If account sales are against TOS, why are they permitted?

Oh COME on people.

Would you rather that this person simply GOT ZERO because no one was able to buy their account?

PLEASE. Let's make the Anshe bashing a little more rational here.

I agree with your statement, but it is also irrelevant to what Anshe said.

It's relevant to this topic Blaze.

It's very relevant

but where do you get off saying:



Anshe is anything but crazy when it comes to business. She is one of the few rational people around.

The problem with people is that they're not very rational (generally, more emotional) and so look at her actions through those lenses.

Which is absolutely crazy, IMO.

OK question for you Blaze. If someone is permitted to assume the identity and business of another av, should they also be expected to assume any commitments the previous person made?

If you look carefully Blaze you will see I didn't quote it as from Anshe. I was quoting it as part of the TOS. I am not calling Anshe's post crazy. I am calling exactly what I quoted crazy, namely that part of the TOS.

You should never enter into a business arrangement unless the failure of the other party would cause him as much financial pain as it would cause you - irrespective of who owns the identity (and their respective property, be it intellectual / contracts / or otherwise) of that party.

LOL and you talk of relevance? Answer the question

OK fair enough, well, the TOS isn't crazy. That's about the only rational thing it says on the matter

Was that part added recently? I can't remember it being in the older versions..

The answer is, yes, should be able to.

With the caveat, that business arrangements should always be set up in a way that both parties feel equal pain if they're broken.

I am asking not should they be able to, but should they be held to them?

What does held, mean?

We have no enforceable contracts in SL, nor should we necessarily have them.

What we need are BBB groups and better friendster type functionality where I can see who you trust and who you don't trust.

I think the concept of contracts are not necessarily a good idea.

OK Just out of curiousity Anshe, I would like to know if you have got written consent from Linden Lab for every account purchase you h ave made?

Also... what really upsets me about you, is whenever something is brought up that may concern your actions, you always accuse the concerned parties of being jealous. Do you ever consider that is not the case? I mean seriously, all of us can do what you have done in SL, and can still do it... adding competition to the market, but we chose not to. not everyone has the time patience as you do to invest into SL. I commend your success and I surely know that one business I would not to be in is land sales....

Has it ever occured to you that people are concerned of the account sales for a few reasons, one being, it is no longer the person they trusted and have had business with in the past, another is... there may be other people interested in purchasing accounts if it is acceptable by Linden Lab, not because they are jealous...

OOoh! that's a VERY good idea! Kind of like the reputation system, but with more details (and no L$25 charge). I'd love to see a system that works just like EBay's feedback system: one-line comments and all.

100K Lindens says this thread is closed by the Lindens with no response and they will credit it all to "flaming".


Why don't they respond to us 60% of time when we ask them policy questions?



Anshe,


Your have murky ethics at best. Perhaps helping to sponsor the SLCC bought you more influence than we all have imagined but you should not be above the rules. You have exploited ever single flaw in LL policies for your own person gain. Each time they change the rules to correct a flaw in their policy that you think will affect your business, you fall on your poor business girl sword and expect the people you shit on to get where you are to give you sympathy. You care nothing about the community only about yourself. You can claim you business supports 50 villages in China, but that doesn't make your practices any better.

I think you're being generous.

I'm a giver.

As stated in another thread where I was confused by your flip flopping between "lag is bad for everybody" and "lag is good if it makes me a profit" I am also confused by your post here.

You reply to this matter is that we should treat it as RL business is treated. But your reply to the P2P change is that it should not be treated as it would be in RL business. In RL land changes hands and changes purpose all the time, and there is no "government" hand out of monies to the adjoining land owners. And yet this is what you are hollering for in the case of the P2P change.

Please help me with my confusion. Thank you.

Quotes are fun!

I think this gets right to the core of the point. If LL have the policy that an account may be transferred if the person wants to do it and the money is right, then, well, why not an in-game secure account exchange? If it's just to preserve created content in-game then, again, why not open it to all when a content creator leaves (not by auction because that's just the same as giving it to Anshe)?

This is important, because the rule that "you can't buy someone else's account" would otherwise ensure a flow of material into the free public domain where it could help to reverse the "newbies stuck in camping chairs" situation. As for "would you rather that she got zero" - well, if someone decides to close down their shop in real life, do they still get paid on the grounds that they deserve money for the effort they made setting up the shop?

The problem here with Anshe breaking TOS rules is what can they do? If they perma-ban her then they're losing a multi-thousand dollar monthly intake for the island sims and maingrid land property and they suddenly have a few hundred homeless and quite possibly pissed off SLers. But if they don't do anything then it seems like Anshe can do whatever the hell she wants because she pays them off. So it seems their best solution was to change the TOS to allow account sales with LL permission, that way they don't have to ban or punish her, but it also doesn't seem like that she's got as much control of them as she does.

There's my conspiracy theory for you.

Linden Labs will say that because anshe did it, its ok now. Look for an update to the TOS stating so.

Or they could just remove the account she bought against the rules.