« Abuse Levees Holding | Main | [UPDATE] Open Registration »

June 20, 2006


Frans Charming

This definitely sound like exciting improvements Robin. That being said, it would have been better to have made the improvements first, and then open up SL. But i can understand that can't allways happen.

But what i'm more interrested in, what kind of time line are we talking about. And what kind of tools.

Oz Spade

These are neat ideas and I think you did a good job of covering the fundamentals that need consideration. Always keep in mind the pitfalls of past systems however, especialy in regards to the Rating system, none of the proposed ideas seem to have something like that though, which is good.

Also on the topic of the "1." idea of a "Verified" field. This to me wouldn't really mean anything, sure they may have payed something with a credit card or provided some ID, but whose to say it was theirs? Or even if it was theirs, whose to say they don't intend to do bad things anyway? So I'm not sure how useful that'd be for the end-user.

And more user-tools are always needed.

Trust on the internet is kinda an oxymoron though, and a problem thats been around for years and has yet to find a really good solution. Well, trust in real life for that matter even.

Prokofy Neva


A lot of this sounds like NewSpeak, I'm sorry.

I'm glad you're at least able to put it out frankly that LL is assuming (I think "forced into" is a misleading statement) a "benign dictator" role. Representative government isn't any more idealistic in a virtual world than it is in the real world. Sure, you're owners, but you have partners who help you pay for that ownership or you wouldn't be able to own *so many* servers as you do. I think you need to be mindful of that reality. We aren't Russian serfs becoming quit-renters, paying off the landowner to buy our freedom. We're supposed to be partners.

When you start making exceptionalism for virtual worlds just because of software and server ownership issues, it's a slippy slope to become quite an unaccountable dictatorship. You talk about transparency and fair treatment -- ok, great, then let's hear your criteria and reasons for not only creaing this SL Views program, but picking the people and/or symbolic groupings that they represent, one way or another. One could ask a lot more about fair treatment -- why respect one very visible and intrusive resident who bought up hundreds of 16m signs to put up his so-called "political expression" along with the "expression" of extortionist prices, but not respect the right of those who had to neighbour upon and look at these eyesores or buy their view back? Fair treatment always seems so...partial...in Second Life.

As for this notion: "- codes of behavior that recognize cross-cultural norms, and potentially real-world laws (e.g. privacy, hate speech, violence, political discourse" -- I really have to say I don't like the sound of this one bit.

Under the guise of "internationalism," sounds like you're willing to sell out hard-won American freedoms. Are we to adopt "Asian Values"? Are we to accept British libel laws? Are we to cater to militant Islamic codes for women? Just *who* gets to decide which codes will prevail?

Just how much of a chill will you put on political discourse in the name of satisfying some authoritarian country's rules (like Google, and China?) Why even pre-anticipate having to cave like that???

Geez, what on earth are "cross-cultural norms of behaviour?" Do you think there's some committee at the UN that already decided that??? Are we to accept some misguided pre-anticipatory liberal notion of what is politicall correct in this regard?

I'd really like to hear what on earth you think needs to be added (or subtracted) from the Big Six to make it "portable" for "cross-cultural behaviour".

I also think that any reputation system must admit administering of negative ratings. The fear of this system already caused the nerfing and removal of a perfectly fine system. There were many ways that griefing mass negs could have been addressed without removing from the rest of us the right to express a negative evaluation, particularly for behaviour on the forums -- behaviour which is practiced so often with impunity, despite what many believe is the unjustified deadly connection between a forums banning and world banning.

The problem with reputation systems isn't that they will be gamed. It's that they will be nerfed due to fear of gaming or abuse and be useless.

Lewis Nerd

All very well and good... but why not just say "ok we screwed up, you know it, we know it, we'll just go back to how things were".


Jeremiah North

Thanks for the information, Robin. It's gratifying to know there is a lot of thought behind the decision, regardless if some agree and some do not. I have not seen any griefing yet myself, but assume the problem in dealing with it is the same with any kind of technical support, in having enough people who can deal with the issue while not going bankrupt in the process. Giving landowners more tools to look at a verified status sounds like a good first step to me. It beats trying to figure out who minors are by asking them what band Sting used to be in...

Hiro Pendragon

Hi there! Some of the longer term ideas are interesting, and I am anxious to see how they emerge.

As for the short term ideas, some feedback:

>> 1. Add a field in the user profile that shows if someone is 'verified'.

This would be a big plus, and along with this, I think 2 additional things:
- an LSL command such as: llIsVerified(key avatar) so that we can automate scripts.
- add to parcel features the ability to restrict the parcel to only verified users.

Ideally, it would go further:
- Only verified accounts could access Mature areas.
- Unverified accounts won't even see Mature areas.

>> 2. Continue to improve features for controlling griefing, including better mute tools that extend mute beyond the avatar to objects and IMs.

Definitely good steps. The muting I remember is something you already said was in works.

>> 3. Update the community standards to reflect the broader, more international user base that we have today versus when they were originally created.

I'd love a "if you push someone, they have implicit right to push back on their land" clause. (the "it's okay to shoot back" clause)

>> 4. Continue to strictly enforce the rules for lying about age: teens found in the main grid will be immediately put on hold and asked for age verification. If unable to provide verification they will be moved to the teen grid.

Loophole check - does this mean an adult could sign up for the adult grid, then lie and say they were underage, and be automatically moved to the teen grid?

Sebastian Genosse

To prevent "Real Life" legal liability for the residents of Second Life, it is vitally important to prevent people who are underage gaining access. Residents of Second Life need to be confident that they are interacting with real-life adults. The last thing any of us needs is to be charged with indecent exposure or for some even statutory rape because a teenager walked into a videogame. Many of the votes in proposition 1503 were because of fear of legal liability as well as being fed up with griefers.

The Second Life world isn't organized enough to make joining groups a convenient way to control access to popular locations.

It is also important to prevent a stigma being attached to certain areas. For instance, many places, such as the Second Life Library on Info Island, are "mature". If you require age validation for such a place and not others in Second Life, people are going to automatically think that the Second Life Library is a porn-centric library. Mature for most still means sex, and that's a stereotype i'd rather not be enforced.

Its a very interesting idea to internationalize the code of conduct (previous trolly comments aside), and probably a good one. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, which was drawn up in 1948 did not address all of the core human values in the world at the time, and still doesnt. It emphasized the western ideas of valuing the individual, and freedom, but not the eastern value of duty to your community, for instance. What sprang up instead was a set of regional human rights treaties, advocacy networks, and charters, each with varying sets of rules. Depenting on who you talk to in the human rights arena, the UDHR and these charters etc. each have varying degrees of success. Looking into the history of human rights law is probably an excellent direction to turn when figuring out how you're planning on internationalizing the code of conduct.

Linden Labs needs to decide if Second Life is a world they own, or a world they simply introduced. That will affect much of their policy making. If LL tries to ride both sides of the fence, they're going to get royally screwed on the fence-posts, so to speak.

Jamie David

The fire has happened and now on the 20th two weeks later Linden Labs and Robin show us this grand plan. The horses have already fled the barn.

What is being said here is a rehash of what the members of SecondLife have posted over and over in the forums. Long before the 20th.

The Abuse Report system is broken and a total waste of time. The Scams grow and there is no slowing. But Robin feels that the ammount of abuse reports only went up by 1.5%. I might venture that is was because no one bothers any more.

I have reported many a griefer. They never went away. Never slapped on the wrist. Just an automatic EMail. "We have your report." Then to read the ever so small PS by Torley in Answers on the forum..." Ummm. You need to copy and paste the log into your report, attach log doesn't work."

I commend LL for thier efforts to improve the system. Seems that A verified system is needed. So why kill the golden egg first? Realm, another game did this very thing. Forget the old established user for numbers. The users understood and left. Is this what Linden Labs would like?

With every day this remains a DISASTER people leave, move on, turn off. Numbers in established places are down, on any place with Money Chairs is on the rise. Quality is leaving. Content is leaving.

Linden Labs point to the above as, hey look we are doing something. In one posting LL bashes the old CC/Paypal/SMS system as being too open. The reason given for the change to no CreditCard verification is, the internet is open so we have to be. Then next posting (The are very rare indeed) which is not even on a Linden place but here. The word is yes we need Verification. Confused. I am. Seems that no one thought this out at all.

But this is not official Linden website this is a conference where all try to show off how bright and clued on they are. So what is said here has no relevence to what is happening in LL.

So the question all want to know is WHEN?
When will the Abuse Report system be fixed?
When will the Events posting be fixed?
When will the Validation happen?
When will LL answer the hundreds of postings?
When will EMail be answered?
When will LL/SL learn Costomer Service?


Buxton Malaprop

If you find this response to Prop 1503 to be unsatisfactory, please consider placing some of your newly-freed votes on Prop 1523, which is basically a re-demand of the exact same thing (except with some extra "not satisfied with being fobbed off" wording).

Pham Neutra

Food for thought on a incredible important topic, Robin. TY. I consider especially the announced additions to the profile a step in the right direction. Maybe you could even go a step further - like PayPal does it for example? A simple payment to Linden Lab does not really prove a lot about my identity - especially when I am using PayPal in a clever way.

For all those doing business in SL an additional step might make sense, like what PayPal itself does to verify the identity of its users (adress checks, payments and debits on bank accounts etc.). I don't know the Higgins system but will certainly look it up.

Verifying RL identity might be even more important, IMHO, because inworld exchange of L$ between different avatars and some creative use of the LindeX makes money laundering rather easy. Demanding some kind of real world ID from residents as soon as their account balance reaches a certain threshold might be necessary at some future point anyway - if only for legal reasons.

Identity, trust and confidence are intermingled in an unseperable way. Just knowing that someones identity is known at least to LL, for example, might go a long way for *trusting* this resident with a larger deal.

On the other hand - and leaving the realm of business - what seems to be most critical for most residents in their personal relationships in SL is "the alt business". Many a resident can tell tales about fraud, cheating, spying and griefing which - by creating a number or alts - is much to easy in SL for those inclined to such behaviour. I don't think there is an easy solution for this problem, though.

Everyone has a right, of course, to appear in a number of different personas (alts) in SL and should never be forced to disclose the relationship between alts. But there might be some functionalities in SL which should be extended to all alts of a person maybe (as far as LL can make the connection). Banning for example.

But this is obviously an idea which has NOT been thought out in any detail. ;)

One last thought: when you are thinking about "improved profiles, more information about your interests and affiliations" please use the already existing or emerging standards from the web, especially the blogosphere, whereever possible. SL would profit in many ways from a richer and more flexible connection with the web anyway! :)

Arthur Unknown

Nicely thought out academic analysis, although, nowhere near as poignant as the recent Liaison Post in the SL forums that has sadly disappeared – don't underestimate how important a truly human response can be when it comes to wining hearts and minds.

To me, Linden Labs': "Exciting Second Life Registration Changes" - you can almost feel the author gritting their teeth when they typed that one - are nothing more than a corporate version of the ends justifying the means. It was claimed in the now missing Liaison Post that a significant number of potential customers were following the sign-up procedure until the point of being asked for card details, and then at that point abandoning the sign-up. This must represent a serious issue for Linden Labs. Solution: "Exciting Second Life Registration Changes". End achieved.

One of the measures of the fidelity of a country, society, or organisation, is the amount of importance it places on the means and not just the ends. It is therefore ironic that when faced with a Community Issue (for example the Bush Signs) Linden Labs are always very keen to agonise over every nuance that might arise from any possible action they take in response to that issue. Compare this to the way Linden Labs have completely dismissed any semblance of Age Verification at a single stroke. No agony in evidence there. Instead it is implemented with an almost unseemly haste. End achieved.

The correct means to this particular end is to consider the consequences of such a significant change in policy and plan (see blog above) accordingly, in advance. The key words here being 'in advance'. Not, toss out a belated: raise ban-lines to 200m.

And definitely not: "We're currently tracking this situation closely and plan to continue to improve features for controlling griefing, including better mute tools that extend mute beyond the avatar to objects and IMs." – feel those teeth grind again?

Without proper diligence it really makes this wonderful blog entry sound like the words of an apologist. Linden Labs' words mean nothing. Linden Labs have dismissed the Second Life Community as being irrelevant when it comes to its corporate need.

The ends justify the means. End achieved.


I posted this earlier on the forums, and hope maybe the greater detail will address some of your questions about how we plan to put our theory into practice.

If we lose the sense of trust and openness among Second Life Residents, we will similarly, and surely, feel the pain. It does us no good to bring in more Residents, only to lose those who have become valued residents, advocates and architects of all that the world has become so far.

I'm going to talk about this some more tomorrow at the Anniversary party, but here's a few more specifics about what we're planning in order to address the concerns raised in this thread.

1. There will be an icon on each Resident's profile which will show 3 states. The first state will equal Anonymous. This person has chosen not to give us any identifying information beyond the minimum required to create an account. The second state will indicate that we have some identifying information, but that it has not been verified. The third state will indicate that we have identifying information, and have verified it through a successful transaction.

A second phase of this effort will be the addition of LSL calls allowing you to access this information for your use so that a landowner, for example, could prohibit access to their parcel/estate based on level of identifying information available. Similarly, a merchant could make a decision about selling.

2. We will change the height limitation to apply to banned agents only, but the limit will be raised to the maximum so it includes sky boxes, tree houses, and other high altitude builds.

3. As mentioned earlier, we will extend the mute tools to allow you to not only ban someone from your land and ignore them, but also their objects and sounds. We're also exploring the feasibility of making YOU invisible to THEM, to eliminate stalking behavior.

4. There are a few script calls that are at the root of the majority of griefing. Landowners will be able to disable those scripts on their parcels, similar to checking 'no fly' or 'no build'. One key example: llPush, typically used for 'orbiting'.

These are our highest priorities. Beyond these are better controls for mainland parcels and estates, as well as the evaluation and implementation of tools that have been requested in the Feature Voting Tool, such as the following list:

**Ability to stop all sound effects
**Ability to stop objects from entering my parcel owned by a banned Avatar.
**Ability to stop shouts/says/whispers from entering my parcel from the immediate area.
**More granularity in blocking outside scripts... such as...
*****************blocking push scripts, from guns, bombs, etc.
*****************blocking physics from vehicles, etc.
*****************blocking outside particle systems
**More granularity in blocking "build"on an AV by AV level, instead of everyone.
**Ability to *move* any object that is on my parcel, regardless of owner without returning. (Case in point: ghosts. Would have been nice if i could have dragged the ghost of that 20m giant monkey into the ground after the creator logged.)
**Ability for landowner or delegator to right-click & TP home an avatar with warning
**Ability to better delegate these permissions to individuals without using groups
**Ability to determine "who did what" easily without having to search for object beacons.
**Ability to "silence" an AV while on my parcel (Temporarily to cool things down. 15 seconds is not enough.)
**Allow a ban list to include groups rather than just individual AV's, and don't limit the length of that list to just 50.
**Ability to define the range of effect of these tools in 3-dimensional bounding box

Prokofy Neva

The cure sounds worse than the disease, Robin, and if I didn't know better, and figure you all are making up a lot of your response to these things as you go along, I'd indulge in a conspiracy theory and imagine that you unleashed this wave of "unaccountable accounts" griefing in order to justify the Security State you're now busy installing.

I wish people would read Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies" and modern reiterations of these concepts like Paul Berman's "Terror and Liberalism".

Rather than seek technical solutions and create complex technology in search of people who can figure out how to use it, I wish you would create policies, i.e. interpretations of the TOS more robustly and consistently, and more publicity and memory and searchability of the police blotter. All this griefing and scamming -- and not a single police blotter that shows theft or harassment in the last 10 days or more since you started those "unaccountable accounts" (and of course most of the police blotter is in the Memory Hole). Instead, ineffectual warning and banning in the never-ending battle of Lindens v. Sandbox Shooters and Linden Nannies v. Indecent Avatars.

Couldn't there be *one* blotter about theft, scams, or harassment by persistent griefers? Do you have to ration these blotters or something?

I also see you're also busy turning your beloved "Snowcrash" into reality. Remember those non-entities, the gray avatars who logged on from public terminals and were the unwashed masses, at best able to get a standard Ken or Barbie skin, appearing as faceless and gray? Now we'll have a category of people banned from all the "best" clubs and private islands because people will mass ban them by their status as newbies who are "Unverified".

The 200m banlines have made a forest of red lines now impossible to fly and sail around in some areas. They are even contemplating banning the use of them in Dreamland it is so bad, you can't even get home except by p2p or "teleport home".

I've looked at both sides of the issue of groups. On the one hand, griefer group affiliations are markers and they should be flags to put new alts in the same old griefing groups on more heightened watch. On the other hand, why should mere affiliation in a group lead to banning? That goes against the Nuremberg principles, in fact.

And it will be no problem simply to leave a group, grief somebody, and join the group again later.

Silence AVs while on my parcel? Gah, I can just see how that will be used. It will be impossible to have any public discourse, imperious types will just silence those they don't want to disagree with them.

I think of all these things you're mentioning, the ability to stop an object from a banned avatar from also being dropped is a far better answer than putting up ban lines 200 meters.

Anyway, it's a sad day for SL, that the weak federal government, the disorganization of the country, the inability of the rulers to set and enforce policy politically, through their will, and the substitution of technical means, led to the tearing of the social fabric, perhaps irreparably.

If there is any notion of publicizing offenders as yet another means to create ostracized classes of people, then I urge that the names of those who abuse-reported and the prosecuting Lindens also be included in the police blotter.

ninjafoo Ng

Sorry, but thats a cop-out. Put CC verification back on signup and give newbies 250 start up funds.

The current system simply encourages grief and fraud and a tag in somebody profile isn't going to do a damn thing to stop either from happening.

"Oh Joy, I just got robbed and blasted across the sim by an unverified user."

Its also demonises all genuine newbies as until they do register some payment details they will be immediately distrusted.

There is nothing wrong in admitting a mistake, its wrong to continue pushing a mistake long after its proven to be one.

Kaiti Jensen

"4. Continue to strictly enforce the rules for lying about age: teens found in the main grid will be immediately put on hold and asked for age verification. If unable to provide verification they will be moved to the teen grid. Adults in the teen grid will be permanently banned from Second Life."

This is unacceptable not to mention irresponsible.
Do you Lindens even know what is going on in "your" world? Have you not seen the perversion? Are you not aware of what is going on with children on the internet and how unsafe it is for them? Please take the blinders off LL! This isn't just about griefing and adults not wanting to share their world with children, it is also about the safety of children.
You can only enforce the rules of lying about age "IF" you can find the ones who lied. Relying on us your customers to find and report them is not good enough!

"1. Add a field in the user profile that shows if someone is 'verified'. Verified means that they have paid something to Linden Lab, which in turn means that we have valid identifying information about them and that they presumably have some commitment to Second Life"

Labeling a user as unverified just makes them a target...verifying at sign up is the only answer. It may not be a %100 deterrent but it is at least a deterrent.

I joined SL with the understanding that it was an adult platform. It wasn't that I wanted to do "adult things", it is because I don't believe that children should be on the internet unless an adult is sitting right there with them, preferably their parent.

Making this world a safer place for children is where my heart is, and I feel that I can no longer be a part of Second Life because you Lindens are going against what I believe and me being a part of it makes it seem that I condone it.
I have not been in SL much since the grid has been opened to anyone and everyone...I come in to take care of my business (pay rents on shops) and leave. If things don't change soon I will be forced cancel my account.

Tuc Yohei

im very sorry to say this, but i cannot see any difference betwen the other " virtual world " i am in , and SL.Same problems, comming from the same owner's attitude : they want profit for no matter the cost might be to the community. LL, you seems to ignore than SL without the loyal old players is nothing and have no future. I hope im mistakeing on this, but im afraid i dont. Time for me to cancell my 1 day account.

Gwyneth Llewelyn

I naturally feel encouraged that *something* is being done. Like many others, I have been griefed by the new batch of "anonymous avatars" — here one day, gone next, and no way to verify who they were, since that info is not available, not even to Linden Lab. So even if I wanted to take RL legal action, I wouldn't be able to do so, except by a very circuituous route (ie. asking that user's ISP for tracking down the IP addresses used by their customer during the period of griefing). This means a complex legal action needing an infinite amount of money — imagine how impossible to achieve that is, for someone living on a tiny, poor country somewhere in the world, dozens of thousands of kilometres away from LL's HQ. Only large corporations would be able to do something about that, so the griefing attack would have to be tagged with a really large loss of profit to make it worth the expenses.

So, it's basically sighing, crossing arms, and redo things from scratch, ignoring what happened and moving on. This is what SL currently offers.

Abuse Reporting is utterly worthless on the "one day here, gone next day" anonymous avatars. After 6 or 8 months, when the Abuse Report Team finally evaluate those griefing attacks, the user is long gone, the damage done, and no way to make good what was done.

Unlike others, I'm not pressing for better/faster abuse report processing. The more "automated" things get, the harder it is to filter out the mistakes. In my experience, too much automation relies on just and honest people being shut out of systems, while the clever, malicious ones will always be able to go through. It's like taxes; if you're an employee, you have no choice but to pay what's due (your employer will file the forms for you automatically on the Internet anyway; you've got no way to avoid that). If you're self-employed, and earn enough to get a master accountant and good tax lawyers, you'll be able to get away declaring a minimum wage, apply for government funds based on your meagre income, put all your belongings in someone else's name (say, a trust, a foundation, a non-profit association), and have a bank account on an off-shore. This is real life, where millionaires don't pay taxes because they can afford to pay for mechanisms to avoid paying them.

Transposing it into the Internet, I recently was blocked out of PayPal due to an excess of automation. PayPal relies on people keeping their information up to date, and verifying, whenever possible, how accurate that information is. By mistake, I changed the address of a PayPal account to one of my workplaces — a non-profit association. But I completely forgot that the status of a non-profit organisation in the US is completely and totally different than the one in Europe (where it's just a simple statement - not more than a checkbox on a form - when you register the organisation), and one that requires tons of validation, verification, and all sort of bureaucracy. Just by tagging by mistake the organisation as "non-profit" I was blocked out of PayPal for six months (more likely: forever, since PayPal does have the same problem as LL in reviewing exceptions to their rules). A silly mistake coming from someone not used to the US legal system. And one that will indeed make me suffer for a long time because I won't be able to use my 6-year-old PayPal account, with a lot of credibitily and high ratings anywhere, but have to rely upon a freshly created one instead. This is the result of "bad automation", and I learned my lesson: never assume that you know a different culture's rules and norms.

Linden Lab has a Teen Grid and an Adult Grid. I'm totally for keeping those separate. Most kids actually just they want to have fun with their own friends with the same age and mentality. They want to have areas where they can shoot each other and drive their vehicles or go get some cute new dresses and lovely avatars and show off. They get bored with adults and their crazy ideas (and the reverse is often true!). Separating the grids makes sense to me, but for a completely different reason. It's not really about "age", but more about "maturity". One expects a certain degree of maturity to evolve with age, but a griefer, for instance, is an example of someone who has never reached maturity and a civic responsability — but in percentage, how many people in SL are really active griefers? 0.1%?

Does this mean that we should cross our arms and forget about everything? Not at all. I think that the first, and most important aspect, is to make sure that LL complies with Californian law and US federal law. If that means more validation/verification than the one that is currently available, so let's make it stronger. A simple warning like "If you're lying about your age, your parents will be immediately notified by the FBI" is sometimes a good deterrent ;)

The next aspect is to where place the burden of immediate age verification in case of a suspected teenager on the main grid. Abuse Reports are too slow. There has to be a 24/7 "Emergency Report Team" that appears on site in less than 5 minutes whenever a teen is suspected. And the procedure should be very clear: immediate verification through a phone call or a similar system. If verification cannot be accomplished, the account should be terminated at once and the IP address greylisted (meaning that if anyone attempts to log in from there, they have to provide valid ID). But this has to be immediate; on the other hand, a perfectly legitimate adult should have a similar quick mechanism for filing their ID to LL and get it reopened almost instantly — or else, this system will naturally be abused. A good side effect of this measure is that it'll also lock out many immature adults — they will be ashamed to provide IDs (ie. everybody at LL will immediately know how immature he/she is) and will probably never return to SL again.

I'm cautious about ostracising procedures, but still unsure if Prokofy's suggestion shouldn't be implemented in the name of transparency and openness. For instance, how many abuse reports have been filed on *me*? I wish to know who accused me, and why. At the very least, like eBay or PayPal, I should be able to know what pending abuse reports are on my person — knowing that the abuse report system is one of the most abused things in SL, the more open and transparent it is, the less people will use it for abuse. Right now, all abuse reports are utterly confidential. Now imagine that everybody would know who is accusing whom — publicly — and which Linden will be assigned to the case. This would make people wary of filing abuse reports just "for the fun of it". Also, it would make people look silly if they ARed for trivial things. When submitting an abuse report (something that I take seriously), I've come up with 15-page documents with thorough explanations, over 50 references of instances of abuse, and prepare myself mentally to go over each and every one of them, to make very clear why a particular person is not fit to "live" in this virtual world, due to an utter disrespect of the rules and the communities abiding by those rules. It's not unlike filing a suit in real life; if it's worth it, you should be prepared to go to trial. Too much anonymity and double-blindedness makes the system weak, since no one will really know how just and fair it actually is.

I don't dislike the notion of having better controls to allow only "verified" users access to parcels. I understand that this "verification" is weak, but it has an advantage. It's not unlike signing up for a web service, or PayPal's own system (where the more information you provide about yourself, the more you can do). Unregistered users get limited access; registered ones get more; validated and verified users get the most access. This allows a fair degree of confidence, trading off anonymity for more access. If you don't want to give anyone your ID, you're limited in your experience of SL. But the same happens on many websites (and specially on those with mature content!). This is a familiar model to anyone who has been around on the Internet for several years.

I'll echo Kaiti's words: "I joined SL with the understanding that it was an adult platform. It wasn't that I wanted to do "adult things", it is because I don't believe that children should be on the internet unless an adult is sitting right there with them, preferably their parent." This also means that parents (and teachers) should be the ones educating their children — it's not Linden Lab that is to blame! A mechanism that allows children to participate in virtual worlds in safe environments is crucial — and it's called "Teen Grid". All that is needed is a way to make sure teenagers stay there.

Leila Bain

I am so excited to play because i signed up on the 27th and still have never logged in due to the web sites own technical dificulties. And all this morning i have also tried to sign in not relizing that the new release comes out todayand i c that the game will be closed down from 7am to 12am!!! thats just about the whole 24 hour day!! ((more disapointments for me.))

Leila Bain

by the way i am from the boston area, how did u like it here??

The comments to this entry are closed.