Third Class Citizens

Yes Jillian you are correct I did love it.

I read em all, have been a voracious reader since I was a kid.
All time fave was "Stranger in a strange land".
I have a first edition of "To sail beyond the sunset".

I forget which person has that sig. "Life is short, take big bites!"

Used to be my personal credo until I went to rehab.
Lol, funny and true. Now it is something else...um.......
searching...................................

I would Love to see someone like Anshe Chung Ban people based upon their "second or Third class citizenship",She would be Broke in a Month. Her entire commercial enterprise is Based upon providing homes for people who don't own Land. Every one of you who owns a Mall rents to people who don't Own Land. IF they owned their own land, their home or shop would be there, NOT in your back Yard. For every One griefer you would Block by this method, you would successfully Block HUNDREDS of potential paying customers.

This isn't a Fix.

Angel.

I completely agree with the origional poster...it has already happened to me! I was at a club, accidentally bumped into several people because of lag, apologized, but before my response showed on the screen (lag again) I was bumped and banned from the land for griefing. I IM'd the owner trying to explain what happened and got no response. The only reason I can think that that kind of action would be taken so quickly is because I am a "non-verified" member. I really wish my payment info was my business and nobody elses

The real cruces of the griefer problem are these two only. Everything else, such as the registration method, only has the potential to exacerbate the problem and are not the causes by themselves.

1. Society. The kind of person who becomes a griefer has always been there. Unless iRL society itself finds a way of stopping this kind of person from existing, griefing will exist. This cause is something we will have to deal with because griefing has existed since the dawn of man. The motivations vary but the nature has always been there. We really can't do anything about this factor.

2. The possibility. If it can be done, someone just might do it. This applies to both good things and bad. In SL the functions used by griefers all have more normal uses. But the fact remains that there are no safeguards against their use for griefing. The counter to this is if LL will apply filters that will sense griefing conditions and disable the functions when those conditions exist. One such condition is using Push to affect someone in another parcel.

Hence griefers grief because 1. They exist and 2. They can.

Making the registration more stringent will not rid us of griefers. I'd been griefed several dozen times and only two of those happened after the opening of registration. The two that happened after open registration were done by a landowner. Hence, ALL of those who griefed me were so-called "2nd class" and "1st class" citizens.

Tightening the registration process is not the solution. We will be rid of alt-griefers, yes. But we also get rid of the people LL want in ... the new residents, most of whom do not grief.

Now, if registration were a solution, then crime should not exist in the real world because everyone is registered in the real world.

Like in the real world, criminals can't be identified ahead of time. They have to have at least attempted the crime or perhaps have the plot discovered.

What filter then can one apply to distinguish a griefer from a non-griefer? It certainly is not the payment information, as evidenced by my experience where all my grief incidents are by people who have payment information.

IMO LL has already put in one very effective filter, it's just a matter of time before the filter will show pronounced effect. This is the hardware hash. You can identify a griefer if he has already griefed. Now at least he has to either bypass the hash identifier, or keep changing his computer if he wants to continue. Not a perfect barrier but it's nice to have griefers bring grief onto themselves.

The ultimate barrier to griefing remains entrenched in #2: The possibility. Make it impossible to grief then you end griefing. A person can create a million alts a day and it won't matter because there is no means to grief.

Wait a second here. Bumping into people is considered greifing? I now no why I have though I have nevered been greifed. I don't have the mind for it. The idea that people bumping into me was anything but lag or someone playing around never crossed my mind. That such a little thing as that could get you banned boggles my mind. If I think hard enough I might have got pushed a couple times, but to put that as high up as griefing seems rather silly. I just laughed for a second and moved on. I have been pushed and teleported so much by automated defences that I just thought it was part of second life. Of course the idea that grey goo attacks were griefing didn't cross my mind either before I got on the forums, since I catagorized them as DOS attacks not griefing.

Sorry, but thats utter bollocks.
I own 4k land and rent in a few malls as well - its called extra exposure.

I agree, I would have never thought it was griefing either but apparently the "no payment info on file" in my profile says I must be griefing if I bump people...whatever...I wasn't thrilled with the place anyway. I personally have no reason to give my payment info until I'm ready to become a premium member, putting my info on file doesn't get me anything new. But yeah, I definitely feel like a third class citizen thanks to a fun label in my profile which I really don't think is anyone's business. People are so "griefer" paranoid, and ban happy that even well meaning new-comers are being discriminated against. In my few weeks in SL I have never once been griefed so I'm not sure I see the big deal.

Ok Wanda,
Who Buys your Product in those Malls?
Do you Earn enough to consider cutting your profits by one to two thirds or More?
It Isn't just a Matter of who Rents what, it's also a Matter of Most of those with Non Tier accounts Spend Money. Lots of it. What they don't spend on Tier, they do spend on Buying Lindens or they use their time Earning them. Do you think the Only customers you have are ones who Own Tier?

If the Mall owner where YOU have your shops Locks his doors to any but Tier owning Avs, he will be taking away Your customer base. Compare the Number of sales you make in a day, to the number of griefing incidents you have in the same location. Simple Math should tell you this is the wrong track.

A few griefers are acheiving great things using your Own Paranoia against you, and right now they are, no doubt Laughing at the measures you are considering Knowing Full well it will Damage you Far more than a few irritating scripts

I Still Contend, this Isn't a Fix.

Angel.

Why shouldn't shops ban unverifieds? I mean, they haven't gotten an allowance, they don't buy Lindens... What are they going to use to buy stuff with in the shop? Beg customers for some Lindens so they can get the latest pr0n? Oh wait, maybe they will offer sex in return for some nice shiny shoes!

If they don't use their credit info, they probably don't have the cash to buy anything with anyway. And if they do have the cash, then they must be working in game at something and probably do have payment info on file just so they can sell the lindens they earn for cash?

I suppose they could have someone just giving them Lindens, but isnt that begging? You want beggers in your shop?

Its not perfect, but I think some people are blowing it out of proportion.

That said, I dont ban anyone but people that actually have attacked people in words or weapons from my shops and lands. *shrugs* Seems wrong to exclude someone because they might be bad news. Just some of the arguments here against it seem a bit less that logical.

Just you wait.... SL's next mega-bazillionaire will be an 'unverified' and will prolly remain so as a matter of pride.

Because some of those unverifeds have "big sisters and brothers" that ARE verified and may decide to use their choice of no longer shopping in a store that banned them when they were just trying to shop in peace in their alt.

Because some of those unverfieds may choose to turn their accounts to verified and remember which stores banned them and were unfriendly to them when they come back to spend the linden they now have.

In otherwords, banning for payment info reasons only is not only short sighted to the merchant, it could be suicidal to their business.

Zoe, as I recall most of the ones who are using the verification flag to ban people also offer adult content. This is the ONLY way the Lindens have given them to try to demonstrate due diligence in keeping out kids.

Is it a good tool? Absolutely not. Is it fair? No. But let's not blame the residents for using the only tools LL gives them.

What frustrates me is seeing the same mantra repeated every day on this board -- that this is some kind of "social discrimination" or equivalent to racial prejudice. It's nothing of the kind. That comparison trivializes real racial prejudice and isn't even remotely applicable.

Quite possibly Alazarin......
My money is on Summer.... she's a fiesty one

All the money in SL won't get her off my ban list.

My concern

Her concern.

Cindy, it may be an attempt to show due diligence, but are you sure the Credit Card Companies are in your corner on this one? Visa testified under oath that CC should NOT be used for age verification. All the major companies have policies that state that credit card numbers should not be given out by their customers for the purpose of age verification and in many cases credit card companies are going after the Internet merchant as well as the owner of the card that use their cards to acquire merchandise illegally.

This became a major point on age verifcation to the commission for COPA since at least 2000 when all three major companies, Visa, AMEX and MC began offering their pre paid cards to the 13 and above crowd to teach how to use credit responsibly. (see this letter written by J. Blair Richardson, General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
for Aristotle with supporting links: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/coppa2/comments/aristotle.htm)

Excerpt from the foot notes:



It is clear from the time the teen market was tapped, credit card numbers over the internet can no longer be assumed an assurance of age.

Now, do you not think for one moment Ginsu Linden does not know this? That the TOS was ammended to make it clear that by agreeing you are over the age of 18 that all residents within the service are not covered by that?

Identifiying our payment status is NOT a solution to your very valid concerns, nor should you be hanging your hat that it will protect you in a suit. IF you have been advised by legal council, be aware that a savvy attorney will no doubt bring this up in their prosecution.

You are an extremely intelligent and articulate person, but this point needs stressing. CC companies do NOT support the idea of credit cards as the sole means of age identification. They are not your friends in your efforts to show due diligence.

The ONLY reason for doing what LL is doing is to force unverfieds to give them payment info via negative peer pressure in world.

I'm fully aware of what a poor tool it is, but the fact remains that it's the only tool LL has given us. If it were up to me, I'd have all mature content restricted to those who have provided LL with proof of identity -- faxed drivers' license, passport, visa, or birth certificate for example. Residents who don't feel comfortable sending personal information to Linden Lab can live without the adult content, it is not a requirement to enjoy SL.

No system will ever be perfect against those determined to subvert it, but in a court of law that's not important -- what is important is that the provider has made a reasonable attempt and exercised diligence in attempting to keep the content from the child.

Right now, I can't say LL has done that. But I'm not a lawyer. All I know is that they threw the floodgates open to anyone with a computer and did nothing to help existing residents prepare for the influx. Instead, now we're getting half-measures while some of us watch our enjoyable online experience become a nightmare of stress and babysitting with immature twits. Most of the unverified are good folks and will add much to Second Life -- but they also bring with them an inordinate percentage of 14 year old nincompoops who have no business being here.

Basic accounts created before June of this year still get a L$50 weekly stipend. It is only the relatively new ones that get no allowance.