liar liar checkboxes (or something (: )

[161488303349]

in this other post is about tickboxes. so I been thinking (:

when start the viewer first time for any new account (incl. alt) is a single tick box. agree to ToS or cant login

but is obvious this not working. people not read the ToS obvious. sooooo,,,,

+

- for each clause in ToS have to have a checkbox. so have to go and tick them all or cant login

- also for each clause then maybe people not read or understand. so is type box under each. and you have to type in your own words what you think it means. is restriction as well to block copy pasta. and cant use more than 20% of words and phrases in the clause. like have to say your own words sentences or cant tick

- then when you inworld the system checks against what you wrote. like for everything all the time. and when you don't conform to what you wrote then it goes: LIAR !!! LIAR !!!

jejejejejje (:  

[mikka Luik]

Best response Ever =^^=

[Ariel Vuissent]

Be completely honest: Do you read the Terms of Service and other agreements, thoroughly and in their entirety, before you check the box that says you agree? For every website you go to that asks you to do so? Every time? And would you write a short answer essay for every single section before you could log on and use that website?

Besides which, I think that in order for that idea to work, there would have to be someone on the other end reading all of those responses and choosing wht met the qualifications and who didn't - a time consuming process at the least. I don't think it is as easy as you make it sound to code something that would determine if you had used the correct words, without repeating more than a certain number of words, etc. before you could tick a box.

I don't think that system is honestly workable. I think that anyone who does follow the rules would be penalized by this system, and those who don't follow the rules would find ways to get around that. The ToS exists to protect LL, so that when those things happen they can say "Well, we TOLD them not to do that." It's legal protection for them, primarily.

I DO agree that we could use some provisions to help prevent griefers, though. I honestly don't know what would be a workable system, however, that wouldn't punish honest users.

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

in this other post is about tickboxes. so I been thinking (:

when start the viewer first time for any new account (incl. alt) is a single tick box. agree to ToS or cant login

but is obvious this not working. people not read the ToS obvious. sooooo,,,,

+

- for each clause in ToS have to have a checkbox. so have to go and tick them all or cant login

- also for each clause then maybe people not read or understand. so is type box under each. and you have to type in your own words what you think it means. is restriction as well to block copy pasta. and cant use more than 20% of words and phrases in the clause. like have to say your own words sentences or cant tick

- then when you inworld the system checks against what you wrote. like for everything all the time. and when you don't conform to what you wrote then it goes: LIAR !!! LIAR !!!

jejejejejje (:  

---

First we make people labor for an hour trying to think of a name that no one else has ever used before.

Then we give them a test and have them write an essay before they can log in.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????????

Though the check box idea may not be so bad.

 

Punishment for violation could be  floating text above the Ava that every one can see customized to the violation.  "Thief, Liar, Pervert........................etc, etc."

 

 

[Malanya]

LOL

[Malanya]

Actually I read everything I am going to use a payment source with, otherwise, no I can't say I do, and it's my fault if i don't.

[Ansariel Hiller]

Why not make a radiobutton? "Do you want to cause drama or become a griefer? Yes / No". If you chose yes, you get the proper griefer avatar with all the naughty griefer objects and don't have to search for them before you can start to execute your evil plans!

[Ariel Vuissent]

I read if I intend to use a payment source, yes. But when I signed up for SL, I didn't intend to do so. I skimmed the important bits and mostly read the community guidelines, but really, it's all largely common sense anyway. Because that sort of thing is almost entirely common sense and things we learned in kindergarten, I can't say I fully read the guidelines until I added a payment method over a year later.

 

[Six Igaly]

Read correcly nevervsaid my partner Dont rush take your time

[Storm Clarence]

---

Ansariel Hiller wrote:

Why not make a radiobutton?

"Do you want to cause drama or become a griefer?

Yes / No". If you chose yes, you get the proper griefer avatar with all the naughty griefer objects and don't have to search for them before you can start to execute your evil plans!

---

You lump these together a little too easily.  Drama can be avoided... griefing can not.  There is a huge difference between the two... 

[Dillon Levenque]

Absolutely. Can't imagine why nobody thought of that before. It's so better than 'Are you sure?'; everybody always just clicks through those.:smileyhappy:

[Malanya]

Oh I agree with you. I don't think most people read everything when they sign up for things, a lot of time there is so much to read seems like skimming over at best takes a lot of time

[161488303349]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Punishment for violation could be  floating text above the Ava that every one can see customized to the violation.  "Thief, Liar, Pervert........................etc, etc."

  

---

ooo! leveling. I like that. I want. I try and win all them levels.just so I can have

just so that when someone says: you pervert !!! then I can say yussss !!! am certified even. not like you. you fake pervert (:

then they say lol you not a actual pervert you doof! then I can say: imma certified liar as well. look !!! title title !!!

(:

 

 

 

[161488303349]

yes you quite right. is kinda serious things are ToS and contract docs. and you right about the difficulties in getting people to first read. and then understand them. sometimes

+

is all kinds of things that providers have tried

one time. cant remember now exactly who. but on that software when the ToS window came up then had to scroll to the bottom before the Accept button enable

so for quite a lot of users it end up meaning: Yes I accept that i must scroll to the bottom to push the go button  

[161488303349]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Absolutely. Can't imagine why nobody thought of that before. It's so better than 'Are you sure?'; everybody always just clicks through those.:smileyhappy:

---

yes exactly. like it should go:

Are you sure? yes/no 

yes

Are you really sure? yes/no

yes

Really really? can change your mind if you want? yes/no

no

So you don't want to change your mind then? yes/no

no

Ok! awesome! so you ready to proceed then? yes/no

yes

Even more awesome !! would you like to help us with your login experience? yes/no

no

Are you sure? yes/no

SMASH !!! SAMASH !!!! SAAAAAMASH !!!

(:

 

 

[Lynda Baran]

Why not just make everyone submit, by certified mail, a sworn and notarized affidavit that they've read the TOS?

Then, a griefer couldn't create an account and get on line 2 hours later. 

It would take a couple weeks, and if they violated the TOS you could have them prosecuted for perjury and sent to prison.

Makes about as much sense.

[Suspiria Finucane]

[161488303349]

---

Lynda Baran wrote:

Why not just make everyone submit, by certified mail, a sworn and notarized affidavit that they've read the TOS?

Then, a griefer couldn't create an account and get on line 2 hours later. 

It would take a couple weeks, and if they violated the TOS you could have them prosecuted for perjury and sent to prison.

Makes about as much sense.

---

or ..... !!! (:

could make everyone sit an exam. like every 3 months

is all these ex helpery people who kinda underutilized/unemployed these days. could get them to administer the examination. probably be heaps of other people lined up for the job as well

specially if they got a title off linden for over their head. say umm!!: SecondLife ToS Examiner

now obvious they will get disrespected by all them nawti people. like get called ToSspots or something equally rude. so have to make that a crime as well in the ToS

q: (:

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

---

Ansariel Hiller wrote:

Why not make a radiobutton? "Do you want to cause drama or become a griefer? Yes / No". If you chose yes, you get the proper griefer avatar with all the naughty griefer objects and don't have to search for them before you can start to execute your evil plans!

---

This is a great idea! Combine this with leveling-up: Monitor everybody for griefer prowess and when they unlock achievements, whisk them off to other grids where they can compete with those at the same skill level.

[Perrie Juran]

---

16 wrote:

yes you quite right. is kinda serious things are ToS and contract docs. and you right about the difficulties in getting people to first read. and then understand them. sometimes

+

is all kinds of things that providers have tried

one time. cant remember now exactly who. but on that software when the ToS window came up then had to scroll to the bottom before the Accept button enable

so for quite a lot of users it end up meaning: Yes I accept that i must scroll to the bottom to push the go button  

---

"is kinda serious things are ToS and contract docs."

You are very right about this.  And the problem is that people too often don't take them seriously.  Especially when it comes to things on the Internet.  People sign up for SL thinking "just a game" so nothing will really matter.  Then they get a rude awakening.

[Jadeclaw Denfu]

Ariel Vuissent wrote: "Be completely honest: Do you read the Terms of Service and other agreements, thoroughly and in their entirety, before you check the box that says you agree?"

When real money is involved or the account is important for other reasons.

Ariel Vuissant wrote: "I DO agree that we could use some provisions to help prevent griefers, though. I honestly don't know what would be a workable system, however, that wouldn't punish honest users."

I know one: An AR-Team, that acts quickly (less than 2 hours in all cases).
In many cases, litter and griefer devices are still up a week after sending the report.
That is waaayyy too long to have any serious impact on griefing.

 

 

 

[161488303349]

---

Jadeclaw Denfu wrote:

I know one: An AR-Team, that acts quickly (less than 2 hours in all cases).

 

---

i vote for that plan

[Heart Brimmer]

---

Ariel Vuissent wrote:

Be completely honest: Do you read the Terms of Service and other agreements, thoroughly and in their entirety, before you check the box that says you agree? For every website you go to that asks you to do so? Every time? And would you write a short answer essay for every single section before you could log on and use that website?

Besides which, I think that in order for that idea to work, there would have to be someone on the other end reading all of those responses and choosing wht met the qualifications and who didn't - a time consuming process at the least. I don't think it is as easy as you make it sound to code something that would determine if you had used the correct words, without repeating more than a certain number of words, etc. before you could tick a box.

I don't think that system is honestly workable. I think that anyone who does follow the rules would be penalized by this system, and those who don't follow the rules would find ways to get around that. The ToS exists to protect LL, so that when those things happen they can say "Well, we TOLD them not to do that." It's legal protection for them, primarily.

I DO agree that we could use some provisions to help prevent griefers, though. I honestly don't know what would be a workable system, however, that wouldn't punish honest users.

---

Emphasis mine. Yes I do read every TOS that pops up on ANY website that I visit, but I am in the legal field so it is habit for me to read legal things and IF more people would just read a little bit more, perhaps there wouldn't be such tantrums when they screw up and get banned. LOL. 

I do know that for the most part people just skim over things but honestly, I just think it's laziness on their part. What you don't read COULD get you in trouble. 

[Malanya]

---

Heart Brimmer wrote:

---

Ariel Vuissent wrote:

Be completely honest: Do you read the Terms of Service and other agreements, thoroughly and in their entirety, before you check the box that says you agree? For every website you go to that asks you to do so? Every time? And would you write a short answer essay for every single section before you could log on and use that website?

Besides which, I think that in order for that idea to work, there would have to be someone on the other end reading all of those responses and choosing wht met the qualifications and who didn't - a time consuming process at the least. I don't think it is as easy as you make it sound to code something that would determine if you had used the correct words, without repeating more than a certain number of words, etc. before you could tick a box.

I don't think that system is honestly workable. I think that anyone who does follow the rules would be penalized by this system, and those who don't follow the rules would find ways to get around that. The ToS exists to protect LL, so that when those things happen they can say "Well, we TOLD them not to do that." It's legal protection for them, primarily.

I DO agree that we could use some provisions to help prevent griefers, though. I honestly don't know what would be a workable system, however, that wouldn't punish honest users.

---

Emphasis mine. Yes I do read every TOS that pops up on ANY website that I visit, but I am in the legal field so it is habit for me to read legal things and IF more people would just read a little bit more, perhaps there wouldn't be such tantrums when they screw up and get banned. LOL. 

I do know that for the most part people just skim over things but honestly, I just think it's laziness on their part. What you don't read COULD get you in trouble. 

---

I wouldn't generalize all of us as being lazy that don't read everything on certain things again...that don't pertain to anything monetary, that's a poor generalization. Maybe you being in the legal field look at things differently. If I didn't have any money invested in SL and did something I skimmed over I would not complain if something happened to me unfavorable, as I stated in an earlier post, it would be MY fault and accept responsibility and move on. I would not take laziness and compare it to what some people may feel not pertinent to things that are used for leisure again with no investment. I do agree that your habit of reading everything is a very good one to have.

[Dillon Levenque]

 

---

Malanya wrote:

I wouldn't generalize all of us as being lazy that don't read everything on certain things again...that don't pertain to anything monetary, that's a poor generalization. Maybe you being in the legal field look at things differently. If I didn't have any money invested in SL and did something I skimmed over I would not complain if something happened to me unfavorable, as I stated in an earlier post, it would be MY fault and accept responsibility and move on. I would not take laziness and compare it to what some people may feel not pertinent to things that are used for leisure again with no investment. I do agree that your habit of reading everything is a very good one to have.

---

 

When I first started reading your comment I was about to argue with you but after reading it in its entirety (no points for not being 'lazy': it was only a short paragraph) we agree. I was going to say that while I don't always read every single term, I am fully aware that I might get bitten for not having done so, and that's exactly what you said also. I think people who expect to behave in what a reasonable person might consider a reasonable fashion are usually safe from overstepping the bounds, and on the odd occasion when it does happen, we just have to take our lumps for not reading the rules.

We're not lazy. We're just in a hurry, and we are willing to suffer the consequences for missing something, if that happens.