Second Accounts and Ethics

Usually the people that are fixated on the technicality of rules are the same people that look to find ways around them.

My biggest fear in all this. Is if abuse of First Land continues, the program will be stopped and those who could have truely benefitted from it will lose out.

And I am saying, how the hell are we supposed to know this is wrong?

If I thought it was wrong, and still did it - and that is a HUGE if - then why on earth would I refer to it off-handedly, only to have my ass served up to me on a platter once again?

Maybe to old-timers it is understood that this is supposed to be wrong.

But to a player at least as new as February, 2005, when I joined, there is no indication whatsoever anywhere that getting First Land with your new (real) accounts is any problem at all.

And no precedent from any other games they may have played that indicates that ONE of the things with their new account is actually not supposed to be used.

And nothing common sense, either, about just knowing not to buy First Land anyway. So there's no way that person (me, in this case) is being unethical to do so.

And since we are getting a lot of new players, this needs to be cleared up.

coco

Hey, check this out:

Shit.

Isn't that neat?

That asterisk busines is just silly. Come on and just type what you're feeling.

You just shot yourself in the foot there, since you're saying that two premium accounts buying first land will cost more per month than one premium account holding 1024m of land, so if you didn't buy First Land on that second account, you'd be even more gipped out of your money.

I would suggest you go back and read the thread starting post, in which we were asked for our opinions about the ethicality of alts getting First land. This thread has always been about ethics, and it wasn't intended to solve anything. One doesn't solve issues such as this by solicting opinions from the public when one's already made up their mind. It was dead from the starting gate. We don't write policy, we were simply asked for our opinions. Apparently, Coco wanted to spill a debate from another forum section into this one.

I guarantee you that the Linden answer in Hotline, when and if I get one, will not solve it either, and we will still have the ethicality question before us.

Enabran, Cocoanut Koala has never been suspended.

coco

It's kind of a habit from other boards.

Here goes. I think I can, I think I can......

Shhiiiiiiiiittttttttttttttttttt!

Ah.

You're right, cocoanut, I apologize for my harsh remarks. Clearly you have not been here long enough to observe new residents lamenting dire shortages of first land, and inability to get businesses and homes rolling as a result.

Clearly there is no earthly way you could ever have known about these sorts of shortages, nor could you guess their source was partly the illicit purchase of first land by established residents' alts.

I actually have another question. What if my girlfriend who owns a premium account but has never had First Land buys First Land? She effectively owns land because we share the land I've bought.

Would it be okay for -her- to buy First Land? What if she bought First Land so I could set up a little shop on it? Would that be unethical or ethical?

I'm terribly amused by the great many itterations this problem can take.

EDIT: And by discerning how heated the debate is in this thread the fact that any premium account holder alt or not can buy First Land does seem a problem, since people seem vehemently for or against (myself included). Regardless of wether coco asked for people's opinions. Threads evolve.

This argument is also very useful for halloween. All you need is two masks and you can get people to give you twice as much candy.

Actually, there is. Letting people know that you see through them, that their mask has slipped, is a good thing. Sometimes honesty has to be forced, or people will continue to lie to you. When those people keep claiming to be the most honest person in the world, and the champion for newbies who are just too meek to speak for themselves, I think pointing out the fact that she's using a technicality to leech new user resources is a good purpose.

Isn't that so much more fun?

Well, if the Lindens tell me it's fine, I sure as hell won't not get First Land because you and Cristiano and whoever else tells me it's not.

coco

So is this about pride or ethics now?

This caused me to laugh so hard that the ensuing shortage of air prompted my lungs to slurp a copious amount of saliva into their depths.

The resulting coughing fit was well worth it, however.

AHHH!! I can't keep up with the posts! lol

For you Red Dwarf fans, this reminds me of Kryten's inability to call somebody a "shmeg head"

Kryten: 'You are a Smeee Heeeaa!'
Rimmer: 'I'm a smeee heeeaa?'
Kryten: 'A complete and total one sir.'

Exactly. If there is some unwritten rule and people DON'T kow about it, how do you expect us to follow it?

coco

This would be fine as she has never owned her own land. She never purchased her own land which placed her name in the about land owner field. Nothing wrong with this scenario.

Until I read this thread I would have never thought what coco did was unethical.

If I were to buy a second premium account I sure would want my first land.

I knew nothing of the history of first land and I can see where some people might be put out by this. (its akin to the older sibling syndrome where the older children resent the younger ones because the family is often finacially better off later in life and can afford to do more things for their youngest)

For the most part letting second accounts works well for the lindens. It cuts down on the overhead associated with paying someone to police it, and they get their monthy payment. With minimal effort (for example watching for accounts less than a month or two old that teir down and checking them out) they can be sure that there isn't excessive gaming of the system.

If they really cared about newbies having land they would make more land available. This would probably even be better for them since lower land prices would encourage more people to pay tier. In the end the only people who would be hurt by this are the land barons.

Is it unethical? If you are aware of the situation beforehand, yes probably mildly so. But I would class it similar to the a-hole who sees that the lanes are merging and drives all the way to the last possible point and squeezes ahead of everyone who is already in the correct lane, as opposed to someone who dumps toxic waste next to a schoolyard.

Ughh, so much for societal understandings. I'm done, ya'll have fun.

You might as well read the original post as well. It doesn't suggest this issue will be solved. The post asked for opinions, which are being provided en masse.

Additionally, a LL response in Hotline will at least clarify, for some, what the intent of LL is re the First Land option. It may not solve the issue of abuse, but it will certainly answer a few of the questions posted herein, namely the posts asking for LL to clarify their stance.

What you're trying to say is this is just yet example of why Coco should shut up and never post anything, Nolan.

I think what the Lindens say could actually solve this ethical dilemna.

coco