daisybloomer

To answer your question, the reason they need your RL ID is not only for identification purposes of who you actually are as others have mentioned, but also they will use that info to send you any tax related paperwork that would be required should your cash out and subsequent cash outs require you to report as income. You will probably even notice in the Netverify form they ask for a photocopy of some form of ID. Basically you will reveal more about yourself than the standard info. I believe they do give you a certain amount of time by which ti respond and comply and provide that info and in my understanding once that time period expires, if you choose not to provide that info they will continue to put the effected account on hold but also place a hold on any other accounts you have. You won't be able to login into SL at all. The best honestly is not to rely on SL as your source of income for living and make it a one way street with just buying only as much L as you need and not cash out if you do not want to have to provide personal information to LL.

Using this existing thread to post this, though a new topic thread can be started. But have been hearing that quite a few people with "No Payment Info On File" were able to enter Skill Gaming Regions. Does anyone know if LL is aware of this, and what is the course of recommended action that should be taken? AR report or otherwise? As I understand the policy is that only those with a payment info listed can enter these regions. Allowing these people who have somehow circumvented the system is disservice to those who are and have been following the rules when gaming.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: You do have a right to give a negative review if the problems you found with it are about quality, misrepresentation, or material facts about the product that were not disclosed prior to purchase, however why do you think it's fair that some one buy something when the price and perms are clearly disclosed and then complain about it in a poor review? Don't buy it if you don't like it. I agree with this to an extent, depending if your definition of clearly also means that the permissions are stated in the Description part of the listing also. There have been some occasions where the standard permissions information that is part of the template of the listing had been indicated incorrectly. Furthermore, going on the details that have been mentioned in this thread, I think the creator went a little overboard on the reaction to the negative review by also including a ban from their inworld store. Unless there were some details that haven't been disclosed yet that warranted this extra action, removal of the comment and working with the customer to find a resonable solution would have been adequate enough. The creator only amplified and drew much more attention to the problem than he/she was otherwise hoping to suppress.

Bobbie, that is wonderful to hear, especially your talent for knitting. You are a perfect example of someone who even though disabled still makes an effort to balance between the time on SL and finding other enjoyable things to do outside of it in RL along with your daily routine. The only point I was trying to make in my original opinion was that those that have or don't have a disability not try to use that as an excuse to legitimize spending extra long periods of time in SL at the expense of neglecting RL. One example I can give you, is someone I use to know who was disabled who spent 8-10 hours in SL a day. That doesn't leave much room to do much else. It started to affect her physically and mentally and when asked why don't you switch things up a bit and have more of a balance with some RL things, she simply said because she was disabled and didn't have much more reaction, interest or motivation to explore anything non-SL related. In the end, her husband had to intervene and help her get more balanced in her life.

Pamela Galli wrote: It is you who seem to be missing the point, which is that no one here considers himself accountable to you for how he spends his time, and therefore is not in need of any pass, free or otherwise, from you. Pamela, in case you haven't figured it out yet, I was only stating an opinion. I did not go writing it as a rule or order that needed to have been followed and carried out after my posting. No need to get so defensive and personal about it.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: And just how easy is it for a wheelchair bound person to get out and about in the winter with 4 feet of snow on the ground? Are you disabled? You do know there are thousands of types of disabilities, right? Take someone who is severely agoraphobic. They can barely walk outside of their house. FUlly functional body, terrifying fear. So, tell me, how do they explore the world? You are coming off as a very smug person telling others what to do with their lives. I think you missed my point. I did not say they shouldn't be in SL period. I am saying that if they are disabled it is not a free pass to spend an even larger portion of their daily life in SL at the expense of RL. Both your examples of being wheelchair bound or agoraphobic have RL treatments and solutions. And if they still want to be in SL fine, but it does not mean just because of their conditions it is good for them to be in SL 80% of the time daily. I do know quite a few people with disabilties and they try to make every day count. Most are not SL users.

Pamela Galli wrote: Same here -- there is no reason to separate my life into parts like that. My RL job is SL. So how exactly would I go about separating my life into compartments? The question is asking how many hours you spend in RL and how many hours you spend in SL on a daily basis. That means how many hours you spend at the computer actively doing stuff in SL versus stuff completely unrelated to SL either at or not at the computer..

Bobbie Faulds wrote: Be careful of stereotypes. Many in SL are disabled and have limited transportation. SL becomes their window to the world, if you will. I fall into this category. I've interacted with people from around the world. Just saying That is not a good excuse to be in SL a whole lot more and limit themselves in RL If they are capable of logging on to a computer and have some mobility with their arms and legs, there are still many things in RL they can do and explore. SL would be an added bonus not a substitute. The only people that would qualify where they could not do anything in RL would be if they are severly paralyzed or in a medically unconscious state.

Charli Infinity wrote: so it's taboo to ask how much time people spend on SL...silly if don't want to share then just don't answer don't have to get defensive and i thought here people were proud of being on sl because because sl is sogreat and there's so much to do and all Charli, I think it's a fantastic topic thread to create. I am surprised there aren't more serious responses to it. My opinions only, but those that would get defensive or find the question humorous are likely spending their time in that 70% SL/30% RL proportion you mentioned and would feel embarassed to come out and answer the question straightforward. The topic does have a level of seriousness to it as there are quite a number of users whose RL has been significantly impacted (more so negatively) as a result of how much time they spent in SL As for me, the ratio of time I spend would probably be just the flip of what you mentioned, 70% RL/30% SL. It is just an temporary escape for relaxation and to hone creativity and imagination for me. A healthy balance is best and as the saying goes "You can't have a second life if you don't have a real life first."

Magadski, if you are debating about losing that mainland parcel or not, I would suggest to let it go if you are needing to downgrade to the Basic Membership. Unless there is an absolute necessity to hold on to it, you will lose a lot more money than L$3500 in the long run if you keep it and the Premium Membership. Someone in this thread suggested to sell it first before you downgrade. That is a good suggestion but would add that I would try to sell it up until the point prior to the expiration of your current cycle in your Premium Membership. This would ensure you don't lose more money if you are tight financially. Finally, as someone else also mentioned, there are indeed plenty of other nice lands available (even with the same size that you have) that you can rent with a Basic Membership.

VillaDiVerona, after reading your post two suggestions come to mind that might temporarily ease things a bit there while you wait for a response from LL. 1. If you haven't already done so, the person's avatar and their two script heavy alts need to be region banned. If you are the owner of that sim/region/estate just go into the Region Settings and ban from there. This ensures he and his alts can't tp in at all. If you are not the sim owner then you'll have to contact the person who is and have them add the names to the ban list. 2. Assumng the person will likely come with other alts once banned, I would purchase and set down a script monitoring item and set it to automatically kick anyone out who exceeds a certain amount of memory usage in scripts. So regardless how many alts he uses and how script heavy he wants to be, he gets a free ride back to his home location. Hope this helps and good luck...

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Kelli May wrote: GingerHenderson wrote: Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group. It is Mainland. Mr Accused can ban whomever he likes from his parcel, assuming he doesn't use any kind of security orb that extends beyond his borders. Assuming that, the author of the note doesn't have any kind of complaint to base his threats on. Even assuming he had a valid complaint, he should be ARing Mr Accused, not making threats to 'set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here'. Mr. Accusor would also be entirely within HIS rights to put up an obnoxious eyesore on his property, though. Also, many people who live on the Mainland do so to operate vehicles. Banning by name creates an impenetrable wall and the implication is that Mr. Accused is doing this only to inconvenience the members of Mr. Accusor's group, and not because of anything they've done. It sounds like this is either a case of "blockbreaking" by Mr. Accused or "extortion" by Mr. Accusor. Of course, we don't know the actual facts of this case. AAANNNDDD this is why Linden Lab doesn't get involved in resident-resident disputes. And this is exactly why I asked for clarification earlier. Everything we say right now is on assumptions and what could be. Too much gray area until she can give more details.

Could you describe a little more how the 3 of you neighbors (the accuser, accused neighbor and yourself) are exactly situated? I ask this because if the accused neighbor is banning only on his/her parcel, I do not see how that becomes an issue for the other neighbor who wrote the notecard.

RIP Joe Cocker...you are up where you belong...in heaven... Up Where We Belong (1982) Grammy Award - Academy Award - Platinum - International Hit Song

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Still you are asking people who pay a fortune for land to give part of it up for public use but still pay for it, which is great if they choose to, but if they don't want to they shouldn't be condemned by the people who want to boat. Don't forget that if this is a renter, and if it is explicitly stated in the rules or covenant of that estate that ban lines cannot be used or certain amount of prims needed to be given up for public use of the waterways then that supercedes any "I pay so therefore I am entitled" logic or mentality. My opinion on the matter is ban lines are not so much a nuisance as long as it's used in a respectful manner to everyone around or have a very valid reason for doing so, and not because the resident suffers from paranoia or has their stupid hat on.