Update outmoded limits on account creation

How? If the new alts are verified and paid for? Under this proposal, verified alts would have identifying information on file linking all of that person's alts in Linden Lab records. They would still cost money to create, unless a free one was allowed every 90 days or so. If they are abused, they can all easily be banned.

Compare that to the current situation, where people create infinite numbers of alts that they have absolutely nothing invested in, and which they provide no tracable ID for.

All this will do is to allow people who are willing to have their alts be tracable by Linden Lab employees to have as many verified alts as they want and are willing to pay for. Griefers wouldn't use these, because they would be too easily traced back to them to get banned, and it would cost them money.

I am not going to get in to this again. it might just cause the thread to be closed.

But as you know with the problems of griefters and underage kids. Alts just keep getting in. If they do this vote then the gates open more and you have 2,000,000 population 15,550,000 alts in the game. With opening signups with causes more kids, more fake newbies taking money off money tree, more campers sitting in chairs hours at at time stressing sim causing crashes, and owners of land lag on their property..... etc......
Sorry i am not looking to start a neq issue here, but really it will greater stress in the game for all the wrong reasons.....

Grant you we will need to grow more to better the game in the future but increasing the populas in this fashion will put the game in t a deeper whole worse then it is now.....

People already sign up for lots and lots of alts. This proposal would just make it possible for those alts to be verified alts, rather than unverified alts. I'm not sure it would have any effect on the number of alts.

Why not simply allow a user who has married and wishes to change their surname to log onto this site and fill out a marriage certificate. Then a staff member can change that account's surname and send the User an email notifying them of the change.

Residents have been asking for some way to change names for years now, and LL says they are 'looking into it'. Reasons range from couples that Partner and want the same surname, to new surnames coming up that you really want to use, but then not being able to transfer your no-trans inventory to the new alt. There is no promised action date yet from LL on any sort of name changes, but hopefully, some day, that will be possible.

Usagi, you seem to have misunderstood my proposal entirely.

The current situation allows the kind of underage griefers and kids that you fear to create infinite numbers of UNTRACABLE alts, simply by typing false information into the forms.

If you actually READ the implementation suggestion in my proposal, I would like to restrict that unlimited, unverified account creation, and replace it with accounts that are paid for and have valid ID and tracable machine info provided for them. My proposal would only increase the number of verified and tracable alts - accounts that, if abused in any way, could easily be shut down by Linden Lab for every account that person owns. Surely that is preferable to untracable acounts? And if implemented as I suggested, my proposal would ELIMINATE the flood of unverified and untracable accounts. Because it would ONLY allow one free account per 90 day period. Anyone trying to create ANY additional accounts from that same computer would get caught by the machine ID check that I proposed, and would be forced to provide ID and pay for the additional accounts.

How many underage and griefer accounts do you think will get created under my proposal, if each one costs ten dollars to make, with the exception of one free one every 90 days, and if every account after the first free one requires valid ID and gets tied on creation to the machine ID of the player's computer?

Underage kids and griefers don't want to PAY MONEY and GIVE ID to create new accounts, They won't use the accounts I am suggesting, no matter how it gets implemented.

Current system = unlimited untracable free accounts, every day, as fast as you can fill out the forms.
My proposal = ONE free account per 90 day period, and all accounts are tracable to the owner. Most accounts cost money to create.

I still think that tracking machine info is a bad idea, there's too many shared computers, and it's too easy to spoof.

Getting rid of the account limits to stop people from feeling there's a legitimate reason for untracable alts, and at the same time requiring sponsorship from a paying account from every free account, would serve the same purpose without getting LL into an arms race.

This would be nice as an option (e.g. so we could limit land to people with pay info on file OR sponsored status) but I'm not sure that requiring it would be helpful. If the sponsorship program was required for people who don't want to part with their pay info to access SL, then it would put people off and seem to go against LL's plan of open registration. If sponsorship was easy to get it'd not be very useful, and if it was hard to get it could conflict with the philosophy of open registration. So yeah, useful option... not sure about it as a requirement.

If you set your areas so that only people with paid accounts can visit them, that should prevent griefers with unpaid accounts from attacking them.

An added bonus would be that people who want to visit those areas will upgrade to a paid account in order
to gain access to the site.

This doesnt always work on parts of land........

I see no reason sponsorship shouldn't be easy to get, if any paid account can be a sponsor. There are tens of thusands of paid account holders, and hundreds of thousands of people who personally know paid account holders and could recommend someone. Experience with other invitation only systems like Orkut or Gmail is that sponsorship is not hard to arrange.

It doesn't have to be very hard to be useful, especially if LL's friendly attitude towards third-party websites providing SL-related services applies. All you need is a way to get people in thouch with potential sponsors, and let sponsors decide how hard they want to vet people they sponsor.

I'm sure that at first you'll get some people letting anyone in and getting kicked out of the sponsorship program because they're letting griefers in, but over time... and probably not much time... things will settle down to a situation where it's not hard for ordinary people to get in... but too much of a hurdle for griefers to maintain a stable of casual alts.

The fact that this creates a class structure on SL is automatically enough for me to

1. Promise that I will never set any parcel I control under the kind of access controls you're talking about, except *perhaps* on a temporary (hours at the most) basis due to an ongoing attack.

2. Promise that I will never visit a parcel owned by anyone I'm aware of who uses these kinds of restrictions on a permanent basis, unless they're doing it purely in an attempt to keep under-age players out of sexual attractions.

3. Promise that I will at the very least never recommend a vendor, event, or attraction owned or operated by anyone that uses these kinds of access controls inappropriately (that is, permanently and for any reason other than compliance with laws about minors' access to sexual attractions).

4. Promise that I will encourage other people to make the same promises.

This "Mark of Cain" attitude a few people seem to have towards "no payment info" sickens me.

I agree with you, Argent. It is most unfortunate that the only mechanism that LL has offered us to provide any sort of screening against under-age or troublemaker accounts is one that also harms access for a great many perfectly innocent new members.

I would be willing to believe that the majority of griefer and under-age accounts are those which refuse to provide payment information. The griefers have no reason to pay for an account that is quite likely to get banned and become unusable after they use it for a while. Most griefer accounts are like a 'Saturday Night Special' - a cheap weapon to be discarded after it is used. And neither the griefers nor the kiddies want to provide valid identifying information that could be traced back to them.

But to class ALL people who have not provided payment information as 'undesirable' is painting with too large a brush. It's like saying that since criminals use guns, all gun owners are criminals. Certainly all hunters and target shooters would disagree with such a blatantly false statement! A very large number or people who have 'no payment on file' accounts are decent, wonderful people. I have several friends who have such accounts for their alts. If the alt needs funds, they transfer funds from the main account. So the alt never needs to have credit info on file.

On the other hand, I am estate manager for a sim that contains a decidedly adult 'feature attraction' area. That one parcel I am seriously considering limiting access to as you state, and for the precise reasons that you state - to prevent under-age accounts from accessing XXX beds and pose ball sets in that area. My bigest challenge there is to parcel it off in a way that provides sufficent prim count for the attraction, without taking away more of the sim than I have to. The unfortunate thing is that limiting access by that means will also make the swimming lake that is above the adult area off-limits to unverified accounts.

An alternative that I am considering would be to see if I could set up a security script at the entrance or covering most of the interior, that would only eject no-payment accounts. Not sure if that is possible, however. Or maybe install a 'door' at the entrance that only allows you to open it if you have payment info on file? (Very easy to circumvent, however...)

Ok todays example is a Good reason why there should be a limit........we got hit with about 20 diff alts...I am sorry no matter what protection you put up they break it. END UNLIMITED SIGN UPS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you can deal with these attacks with your idea of lefting the numbers. Thats great But personally i getting very tried of this type of role play

Get it straight, dear - GRIEFING IS NOT ROLE PLAY!

Griefing = destroying stuff for kicks. Requires little intelligence, effort or morals. A two year old with a kitchen match can destroy things. Griefers get no more respect from me than that kid with a match.

Role Playing = Acting = creative, interatctve, real-time storytelling = Harmless entertainment enjoyed by all participants = Requires an agile mind, a literate soul, and creative abilities that no half-assed script-kiddy crasher could ever hope to aspire to. It tales creativity to be a roleplayer, and a desire to create, not to destroy.

I AGREE with you that unlimited UNVERIFIED sign-ups are making the griefing situation in SL far, far worse than they would be otherwise. I would happily call a complete halt to the idiocy of allowing unlimited sign-ups that don't even bother to find out if a single word on the sign-up form is truthful.

But do NOT lump people who want multiple accounts for roleplaying in with the griefers. That makes as much sense as stating "Everyone who attends Mardi Gras in New Orleans is a criminal, because they all wear masks, and everyone know criminals all wear masks! Ban all masks, and we'll never have criminals!".

Well Love you might think so But those attackers don`t
Griefting IS ROLE PLAY by some don`t you get it............They sent a statement to us in their spam messages.
Thisis the final proof that unlimited signup MUST STOP!

What role do griefers play? Seems to me that what they play is THEMSELVES, which is entirely contrary to the difinition of role playing.

My Thats my point, thos that people come inteh game looking for this type of problems ( its their way of playing the game ) Or in a gamers term "Role Play " Thats what think think! Well its more of break rules then playing..........

This is just a language problem.

Role playing has a specific meaning.

Griefing is not something that fits that meaning.

That's all.

well i hope so really....


But with YET anotehr grid attack I sure not voting for this issue unless i want a live a nightmare in sl when it happens and loss some of the better people inthe game due to the kids griefting even more freely

Usagi-san, please allow me to try to put this into another context, so perhaps you can see the difference...


You have two businesses that serve alcohol. Both are supposed to be adults-only businesses, not open to children.

"Business A" does not check ID at the door, and does not charge money to enter the building. Anyone may enter, anyone may drink, regardless of age or past history as a troublemaker. No one is associated with anyone else. If someone causes trouble, they are escorted to the exit, but they can walk in again 5 minutes later.

"Business B" requires every person who wants a drink to pay a $10 USD cover charge, and requires them to provide ID. No ID = No drink and no entry. The ID is cross-checked on entry, and if a member of a street gang gets into the bar and causes trouble, not only do they get kicked out, but so do all members of that gang. Anyone who has ever caused trouble or who is part of a street gang that has caused trouble is banned for life.

Which business will have more drunk kids in it, raising hell?

Business A is what we have now. Unlimited free alts, no ID check, and no way to keep trouble from walking back in 5 minutes later.

Business B is my proposal. New accounts cost money. Make trouble, and all your alts (your 'street gang') can be banned at once, because each one is tied to valid ID.

Now, why do you prefer Business A?

Can you please explain why you think Business B is a worse place to be?

==============
In Japanese - Babelfish translation:

アルコールを機能する2 つのビジネスを有する。両方とも子供に開いた大人ただビジネス、であるために仮定される。 "ビジネスA" はドアでID を点検しないし、建物に入るためにお金を満たさない。だれでも厄介者として年齢か過去歴史にもかかわらずだれでも、飲むかもしれない入るかもしれない。誰も他のだれでもと関連付けられない。誰かにより悩みを引き起こせば、それらは出口に護衛される、後で再度歩くことができる5 分。 "ビジネスB" は飲み物に$10 米ドルの席料を支払ってほしい要求しそれらをID を提供するように要求するあらゆる人を。否ID = 飲み物無しおよび記入項目無し。ID は記入項目で、通りの一団のメンバーが棒にクロスチェックされが入り、悩みを引き起こせば、彼ら蹴られて得るただ、従ってその一団のメンバー全員をしなさい。悩みを引き起こすか、または悩みを引き起こした通りの一団の部分であるだれでも生命の間禁止される。 それの上昇地獄でどのビジネスがより飲まれてからかう持っているか。 ビジネスA は私達に今あるものがである。歩くことからの5 分悩みを保つ無制限の自由なalts 、ID の点検無し、および方法無し後で。 ビジネスB は私の提案である。新しい記述はお金を要した。各自が有効なID に結ばれるので悩みを作れば、あなたのalts すべては(あなたの' 通り一団' の) すぐに禁止することができる。 今、なぜビジネスA を好むか。 ビジネスB はあるより悪い場所であることをなぜ考えるか説明してもいいか。
==============

I realize that is probably a rather poor translation, but my own ability to communicate clearly in Japanese is far worse!

It's unfortunate that it didn't come through.

*laughs* Ye gods. I tried a reverse translation of what Babelfish provided, and it was quite a mangled mess.

Forgive me, Usagi-sama! I should not have even bothered with that stupid automated translation! I think my player could have done a better job of translating that, though it might have taken me a few hours with my translation dictionaries and phrase books to do so!

In this reply from Robin Linden, Robin officially states that there is no longer a limit on how many accounts one person may have. Thank you Robin! Please make sure that memo is read by the rest of the Linden Staff!

Quoting Robin Linden's reply on 10/21/2006, in Linden Answers:I certainly have no problem with the idea that the Lindens could selectively limit the number of accounts one person may have as part of a disciplinary action for abusing multiple accounts, nor do I mind paying for additional accounts. That is only fair. Again, thank you Robin!