Talented designer permanently banned over extremely shaky charges...

Billions. No such system exists online.

Indeed, you're very right. I had an extra "a" in there. Correct grammar is important. Thanks

QFT ... The licencing alone to use such a service would be worth millions

As always, not being a firefighter doesn't mean i should just shrug and walk away when i see an house on fire.

Yes it will be. If you had such a system the biggest online companies in the world will be stepping over each other just to get that system on. We're talking Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon ...

The reason however it does not exist is not technology. It's because the "fool proof" part can't be done.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion already that "LL" (as in a person from LL) banned her. Have we all forgotten that Anshe herself, who holds far more assets, was banned one day due to some silly mechanism?

If this is not fixed though, then I would most definitely be very very worried about the state of LL. But now, I don't really see any direct human communication...

They have all the proof they need, LL owns the servers and can check logs on accounts as well as verify by IP address, now it's also been said that LL keeps a hardware profile however I cannot confirm the source though it's more than likely to improve the system over time. Now lets do a quick scenario, lets say my brother and I are using Second Life and we have broadband, we both connect to a router right? So therefore we are sharing a physical ISP assigned IP though different local IP's. Now lets pretend my brother signs up for an account and starts griefing, well they are going to check accounts assigned to that IP and it would show both my account and his account therefore LL would assume that both accounts belong to the griefer. Considering the ban was 2 years ago the IP's likely would be different so i'm assuming maybe her brother was a paying member and they shared a credit card which in that case LL figured it belonged to the same person. There are several scenarios that could have happened and we don't know them all, however most providers are leniant on IP bans because they know households share them so a preferrable ban now is through account suspension/ban or computer ID ban (Windows serial or HD serial or both), MAC Address, or another use is registry edit preventing the client from accessing the network. I don't know how Second Life bans and really don't want to know because I intend on abiding by Second Life terms . I'm sure over time we'll hear more about it but if she truely is innocent then I doubt the ban will be permanent.

That stinks!
As much as I have to say that she shouldnt of been banned for that, the story does seem slightly false, I highly doubt LL would ban her for that, and the fact that she may not be able to go back to school because of it could just be a lie to get sympathy.

However, I do not know her, and I wont pretend I do, I just hope we get to hear the full facts and I hope this case is sorted out.

*sigh* really problematic when you're not in full control of your data (i.e. payment information). No telling where it's been.

There is only one way to fix it, and that is human intervention...

I would reccomend that the system compare account age and number of incidents the account has been involved. If it is marked for banniation because of a link to another banned account but has a fairly clean record over a period of 6 months or a year... Then the account is flagged for human review.


Note: Humans cost a lot.. this would raise Linden Lab's opperating costs ;0

Isn't putting the story on Digg the in thing to do with this sort of thing now?

That's how it should be. But unfortunately it isn't. However, I am confident that they will un-ban her as soon as someone gets on this. However, this may only be in 2043

That's why you should be in control of it. Myself, I never ever let anybody use my account for anything, and have a separate account for online payments. If somebody gets into it, they can go wild with the $5 balance.

Of course, stupid things like companies leaving their customer lists vulnerable happen, but that isn't the case here.

They did something everyone of you were demanding the Lindens to do... The found an account related to the same computer that one had previously banned from.. and perma banned it...

Seriously, if they don't do it, you gripe, if they do it you gripe.. they either do things to fast or they don't do it fast enough... they either find enough people or they don't find enough people...

I can say at least you people are consistent.. -.-

The matter is quite different, and simple.
If a banned account comes back the day after and begins causing trouble just again, such a policy COULD be justified, but if an account with the same financial information comes back after TWO years and doesn't cause trouble, but instead contributes to the community, any operator with a brain would at least suspect that there's something different from the usual griefer trying to get back in, as such he would warrant further investigation before taking ANY kind of action.

Firstly, this is SL - there is no way the facts behind this situation are ever going to be revealed because the company that runs 'Transparently' operates a totally opaque 'justice' system.

Sadly the customer in question is on their own and discussing the situation here will do absolutely nothing, one way or another.

Should LL be holding the customer's U$ balance, I would have thought in a country with more lawyers than anywhere else on earth would have laws to prevent the unjustified retention of a customer's funds, should that be the case here?

On two occasions I have had problems with US Internet based companies, both of whom started out uncooperativity. In one case I retrieved my funds, in the other secured my goods - by talking to management rather than junior staff members. In this case I suspect a sensibly worded letter addressed to:

Ginsu Yoon, Linden Research Inc, 1100 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94111

would be the most likely way of effecting a resolution.

Maybe anyone in contact with the customer should pass that advice on?

It is impossible for them to babysit everyone though. You can't expect them to do everything by a case by case basis.. I would prefer them to but it is not practical :/

And no I do not think the person should have been banned...

please don't say that all people who share credit card information are stupid, especially when you don't see it as a case by case thing.

My parents gave me a supplimentary credit card when I was younger (they still insist that I keep it on hand even now) which I was to use in emergencies and when I was overseas. Student accounts don't generally have credit cards and the ones that do you have to a) jump through flaming hoops, and b) sell your soul to the devil to get one. When I wanted to buy something off the internet it was a heck of a lot easier to use my parent's credit card (with permission ofcourse) and pay them the amount in cash. All my internet transactions so far has been using that supplimentary credit card, including signing up to my SL account. When I finally grow up I am setting up an account and will issue my parents with a supplimentary card to MY money so they can live out their twilight years in bliss.

I understand there is a substantial amount of trust going on here, but if you can't trust your parents then really... and people tend to blindly trust family.

so please, I implore you, don't say that anyone who shares credit information are stupid, because then you are insulting my momma and papa and if that's so then I have to open up a can of whoop-arse in you. Instead, maybe rephrase and say that 'sharing credit information is not a wise decision in most cases'.

[1] Since the issue does not involve another resident, it should be possible for LL to disclose some information to Kin, and only to Kin. Regardless of what comes out of that Kin should have a different set of payment info ready.

[2] There is no US$ balance involved. As per the blog entry the block happened before any Lindex transaction happened. As L$ are officially not redeemable (as per TOS), there are no funds being held.

Well you won't learn the facts about this particular case because the company does not regularly share personal information of their users with the public...

If you meant information about the system and not related to a specific case, then you're probably not going to get a reply to this thread, but neither are they guarding the information.

I'll be sure to ask about their methods at SLCC...

That's interesting... My bank practicly gives them away to anyone enrolled in college. The limit is only $500, but meh...

Ouch! The infamous 'valueless' L$ that LL is prepared to sell for US$ on Lindex... That puts a different complexion on it, doesn't it?

No, it just proves that you put a value on them...

Yup. But we have to remember that LL selling L$ does not give it redeemable value. Now if LL BUYS L$ then it becomes redeemable.

Other games have items you can buy using real money (or credits bought with real money), they have no redeemable value. You can think of LL selling L$ in this way.

Whichever way this case goes I would like to see it resolved.

heh... yeah, my bank offers 'cc lite' to tertiary students, the interest is insane, the limit is $500 and you have to make sure that you are never EVER overdrawn (which as you know is near impossible for some of us students) if you do then you automatically get a bad mark in your credit rating. I might as well be flushing my money down the toilet while kissing goodbye to any future home owning dreams.

and i also, on principle, refuse to use anything that gets advertised as 'lite'.

i guess it might just be my paranoid as fuck bank.

but anyway, i digress...

it sucks that kin keiko has been biffed, i loved LOVED her hair and she really did bridge that 'affordable and great quality' bridge, she was charging 100L per hair that most designers would happily charge triple the amount for for that quality, and to be honest, kin's hair was way better quality than some of the more expensive hair out there.