have u been asked/forced to age verify yet?

Well that's the point isn't it? I mean griefing is such a 13y.o's activity in the first place, how hard would it be to get LL to jump on that accusation and banhammer you till they find out for sure? Not that hard obviously.
I haven't verified, and until my couple of fav places tell me I have to I won't consider it.

Sling, many child avs dont want to verify for the simple reason why would a child want access to clearly adult venues. Its like raising a flag, Im a child av and I want my pron!!

I find this utterly fascinating.

Can you confirm one very important point Marianne?

Are these kid avvies ones for whom the online IDV did not work (Integrity unable to verify from their records)?

I ask because:
Either the anonymous online IDV is accepted by LL as verification of age or it is not.

If someone accused of being underage can not use the online IDV to prove their age, then it logically follows that even an IDV-verified account will be banned if accused of being underage.
If an accused account *has* to go manual, then it would be an open admission by LL that IDV is worthless.



A separate WTF for me is the "Please expect manual verification to take 5-7 working days."
Age Verification FAQ : https://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/security.asp?questionID=3949
What on earth do they do in that time? Employ firms of private detectives in whatever countries?? Send in the CIA??

Magic!!
Submit the details for some dead celebrity to Integrity and you're verified in seconds.
Submit copies of a raft of RL documentation to LL and it takes 5-7 working days.

Perhaps the submitted ticket lingers in the support queue for 5-7 days and then takes 30 seconds for a support droid to review the documentation and unban the account?



LL may beat their chests and say that they *have* to instantly suspend anyone accused of being underage 'just in case'.
Given the clear potential for griefing here, they should be ready to reinstate the account the minute that verifying information is supplied.

If not, why not?

If a child avvie - or indeed any avvie - is banned on suspicion of being underage, will LL accept online IDV as proof of age and immediately reinstate the account?

Read my post, Tweedledum

If a child avvie - or indeed any avvie - is banned on suspicion of being underage, will LL accept online IDV as proof of age and immediately reinstate the account?

In order to get the account off hold, the person with the account must provide a legible copy of a government-issued identification document (state ID, driver’s license, passport, military ID, birth certificate) that clearly includes both their name and date of birth. This is the only type of identification acceptable for establishing age eligibility.

Absolutely!

But.....

My question was to do with the *aftermath* of a banning due to an accusation.
The child avvie no longer has a choice in the matter. They must either prove age or stay banned.

If a child avvie - or indeed any avvie - is banned on suspicion of being underage, will LL accept online IDV as proof of age and immediately reinstate the account?

Online IDV takes seconds, manual vetting takes up to 5-7 days.

No; in that case, it is manual only.

It is, IMO, one of the most screwed up things out there. Especially given one can still be accused and banned (and have to go through it all again) after both electronic and manual age/identity verification.

nope cause your acount isnt banned its suspended you cant access anything on the sl website but support
unlike a ban when u still can uses the sl site
u have to fax or support manuall

We then appear to be left with the greatest insanity of all.
Would LL REALLY insist that an account go through the manual verification more than once?

Why? What would have changed?

Well come on, let's be pragmatic here. Just because you're not underage today doesn't mean you won't be underage a month from now. You know how your driver's license could be valid today, but next week you could do something that gets it suspended? Same thing.

lets not confuse being AR'd for age with IDV. You can have IDV and still be age AR'd and have to give proof to LL. Youve been here less than a year and got in trouble Jumpy, not a good sign. Im sure if someone AR'd me for my age now I wouldnt have even been a teen when buying my first island. Kinda silly dontcha think?

Because the IDV is still in beta, so no, LL isn't going to trust it completely, err, remotely. It's already been proven that people can IDV with completely false information, which makes me think that it's only good for catching complete idiots who fill in forms with "Imabunghole Screw" for a name anyways.

I've done the IDV thing, just because it is free (for now) and because, I'd rather not have to deal with it breaking down in the crush when/if they do enforce it.

I don't believe that IDV is in beta. (as in all of it)

LL's part of it - that of implementing access restriction based on verification - is most definitely in Beta.
Integrity's part of it is an established service/product. It's independent of SL. It's not in beta.

LL *should* be able to trust Integrity's bit of IDV now as much as they are ever going to trust it.
Integrity are not testing their systems. They might have to improve their databases in magical/illegal/impossible ways in some countries to have genuine verification, but they are not testing anything.

Yes, in theory LL *should* be able to trust Integrity's bit, but apparently, they don't (at least not completely), if they won't accept it as age verification. I can guess a few reasons:

1. Integrity doesn't require you to mail/fax your ID to them.
2. There are rumors that people have been able to use false information to verify.
3. Not everyone in every country can use the system for various reasons.

I'm thinking 1 and 3 are the big breakers on it. Although if 2 is true, then LL seriously needs to find another way to do this, because this is no better than using a creditcard to verify.

1. Integrity doesn't require you to mail/fax your ID to them.
2. There are rumors that people have been able to use false information to verify.
3. Not everyone in every country can use the system for various reasons.

I'm thinking 1 and 3 are the big breakers on it. Although if 2 is true, then LL seriously needs to find another way to do this, because this is no better than using a creditcard to verify.

Too bad ignorance isn't painfull.

Oops, how did that get there. Actually I have never been asked...I have a premium account and I did age verify a while back voluntarily so I wouldn't have to deal with any isses. Ironically...I don't run around griefing people and talking like a 13yo with dyslexia...nor do I care to visit porn areas......yet I felt compelled to maintain my proper adult identity by making it clear that I am indeed a valid adult. It seems to me the people who whine the most about being banned and forced to age verify....are the ones who invariably act like children.

This doesn't make anyone any less valid as an adult....but it certainly raises a few eyebrows and makes ya wonder at precisely what age that person DID cease to mature.

I'm not worried about identity theft or any of that crap over the web....if SL wants to verify me....fine......it'd be easier for some low life to steal the mail from my mailbox than to do it via the web. Hence it was just a precaution I took for my own peace of mind. (if indeed it will ever matter, who knows)

Which is better then?

-Erring on the side of assuming someone is a minor (when reported), until they provide information proving that they are of legal age. This will prevent the accused minor from accessing potentially lewd content until their age can be confirmed.

-Erring on the side of assuming someone is an adult, until prove positive exists that they're a minor. This will allow them to continue to use SL while their age is being confirmed.

I see it as a big catch-22.

IF someone is indeed age 12, and someone reports them as being age 12.... if Linden doesn't put a hold on that account, I could see where Linden could end up legally liable. I'd argue they'd at least be morally responsible.

Conversely, people can file ARs for any reason they wish, and no burden of proof is needed to submit. This could create a lot of disruption for folks (like Jumpy) when frivolous ARs are filed.

I think the only fair thing Linden can do, is take Age-based Abuse Reports on a case-by-case basis. If reasonable doubt exists that someone is a minor, they've got to freeze the account. No hating on ya, Jumpy - but from your writing style, I could see where Linden might have some reasonable doubt in this case.

LOL! I understand a point that Jumpy makes!!

The suggestion is that an account SUSPENDED on suspicion of being underage is unable to access the online IDV process.
This neatly renders moot any question as to how LL view the reliability of IDV as an indicator of age.

"We are suspending you because there is a slight chance that you are underage. We do have a facility for you to verify your age immediately, but you can't use it. You will remain suspended for 5-7 days after manual submission of proof of your age."
This would just be normal failure to think things through - just another bit of LL borkiness. Move along please, nothing to see here.

However, given the distinct possibility of griefing, this is one bit of borkiness that could and should easily be fixed by any half-competent web developer.



We then appear to be left with the greatest insanity of all.
Would LL REALLY insist that an account go through the manual verification more than once?

Why? What would have changed?

lets not confuse being AR'd for age with IDV. You can have IDV and still be age AR'd and have to give proof to LL. Youve been here less than a year and got in trouble Jumpy, not a good sign. Im sure if someone AR'd me for my age now I wouldnt have even been a teen when buying my first island. Kinda silly dontcha think?