Second Accounts and Ethics

The reason I mentioned "unethical-bandwagon" is because that is what happened in this thread: alot of people coming forward calling this unethical behaviour. If the majority of opinions would have been on the ethical-side of the divide, I might as well have called it the "ethical-bandwagon".

there's nothing unethical about gaming first land at all. the L$ does suffer, but it can't be in the hands of players to self regulate. it's LL's job to solve the problem of this exploit that sees extra L$ being minted for for one actual player, but the USD for for the L$ is being taken in by LL. it is LL that is responsible for devaluing the L$ by continuing to run the L$ economy in this manner.

a lot of us on the forum are currently dedicated players of SL but who knows in 6 months or 2 years if any of us will log in. unlike RL we have a choice about participating. in real life, that bond, the intertwining of fates, creates an ethical framework because hurting each other hurts ourselves. in SL, a consumer loses nothing from hurting others. nobody loses anything from exploiting another, be it alt accounts, gaming first land, manipulating the L$ currency, selling freebies at a mark up, etc etc. LL has to create a cost/penalty for these actions, or to prevent them.

i know people don't like these terms but there is a wisdom in the term stakeholder and tourist, but it is not just about financial investment. it has to do with people who care about the well being of the SL community and those who don't, regardless of the reason. someone devaluing the L$ with alt accounts isn't unethical, but they clearly don't care about the community and that is rightfully their choice. it's LL's job to regulate the tourism industry, though. the social coercion from moralizing an issue can only work with members of a community, not tourists.

I still wouldn't very thrilled, because that's still not giving people credit for individual thought.

The spirit of my post above was - regardless of which side of an issue one's opinion falls on, they shouldn't have to face marginalization, simply because their opinion lies with the majority.

I dunno, maybe I am interpreting the word "bandwagon" wrong. I've always thought it meant supporting a cause only to support popular opinion, and tossing one's real opinion out the window - I could be wrong.

At any rate, this is tangental to the topic, and I am sorry for taking it that direction - it's just a pet peeve of mine.

i've skimmed this discussion and it seems to be focused on first land. the only thing that first land exploitation does is negligibly reduce the value of land. it really is a non issue since the first land is costing LL.

the real issue of alt accounts unde rthe current system is the devaluation of the L$. it is a big problem in the hands of consumers, and increasingly so in the hands of those who are tedious enough to do it to dump L$ directly onto the currency exchange.

I am not very concerned about the monetary ramifications - in the big picture I don't think first land sales can make a very big dent in the economy.

My only concern is this - when Cocoanut started last winter, she said she couldn't find first land. Just 8 weeks ago, we had a lengthy thread about another shortage of first land. My thought is, that if there is a significant amount of alts taking first land, this may well be the cause or a contributing factor for the shortages. I think that if a person is aware that there are periodic shortages, that using alts to get more first land could be considered unethical, as it might deprive a real newbie of that land, and make them wait longer than they may have had to otherwise.

Yes, exactly.

Mel

It is all a matter of definition: some people might well argue that the very case of acting without caring about the community is unethical in itself.

as i stated in my earlier post, i don't beleive moralizing the issue is effective against players who do this as they are immune to it. those who feel they are part of a community can be coerced. those who don't cannot. because online communities are often simply "communities" because of the lack of embodied consequence, they cannot have the same ethical framework we have grown up accustomed to. (does this make sense or am i going on a limb here?)

LL has apparently stated there is nothing against the rules in doing what cocoa is doing. secondly, providing first land is LL's repsonsibility and they have their own formula of how they go about it. if newbie's get annoyed with lack of first land and this creates a retention problem, this is LL's problem, primarily. and if it's not a problem for LL and they don't care and it damages the community, our recourse has to be with them. the exploiters are simply operating within the rules and regulations LL marked out for all of us.

the important discussion isn't whether cocoa is consitent or a hypocrite, or ethical or unethical. let's say we determine that it is unethical? so what? the important discussion is that tourists like cocoa devalue the L$ and land because of the way LL manages the economy and people who make their livelihood from L$ suffer, become frustrated, and less motivated. in turn, people who come to sl to enjoy and consume the services and creations of the former in their second life suffer for from teh lack of excellence. if LL hopes to market and scale this product on user based content, they mustn't allow tourists to exploit the economy.

this ties in with stipends, sinks, and i firmly believe - the leaderboard. but that's a seperate topic.

... if they are part of that community. can it be unethical to not protect something that you don't percieve as existing? some players post regularly on this forum that they don't give a care about the community and that they aren't a part of it.

There's a community?!

<.<

>.>

I thought it was just primitive warring tribes that you could pretty much ignore as long as you didnt get in the middle of their battles. But a community? That's a whole other kettle of fish!

This would work, except, this is a violation of the use of alts as stated in the TOS. I would look it up, but I am not going to.

On a semi-related issue, what about using alts to form a group with yourself to get the 10% bonus? Also, is it wrong to use an alt to use the extra tier at a cheaper price? Instead of going from 40USD to 75USD for 1024sqm of land, is it wrong to get an alt and just pay the extra 14USD a month and have them donate the tier?

I guess my real questions are, what self imposed limits should be placed on the use of alts? What if you treat your alt as a completely seperate "person." Maybe with one account you are a wild clubbing, bling wearing, party animal, but with the other you are a quiet home owner. Do the rules change depending on how you use the accounts?

I don't disagree with the central essence of what you are saying Jauani.

There are a couple of minor things I would like to touch upon though.

First, I was framing my response within the scope of Cocoa's questions. She asked if it was ethical, and I responded on topic. I agree that it is probably not against the rules. It's similar to the issue of an account being suspended from the forums or from in-world, and LL's subsequent dilemma with handling other accounts in that same household. They can't be 100% sure that the accounts that show up posting or playing after the offending account is suspended are or are not other members of the household. However, I am reasonably sure that if LL had a means to determine this, they would not allow individuals with multiple accounts to receive first land more than once.

Second, I think that it affects all of us, not just LL, if new users have a bad experience for any reason - at least those of us who hope that SL is around and still bustling in the future.

None. Why should you be ethical about imposing limits on yourself when you know damned well that there are others doing it and getting all the advantages it brings? FREE FOR ALL! EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF! IF YOU CAN GAME IT - GAME IT!

Disclaimer: The above should not be taken to be advice nor is it my opinion. I'm just given to making inciteful (not insightful) comments due to extreme boredom and a desire to see more drama. We just don't have enough drama in the forums.

OMG! Newsflash!

Oh wait....no it's not.


This issue comes up every six months or so. This is in no way a new question, and debating it all over again is just spinning wheels.

Refried beans, anyone?


- Newfie

In my most humble opinion...... after only reading a few replies.. not to be swayed by popular opinion...


It's ok to buy first land with an alt, because it's the alt's first land. Everyone has the same ability. It's only unethical if one does what other's can't do. Anyone can do this. If there becomes a shortage of first land, LL will just have to release more. Even if one decides to delete the account after aquiring the land, I see nothing wrong with it. One can only do it 5 times per credit card. And it will cost at least $10 up front per account. I'm sure LL has considered the issue and decided it's a non-issue.

I'm sure some will say I don't have a community building spirit. To that I will respectfully dissagree.

I think we should be creative, come up with more ways to make SL fun and profitable for us. The rest of SL will benefit in the long run.

I also have to disagree with the masses here. I do not see buying first land with an alt. as unethical. There are limits as to how many alt. accounts one can own. If they were using multiple addresses and credits cards to collect alt accounts, and profit off the land, I would then call this unethical. In Coco's situation, I do not see this as unethical though.

Player A pays LL $10 to buy a premium account, receives the bonus plus weekly stipends of $L500, buys 1st land, sells it and goes back to basic.

Player B pays LL $10 to buy a premium account, receives the bonus plus weekly stipends of $L500, buys 1st land, and continues to pay LL $10 per month.

Player C pays LL $10 to buy a premium account, receives the bonus plus weekly stipends of $L500, buys 1st land and an additional 512 sm (let's say Player A's plot from above) tiering up to pay LL $15 per month to maintain the resultant 1024 sm parcel.


LL receives $20 per month for Coco's 2 accounts. She is paying double for something LL is having a hell of a time to get people to pay and keep paying for once.

The forum gets to play in a thread for 10 pages, 140 posts and counting.

I did not frame it as an ethical discussion..

I mentioned that I was posting under this name because I had her on last night to check out and make sure my land purchase went through.

Cristiano, Eboni, and Pendari, I believe, then told me I was unethical.

THEY posed it as an ethical discussion. THEY accused ME of being unethical.

Got it?

coco

Coco U are truely and utterly exhasting do U not see this?

Well after reading everyones input I believe coco is not being unethical(yes i had a change of heart). She wasn't able to purchase first land with her main character(and I don't believe her to be a liar) so i dont see the problem with her buying the first land now. If everyone is allowed to purchase first land I don't see why coco can't regardless if its on her alt. Now If she makes another alt and purchases more first land then yes she is unethical. Actually it's kinda funny what made me reallize this. I was at walgreens last night and the lady in front of me wanted to buy a certain kind of battery that was on sale. The store was out. This is what they did. They let her buy a differnt kind at a regular price and gave her a rain check on the discounted batteries, allowing her to purchase the on sale batteries at the sale price even if the sale was over.

I know the difference between rules and ethics, Jillian.

I'm saying my buying First Land with my alt is not unethical.

coco

Anybody can figure out that there's something wrong with selling freebies.

A person gets an account that comes with A, B, C, D, and E, a person is not likely to automatically know that E is off the platter.

coco

She did eventually get first land for her main character.

Certainly, she had to wait longer, because people who were not really new residents were getting first land parcels with alts. Parcels that she may have had an opportunity to get, had they not done so.

I would like to know whether LL feels that every paid account is entitled to First Land or if every individual is entitled to one First Land. Ethical or not, I don't think they should leave it up to the user to curb their own temptations on an issue like this.

Also, pardon me for not reading all the posts (I have a massive headache due to many Cappy and Cokes and a few Buds last night), but who did you give the referral bonus to, Coco? - If this has been asked and answered, please ignore and I will go back to whimpering in the fetal position under my desk.