Protection of Residents II

I'm curious, if LL were to protect us all from fraud how would they do it?

I don't think they could set it up so that every financial trans action had to be personally approved by a Linden. They would have to hire a lot of new Lindens and build them a new building. It would slow commerce down to a very slow crawl. It would give the scammers a new dimension to consider but I think they would still think of ways to beat the system.

The only other way I can think of is for LL to investigate every single complaint and pay back any money anyone changed their mind about handing over. Once again it would take a lot of Lindens to do that - especially since once they started a whole lot of people would get interested in trying to scam that process.

Well you seem to know the flaws. I would think you could find a way to avoid some of those pitfalls. But, as long as you (and others......I'm not singling you out here) take this attitude I can assure you nothing will come to fruit.

Ever think that maybe supporting such an attempt to protect residents might be a collective shout to LL to do the right thing and fix it properly? Haha........I know your answer already. Anyway, as long as this goes unaddressed (and washing your hands of the problem is not addressing it) it will continue be a stain on SL's reputation. Which, in turn, stains every resident here. I don't know about you, but I don't like being seen in that light.

Take care....let this thread get buried like all the others before it. I know of another up and coming world that is addressing this issue on the front end. I probably will be migrating there once it gets out of beta.

I would think that there is the possibility of using an extension to the Risk API to monitor transactions automatically, flag and track transactions that are receiving complaints for human verification and action. I doubt more than that could be done really and even then there are going to be false positives just as there are with the Risk API today.

For a lot of problems Peggy, especially social problems there are no good answers sadly. Brenda is right in that educating people not to fall for scams is about the best that can be done pro-actively and the rest is down to the system owners to mop up best they can when it happens. LL have chosen not to get too involved in that to date, that could change and might provide at least some guarantees that money could be recovered in some cases and that the avs responsible are banned from SL.

This right here shows the possibility for misuse. "Personal Opinions" and "Selected Items". This information is totally subjective, therefore of little use in the broad sense. Who's opinions? How are items selected? User governing of SL has been brought up before, and pretty much dismissed, and while your aren't necessarily proposing that, the concept is still the same.

If a group wishes to meet privately and decide amongst themselves who is a bad guy, there is nothing stopping them I guess. But I can take care of myself. Thanks anyway.

My "reputation" as much as one is possible in SL is decided by MY conduct alone. No one else's. SL's reputation is the responsibility of it's operators. I'm putting my soapbox away on this one.

Really? How are they going about addressing it?

What land? Why does such a group need land? And who will walk away with it at the end of the day?

Imo, it's a silly idea - for the reasons that have already been stated in this thread.

There used to be an operation called Second Life Better Business Bureau run by avatar Aaron Levy, which had a forum where folks could posts complaints. I don't think it did real well, and died away.

There was also another outfit by the same name, completely distinct from Aaron's SLBBB, I believe, which also claimed to be a place to air grievances. I don't know that that group's actually had much success at keeping people honest either.

There have been a number of similar attempts to provide some kind of consumer protection service. I don't think any of them have worked out too well.

I don't know, Gabrie, it still seems as if it would take an awful lot of employee time. And no way to really prove one way or the other what exactly went on if someone claims there was communication outside of SL.
And I'm afraid that if they let it be known that they have changed their non-intervention policy they would increase the expectation of protection and open themselves up to demands to be heard from everyone with any kind of grievance or scheme to game the system.

In light of the fact that so many people seem to think that LL should protect them from fraud I do think the Lindens should be more diligent in warning people that they are on their own.

QFT

Down with Black Lists in any form.

/facepalm

I would agree with you except they brought out the Risk API in the first place which definitely would have taken many person months to make anywhere close to useful I bet, so you can never tell.

I personally would not bank on them doing it either unless fraud becomes a hot potato for them.

Will there be an appeals process for those who are listed with the group who feel they have been wrongly convicted without a fair trial?

If the opinions and attitudes of the rest of the Second Life residents are anywhere near those of this forum then we'll never know. Everyone thinks the scammers and opportunists among the population are scumbags but they don't like any honest discussion for a solution either.........so it won't change. Not until something big happens and it gets in the news or someone actually looses more than just a few real dollars (or whatever currency they might use in their real life places of residence). It'll happen sooner or later and no one will like it when LL finally takes their responsibility to heart.

I'm sure there's a way to address this problem but it won't happen until we, as residents, make it known we want it addressed..........and turning down honest attempts at helping to fix the problem is saying "WE DON'T WANT IT FIXED".

There are many things that could be put in place to make the process fair and hard to turn into a scam of it's own. Pointing fingers at the person making the suggestion or offering up an idea as "just as bad as the problem in the first place" makes intelligent discussion nearly impossible. It's obvious that LL thinks it's up to the residents to take care of themselves...........but we can't. We don't want to even try.

Not a very pretty picture is it?

Thank you Colette.

I bet you're right but that's why I don't think they could have enough man power to guaranty justice for all victims of fraude. It just seems to make more sense to not accept that responsibility.

As I hazzily understand it the Risk API was thought up as a way to make it easier for people who don't happen to have US$ to buy L$ with other currency by identifying reputable brokers.

Trying to reduce other kinds of fraud seems to be a bit beyond it's scope and possibly even causing problems for innocent people. I don't know if stories like these are true, but it seems to me they might be.
http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/2007/01/17/zee-linden-warns-risk-api-puts-you-at-risk-l-not-to-be-trusted/
https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/MISC-33
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/jira-notify/2008-January/007847.html

Personally all I'm saying is that I think that it might be difficult to make this kind of reporting and listing of wrong doers work well.

By giving that opinion I'm trying to contribute to the discussion of what can be done, not stop it.

Maybe if every time there was any kind of financial transaction everyone involved rated everyone else involved, like on eBay, an idea of who is trustworthy would emerge. But I'm afraid griefers might ruin the reputations of of honest people while dishonest ones would build up a good reputation with small transactions just so they could sucker someone in for a big score.

Forcing people to be honest if just very hard.

this has been tried already, and failed due to corrupt members.
the only way i can see something like this have any legitimacy at all is if it were set up something like banlink, with trusts and numerous lists and so on.

sorry peggy, but how does you statement relate to my question?

The very first sentence?

The thought is good intentioned but too many problems can happen.
The only thing we as Residents can do is be careful consumers and encourage others to be careful when situations involving money, property or our emotions, dreams or our hearts are involved.

I'm ebil puts me on the list!

... that's good right?

I needs to be popular somehow and I have always had this secret urge for fame

... wait

This.

I can recognize crooks and scammers quite well. I don't need anyone to give me a list of them. If someone is victimized, then a report should be made, and LL should deal with it. If they aren't capable, then I guess you can start heading out to Peggy's "Better World". I'll shut the lights out for you.

Willy!!!!!!!