Who cheated and got a free account when they already had one?

I agree with Alexa on both counts.

It's very bad form to kick someone around who can't be around to defend himself. It is also bad form to do it right in front of that person's friends, who are still around.

And it's against the TOS.

It's also bad form to accuse that individual's friends, when they speak up, of being "thought police." I would say, particularly in this context, by accusing others of that, one is actually being that oneself.

coco

Yes, Alexa, maybe you have a point. The problem is, the forum rules say nothing specific about anonymous persons who are no longer forum members because they have been banned. We have no guidelines as to whether we owe them the same respect as the unconvicted, or whether we have any right (or even obligation) to speak up if we see postings we believe to be clearly written by a banned person. Which would of course contribute to evidence of such a person by-passing his exclusion. I am personally not entirely sure that Prok is not in fact here and potentially able to defend himself, except that to do so would reveal his presence too clearly.

It would seem to me that by taking the action they did, LL themselves made the behaviour pattern which led to it a valid topic of discussion. Just as it is impossible to libel a person by calling him a murderer once he is convicted as such.

It's also interesting, and unusual, that every scrap of evidence that there is to allow any one to determine who were abusers, and who abusees, lies here in the forum archive, and can be examined by any interested party at the mere click of a mouse.

You see, Alexa, I don't really think it is quite over, and that colours my attitude. I believe forum rules are being flouted in a much bigger way, by someone allowing a banned person continued access. Of course, this cannot be absolutely proved, but you might perhaps feel you could agree that if some of us honestly believe it, then our willingness to cease every scrap of adverse comment might be reduced. Even if you think we are mistaken in this belief.

Nevertheless, it was not my intention to reopen these issues. As I am sure you saw, there was a trigger in the form of am indirectly connected query from another poster. If I went a bit far, and hurt your feelings because you know a different, nicer side of him, then I am sorry. That was never my intention.

A part of the enigma of Prok is the huge disparity between the apparent experience of those who met him in world, who seem (at least the vocal ones) to have found him warm, considerate and generous, and of those who met him only in forum, to many (perhaps even to most) of whom he seemed a character study of aggressive paranoia and personality disorder.

Maybe his entire forum persona was just a bizarre and deliberate joke, a nice guy/girl with a very, very strange sense of humor which just got way out of control. But it surely didn't seem like it, and the unpleasant taste left in my mouth by my contacts with him was real enough.

Who knows, maybe one day I'll meet him in world, and he'll explain what he thought he was playing at, with such an infectious laugh that I'll laugh too, and forgive him.

Be nice, wouldn't it ?

You have no idea how this makes me feel, Ellie. But I wish you did. It's just . . . SUCH a hopeless thing. And it never ever seems to end. I'm so perplexed by it. Far more perplexed and frustrated than hurt, at this point, that's for sure. And damaged by it as well. Please, try to think of what this must be like for me. And if you aren't talking about me at all, then disregard this whole message.

coco

I guess since I am partly responsible for pulling this thread off topic, I should do penance with a posting which is bang on.

Now that Firstland is in short supply, I think there is a moral imperative for no-one to scoop bits of it up with alts. When firstland was abundant, I did not feel this to be the case.

It could be argued that firstland is offered in return for entering into the obligation of a monthly subscription. Since every land-buying alt must do this, he is making exactly the same commitment, and contribution to the common good, as a genuine new player. From this viewpoint the alt has as much entitlement to the start-up benefits as any other new subscriber.

Indeed, you could go further, and say that each premium alt in facts makes a BIGGER contribution to the common good. Since only one alt at a time will be present in world, using up the corresponding server and bandwidth resources, someone paying for several alts is making a full multiple contribution for each, whilst each alt makes reduced system demands compared with what that player would place on a single subscription.

This viewpoint suggests that the more premium alts there are, the more other people benefit. 4x the contribution, for instance, with substantially less than 4x the demand on LL's resources.

Frankly, apart from the current shortage of first land (which I deplore and think unjustifiable), I think this viewpoint might be the correct one.

But no established player should make it more difficult for a newbie to get the only land he can afford, and as such, the practice in these circumstances is unequivocally wrong.

There you go. Form a queue to bash me.

At least it was bang on topic (as promised). I think.

Oh gosh....no not quite....

The free account ? I meant to get one, and retire my most-hunted alt. But I wouldn't have taken Firstland. And anyway, I forgot and was too late.

I dunno what to say, Coco, if you have such feelings. Perhaps:
"Welcome to the (hopefully) dying vortex of psychic/relational turmoil which Prok's forum personas left behind them".
Or, even more simply:
"Join the club".
Enough perhaps, do you think? In this thread?

I was actually hoping you'd address my point, where I stated that victims have a right to discuss both the crime and the criminal, when that criminal is in jail. It isn't a personal attack (or libel) when one discusses the circumstances surrounding a criminal's conviction. Conviction transforms allegation into fact.

What I specifically didn't like about your post is that you are harassing victims of this criminal by demanding that they not recount the crimes visited upon them. Your reason is that because the criminal is not present, discussing his crimes is unfair. I submit that perceived fairness due to forum access is irrelevant when one member has been convicted and ejected.

~Ulrika~

First off, he isn't a damn criminal and he's not in jail. That would make anybody who has received an official warning a quasi-criminal, wouldn't it? And certainly more of a criminal than those who haven't.

Second, off, he's one of us and still a member of this game.

Third, it's against the TOS to do personal attacks and insults against anybody, whether they are actively talking here or not.

And it's just bad form.

coco

This thread was intended as a lighthearted and good natured jest.

I have requested the moderators close this thread because of the utterly off-topic, hateful, and divisive nature of several of the responses. I encourage anyone who agrees to do the same.

If you think there are messages that are personal attacks in this thread or any other thread , please do not waste time arguing in public with people who aren't going to change their minds no matter what you say; instead either waste your time arguing with them in private or use the bad post icon and report a bad post with a brief explanation of precisely how the post violates a clause of the CS, TOS, or Forum Guidelines.

The bad post icon is the triangle with the exclamation mark in it at the left of the screen.

I want to possibly expedite the thread closing process by asking that everyone cease from posting any more personal attacks in this thread.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those who can't figure out what the thread topic is, here's the text of my initial post:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that this does not invite people to discuss why they got alternate accounts in general, or any any way suggest "anything goes so long as the letters 'alt' appear somewhere in the response".

This thread asks two questions, which I will try to make a little clearer for those who are can't tell what I meant.

"Did you knowingly rip off LInden Lab by getting an account that you knew you weren't entitled to since the free accounts were only for people who never had an account before?"

"Why did you rip off Linden Lab for a mere ten dollars? What do you plan to do with that alt that justifies making a liar and a cheap con man out of you?"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you answer "yes" to the first question above then you are admitting to committing fraud againt Linden Lab and putting yourself in the position of public confession to an action that provides a perfect justification for Linden Lab closing all your accounts upon investigating the truth of your answer and causing your to forfeit all your inworld holdings, be they land, inventory items, or Linden dollar acounts, in all of the accounts they feel belong to the person they attribute the yes answer to.

As a professional writer, I thought you of all people would understand an analogy.

I see you using the objective case of the first-person plural personal pronoun and I'm not feeling comfortable with that. I can only assume that when you say "us" you mean you and that hamster in your pocket.

I would agree with that. However, recounting personal abuse is not a personal attack or insult. The victim of a crime has a right to recount it publicly, especially when the criminal was convicted and punished of that very crime. Those who are friends with a criminal might not like the recounting of the crime, as they are trying to rebuild the character of the criminal, but the recounting is factual and not libelous.

If I say that Prokofy was banned from the General forums for being disruptive, that is a fact and not a personal insult.

~Ulrika~

SuzanneC

I want to apologise for veering your thread off course. I had not imagined the responses when I made the initial post to Ellie.

I am very sorry.

Alexa

Or we could just continue to discuss the topic and its associated issues, ie use and morality of alts, which is really quite interesting.

I think some people feel alts are intrinsically tied to dubious practices, and should be outlawed. Which of course raises the question of how. I believe it is in fact technically impossible.

I don't think this would work.. The free account is a basic account on which you can't own land. To upgrade you'd need to pay $9.95 a month, just as much as if you payed for a month of a premium account straight off.. It hasn't been reduced by $10 at all.. As far as I can see.. But my brains not working this morning, can someone correct me without using big words?

Not all alts are created for griefing or financial reasons. It could be because of previous relationships going wrong, so I see no reason why they cannot start over, by creating a new alt, buying a premium account and first land and having a new SL life.

Alexa

I wanted to remind everyone to please refrain from attacking those Residents who you disagree with.

There's no need to apologize. Off-topic discussions are a part of all forum threads. Provided they don't derail a discussion they don't even need to be acknowledged by those participating in the main topic. As you can see above, the subtopic ended in a nice to-the-point post.

~Ulrika~

When you create a thread you are not the owner or moderator. It is an evolving collaboration between multiple people. Temporary off-topic discussions are to be expected. Micromanaging a thread, because it doesn't suit your preconceived notion of where the thread should go, pits you against those who would participate in your thread and further serves to derail the discussion.

The above quotes are an example of how micromanaging a thread can pit you against those who have decided to join you in your thread. You talk down to folks twice in an effort to redirect the discussion. Remember, you are not a moderator or owner simply because you started this thread.


Here you effectively end the discussion for me. You've created a loaded question that implies a person is a "liar" and a "cheap con man" if they "knowingly ripped off LL". Who would answer "yes" to this question? What are we really discussing? Is this just a complaint thread to label those who took a second free account as liars and thieves?

Why pretend this is a discussion? Just call them it and be done with it. Don't create an artificial thread with a mock discussion (and then micromanage it).

~Ulrika~

The normal cost is $10 to join plus $10 for one month premium membership = $20.
The special cost is $0 to join plus $10 for one month of premium membership = $10.

Cool.
I thought it was me

apologies from me too anyway

It is just an interesting topic though... guilt (or no guilt) all around.

.

So how do people react to my suggestion above that those who pay for (premium) alts are maybe benefitting everyone else, rather than defrauding them. That they are voluntarily paying more than their normal share for the resources they consume, because they only use one at once, except in rare freaky circumstances.

It's not the normal viewpoint, is it ?

Wotcha think ?

I have one Premium account, One paid for basic which I made for reasons I dunno now but appeared valid at the time and also signed up for a free basic account so my sister can play about when she hangs out at mine.

Once she gets an updated pc and cable connection I'm thinking she will want to turn hers into a premium account, guess that is kinda what the promotion was for.



~Zhero

I would say that those who made an alt during the no-cost period, if they go on to turn those into Premiums, then it is a win/win situation, cause they might not have even gotten an alt if it weren't for this. Just having an alt brings forever more the temptation to turn it into Premium, for this or that reason that begins to seem more vital.

coco