Talented designer permanently banned over extremely shaky charges...

I'd give a flip if someone who was perma-banned was still able to play in SL, no matter how clean their record since changing avatars. Also, we are personally responsible for our accounts, so if you let someone use your av, and they do something to get banned, then you take responsibility. I'm not suggesting this is what has happened, because I, nor anyone else knows.

What bothers me is the sudden banning now, after (how many months?) of setting up in SL. Do we know for certain that there hasn't been more trouble, recently? If the explanation for the original banning was the behaviour of someone else, it is possible they could have done it again? I'm also bothered by the idea of someone being banned from SL and not receiving their cash.

It's clear from here, and other forums that she has many friends, and a lot of respect. So these comments are perhaps not the most popular, but realise that for those of us who do not know her, it doesn't look so cut and dry.

I hope that it get's resolved soon, anyway.

When I meant taking care (see one of my previous posts) would include making sure her account won't link up with her brother's in any way (as it appears to have happened with the payment info).

Then better be ready to give a flip, because they are. With unverified accounts you can get right back in after being permabanned.

I'm also a bit suspicious because I did have my account suspended recently. They thought that I was a teen playing on the adult grid because there was a correlation in some data (address? IP? I'm not sure... ) between my account and an actual teen who was playing on the adult grid. A five-minute phone call (not including hold time ) cleared it up right away.

Now, I know that Linden judgments can be arbitrary, but it just seems to me that if she was able to easily prove her identity, this would be cleared up by now.

I'm no fan of that situation either, and I understand your reasoning and frustration.

Why would Kin ever want to come back? Why would anyone in their right mind come back to somewhere that just ripped them off?

Hiro: All I know is what we have all heard. Although there are plenty of upstanding citizens willing to vouch for her, if she was bad news, I don't think that would be the case, or at the very least someone would pipe up about it. It's the sudden nature of it that is unexplained. We don't have the whole story and aren't likely to, either, since LL won't comment.

Aodhan: If after two years nothing had happened I guess I would imagine I was free and clear and wouldn't, oh, draw LL's attention to it if I never had need to, heh. That is what is strange about it, are they now searching accounts/computer hashes for previous violations? I don't know, but I think it's a waste of time, especially when it was years ago. It doesn't seem fair to suddenly change your mind after all that time and decide to kick people out when she was ok with LL for two years. They either made a mistake or allowed it because it was a family member. Alts used to be limited, there couldn't have been many on one account. Unless he just used the same computer, different account and that is really unfair, since that wasn't even trackable at the time. This is why retroactive punishment really has to be based on something happening right now, things have changed, even policies change.

Not everyone who disagrees with your usual black and white take on things is a troll, Shiryu.

People are attributing motive and emotion to something that was probably done through automation with no human intervention at all. If condtion X, ban Y. I think under the circumstances she should be reinstated but I think when people expect LL to have some human in a cubicle weighing the pros and cons of every case and knowing who anyone is and what they've contributed they're dreaming. There needs to be a better and more responsive appeals process, definitely, but there was nothing "unfair" about this. An unfortunate oversight on Kin's part since I'm guessing she didn't know that she was meeting condition X. Hopefully the appeals process will do right by Kin and if it doesn't, then THAT's the issue - not the ban.

Well, what I think is going on here is that her brother was banned (which is when any hearing would have taken place). The decision was reached to do a permanent ban, and this system simply tries to keep him from coming back. As such, it wouldn't be an actual ban, but an enforcement of an already existing one.

From how the PXP article makes it sound, it appears this was a result of (regular?) background check performed when someone requests to tranfer money from their SL account. So i guess there was no money transfers made until now and so no reason for LL to check the details of account in question... o.O;

ITs wrong to ban somone because by chance they used IP of somone banned in 2004 who is long gone, but this really rankles to high heaven. It is injustice on th hihgest scale and the resulting spread of negatives will ultimately severely hurt LL as its spread further and further. one person tells 10, they tell 10 each. LL are you listening or would you rather stand on a bad decision? Soone who was highly repected by hundreds if not thousands was banned on really shaky evidence. LL should bring her back and make restitution, If they done bad publicitiy tt this is generating will spread like wild fire beyond these forums, what will the response be if it even goes to national media? BRING HER BACK!

One may hope LL reads these replies and responds with some quickness or maybe they can't stand on bad decisions. Look at her behaviours and contributions over last 2 years. Don't get nit picky as apparently has been done. For every repons hter they have been many who have read. I know for a fact that the other posts about her is being spread all over SL. The process of this is steam rolling. And its very possible that the brother said something to family about the ban and the rest of the family said whatever. But banning for using the same IP isn't very good in that the brother may not even be in the house or using that particular pc anymore.

Could very well be, I have no idea if this was the first transfer she made.

Let's assume she is guilty as hell.

Given that, is the punishment appropriate? Should someone who has contributed a great deal to the economy actually be punished to a much greater extent (i.e. loss of all her assets) than someone who has done nothing and earned nothing and thus forfeits nothing but banishment?

Without a fair and open judicial system, will many risk much capital, either financial or time, into a system where there investment can be wiped out by judicial whim?

I dunno. Should the rules apply to everyone or just those who don't create content?

I think all should be treated the same. However, I believe that should include being able to withdraw your US$.

Well, like it's been pointed out, be careful with what you wish for, you might get it.

SL has a problem: lots of griefers are coming in and creating problems. There's not enough manpower to deal with them. Analysis: we need to find a way to keep them out. How do you keep them out? By somehow identifying them (by payment data for instance) and banning it. Solution: Implement bans by payment data, automatically ban anybody else who uses it.

My theory on what happened:

Her brother joins SL at a time when card numbers were obligatory. Does something nasty and gets permanently banned. His data is added to a ban list, which ensures that if he tries to use it again he's immediately rejected. He would need to come up with a new card, which involves some trouble. So this is effective at keeping him away.

Now, Keiko joins, and for some reason uses her brother's data. Her join date seems to be after LL opened signup. Since the card is no longer required, she gets in. For some time, she remains in SL without problems.

She tries to convert her L$ to cash. In the process, she verifies her payment information. At this point, the ban code comes in. It doesn't know who she is, or her reputation, or anything like that. It only knows one thing: That payment info is on the ban list, so anybody who uses it is banned.

This in no way seems to be malicious to me, perhaps it's more of an oversight. SL went from:

sub create_account() {
    // ...
    add_payment_method();
}

sub add_payment_method() {
    verify_information();
    check_ban();
}

To:

sub create_account() {
    // ...
    // add_payment_method();
}

But the ban checking code still exists, only it now gets called much later, when SL verifies your payment data is correct, which previously was done during signup. So now instead of just not being let in, you can get in, then kicked out when they notice you slipped through the open door.

Ah, but are the rules fair and open? One of the purposes of law is to contribute to financial stability in order to allow for growth. One only invest when one has some confidence in the stability of future assets and markets.

Unfair law and justice behind closed doors I believe contributes to financial and business instability.

I agree, but you put forward a situation where she is 'guilty as hell'. Unfair law and justice does not come into that scenario.

I'd agree with that.

This is something I find that is alarming.. Why would someone that creates content be treated better than someone who doesn't?
With no public there is no art. With no wearer there is no designer :/

I don't think there should be a distinction at all. I believe this person deserves as much right as the person that none of us knows that does not provide any content at all. They both have rights do they not?

That is like saying the rich have more rights than the poor..

LOL! Down that road lies the FIC!

Well as one of the bunch of us that have replied and are creative and have business in SL we are all a bit concerned so we respond to this thread. To be frank i wouldnt be surprised if SL gets to the point of its being actually being observed by the real governement or other investigative bodies. I first heard of game investigations in the late 90s. I wouldnt at all be surprised if there are investigations being done in SL right now by various groups, including those that investigate business practices. I hope they are, and be nice if they investigate this. We most likely will not hear of such things happening but I wouldnt be surprised if it was happening.

Anyone going to the convventin shoudl bug the heck out of any Linden's there too.

I am sorry, this is a red herring and meant to intentionally dismiss the real issue. That this is wrong NO MATTER WHO IT HAPPENS TO.

There are 3 people who have SL accounts in our home. Myself, my RL partner, and my teen daughter who is on the teen grid. We each access SL only from our own computers...so hardware bans will never come into play. Despite that, we do all share a common address and CC on our accounts.

Now...explain to me how it would be fair, just and right of LL to ban all three of us because of the actions of one of the others? If I do something stupid...as Kin's brother did...and get banned. Explain the logic in banning my partner and my daughter, both of which are wonderful citizens of the grids they are on just because they share the same address and CC as me?

I am sorry. This is not about Kin being a content designer. The only part that plays in this is that it brought attention to this lame and unjust practice because she is well known. This is about LL holding seperate legal intities ( different human beings) accountable for the action of other legal intities they may live with even when they have zero control over those other people and accounts. That is flat wrong. Hardware bans are fine. But banning all members of a household for the actions of one is just plain unfair.

I do own a "business" in SL. Small-scale. So I understand the concern. Trust me, nothing made me as nervous in my time in SL as when I saw "account suspended" as I was waiting for my cash out.



For what, exactly? And if you trust in the government to make things better... well. Let's say you must be younger and more idealistic than me. Actually, I'd rather the government NOT take an interest in SL. *cough*IRS*cough*

I don't know if there is a FIC or not, but as long as LL continues to promote SL as a place to do business, they need to have a TOS and Community Standards that support business and that they enforce equitably and with a sensible, fair, and timely appeals process. Taking a business owner's account/funds/access because of something that occurred 2 or 3 years ago is wrong. Hopefully they fix the problem.