Prevent "non-payment info" avatars from being able to attach things

That argument isn't holding water anymore, funny that most kids that can get a decent computer and a good broadband ISP "oh but i have no credit card or any way to get verified sorry sir".

there is still the good old way, fax ID card or driving license along with an electricity bill with matching names.

This false dichotomy between "classes". The idea of restricting the user experience for the "lower class". The idea that by restricting them you will make SL better.


I did read your first post, and re-reading it doesn't make me think that it suddenly makes more sense.

I personally know at least 50 people in-world that do not have payment information on file for one reason or another (and that is a tired old subject too) that are outstanding Second Life citizens. You would cripple their SL experience because you want to - as Lex Neva said - throw the baby out with the bath water.

You say you are not talking about a caste system, but I submit that you ought to go read about what constitutes a caste system because that is precisely what you are talking about.

It is easy for most people to enter payment information, but that does not mean that they should just to satisfy your anger toward people who would irritate you with or without payment information.

It is neither a practical nor a useful suggestion.

This really has nothing to do with asking that people verify their identity. You're giving the wrong sermon here! There's no false dichotomy (though I bet you wish there was!) - verifying identity and class distinctions are completely unrelated!

In any case - I didn't come here for a debate (haah!) - I just wanted to suggest a feature ;-p - and I think I have. So I will now leave this thread!

You made a perfectly good suggestion that has absolutely nothing to do with setting up a caste system. Suggestions that it is are just absurd. It's just permits greater control of content for sim owners. They're paying for it. Why shouldn't they be allowed to determine what type of users can enter?

People here need to get over this ridiculous idea that SL was set up to create a utopian paradise. SL is an entertainment service created by a corporation. It is not health care, food, or shelter. There's no argument to be made that it should be open to all who want to use it. No one is entitled to any part of SL.

That would be like criticizing McDonald's for closing its bathrooms to non-paying customers. McDonald's is a corporation that can ban whoever it wants from its bathrooms. It owns them.

Likewise, sim owners own their land and pay for its maintenance. They have every right to restrict access to any group they want, even elite groups. It's not creating a caste system. It's protecting the property rights of sim owners.

Your missing something as well-


Unverifed accounts were LINDEN LABS' idea.




Before they existed no one was asking for them. Most of us didnt like the plan. But it was their call, they made it. Trying to get them to go back on their promisses is not helpful. If you can convince LL to make all new accounts verify again - great. But Everyone who is unverified right NOW should get grandfathered in with no restrictions other than the ones they have had since day 1 of their account.

The point of this thread is not to make verified accounts mandatory. We're discussing a feature that would allow sim owners to restrict the number of attachments worn by people with unverfied accounts.

Essentially, it's a feature that allows land owners to decide who uses their land and how. No one can seem to explain what's wrong with that.

I don't think it would work. The number and size of attachments has a lot less to do with lag than the number of scripts those attachments contain, and any attachment can contain any number of scripts.

Unverified users are important. LL understands that psychologically, it is better for them to experience living in the virtual society and seeing giving payment info as a way to work their way up, than to demand payment info right away. Also, they provide custom for in-world businesses and eyeballs for in-world advertising.

The class distinction comes from having those without verified identities unable to use attachments. That *is* a distinction, is it not? They clearly are related as far as you are concerned, as you tied them together in your original post.

I don't know where your comments like "though I bet you wish there was" are coming from, but it seems to be an emotional and confused place to me.

I commend you for wanting to make Second Life better, but I disagree with your suggestion and wanted to provide my thoughts as well. Apparently that is not desired, so I will follow your lead and leave the thread as well.

Please find the part of the original post that says anything about Sim owners.

Okay, then what about letting land owners limit the number of prims non-payment avatars can have? Would that not be a helpful feature?

If you dislike non-payment players that much, why not just ban them from your land altogether? That option already exists...

If you love unverifieds so much, why don't you demand a feature that lets you ban all verfieds? (sarcasm)

I don't "dislike" unverifieds. The original intent of this policy was to provide better security from griefers. But many are concerned about the effect an SL-wide ban on attachments on unverifieds would have. So, I suggest that LL implement a feature that allows land owners to limit the attachments of unverifieds without banning them all together. That way land owners can decide what policies are best for their property.

<sarcasm>Yeah, sarcasm helps</sarcasm>

This capability already exists in Second Life. Sim owners already have manual tools to get rid of any unverifieds they wish for any or no reason at all.

Even better, it can be automated by creating a scanner that checks for scripted attachments using (llGetAgentInfo(llDetectedKey(x)) & AGENT_SCRIPTED), and llRequestAgentData() can be used to check payment status, and if they have no payment info on file and are wearing scripted attachments then the object (if deeded to the landowning group) can do an llTeleportAgentHome() and an llAddToLandBanList() to keep them from coming back.

No policy change required See how easy that is? Doesn't even require owning a whole sim, just some land, so this option is only available to premium members too Yay!

Awesome. Thanks for the tip.

Im all for land owners having that ability for both registered and non registered accounts. Or either, At their discretion.

Already can

You can ban all verifieds instead of unverified.

Hmmm - well, the non-payment info people probably have methods of payment they can use. They just don't choose to use it even though they could. Those that don't are probably young and don't belong on the mature grid to begin with.

It seems to me, there would be a way for SL to crack down on griefers a little more.

Well, I just don't agree with the precept that (A) all NPIs are griefers, and (B) all verifieds are not. some of my best customers are NPI, and some of the most annoying griefers I've met were Verified. So, in the end, I don't judge people by their, race, creed, color, or payment status. I judge them by their words, actions and behavior. It's threads like this that really bother me.

Please don't equate this discussion with racism, religious persecution, or other forms of oppression. It really takes the whole thread out of context, devolves the conversation into something way off topic, and, not to mention, suggests that those, like myself, that support these features are promoting a form of racism. Last but not least, it trivializes real forms of discrimination that do cause much suffering in the world.

If LL went so far as to demand all accounts be verified, no one dies. No one's suggesting concentration camps for unverfieds. Just some features on some software.

Don't go there. I mean, really.

Already done. It is discrimination, just like any other. just because you can distance yourself with a piece of software doesn't change that.

There should not be any unverified accounts, period. If there is a trial, it should be restricted to a demo area like the orientation islands. To get into the main grid should require some kind of verification mechanism to keep griefers out... at the very least, having a paying member in good standing vouch for them.

But since Linden Labs is unwilling to provide a way for people to verify themselves without having a US credit card, unverifieds are unfortunately not going away.

Given that, they should not be badged with a "scarlet letter", or restricted once they're in the main grid. The fact that you can even tell who's verified or not is kind of offensive.

Again, this is just hyperbole. Scarlet Letters carry connotations that have nothing to do with this discussion. You're not being morally condemned by a theocratic government for not being verfied. Nor are you facing loss of employment, concentration, execution, or torture. You're not even facing much ostracization for not being verified. Name one popular place that bans unverfieds.

Right now, land owners can ban you from their land. And why shouldn't they be able to? If you paid hundreds or thousands of USD for your land, wouldn't you want to be able to decide who goes there and what they do when they get there?

I invoke Godwin's Law.

Friend, I've had as much as a quarter of a sim at times, and right now my group (which I'm contributing most of the land and tier for) is getting close to that again... and I still find the idea of banning people based on how much land they own or whether they've got a credit card offensive.
I know the guy who came up with Godwin's Law (and it wasn't Mike Godwin), and we're several DEFCON levels away from it.

1) Cool that you know him.
2) I know, but merely by inciting Godwin's law I've stated that the argument will end with a reference to Nazis.

(This point was brought up in some kind of reliogious/beliefs debate at school recently which caused a paradox: the argument can not finish because "it's whatever you believe" but by inciting Godwin's Law, the argument MUST finish--true to the law someone made the obligatory Nazi reference).