do you think that alts should be disabled?

The way I suggested it, Ordinal, would have no effect on your products. Provided that the free acount holder who purchased you product could not (or did not, depending on if you want them to be able to modify the script) recompile the script would still function. It'd all be based on the "Last Compiler" attribute of the script.

I AM a free account holder and I'm suggesting it. And I'd certainly never suggest something that I wouldn't like.

But yes, it doesn't make your premuim more valuable, but I'm trying to hark back to the days of MUDs where there were an ungodly number of account levels. You had users, you had VIP users, you had script enabled uses, upgraded script enabled users, you had premium access level script enabled users, then you had your moderators, then above them you had your wizards, and above them the Admin.

That's 8 levels of users.
Eight Levels.
Three of them just for a scripting language half as powerful as LSL is.
In fact, there were code calls that not even the Premium Access users could call, ones that only a Wizard or the Admin could call. Toad(user) for example. Yes, you could toad people through a scripted object (toading was a form of banning. The user is turned into a toad, losing all the attributes associated with a player_object and becoming just another object with the description "this is a toad". Second Life has an opperation similar, sending people to the Cornfeild. No, it's not in the script language, but if it was you can bet it wouldn't work without Linden level powers.

All I'm saying is that some functions are too dangerous to let the uneducated masses have at their disposal. We've seen proof of this, we aren't going to fix it by ID verification, we aren't going to fix it by introducing 10 second delays, or # of calls per minute per object family. We can only fix it by reducing the number of people who have access to it. The premium accounts (or by closing off the bloody open registration, but we all know what LL thinks about that).

I only suggest those who never have put a single RL cent into the game not recieve all the abilities of other basic accounts who do contribute to the economy directly. fact is once you can get the non-creating user to link their credit card, they will spend, becoming a boon to content creators. Presently we are trying to sell product to many people who refuse to put RL cash in, they don't want to create content, just want to watch their cashout balance climb from money extracted from peoples balances inworld who are silly enough to pay them and a bunch of bot running leeches to camp. Selling prices are plumeting, which perhaps needs to happen to reflect the fact that 1 hours work creating something can continue to payback over the next 10 years without any raw materials so it may take you longer to get back your hours wage rather than expect a 1 hour payback.
At present there are no incentives for people to put RL money in when they can earn their rent/spending money running campbots.

dot dot dot

ANd so I go down to my local MacDonalds/Starbucks/library with my laptop and ...

When I travel I often go park in the local library parking lot to use the library WiFi connection and access the Internet (e.g Greer AZ). In larger towns the hotel even might have Wifi.

Once you have set up the alt ...

They should limit the number of simultaneous connections per computer to 2. This would make bot farms like this one less feasible (that's 67 avatars, generating 96480 traffic points per day for the sim where that pic was taken):

I'm not sure if you meant pet IP addie or actual puter?

If it's per computer, the other end can't tell the difference between one computer connecting twice and two computers connecting once through a NAT.

If it's per IP addie, bots are lightweight enough that they can probably be run over "public" proxies. There are thousands of those so it wouldn't really make a dent in the bot population.

The only foolproof way(s) to limit connections/alts is by tieing avies to a (verified) RL person through payment info and LL has made it clear they don't want that .

SL already has a "hardware hash" mechanism that allows them to ban avies connecting from a specific computer (not IP address). That's what I was talking about.

[/img]
I have to disagree there. It depends on how well you can multitask, and what you're using them for. Just last week I had four accounts open at once for roleplaying. I was playing all 4 characters, and I am quite certain that two of the other three people interacting with them never realized those 4 were all one player. (The remaining person was my SL Partner, who was aware that the other three that I was playing were my alts.) And I could easily see building situations where having 2 or three alts on the ground in various locations could give me a far better view of the work site.

I could see maybe a limit of 6 per system at once, but not less than that. Certainly no one has a rational reason to have ten or more running on the same system at the same time!

i have no problem with alts

free alts tho opens the doors to all sorts of issues and attitude (why should i care ill just make a new av in 1 min anyway haha fu!!!!)

i paid 10 bucks a av and didnt have a problem with that (obviously) but joe greifer might think twice about wasting 10,20,30,50,100 bucks for some cheap laughs