Do PIOFs and NPIOFs get a free ride?

Fixed it for you.

I would even pay a higher premium fee to avoid [ads in SL].

Heh. A rather intriguing idea, actually. I wonder if they need a Leader?

The distinction I'm drawing, or rather, the one made by others that I'm referring to, is between those who put real money into SL (by buying $L or by being a premium member) and those who don't.

We can't really use the profile info as a hard guide for this, because of alts and because NPIOF can buy $L in secondary markets (e.g., what XStreet used to offer).

If we see "PIU" (Payment info used), we know that that avatar has bought $L from LL or they're a premium account. If we see the following:

- PIOF - payment info on file
- NPIOF - no payment info on file

we only know about that account, which could be an alt, but it means that that account has not transferred money to LL.

That's an interesting question. I'm not applying the term "freeloader" to anyone, so I certainly wouldn't. And I wouldn't say they're "getting a free ride" either, because unless they're criminals, they're clearly creating value, or they wouldn't be earning $L.

I could argue on behalf of those who denigrate the contribution of freebers, and say that those who make incomes in SL are contributing to the economy, because payers have to convert real money into $L (which LL generally benefits from), and the income earners have to convert $L into real money (which LL generally benefits from). And most business have expenses that pay directly to LL.

However, I feel that anyone who makes SL a more interesting or enjoyable place to be is making a contribution, and I don't need to make a distinction between those with a net profit from those with a net deficit for the purposes of my point.

Kitty has refined the argument, perhaps, from whether freebers may *any* contribution, to whether they make enough of a contribution to justify their existence. It's a good point. I have to admit that that one would be a very difficult one to settle.

Do we have another category here? I bet we could find half a dozen or more other categories as well.

Point to bear in mind: Just because a specific account is NPOF or PIOF status, that does not mean they are not an alt of someone who is "Payment Info Used", or even of a Premium member.

A corollary of Goedel's incompleteness theorm is that, given any system of categorization, there will be items that don't fit any of the categories. Even if we include "none of the above" and "any of the above".

Some would take this to mean that categorization is useless. There's a technical term for these people. They're called fools.



Seriously, you're right that it's important to have the semantic discussions to figure out what we're really talking about. However, avoiding all use of categorical terms is not a good way to do this.

In any case, let's stick with these:

freebers: those who convert no real money into $L
payers: those who do

I think it's sufficient for the discussion at hand, suitable to those on both sides.

If you have a better nomenclature, please propose one. If you object to all discussions that involve any dichotomies, then I guess you won't be satisifed with this one. Of course, that's a dichotomy, which is a categorization.

A corollary of Goedel's incompleteness theorm is that, given any system of categorization, there will be items that don't fit any of the categories. Even if we include "none of the above" and "any of the above".

Some would take this to mean that categorization is useless. There's a technical term for these people. They're called fools.

One simple solution to the whole problem of NPOIF accounts being used for content theft and griefing is to make all objects owned by a NPOIF account non-transferable. You could steal all the content you want but its not going to have much impact on the SL economy if you can not give or sell it to anyone. It would also limit the ability for griefers to give malicious objects to people.

It may not be a perfect solution but it would go a long way towards makig things better.

The broad assumption is made that a casual or non-premium member is more likely to commit crimes or cause havoc than a premium user would. I would venture to guess that this is only partially correct, and this is due to my own experiences. I have met many a "premium" user with less than "premium" behaviors and actions in-world. One, as a matter of fact, was a sim owner (4 sims) and an avid copybot user...and thankfully now banned. Oh wait though, he is a premium user....yes obviously he is (sarcasm). It is not whether a person is a premium account holder or not that gives the value to the person, it is the person themselves. You can not say that a premium user is superior to a casual user because the "pay to play", because frankly that isn't true. (And before you go looking me up, my store/sim owning avi IS premium...this avi is not). It is the moral and ethical fortitude of the individual that determines their propensity to steal or not, not whether they pay to be premium, it is ridiculous to assume otherwise.

I tend to agree, but just playing devil's advocate, I don't think LL always does the best thing (OMG!), and it's also possible that they regret the decision but can't change it now.

I suspect their strategy was to scale up as fast as possible and work out the profit side of the equation later (as Google did).

How could I resist linking this xkcd?

One simple solution to the whole problem of NPOIF accounts being used for content theft and griefing...

It would also mean, however, that NPIOFs could not be content creators, or at least providers.

I wish everyone would stop painting with such a broad brush here. NPIOFs are not the problem. Those who ABUSE NPIOFs may be, but you'll find content pirates in all of the resident categories.

The statement was made that only those who contribute real money impact LL's bottom line. While strictly true, it misses the point that freebers make contributions that add incentives for payers to do so.

this is all i was trying to say in the other thread..
There are so many from all types of accounts that use NPIOF's..
The anonymity is the perfect place for all types of accounts to get away with abuse.

/me nods.

Well, if the anonymity is the chief problem, then that would seem to be where the efforts should be focussed. I'd have no problems with requiring verfiable RL information for all accounts. Although, of course, that can be faked easily enough too . . .

/me waves at Elvis, just across the sim . . .

/me nods.

Well, if the anonymity is the chief problem, then that would seem to be where the efforts should be focussed. I'd have no problems with requiring verfiable RL information for all accounts. Although, of course, that can be faked easily enough too . . .

/me waves at Elvis, just across the sim . . .

Not all theives are smart or enthusiastic theives. Many are lazy, make it harder for them and they may give up.

Some theives might be smart enought to click a viewers "copy someones stuff button" but not smart or interested enough to sell it. That doesn't mean making that button a standard viewer feature is ok because the tools to copy peoples stuff have been hidden in the viewer since day 1 and "anyone" could do it.

Make false ID harder to fake and you will reduce theft, otherwise might as well remove the email requirement too, it's useless as there would be very few people not able to get around it, only those not smart enough to create a hotmail address.


Sure it's morally wrong to copy peoples stuff, but like trafficbotting, once everyone else does it, it's going to be socially acceptable til it effects LL.

Not all theives are smart or enthusiastic theives. Many are lazy, make it harder for them and they may give up.

Some theives might be smart enought to click a viewers "copy someones stuff button" but not smart or interested enough to sell it. That doesn't mean making that button a standard viewer feature is ok because the tools to copy peoples stuff have been hidden in the viewer since day 1 and "anyone" could do it.

Make false ID harder to fake and you will reduce theft, otherwise might as well remove the email requirement too, it's useless as there would be very few people not able to get around it, only those not smart enough to create a hotmail address.


Sure it's morally wrong to copy peoples stuff, but once everyone else does it, it's going to be socially acceptable.

I see your points on all or most of these, and don't disagree.

It does seem to me, however, that the real damage is being caused not by the "casual" content thief (i.e., the ones who are lazy, or uninterested in selling it), but by the determined ones who are doing this methodically and with intent. These are the people who are selling the stolen content on Xstreet, or soliciting business in-world. And they are the ones who are going to slip through a net broad enough to "catch" the relatively harmless ones.