, but I'll go ahead anyway. I don't think scrapping the planning system entirely would help-instead we can work to improve it. I'll mention once again my confusion at why planning regulations should be seen as so restrictive, in that smaller builds can be made with no need to apply and can be put in the planned gallery. I simply don't understand why large builds are any better than small builds.

The only reason builds take time to go through the process is if there is genuine opposition to them-in which case they must surely be regulated. On the other hand, building should be about learning from the process, rather than in making new buildings, and so it could be argued that quality checks are unnecessary, and gives an advantage to practised builders, victimising those who have the most to gain from building, although this also adds to my confusion on large builds. I must note that it is possible to alter the building process to judge based on the process, rather than on the finished build, though this could well be difficult when the decision is a majority vote.

Another point to make is that the planning process allows us to learn in a different way, about how to compromise, make adjustments, learn from our mistakes, present our case, and so on. Surely it stands us in some stead that we have created this process ourselves, and that it can be constantly improved. On the other hand, if we refused to scrap it without argument, we would not be recognising its faults, and without questioning the status quo, we cannot improve anything, and hence I agree with Marko that we should give a new system a try.

Looking at the proposal directly, I must say I disagree with starting the restrictions only when the count goes above 12,000. We know from the weeks of prim counts that when prim numbers increase, they tend to do so dramatically, and likewise with decreases, and so in the initial rush of building we would end up well higher than 12,000 before we have time to implement the proposal, and this would make it more difficult to bring the number back down again. In short, we would be likely to end up with wild oscillations above and below 12,000, which does not seem to me an efficient system. On the other hand, it is impossible to make accurate predictions on such a complex matter, and so this argument cannot be said to be reliable if a different system, with different stimuli, was used.

My other argument is that it is far easier to prevent a build being built than to get a build removed, and I should know this with a lot of experience. For some more generalised information, look at the effect of the Reviewing Builds II thread, as opposed to the effect of each of the cases where permission has been refused before building started. Denial in the first place also ends up with a lot fewer hard feelings than removing a complete build or merging it, as we can see from the cases of the SO/SS especially, and which I'm sure will be corroborated by anyone who has suffered any of this. It could be argued that it is relatively easy to alter the proposal so building was frozen after x prims used, but it is clear that this is unfair on anyone wishing to build after the limit has been passed, giving an unfair advantage to those first in with the builds, and encouraging building to be rushed like this cannot be viewed as positive. Of course, this counter argument has a lot less evidence for it than the previous one.

Now, on the other proposals, I must first say that I don't think the parcel idea could be reconciled with the changes to planning permission, as, to start, the restriction of plots allocated to certain people is opposed to the free 'build now' principles of regulation only beginning after 12,000 prims. Likewise, the 'bid' would surely take a form not dissimilar to current planning permission, with the disadvantages of the plot system which was argued against here and here. Apart from this, I can only point to Marko's post.

On the principles of terraforming, I think it would overall be beneficial, as the surrounds are extremely important to builds, and terraforming could open a wide range of possibilities in suiting builds to their environment. On the other hand, the risks are not to be underestimated, and it comes down to a matter of trust. I would certainly like to trust everyone with terraforming abilities, but having seen disputes arise, it is a matter that requires much consideration. Mistakes with terraforming can be far more serious than with prims, and so I would agree with the idea of a 'terraforming sandbox' to start with, hoping to give powers to everyone if it seems to be manageable.

Redesigning SPalpha is an idea which I certainly agree with. Hopefully it would give a chance for less experienced builders to take more of a part, and seeing as the process is more important than the result, building anew is far preferable. Of course, it is those who have built the current buildings that stand to lose from a complete redesign, and so I certainly can't cover the full argument.

Anyway, sorry once again for the long post-you may have noticed that I have several hands more than is considered normal :P.
Logged

'I am the gadfly'-or at least, I'd like to be

Question everything, including this.
Topper Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
SP Global Moderator
Hero Member
****


Posts: 3922


View Profile Email
« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2008, 07:11:22 PM »

sounds really good maybe only let peeps who bid for the parcels get terraforming rights

Topper
Logged
Achilles Schomer
The Hawaiian Shirts
Hero Member
***


Posts: 1687



View Profile Email
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2008, 07:12:50 PM »

you typed this in less than 4 minutes?
Logged

My posts are like buses...you wait days for a reply then they all come at once!
Marsbar9 Schomer
Coordinator
Hero Member
****


Posts: 3588


:-)


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2008, 07:12:55 PM »

I like Peter's ideas - I would go into more detail on my ideas, but can't at the moment  :(
Logged

-Mars
Explo Schomer
SP Global Moderator
Hero Member
****


Posts: 2386


Nice, eh?


View Profile Email
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2008, 07:18:45 PM »

you typed this in less than 4 minutes?

Do you mean my long post?  ???
Logged

'I am the gadfly'-or at least, I'd like to be

Question everything, including this.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!