What do other users think of this:

I already posted this in the SL Answers forum but I am wondering what others think of this idea

WIth there being so much upset about the different classifications of residents in Second Life, I would like to suggest that the unverified user accounts be renamed in thier profiles as "Tourist".

Many people seem so insulted by the unverified information, and this would be much more PC and kinder
Really this is what users in this classification actually are.
It could also be used as a marketing/recruiting tool

Thanx
Luthien Unsung

Tourist / Visitor / Guest.... it's similar to an idea I put forward a few weeks ago and you're not the only one to suggest it either, Luthien. I agree with you that it would be a 'better' label and it would streamline the bulk of the SL accounts to 3 levels: Premium, Basic and Visitor. BTW, freebie guest accounts in Active Worlds are called 'Visitor' so that might be why LL has backed off using that particular tag.

I like the idea. Words are powerful tools, and this I think would help.

If you're so concerned about class, how about "Charter Member" and "Plebian"?

Don't like that? No, I thought not... so cut this crap completely... ANY class descrimination is bad...

I think it's a good idea too. Never hurts to put a positive spin on something.

I like it too. But I'd like tourist for no payment info on file, immigrant for payment info not used, and resident for verified used payment info.

It gives us the information we need, and i think it looks better.

i think a basic account should be a hitchhiker

YesI agree any class discrimination is bad.
Hence the suggestion

I do believe I just hate this new thing on the profiles, and I've figured out why.

Their intention is so we can know more who to trust, etc., and it is fairly discrete (i.e., it's not over our heads all the time).

But here's the thing: It is BASED ON discrimination. It is based on the idea that a certain group of people would be less trustworthy to begin with.

Even if that were true, this is prima facie discrimination. (Lawyers, is that the right word?)

Because it discriminates (or, more accurately, encourages us to discriminate) against people from the get-go, based not on their actions but on whether or not they have spent money, or registered a credit card, with LL.

In addition to which, I believe that is our private information, billing info even, and shouldn't be put out there for everyone to see at ALL.

coco

Yes I agree with you, but it has happened:/ however, *I* do not discriminate, anyone is welcome on my land, and I never read profiles before this unless there was a good reason
Hopefully others will do the same thing

I want to be named "King" and all the non-paying people can be "subjects." Or... we could do "land owner" and "serfs"... Hmmm...

Seriously... Here is the solution to EVERYTHING.
http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1589
Hire Smith Peel (hereafter referred to as Smith Linden) as your Verification Analyst to do verifications of identity. Charge $10 (or 3000 L$) for this voluntary service. Smith Linden will use modern intelligence gathering methods to verify that: 1. The person who created the account exists in reality and actually owns the account. 2. Said person is over 18. If these things check out 100%, we will put a nice little icon on the in-world profile that says "VERIFIED IDENTITY" --which means "we know for sure who this person is, end of story." In the future, expand the services to include "VERIFIED CREDENTIAL" in which degrees and other credentials will be verified and listed on the in-world profile. These services will not be limited to Premium accounts. We are building an egalitarian society. Thank you.

I've always read profiles, and will continue to do so! Not anything to do with this, it's just when someone starts talking to me I like to see what they've put out for the world to see in their profile and picks, that's kind of why it's there, ya know.

I couldn't give a flip about their verified status one way or another. Means absolutely nothing about them. If you go to a site and don't have to give your CC info, who's go volunteer it with no reason? It's not until they get in and discover something they want that the reason presents itself.

Whether they're interested in buying guns or furniture is the real question, and you get that by talking to them.

I would like to point out that there is a problem with language here. We have all been taught, through the news, through movies, through our parents, etc. that 'discrimination' is BAD.

This is wrong. A shortcut in language has occurred that has completely warped the message. What the message originally was is "Unfair discrimination" or "discrimination based on irrelevant or prejudicial criteria" is BAD. But that's hard to say, so we now have the corrupted message that any discrimination is bad.

To discriminate just means to make a distinction. We do this all of the time. And it's a necessary part of our lives and our survival. We discriminate when we go shopping, buying fresh fruits over rotten fruits. We discriminate when we buy a car or a house. We discriminate when we choose our friends. This is an absolutely good process, not a bad one. But to discriminate, we need information. Information gives us the clues to making good decisions.

And as in the real world, in Second Life it is necessary to make distinctions, i.e. to discriminate the differences between individuals. The credit card status is just such a clue. Certainly it's not an absolute indicator, but it is valuable. Nor is use of that information discrimination based on prejudicial criteria.

I was about to make the same observation after reading Coco's post, and then I read yours. You're absolutely right, common understanding has warped the useage of the word 'discrimination'. Only some forms of discrimination are illegal. Others are perfectly legal, and some are just mundane and not applicable to human behaviour.

In my country, to see an R-rated movie, they discriminate based on age. You have to be 18 or over. In this case, discrimination is legally required. There is (what I consider to be) a valid reason in SL for some to discriminate against 'unverified users' - if you sell mature products, you may be covering your legal ass by not selling to those whose statement that they are 18 or over is not tied to a verifiable indentity.

Thank goodness, some sense interjected into yet another "discrimination OMG we all gonna die!!!" thread.

This is NOT a bad thing. An unverified person can verify themselves easily, and I predict it will get even easier as time goes by. The Lindens (or a 3rd party) will add other ways to verify beyond credit cards.

Maybe Phillip knows someone at ebay and he could ask them about their verification program

ebay Verified User FAQ

"Tourist" sounds fine to me, but I wonder if new users will get it.

Indeed as Marla and Fade nicely pointed out This kind of discrimination is not bad. It is a necessary part of the world we live in. We as residents of this virtual world need to know who we are dealing with and knowing that there is some kind of Information on file with LL that helps us know that some one with CC information on file has a stake in this world. That they have taken it upon them selves to want to be a permanent part of the community.
with out any kind of identifying Information on file then you really are transient looked upon as temporary part of the community. so I think tourist seems like a good term. The wording they used does seem very not PC.
I do however think there needs to be more ways for people to give identifying information other then a credit card.
I have been enlightened to the fact recently in reading many threads about this that many places CC's are not used very widely and many dont have one.

Well, as long as verification is soelyl based on submitting payment details and whether those payment details have been successfully used, I will be doing everything I can to cause my profile to be tourist.

While I can accept implicit information about credit card details being given out (and no, my registration date doesn't automatically imply that), when it results in direct information about my transactions being given out to unspecified 3rd parties, I consider that an invasion of privacy.

yes, I *know* I clicked "I agree", but an agreement made on the lines of "agree to this or lose your money and any investment you might have" is signed under duress in my opinion, and has no moral validity for me.

What transactions do they make public knowledge. The only thing they are making public is the fact that you have payment info on file with them. before the unrestricted access began that information was already implied because every account needed some kind of information to register. all they are doing now is putting it in writing that there is payment info on file.

and if you don't agree with the TOS you have an option to sell all you have in world and never log in again. That is an option for any one who does not agree with the TOS.

No, before, they did NOT necessarily have payment information on file. At the time I registered thsi account it was entirely possible to register with a mobile phone based email address only. My join date in no way implies that I have submitted payment details.

And yes, I can sell all I have in world. I can't sell the advance payment I made for the service itself. Once again, you're trying to use a specious argument.

should we have unverified users wear a scarlet A? or perhaps we can tatto numbers on the inside of thier arms. The classsification of residents to me is reprehensible. Discrimination gets started because its a "good Idea, and very practical."

The methods of ensuring we were all adults here in the main grid were in place. They may not have been perfect, but at least they did not involve realtively arbitrary labelling. Keep SL for 18 or older, make people have a credit card and dump the labelling.