Banning unverifieds ( a poll )

Not providing identification to LL is a far cry from racism. The innocent are, unfortunately caught in the crossfire. I still ban unverified.

Banning people from age restrictive areas (i.e. bars, sex shops, tobacco stores, etc.) unless they can prove they are adults is an accepted practice in RL (in the US at least) - why does the situation change in SL? Grant you, since all of SL is supposed to be Adults only, LL should provide this carding from the entrance, but hey, if the bouncer/doorman fails, a bar tender should still verify...

I think that's part of the problem though. Having a Credit Card doesn't show you're over 18 any more than not having one show's you aren't. I had one at 16, on my own name, fully legal.... I'm sure there are many like me. There are also people in theire 20s, 30s and 40s who don't have a Credit Card. There are still more who don't have a compatible one....

Basically, it attempts to make the barrier age related, but in fact all it does is makes a judgement based on your bank account status and where you happen to live... and that is discrimination... I won't go so far as to call it racist or anything, as I've seen some do, since it's obviously not intended to be... but that's how it is... It's a broken system, it doesn't to the job it's designed to, and it discriminates against people.

But anyway, I'm going to back out of this discussion. It's been having negative effects on me, and I really don't want to go there any more.

People, do as you wish... I don't care any more.

But it does place the legal responsibility of the protection of the minor in the hands of the parents. The merchants are no longer responsible for checking everyone.

IMO this statement is not true in the effect ignorance and I didnt know arent a legal standing in most court systems. Granted if you have a CC you are probably over 18 but you can also be under 18. If a 16yr old walks into the adult video store and purchases a XXX video the clerk cant say well he/she looked over 18 and used a CC. I mean you should always make sure the signatures match from a state issued ID, and if that would have happened then the clerk would have seen ohhhh your only 16!

So your statement is false because you should always verify the Cc and person using it are the same person!

*deleted......not worth the energy anymore.*

The real problem is that the ban is the ONLy tool we hav right now. After a club has been hit by half a dozen attacks in one night by "Insta-Alts", I can understand using the Ban tool.

I do feel sorry for the Unverifieds who are not here to cause trouble, but it's a catch-22 situation. You can serverely reducing the griefing, but at the cost of driving away new users.

I don't like it, but for now, it's a necessary evil.

First off I started as a basic account and had to give cc info...that is the only solution that will be acceptable to me....being griefed daily and knowing who it is is frustrating but still not all unverifieds are griefers...so voted other....there are a lot of great people in second life..I have met many of them....I refuse to put all unverifieds on ban as i too myself was a basic(freeloader) and had to start somewhere...this is a new av so im not an alt... i did however bring in an unverified alt ands she was treated badly in every shop i went in...as my av i will not go back to those shops...some are well known...and no i wont name names thats not my style unless its a griefer.....even then you have to ask who in world the forums arent the place for that..well thats my 2 lindens worth can i have my change now???

I always try to be a lady....but Im thinking that will change soon....

rain

Thats up to LL not the users. The users are protected from the lawsuits - which was my point. Thank you for helping to prove it for me.

Ceera, I mostly agree with you on this, mainly because ANY tool we have to filter out kids is better than no tools at all. However, I'm afraid the verification flag has turned out to be pretty useless from what I've seen.

You said you banned someone who was underage and unverified -- I've banned probably 6 or 7 people just this past week who were underage. All were unverified, yep, but by the same token our club also has scores of unverified people who are there for all the right reasons (fun, curiousity, social interaction) who don't cause a minute's grief for anybody. I would feel awful if we had to tell them "go get verified somehow because we're banning you based on what 6 or 7 other individuals did". Especially when almost half of our griefer bans have been against fully verified account holders.

I'm not real certain what the best way is to filter out the kids. I think the start of the school year in a couple of months will help. I think LL's new MAC address tracking will gradually wear them down. Individual club owners who spot the underagers, then AR and ban them will help as well - over time, some of the teenagers will find out that they're not welcome in many places on SL and hopefully figure out there are other places to play.

The problem with this approach right now is that our ban lists are nowhere near long enough. Fifty people isn't going to cut it since the end of verification -- we need at least 100, preferably 200 to 500 rows on the parcel ban list. (And why can't a parcel ban list invisibly link to LL's MAC address table to keep out the griefer's alts too?).

I'm still curious what happened with the idea of an organization of club and store owners that shared the names of griefers/underage kids in a common database? Is that in place, and if it is where do I go to get information on how to join?


Your approach makes a lot of sense, though it saddens me to see SL become a more cliquish, closed society. But I blame that social trend on the actions of the Lindens. Some decent anti-griefing tools and some planning before the registration changes may have prevented a lot of this. Now some of us feel the only way we can be safe and have fun is to lock down our sims.