Second Accounts and Ethics

I agree, they can't prevent someone from doing this. But if the TOS expressly prohibits this, then the rules can be enforced if someone violates it.

Unfortunately, someone would have to be "caught", which makes it difficult.

As Emma has clearly stated. This IS the current state of affairs. Do you really expect the users to not expect full benefits from a second paid account? Of course, we will all do the right thing But whose right thing is that? Yours or mine. One (wo)man's ethics is another's Amsterdam.

This entire thing has been a debate about whether or not you should do this, not about the ability to do so. The techinical details of being able to have never been in question, though thanks for the overkill of your post. In order to allow legitimate new users on the same account access to benefit of first land, they could not put in a complete block against purchasing it if another alt on the same account has purchased it.

The FACT is that nothing about First Land has anything to do with a premium account. You actually at one time could buy land with a basic account as well and just pay the tier, though they stopped that - and First Land existed at that time as well. The two things are NOT tied together. Look at the pricing section for the definition of a premium account and note that First Land is not mentioned at all - only the tier amount and L$ stipend. First Land is set up as a new customer incentive, not a feature of each premium account.

Just as the free basic account is offered only for new users who are creating their first account, you could techinically get around it by making an account with a different credit card and getting another free account. You can fully well do this. It doesn't mean you should.

I don't "now that I know" ANYTHING.

All I know is some of you have said that this is supposedly something we are not supposed to do. Others have said that it is something that of course we can do.

Now we are waiting for Linden clarification.

Unless they tell me they don't want us to do it, then YES I would do it again. Except that I won't, cause I'm hard-pressed to afford two accounts as it is. My third will be a basic, for the purposes of forming a group.

Which reminds me, no one has answered my question whether making a third alt to form a group is also unethical?

coco

Why?

Is there a reason you're not posting as Cocoanut Koala? Has that account been suspended?

Anyway, it's funny to hear you lament paranoia, as you have been a fountain of paranoia since what's-his-name left. Every last person who ever succeeds in Second Life or has some solid PR skills is being groomed and polished by the Lindens and presented at the expense of all others, so sayeth Cocoanut. None may succeed at all without the blessing of the Lindens, as they hold the keys to the gates of stardom and they're only letting in their favorite little bunnies!

But now everyone else is causing paranoia? Aye, reversals of position indeed

No matter how I try to stop participating in the forums, these stunning examples of contradictory or even hypocritical behavior always serve to lure me back into the fray.

And that doesn't even begin to get back to addressing the wild hypocrisy of this Champion of the Little Guy getting down on an alt-stravaganza First Land Buffet.

Of course it is, that's why you can have 15 groups now. To prevent this sort of alt group abuse (the AGA con, if you like).

Hey Coco, how many residents are you? I know you have at least two accounts. But how many residents are you of Second Life?

Clearly something is stuck up there.

To the point, LL has not been clear on whether first land is tied to on account or to one specific person. This is precisely why LL should address this.

I am not lying.

I get your point, Jauani. But now, look at it another way. Alts may devalue the Linden (if that's true), but they also inflate the subscription numbers. As a long-time follower of games and their subscription numbers, I think that subscription numbers are way more valuable to the Lindens than any small devaluing of the Linden they cause.

Plus, if the Lindens were that worried about money coming into the system, they would fix it themselves.

Plus, if money DOESN'T come into the system somehow, how's anybody going to buy our goods? Just saying, "Well, you have to buy our Lindens off GOM before you can buy our products and give us back the Lindens" doesn't work out very well psychologically.

coco

In all fairness, this warning should address potential dangers with all body cavities. There is danger lurking beyond the eating of the gel pack. An easily manipulated person might blindly follow a directive to shove it up their arse.

Bah. I seriously wish you would read posts directed to you. It is only respectful considering I take the time to read your posts.

Let me repost what I stated a few posts back:



Though in all fairness. I did mention in the other thread (before the others) that I saw what you stated and I said I thought it was against First Land Policies.

You could even get a third, by using Paypal.

For those who "Can't be bothered to read all of this thread":

Originally Posted by Lee Linden in the help wiki
1) If you've never owned land, try the First Land program. Open the Find menu, click on the Land Sales tab, and change the drop-down box from All to First Land. First Land plots are special 512m2 plots marked for sale for L$512. However, you can only buy a First Land plot once, and only if you have never owned land before.

Hey, man. Get this.

I just took all the pens from the supply closet.

ALL of them.

The pens are for the use of everyone here. And that includes me.

And I need to use all of them.

Hey. There's no rule that says I can't!

That's nowhere near definitive.

LL needs to specifically address the issue of alts and first land.

Right, but that doesn't explicitly say "Cocoanut Koala and her alts can only buy a first land plot once, and only if they have never owned land before" so it must be okay.

Hardee har har

Oh btw I think the defense slogan for this thread should be "If it don't fit, aquit!"

Exactly!

Well I'm sure the spirit of First Land is that it was or is an incentive for new customers, however that's not the objective reality as it currently stands, which is what I have been saying, the reality of the matter is that if I or anyone else gets a second premium account we can get a second plot of First Land. You can't deny this, it's true, regardless or not it's with the "spirit" of First Land, and according to this thread the spirit of First Land is incredibly debatable, so I like going by the cold hard facts.

Wether it's an unlisted perk of a premium account or not, everyone gets the perk on every single premium account they pay for, that makes it part of the package, regardless of the spirit of the thing, which is what I've been trying to say. And if $10 buys you something, then $10 should buy you the same thing as any other $10, so expecting people to not buy First Land with their premium account is rediculous. If I buy two buckets of popcorn, both are $3 then I expect my second one to be just as full as the first, regardless of wether the spirit of the thing is that the first bucket comes with extra. Why? Because the guy who bought some before me got extra on both too, regardless of spirit, and he's gonna eat the extras, why shouldn't I?

If LL wants to make First Land correspond to the spirit of it then they'll have to make some restriction that additional premium accounts registered to the same person can't get First Land, because until they do yes, I could just not buy First Land on a secondary premium account, but I can assure you others will be, and I for one don't like getting less bang to my buck than the next person.

That's what it's about for me. It's up to LL to fix this problem, if it is indeed a problem, not morals or ethical compasses, because those just mean you're getting gipped if you don't do it, regardless of morals or ethicals, and like I said again, I don't like paying more for less.

But apparantly I'm the only one who doesn't like paying more for less.

I don't believe this is addressing the question of Alt behavior. It is a generally worded statement, understandable to new users, that does not address ALL the intricacies of SL behavior. But, as has been stated, that is why a LL clarification should be made.

Don't bother, Enabran. That one can't ask a question that doesn't serve as a platform for jumping into some form or argument. Just look at the follow-up to see the truth in this.

As for the OP, let's just say for someone who was supposedly 'done' with the forums, she sure seems eager to retain/regain the spotlight. Maybe being 'done' was bait for someone to beg her to stay and all this the result of not getting such a response.

It is obvious that common sense is anything but common.

edit to add: This seems like one more lame effort to bog down LL in administrivia and details, so they have more rules to game.

It is unethical to get an alt to make a group? Or are you being ironic or something?

coco

The TOS doesn't prohibit buying First Land with your alts, if that's what you mean, DogSpot.

coco

Well, there is where I am. And that behavior is exactly why it was put in place. People will not control themselves despite the feeling that ethics would guide us in the right direction.

This is exactly the kind of post that keeps the bullsh*t going.

What purpose does it serve, except to satisfy whatever need to have to poke at Coco?