PROPOSAL: Alternative to Voucher System

This is in response to our discussion with Jesse Linden regarding the proposed Voucher system for new players.

[[Rant about money edited out due to pointlessness]]

Starting thought--
Since a single person will only be able to take a single class at a time, they would only need to be spending one "education credit" at a time. (if i use "education credit" again, I'll say EC).
------------------------------------------

----[ My Proposal: ]----

Treat EC's like currency, except only being able to spend one at a time. They can only be transferred to Linden approved Instructors (so, once a person is approved, it will be somehow encoded in their account.) EC's could retain the information of the person who spent it... A "Credits Dialog" could contain information on how many EC's one has, and the option to redeem a self-chosen amount of EC's, or even refund selected EC's.

New basic account players would receive a replenishing, "infinite" supply of EC's for 1 to 2 months, after which they could purchase more EC's with their own $L. They could see how many credits remain in their coffers in a similar dialog as that of the aforementioned instructors'.
Premium account players would receieve a replenishing, infinite supply of EC's.

Since the amount of classes that can be taught in one day is currently limited to two, then the amount of credits that could be spent in one day could also be limited... maybe 4 or 6.

Here's a shady area...
Let's say an instructor holds a class, and upon collecting EC's from all the students exlaims, "PEACE, suckaz!" and teleports away. Well, there'd be a lot of ticked students who would have the current complaint system at their disposal. I'm not sure another system would be necessary.

Now, let's say 10 people show up for a class, and 8 of them pay. I suppose you could eject anyone that refuses to pay... IF it's your land. OR ..

!![NOTE: The following is merely an idea. I don't even like it much. Please consider it, and use it to help inspire other ideas to help protect against system abuse and whatnot]!!

Here's an Idea:
-----------------
Events under the Education category could contain a payment button, which would pay the creator of the event 1 EC, and provide a "land pass" of sorts. To make that system work, the land on which the class is being held would need to be made restricted access, or...

A new land access type: Educational Land. With the Educational Land option checked, anyone without a pass can remain on the land for up to 15 minutes before being ejected.

Passes would be obtained through the EC payment button of the Event window, and would expire at the end of the event. (Or possibly, 30 minutes after, to allow for some lingering and question-answering).


And they lived happily ever after, except for the gnome, who's wife left him for a toad.
Please post constructive ideas, criticisms, and the like. (key word: constructive!)

THANKS

--[hdk]--

PS - before anyone misinterprets the first part of my post..

Money is NOT the most important thing to me! I was simply stating that it matters, to SOME degree, however small that might be! OK DONE. Continue with life...

the only prob with the new land type bit is that not everyone teaches on land totally dedicated to education... Some people teach out of homes or stores and the entire area can't be set to the special land type

And those people can continue to teach privately and not as certified Instructors. Its their choice in the matter.

There is a free "box office" that can ask people in a specified area to pay admission. If they don't pay, they can be warned (and eventually teleported home if they continue to stay). The box office was created by Peter Newell for a competition held by the Foundation for Rich Content. IM Peter for a copy.

500L is $1.82 USD. That's all.

I'm not opposed to the voucher thing if everyone can get as many vouchers as they want somehow. I am definitely opposed to having to teach on a certain type of land or in a certain place; I like being able to set things up as I want and to be able to eject griefers, and I don't want to have to chop my lot up or change the land type all the time. I don't see the point in having to have a certain type of land to teach a class--that does not add anything but a new complication. Complications are never good.

It would be nice to be able to teach a new class without having to get approval for each and every class. I haven't been teaching for cash because I just don't have time for the paperwork, so anything that cuts that out is fine with me.


Anyhow, people should be able to give the vouchers away, but only instructors should be able to cash them in, and that gets rid of a lot of potential red tape. It also gives people who don't need classes a way to pick up a few bucks by selling vouchers, which should be a fine thing to do.

I also think that vouchers should be exchangeable for one-on-one lessons, not just classes.

The main thing I want to avoid is having to restrict access to my land or having to exclude students because they don't have vouchers. The advantage of having Linden Labs pay instructors is that inpoverished residents could still attend classes.

The biggest problem here is that the system will be gamed, but any system will be gamed.

But $500L is 1-3 outfits / hair / whatever and didn't cost me RL money to buy them.

They way I look at it, why should an instructor who has to organise the class, handle people coming in and out, interruptions, or the like and then spend their time teaching the class .... have to then pony up their own $US to buy something. They should be compensated in some manner for the time they spent in and out of the classroom for teaching.

Live Helpers teach, Mentors teach, Greeters teach. They don't get paid by LL.

I don't think there's anything wrong with charging residents for classes though. It's a service and a valuable one. There's nothing stopping anyone for charging for a class, just like any other service regardless of what LL decides.

As a separate comment, I want to add that I am against any "revamp" that forces, or even really *influences* a prospective student to decide whether a class is worth the value or their payment.

I have taken tons of classes based soley on whether they seemed fun. Many were not even in regard to my skill level (ie beginner when I would say I am beginner+ or even intermediate). But I took them because they sounded fun!

If I had to spend ... anything really I know I would have NOT taken a good 1/2 - 2/3 of the classes I have taken. And you know what, I would have lost out because of it. Because I learned something in every class whether it was actual skills, techniques, or social.

Even if as the OP mentioned, ECs were added weekly or monthly like a stipend, it is still a mindset to the student that they have to choose to take something now vs saving in case something else comes up before their next EC payday. "Do I spend this EC now on a 'fun' class, or wait to see if something better (ie more 'worthwhile') comes along?"

From the student's point of view, education should be free. There were some great comments in the transcript in regards to SL being a very complex application - without a user manual. The best way to learn is to learn from others. And the best method of THAT is to have (qualified!) instructors teach it to you. With all the new things coming out in patches and upgrades, do not force a prospective student to choose. Let them come to classes. Let them learn. In the end, SL will be better for it.

I think any proposal should keep that in mind.

LL should be looking to revamp the method they approve, review, or pay the instructors (yes, instructors should be paid) - but it should be outside the realm of the student.

Just my opinion of course.

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

Edit to add:



Maybe that is something else LL should be thinking about? Each of those performs a valuable role as well.

In my original post I mentioned that EC's would replenish at the conclusion of the educational event that they paid for. If they stay for the whole class, what's to worry about? If they don't stay, what do they lose? 45 minutes? maybe even less.

As an idea to prevent abuse of this proposed system, i was thinking perhaps limiting the number of EC's that could be spent in one day. But, if there is a limit, it should probably be based on the average number of classes any given class-goer goes to in a day. I figure most people attend no more than 4 classes in a day. Anyone know any different?

Exactly... that's why the money does matter to a degree. I use my teaching money to fund buying land for my rental business and for paying for my accounts and all kinds of things. I keep tellin myself one day i'll retire or just teach a few classes a week and settle down to create all the ideas that I have hehe.

I do think we need some kind of a ballance. Students discover what classes are quality and what ones aren't. Instructors that provide quality education get a LOT of word of mouth reputation about how good (or bad) their class was. Rewarding those that continually pull in high attendances is a good thing. However we need to make sure that making a decent wage is sitll obtainable for those who like to teach the oddball fun classes for those few brave students out there (like that pile of poo class I used to teach at TeaZers).

I'm liking the idea of the auto replenishing vouchers. It allows people to not have to worry about running out, rewards those who give a quality experience, but doesn't make people think they have to be stingy so they don't have to pass up a fun class in favor of some class that might seem more skill oriented.

The only worry *is* if someone games it by making a bunch of alts. I think there could be some kind of a ballance here as well. Maybe have us still send in the reports, and LL could spot checks the reports to make sure the number of vouchers turned in for a class are not more than really attended the class.

I think the success or failure of the voucher system hinges on how easy it is to obtain vouchers, and wether or not those vouchers cost students any money.

edited to add: Haddock, when UoM gets going I know of students who've taken up to 6 classes in a day. It's not super often, but I do know of people who make good on their days off

In an ideal world, perhaps it'd be reasonable to have the vouchers transferable and resellable. But unfortunately, in SL, this would give even more incentive for any voucher system to be gamed. Not only would we get disreputable teachers creating alts to get vouchers to give themselves, but ANYONE could create alts to get vouchers to resell (either to students who will actually make use of them, or to those who will game them.)

If a voucher system is used, I think the vouchers would have to be largely non-transferable. I'm not sure how viable it is to create an object with permissions set to not transfer to anyone but LL approved instructors.

That's a GREAT idea, Barbarra, for vouchers to be redeemable for one-on-one lessons. Or even with semi-private lessons, small classes of 2 or 3 students. With only a few students, the teacher would earn less, but a lot of teachers like to teach and help and give more time to each student, and some students may need more personal attention. There's no reason to continue devaluing the contribution such dedicated teachers make to SL and only reward those who teach large classes.


Sel

I definitely agree. Gaming with alts is a huge concern in any system. LL would need to ensure not only that all students turning in vouchers stay in class, but that they are active, real students who are learning.

SUGGESTION: LL should automate checking IP and billing addresses with the payment system to require unique IP and billing addresses for each student. LL should make clear that gaming the Education system with alts is abuse of the system, and make a policy of revoking Instructor status from anyone who abuses it.

That way, a teacher wouldn't get credit for teaching a student from the same IP address as theirs, to prevent teachers from logging in with their alts on other computers in the house. Teachers would only get 1 student credit per unique IP/billing address per class, to prevent someone else gaming the system on their behalf.

Any strange patterns could create a flag for further investigation by a Linden, and if the abuse reoccurred, those avatars could be suspended from the Instructor/Volunteer program, and the alts would lose all voucher privileges and be banned from any future Instructor approval.

At most, I'm thinking this might be gamed a few times by opportunists, but hopefully would prevent continued and systematic abuse, by revoking Instructor status permanently.

Can anyone find holes in this? Is it pretty easy to set up vastly different IP addresses from one place? From what I understand, the last numbers are usually unique on a network, but all the first numbers are the same.

Sel

For one thing, the value of the vouchers would make it *extremely* impractical to make alts just to get more vouchers. Plus, there could be a server-side background check to see if the transfer is from/to the same person ( with a combination of IP check, bank/credit info, etc ).

I also agree with the One-On-One idea... the thought actually crossed my mind as a possibility with the new system. I think my "payment through Events" idea is pretty good for the most part, but would make one-on-one sessions rather difficult.

Reports to Lindens shouldn't be necessary, I don't think. I DO think better screening of new instructors should be implemented though. It wouldn't have to take much time out of a Linden's day... maybe a skill survey, and then sometime in the following 2-3 weeks, a quick Linden interview through IM. (i think Zany Golem gave me these ideas :3)



As my original post states, the EC's/Vouchers would be similar to Money. They wouldn't be an object you find in your inventory. I'm thinking they could possibly be incorporated parallel to the Currency system.

The prob with that is IP addresses are not always unique to an individual or household

AOL is notorious for having tons of people share the same IP number. Looking for same IP's might be a good first step (a red flag of sorts) but it is NOT the end all of security. This would hamper especially people in Universities (where hundreds or thousands of computers could share share the same IP number). This is why banning an IP number is the last resort of any respectable message forums or games.

Treat it as a red flag but do not simply throw out a voucher because of this. If this were a viable way of checking for alts all LL would need to do is run an IP sweep every now and then and boot illegal alts completely lol.

Not to mention those of us with dymanic IP addresses who get a new address everytime we log on.

It is not that easy to detect an alt. My husband and I are alts according to Linden Labs, I've been informed, although we are two people in real life, anyhow.