New Prop: Change Land Defaults for a Safer SL

I'd like to propose the following changes to default land values on newly purchased land to set more secure default values, and take advantage of new features.

Default "Deny by Payment Status" on Mature land to "Deny No Payment Info On File"
Default "Mature content" on Mature land to selected
Default "Land Options" on PG land to "Restrict Pushing"

This should not restrict a land owner's ability to change these settings once purchased. The purpose is to provide a positive Second Life experience by reducing griefing and encouraging mature content to be labeled as such.

Any suggestions before I submit this as a feature request?

Don't you mean Default "Deny by Payment Status" on land set to "Mature Content"? Most land in "Mature" sims has no "mature content". On the other hand, I would support something like "deny by payment status on land set to mature content EXCEPT FOR land group members"... and even make that NOT changeable except by an estate owner, but only if "mature content" does not default to "on" for "mature" sims. Yes, really.
Most "mature" land has no "mature" content, this is a bad idea.
What difference does "mature" or "pg" have to do with this? I would support this as Default "Land Options" on all land to "Restrict Pushing"

Unless you're trying to make "unverified" status infinitely painful, as a kind of a backdoor way to get LL to get off their butts about verification, I don't see this proposal as reasonable at all.

First off, thanks for the feedback. I'd really like to see this keep rolling...

I don't think many people bother changing their land options. For example, the third most popular places search result for the word "fun" currently includes "Nude Strippers Fun". The land is not set for "mature content".
My proposal is for a safe default of "mature content" on "mature" sims which would seem to make sense. If the land doesn't host mature content, then this shouldn't in any way prevent the land owner from unselecting the mature content option.

I struggled with this. The thinking was that mature regions should be treated as such - places where people act mature. But you've got a valid point, that it should be written as "all land". Maybe someone else can toss in their opinion on this as well?

Not a backdoor at all, IMHO. I'd rather be upfront that the purpose is to restrict what mature content unverified accounts can access by default, and reduce instances of griefing. The fact is that no one knows if an unverified account is over 18 or not. I've met plenty of unverified resis that certainly act underage.

In fact, I'd like to add another item to the list for consideration:
Require "Deny No Payment Info On File" on land with "Mature content" selected

I believe that these changes preserve LL's purpose of allowing unverified accounts, while reducing unverified access to mature content and reducing instances of griefing. It also seems that this would not require extensive programming changes (certainly less than some of the other proposals to handle unverified issues), though of course LL has the final word on it.

If anyone has opinions on this, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks!

Sound good to me, ^_^

Then this thread needs to be renamed. I really hate hidden agendas (that aren't my own ).

aaa well what can i say strife, its in my nature to want bad things to happend.

I'm a bit of a pessimist. I don't want bad things to happen, I expect them to happen.

As you say, most people don't bother changing the land options. This proposal would basically ban unverifieds from mature sims, unless they wanted to teleport from one open parcel to the next.

The first goal is clear, but this proposal would basically concentrate the griefers on PG land... which is the land I would think most in need of protection.
There shouldn't be anyone under 18 on the grid, period. There shouldn't be unverified accounts, period... it should be possible for LL to support international members without giving every griefer a "get out of ban free" card. So long as there are, though, the idea of marking them with a scarlet letter really bothers me.

I would go along with that. But not with the rest of the proposal.

It would just let Linden Labs stay in denial a while longer.

Would you care to explain what on Earth does this have to do with "security" or "safety"?

nice, another "everyone who doesn't pay for SL is evil" thread.

I don't see any benefit to changing any defaults, as it's up to each landowner to set them as they see fit, there will never be a set of defaults which will please everyone, if there were, then the options would be unnecessary

This is a 50/50 shot at best. In these forums alone you hear about "I got payment info on file by using one of those recharable cards" and also I am of the opinion that something restrictive should be off by default then turned on. This still wouldn't prevent griefing much as they can fire across sims, land, ban lines, etc.

As for the Mature Content mark I agree with earlier statements not everything I mature but people like to have the option. As for restrict pushing this should be a indvidual preference as already set I wouldn't see a reason to have it change automaticly just cause land is PG or mature in tha case.

Hey Darien you got the dead horse? I brought my nuke. Or oh I know we could do that whole dead whale and dynamite!

Sounds like you know how to have a good time. Now all we need is a box of Kleenex and Tiny Violin Orchestra.

Not at all. Just for the record, I'm in favor of unverified accounts. I think it has a net positive effect on the community by encouraging use of Second Life and generating media attention.

At the same time, I think a reasonable set of defaults could have a snowball effect of improving the Second Life experience for both verified and unverified resis.

I convinced two IRL coworkers to take a look at SL. They both had bad experiences, the first saying (in a very Clifford Stoll way) "In all seriousness, it's time we turn off the Internet". The second went so far as to write this article.

I don't like to hear those kind of reactions. There's lots of positive content on Second Life, and they just failed to see it. For example, it looks like Thomson NETg has just purchased the Thomson sim for training and other stuff on PG land.

On the other hand, just outside of Yadni's famous junkyard for newbies is a store that sells Adult SLDVDs. Although this land is set as "Mature Content" it isn't set to "Deny No Payment Info On File".

It's my hope that these changes in defaults would cause a rise in PG land values by encouraging people with PG content on their land to put it on PG land..

people like options and people like saying words I really wish I could say right now but will suffice to say george carlin said it best "The seven words you can't say." They may not have mature content evident but thier language, talk, actions, or dress of visitors may be mature and they wish those people to speak freely. Mature does nto mean only that the items on the land are mature but the people on it either owner or visitor wish to have more freedom of language, looks, and opinions they could not have in a PG environment.

Now also if I can ask...what doe selling mature content have to do with "Deny No Payment Info On File"? Is this a new law or something that says we have to have this or we are gonna get sued?

All land. Pushes happen (by griefers) in Mature regions as well. I had some dyke decide to orbit me at 20,000 m/s if I was anywhere in the same sim as her (the time it took to TP into the sim I was already 100km up--found that at 1 million m your attachments "fall off". I filed 3 abuse reports over the course of an hour and got her banned from the parcel she (and I, could I be there) was at.

While I agree with making land no-push by default, I would like to note that (as I predicted) griefers are rarely using push any more. They use impact weapons and things like razor instead.

You don't even want to know what they use after you ban them. You won't have use of mainland for weeks till LL finally bans them. Took me almost a month to get one three alts banned. The paid account incidently.

EDIT: BTW they didn't use any form of pushing just they were undisbutably distracting and/or triggered bugs/hacks.