Banning unverifieds ( a poll )

Its time for another Highly Controversial Poll©!!

Today's Topic:

Ban unverifieds or not?

Your thoughts, please

Only if they change it so that people who joined with cell phones aren't marked that way. (Unless they changed it recently, I didn't look.)
I also have some unverified friends, and they haven't done anything that cause trouble and are great people. I really don't think it's fair. LL needs to come up with another way, somehow.

My plan :
1) Wait for the group roles system to go live on the main grid.
2) Deed my land to my group, and set "no build" and "no script" on it.
3) Set the 'everyone' role in my group to be able to bypass 'no build' and 'no script'.
4) Invite the regulars that use the land into the group.

Result = Regular Residents who I know can use the land as they always have. Unknown guests who happen to wander by... are restricted so hopefully their guns/objects won't work until we give them permission to run scripts here by inviting them into the group

I believe bans should be issued on a case to case basis, not on a complete category of people. If someone griefs me i'll ban him regardless of his account status. Given that people have the right to ban whoever they like from their land, i really don't feel the need to use such a function. Trying to crack a nutshell with a sledgehammer almost never brings good results.
I do think that LL took an extremely controverrsial (and even a lil hypocritical if i'm allowed to be blunt) route, first allowing unverifieds in, and then giving people plenty tools to relegate and discriminate them.

This poll is invalid since anyone could bring in 100 alts to vote for option 2.

Dealers in Clothing, Skin, Hair, Shape, etc...
Here is why you should not ban unverified accounts:
/109/3a/120467/1.html#post1143922

Maybe ToS section 2.4 violation.




So for each account you sell you'd have to get written permission from LL. And LL would limit how many accounts you can create if they link it to your main. As per section 2.4.

Should we ban all of (race/ethnic group/etc) because some of them are causing problems?

No, it should be done case by case. It is not okay to punish the innocent in order to get at the guilty.

Voted OTHER. But take it as a NO.

I don't tihnk it's discrimination. I think it is a very poorly thought out tool. It -does- work to keep out continously remade alts of griefers (unless they're verifying thier account each time), so has it's uses for immeadiate threats. ie if a community, or persons is currently under griefer attack.

Or would be if teh ban hieght was above 50m. That restriction alone makes this function completely worthless.

The other problem is that this function was already in SL but with better variable controls. "Restrict Access to Parcel" tools. Limiting by name(list 50) or by Group. Either easy to turn on for griefing as well, but still worthless based on the 50m ban hieght limit.

Buisnesses and other public places would be foolish to even concider either option. Good way to lose a customer base. Private individuals may, but if they are having that much of a problem, then the lack of ban height comes into play.

Someone point out to LL that SL is a 3D world. We do have an UP direction that can be used for other things than cranium to rectum direction.

~Jessy

You could very well be right Wrom.

Let's say that at this moment LL would not condone this practice of "pre-blinged" avatars, is it possible that LL may re-think their stance if they realized the good service this will be to content creators and new customers?

Sinatra,

I believe you could make a much bigger profit by being a newbie make-over guide. What you'd do in this case is for a fee (say 1000L per 30 mins), you take the newbie shopping (have the entire ETD demo hairs transfered to newbie ask them what they like etc). And then generally do the Oprah magic on them.

I think this would be much easier to do than being involved with selling pre-made chars (people are picky usually).

Also, interestingly LL is making a new type of helpers (along with Mentors etc) who would be newbie guides.

Maybe this type of service could counter what LL provides and be sort of a newbie make-over/shopping guide.

Someone must already be doing a pretty good job of helping newbies go from "blah" to "bling-bling!" I see one-day-old avatars all the time that are strolling around with designer skins, flexi-prim hair, prim shoes, a full set of interactive scripted naughty bits, and enough bling jewelry to turn night into day across half a sim.

Wrom,
Your way works also and would be a great way for a new person in SL to learn many new skills from the "guide"
Still, alot of people like instant gratification. So I think both ways have their merits.

Jezebella, those, of course, are people who developed their shopping and avatar creation skills with a previous account. I believe these same skills will become profitable just as the skill to create a skin or clothing is now.

Here are a few reasons people would purchase pre-blinged avatars:
1) to save time
2) to get a "designer" look from a talented avatar creator or shopper*
3) the learning curve of good avatar design can frustrate some newbies
4) some people just SUCK at avatars ... need proof? look at mine LOL


*shopper? yes some people know how to buy and coordinate clothing, skin, hair, make-up, etc., better than others.

Sure it is. Happens every day in every country. Why shouldn't it happen in SL? And if it wasn't ok, LL wouldn't give us the tools.

I don't agree with the way they changed the registration system. Now, in my little corner of the world, I have the methods at my disposal to do something about that.

I want a way to automatically ban anyone who uses this tool. Pfft...

Better add me to your ban list

Heh! it's not even slightly funny. And if you're using one, you might as well add me too.

It's not meant to be. I'm using the new tool to ban unverified accounts from my land. As is my right. And I'm being kind enough to provide you with the details you need to exercise yours!

If you are running any sort of adult-oriented business, or if you are living in or operating an area where adult activities are acceptable within camera range, I think you would be well-advised to ban unverified accounts. It's a crappy way of keeping kids out, but it WILL screen out all the kids that lie about their age and provide no proof of ID. I think it's unfortunate and terrible that this also screens out a lot of perfectly innocent newbies. But honestly, if they haven't / can't come up with payment data, then they can't pay for any services either.

One of my homes is right next door to a pool that I built for the sim owner, as an open attraction for residents of that sim. Anything short of XXX adult behavior is allowed at the pool, including nudity. As a "Hard R Rated" area, there is NO WAY a kid should be allowed there. So, since the only tool offered by Linden Labs to police the mess created by their lax registration policies is to ban anyone who provides no payment info, as Estate manager for the sim, I will have to enforce such a ban for the sim.

Another sim that I am an estate manager for has a XXX 'playground' in it. It is also no safe place for kids. As above, I would have to lock down the whole sim, just to show 'due dilligence' in attempting to keep kids out.

I have already had to AR a 13 year old kid who clearly stated that he lied about his age and joined SPECIFICLY because the lack of a credit card requirement made it possible for him to do so. That kid, fortunately, was not in an adult area when I caught him and had him kicked off the main grid. But I know, from personal experience, that at least SOME kids are getting onto the main grid because they don't have to provide credit info or even a valid e-mail any more.

I am working with the sim owner to take both of his sims that I help to manage completely off the grid. They will become 'invitation only' places, open only to residents and invited guests. At that point, I won't have to worry about 'verified status', because no one will be allowed to own land there or to get an invitation to visit unless they are already sufficently well-known that we are reasonably certain that they are of legal age. And anyone who is a resident or guest and who later proves to be under-age can easily be removed from the access list. This solution will also provide no inconvenience to casual travellers and flyers, as they won't even see the sims on the grid. It's a pity that it also means that 99% of the people in SL will never see those two beautiful, peaceful sims. But until LL comes up with a viable means of validating age, and not just credit card status, it's the best we can do.

I'm going to ban everyone... except my alts!

Problem solved

It does seem I won't be straying far from home in future... but when you have bigots banning based on whether or not they can get the right credit card... I just don't wanna know.

All un-fairness aside, a tool ban based on account details is pretty cool. I just hope LL sees the potential and expands the system (other than lsl) so that we can filter a wider array of data.

1. Rating numbers. (including negs if the user has any)
   
2. Birth Date. (only people who were born on a tuesday)
   
3. Groups they belong to. (Ban everyone who is part of group XYZ unless they are an officer of XYZ and ZYX.)
   
4. Information under the "Intrests" tab. (I don't want any damn Scripters on my land)
   
5. Picks tab. (Ban anyone who has my competitor in picks)
   
6. 1st Life. (Ban if no 1st life picture is set. Parse text and ban anyone who has the word aardvark)
   
7. Avatar apperance (ban anyone who has a Breast size < 60, Ban all people using a Male appearance)
   
8. If LL is really imaginative, they should take it to the extreme and let us ban based on client side info.
   Ban anyone not using Shiny,
   Or with Ob-Mesh detail < Max,
   Or anyone using an ATI card dont want those damn ATI zellots on my land, Long live Nvidia!
   

</sarcasm>

As said above, with it only reaching up to 50 meters, the whole thing is worthless as it stands.

I posted and asked Torley about adding this as an option to Estate Tools, and they *are* going to do this.

I'm not descriminating when I ban all unverified, I'm protecting myself from the possible minors that are unverified and potential lawsuits.

For me, its not descrimination, its legal prudence.