Alts & SL Free Trial Accounts

Disabling trial accounts' ability to rate while still allowing others to rate them doesn't sound at all fair to me. Are we going to start hazing in new members next?

Don't punish new users because some of the older users have grudges and are too cowardly to handle them in the open. There are too many legitimate trial accounts, or Basic accounts, to allow our alt-paranoia to start hog-tying them.

If someone wants to waste the time to create an alt just to neg rate you, then blow your nose and deal with it, comforted in the fact that it cost them 25-75 Lindens to do it. You'll live.

Why not just take triall accounts out of the rating system alltogether?

That's certianly more fair. I'd rather see ratings done away with entirely, though.

I agree that trial account features should be limited to taking look around. Trial accounts also are used for griefing so we could see that reduced as well. When an account is cancelled, arent the neg ratings deleted?

Maybe GOM should restrict trading to accounts older than 30 days to eliminate the fraud situations arising from the use of new or trial accounts.

Me for one... in August 2003.

I agree. Last thing SL needs is a bigger gap between groups of people.

Why not allow only one AV per person to be able to rate, based upon IP's, names, addresses, and other records LL holds? Say a person has three alts, only one of them would have the privilege, and the other two wouldn't have the function. The two non-raters could be rated, but not rate. The one rater would have "full rating functionality".

Trial accounts would have full functionality, and that account would transition as the full rating AV when the person decided to join. However, any alt trial account would not have full functionality.

This might have the added benefit of helping to identify who's an alt and who's not, while keeping privacy by not identifying just who is an alt of whom.

Alternatively, have the ratings of alts linked, so if alt n gives a rating, all that person's alts show that rating... so while all alts can rate, it has no effect if that person's rated in another alt...
i.e. 1 rating set shared between a person's alts.

Unfortunately, it's going to be gamed, same as it is now...

I prefer my way, Siobhan, but only because it clearly identifies who's an alt and who's the primary AV. Alts perhaps wouldn't even have a "given" category in their profile. But I think your way would be far better than what goes on now.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

This is already implimented in SL.

God, I said this on the first page of this thread, and you people are STILL talking about it as a possibility?

If someone signs up for a trial account, neg rates 1,000,000,000 people, and never purchases the account, the neg rates vanish.

This is already implimented in SL.

That said, ratings should die.

I heard Phillip recently say that ratings were supposed to be a method to build trust between people.

Anything that might impede or hamper a new person's ability to create social bonds in SL should not be considered as a fix. Especially one who is just testing the waters, so to speak.

The rating system is still broken. LL is taking steps to fix it. I agree with those who wish remove all economic benefits from ratings completely. Its a clear fix for this problem. Who would care then who's alt is rating whom, except if you are being nosey. Yes it will still be gamed, but the vituralworld-wide impact would not be so great.


fen-

I have to disagree here. According to this, I am an alt, and shouldn't have the priviledge of rating or being rated. My husband and I have seperate accounts, very seperate SL interests and creations, but we're on the same credit card and IP address. If I behave badly, or my building sucks, he shouldn't have to suffer the neg rates for it, and vice versa.

Ditto on Jonquille. In Linden Lab's eyes, Jennyfur is my alt. While she's my paramour (she's hate the "f" word), we're not the same person (well, except maybe twice a week or so <grin>.

Basic accounts should be allowed to rate, but I do think a minimum membership time before being able to give ONLY NEG rates should be imposed... perhaps, 1 month? 60 days? I dunno. Anyone should be able to pos rate... that's clearly altruism. However, on the negative side... I think either (a) go premium or (b) wait X days... not a bad idea.

-Flip

I don't think disallowing trial accounts from rating people will drive people away. There is so much to see and do in SL, rating is very minor to the experience. (except for those who get off on rate mining)

I disagree, if only because I went through a lot of rating activity in my first two days of trial membership, and I think that one of the reasons people decide to stay and sign up is because they were rated for cool behavior, a stunning look or a great first stab at building. With the higher cost of rating, any rates received by a trial user will be even more important to them.

And if they can receive rates, they should be able to give them.

Restricting access to the negative rate button would be fine, though!

/stamp

and yes, this was made in feature suggestion forum before.

When I first sat down at Pituca's Jeopardy! in my first fifteen minutes of SL, I was thrilled to get rates as I conversed my way with my fellow newfound avatars between questions. I didn't know how to rate back for positivity... yet... but I would soon find this out.

I found it to be an encouraging and happy experience, that made me want to seek out more people to talk to and rate. Coming from an antisocial background, it means a lot to me personally.

At the end of my seven-day trial, I decided to stay onboard Second Life.

And here I am now. *smiles and waves*

Just like threads (ad nauseum) suggesting a player government, as well as all polls and side issue threads pertaining to said government implementation suggestions, right blaze?

After all, government is a functionality issue.

However, you already know this don't you "Cognitive Dissonance Boy"?

Maybe it's not as described above and you are simply stalking Merwan, trolling him because of the dislike you professed in another thread where you tried to claim the moral high ground, only to once again expose yourself as what you really are.

Given your above post, Nolan, I assume you now to be a fully paid up member of the Blaze Spinnaker Fan Club. He'll be along to assert the same any moment.

I don't think LL should even care about ALTS. Let the free market dictate it. If people want alts, so be it. Its more money out of their pocket and more in LL's.

IMHO, LL should eliminate even the 5 - account per credit card limit.

Just my two.