Second Accounts and Ethics

One more thing. Yes, I see what you are saying Jonquille, and begin to see how someone could consider it gaming the system.

But I really don't think it is gaming the system, because I am paying for that permanent account! Apparently I really just don't know how to really game the system. I thought I was buying another permanent account, and was getting the First Land with it. From what Cristiano is saying, I'm an idiot if I don't now get rid of that alt now, and keep paying for it. But I like it's $500, too. That, plus my own $500, enables me to live on Azure Islands.

Now, that is how I had it all figured out. And it was about me having a shop, being able to live on Azure Islands (not my shop), and having an alt to test my products (a necessity, but, come to think of it, not a reason to need a Premium account). And then, if land becomes available near my shop, I buy it - or, if First Land becomes available near it, I can buy it with Strawbearry. What the land actually COSTS - whether $512 or $3000 is not the issue. I bought the land from the First Land girl next to me at her price, which was $3000, and she would have charged more if it had been for someone else.

All of that was/is within my budget. Having more Premium accounts is not. I think everybody gets as many Premium accounts as they can afford, if they want them, and they use what comes with those accounts. And I would guess that most of them consider the First Land part of that.

coco

P.S. And to answer your question more fully, and having given it some thought last night, I don't see anything wrong with buying First Land to sell it, either. I would see something wrong with using a lot of temporary alts and making a whole business out of it. But that is within the rules, and maybe those who do it, if anyone does, and then sell the land back to us, are actually doing a service. But if I decided to sell my Strawbearry land for some reason (I have never sold land, and never intend to), I would consider that within her rights as her own account, too.

Ah, so now I'm a narcissistic assclown because of one opinion in one thread on this forums? Well, it's a good thing you've written me off as a narcasistic assclown based on an opinion (and never having "thieved" first land and having no intention of ever getting a second premium account it is only an opinion), someone who judges someone by something like this isn't the type of person I'd like to get to know anyway.

So I guess we're both happy.

EDIT: I guess I see where DogSpot is coming from saying people get assaulted heavily on this board for trivial things. Remind me not to post my opinion in a thread asking for it again, because god forbid someone might disagree and label me as a bad person.

Hold up. You bought the land from another person? I thought you said it was abandoned and labeled as First Land?

I would say you have a long history of both things.

If you want to make a federal case out of it, let me know and I will spend the necessary time finding all your contradictory statements and reversals of position. I dont think it's necessary though as at least one contradictory statement of yours seems to be pointed out by someone in almost every thread I have seen from you. This is not an attack it's just an observation, and the contradictory statements are all there in the record for anyone to see.

I dont dislike you coco, but you do not make a good logical argument most of the time. This is a part of what the forums are all about is making arguments and testing those arguments and opinions against others. It is not a personal attack for me to point out the inconsistencies in your position.

Here I think you misunderstood me on that, I never said that. My position is that Lisse's use of an alt was "more moral" because of this fact.


I dont think it's "perfectly ethical" in fact I said it was a "grey area." So again you misread what I wrote. You also exaggerate a bit here. AFAIK thre are only two posts about the new name, both mine. The first says you spelt strawberry wrong (you did), the second pokes a bit of fun at the odd spelling, which I would admit is a tad rude, but relative to what goes on in the forums, hardly actionable.

See here again, that is so much of an over the top exagerration. How can you expect people to take your words seriously when you make statements like that?

Overall there is not a single personal attack in my post that I can see, just a teensy bit of mean-spiritedness in that I pretended to "read your mind" on what you were planning with the alt. I apologise if you felt it went too far, but it seemed like a very reasonable speculation to me. I have heard you use much stronger languae and say much worse things to others yourself coco, including calling everyone else on the forum paranoid in this very post when the label is perhaps more accurately applied the other way around.

In case you were wondering, that statement is not a "personal attack" either. It is a notation that you made a broad generalisation about other people and that as an argument I find it both lacking and (ironically) the opposite of the true situation.

Well first of all, I wouldn't have been so darned upset about it, and then I would have went and asked the Lindens.

We "have it on the table". What is being accomplished save for you telling us all how you're "having your ass handed to you on a platter"? You think it's ethical, I don't. I also think you're splitting hairs, and intentionally waxing obtuse. Should we keep playing tennis until the cows come home? I mean geez, as I said on page one, this thread was headed this direction from the onset, because you had already made up your mind. This is why I think you're just gaming the forum to bolster your assertion that there is a group out to get you, and furthermore try to garner support to that end.

That said, I am going to go do something more entertaining and productive, like cleaning the toilets...

No. I bought my own First Land, as Cocoanut, while the girl next to me had bought her own First Land, and was standing on what I bought, intending to buy it with an alt.

I bought it. She told me she had been about to buy it with an alt. We talked, and agreed that when and if one of us moved out, we would offer it to the other.

Then I bought a 1024, I think it was, from Garnet, who had acquired the First Land on the other side of me.

Then, after about a week, the girl decided to sell her First Land, and IM'd me to offer it to me first. So I bought what had been her first land.

Then night before last, I noticed that someone who had been next to me for quite a while (though I believe it was actually two someones - the person who had bought it as First Land and then sold it to someone else) had vacated. I clicked on the land, and saw it was now First Land. I guess they had failed to pay tier or something.

I had Strawbearry, and had been watching out for the new Linden land behind me - checking it every day - to see if it would go for First Land, though it is in another, new Sim entirely. So when I noticed that the land next to me was now First Land again, I bought it with Strawbearry.

So no, I'm not off any hook.

coco

P.S. Now I really am going to go do something else besides respond to this thread. I hope! lol

My favorite position reversal:

BEDAZZLE: "Problem" and "incident" to amazing opportunity.

This seems to all boil down to the difference between seeing First Land as a service provided specifically to help newbies, and seeing it as a per account entitlement. I see it as the former rather than the latter because that was the spirit in which the program was created. It's like the special assistance loans that first time home buyers can get in RL. Changing your name doesn't qualify you for a second one and if you tried to get one under a new identity it would be seen as fraud. If LL says it's a per account entitlement (alt or otherwise) rather than a service for new users then I don't see anything particularly wrong with what you did, but that isn't how it was first presented and apparently LL needs to spell out more explicity which of those two things it actually is.

One more thing - I didn't report that post, Dianne. If I start a thread, I figure I'm part and parcel of what goes on in it, for the most part, and it would be kind of unkosher to report the responses I get.

coco

You win.

The only thing that I found lacking in your post is scolding those who were launching personal attacks on others for being on the other side of the fence.

I guess we are. If you honestly can't see what's wrong with it, then you have no moral compass. Doing whatever you want is not a moral compass.

*edited*

IMO, this is where it should have ended.

Instead the thread turned into yet another SL forum cluster-f*ck.

Oh please.

All you know about Emma is based on what she posted here. To claim she has "no moral compass" is pretty damned presumptuous.

Oh, so because I don't think its unethical, and you do, that means you are entitled to personally attack me and my morals? Even going as far as saying that I have none whatsoever?

My my, how tolerant of the fact that other people might not share your opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that stance makes you the "narcissistic assclown", not me, since I'm not the one attacking other people for their opinion, you are. In fact:



You are showing a complete lack of empathy for someone else's stance, and are so self-preoccupied and conceited that you think your opinion is the one true law, this makes you the narcissist. *edited*

Your move, fido.

Thanks, *edited*. I highly value your input.

Emma, et al.

Please continue in a similar vein. This thread is 21 pages longer than it should have been. It's time to close it down.

Morals and ethics are a function of community. The basis of civilisation is rules.

A person alone in an empty universe needs no morals and the concept itself is meaningless, but in RL what's "wrong" is what the community decides is "wrong."

If you want to see yourself as an individual bound by no ones rules, go right ahead.

But you cant echew the rules of a comunity without removing yourself from that community by the very action of doing it. Either you are in one moral framework or another and you define which one it is by your actions everyday.

People who say they are not a part of the SL community or dont care about the community are simply defining themselves as "lawbreakers" (or maybe just potential lawbreakers). "Anarchists" is perhaps what some see of theses folks believe themselves to be, although that is a misleading and innacurate use of the term AFAIK.

Eh its coco starting a topic. I think had she taken the position that buying first land with an alt account is unethical, there would have been a general hue and cry about how it is allowed under thr rules and promotes SL because it infuses more money into the platform, since each premium account it 120 bucks more a month.

Frankly I think the ethical deabte over this is about as relevant as taste is to a spoon, but the thread has all the usual forum flames, so i read, wodering when it will be locked. I think we need a betting system, with an over and under for the number of posts before shutdown. this one seems good for 20 pages

I love the smell of irony in the morning.

I am really starting to see the entertainment value here lol.

Just out of curiousity, what would not have made it become a "cluster fuck"? Cocoanut asked for opinions, people expressed them, and discussed them. It really has been all about "is this ethical" vs "is this unethical". How many people are allowed to respond? Also, if they have the opposite opinion and think it is unethical, then they are on a bandwagon or piling on. Yet, thinking there is nothing wrong with it is some type of unique indiviudal thought. Which is it? Everyone has the ability to participate in these threads - if someone doesn't want opinions, don't ask for them.

*giggle* Is that your best riposte? "I attacked your character and morals! You dare to presume to defend yourselves and turn my words back against me!? Well you should stop posting because its too big a thread already! (and before you make me look even worse)". Heehee. Marvelous.

Cristiano, I believe she is referring to types like Ardith Mifflin who are launching into unwarranted personal attacks on posters who are simply sharing their opinion in this thread, as asked by the OP.

That's great. I think I hear your mommy calling. It's time for your nap. You're cranky.

Let me call you a waaaammmbulance.

Because LL says it's wrong (see nolans post)

That was SEVEN MONTHS AGO. You are *not* a newbie coco, look in the mirror, you are an old-timer yourself.

It was cleared up on the second or third reply to your post. The rest is just more blah blah blah...