Jump to content
JoiMarie

Can I stop NO PAYMENT ON FILE persons from IMing me?

Recommended Posts

This is why I think avatar age and the payment info thing should be removed from profiles. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

This is why I think avatar age and the payment info thing should be removed from profiles. 

Why?  Because clubs or parcel owners can block those with no payment info on file or what?

I personally think 'payment info on file' is really no one else's business but mine and should be removed.

They could replace it with 18+ instead because you can block avatars that are not 18+ by checking MUST BE 18+.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, FairreLilette said:

Why?  Because clubs or parcel owners can block those with no payment info on file or what?

I personally think 'payment info on file' is really no one else's business but mine and should be removed.

They could replace it with 18+ instead because you can block avatars that are not 18+ by checking MUST BE 18+.  

I think club and parcel owners should be able to block whoever they want, I just don't think these things need to be publicly viewable on a person's profile. 

The age thing causes all sorts of snobbery, and no one really needs to know how long a person's avatar as existed. The payment info thing is just not necessary, and like you said, not really anyone's business. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Talligurl said:

Obviously if they have no payment on file there is very little chance she will get any money from them. To be honest I am less likely to speak with someone with no payment on file as well.

I know a few very long timers that do not have payment on file, but have lots of L$.  They use a separate account as their bank and log that account in to buy L$ to then give to them. Some see that approach as an additional layer of security.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Geeze, if I stopped talking to alts and noobs, I wouldn't talk to ANYONE!

'Cept Maddy, maybe.

Well maybe you should try talking with people instead of to or at them. :D

/me runs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I know a few very long timers that do not have payment on file, but have lots of L$.  They use a separate account as their bank and log that account in to buy L$ to then give to them. Some see that approach as an additional layer of security.

I do that. I have a sugar mommy account to bring money into LL (which I haven't done in years). She's the only one of my alts that's not on my friends list. I don't think I've ever moved that avatar, preferring to see where she ends up when LL closes the regions she was on.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting request/proposal.

I suspect payment info on file isn't a terribly strong indicator of the quality of messages coming from an account. But there's value in letting individuals have the tools to make their own choices. For example, the more heavily griefed sandboxes have had good success with requiring manual invites for people without payment info on file.

If you had the ability to restrict IMs from users without PIOF, how would you want that to work if you had sent an IM to the non-PIOF person first? Or if you had sent them L$ or inventory? Would that exempt them?

How would you want this to work with ad-hoc chats? (For example, chats created by selecting a group of contact cards)

Presumably you would also want anyone on your friend list to be exempt as well. Are there other users who should be exempt?

Also, how big of a problem is this really solving? How many of you are frequently approached by a series of fresh anonymous accounts, and how big of a deal is it for you to block them?

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I know a few very long timers that do not have payment on file, but have lots of L$.  They use a separate account as their bank and log that account in to buy L$ to then give to them. Some see that approach as an additional layer of security.

Giant Cookie Winner! This and my original accounts have payment info on file because Premium and stuff. But my (admittedly: rarely used) Mermaid alt has never had any payment info on file, is just as "old" in SL age as my others and yet she is decked out a heckofalot more costly than pretty much every other mermaid I've ever seen (I tend to go overboard with attention to detail, I suppose).

The payment info on file, I think, was more useful WAY back, like when I first came in (2005-6) though I don't remember exactly why. But it was a criteria that was actually useful to know and I think it had a lot to do with SL business. But nevertheless, these days it should not be used as judgment criteria in the least.

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soft Linden said:

Also, how big of a problem is this really solving? How many of you are frequently approached by a series of fresh anonymous accounts, and how big of a deal is it for you to block them?

uhhuh.gif.06b90c7d72a875843ddc803765338f1d.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beth Macbain said:

I think club and parcel owners should be able to block whoever they want, I just don't think these things need to be publicly viewable on a person's profile. 

The age thing causes all sorts of snobbery, and no one really needs to know how long a person's avatar as existed. The payment info thing is just not necessary, and like you said, not really anyone's business. 

In some cases it's snobbery, but in others it's not. For example the longterm RP. From my personal experience (yours or others' experience may vary, of course) the week old NPIOF accounts (usually wearing all latest mesh/skins/aos) are way more likely to disappear without a reason/warning, than established ones (year+) with payment info.

A cookie cutter new account is around 10-12k L$ if you don't try to save up and get cheaper alternatives for the body/head/ao. 40-50$ is not too much for some people to make those what I call throwaway accounts all the time, on weekly basis. In cases if it's a random chat or random *anything* for the night, I don't really care myself, as long as I like the avi, RP/emoting etc. But if it's something that requires more investment from my part, time and efforts wise, then yes, I'd rather not deal with those throwaway accounts myself.

Of course there's no guarantee even with old accounts, that it's not *aged throwaway account* that someone remembered about recently and there are always other factors, like RL, PC/internet issues and more, so sometimes people vanish anyway. But again, from my experience it's the "noob accounts" that tend to do it lots more often.

 

Edited by steeljane42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it could be temporarily useful when being targeted by someone creating new accounts specifically to harass you. But in that case restricting messages to friends would pretty much achieve the same thing. Whilst there are persistent griefers around, I would hope most would be tired after a week or month. Just curious now I am thinking about this, does someone blocked when only accepting friend messages get anything back that their message hasn't beeb delivered? 

Edited by Aethelwine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

There is no reason to block all NPIOF accounts just because some NPIOF account IM'd something bad to you.

I think there are plenty of NPIOFs (love that name) who would have offered a great benefit to the OP. Think about all the people who could help you out with customer support and other services, you're now missing out on. It's an underbelly versus neocortex decision kind of thing, IMHO. What did they call this again in sociology? 'Generalization', or 'stereotyping', maybe.

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Soft Linden said:

This is an interesting request/proposal.

I suspect payment info on file isn't a terribly strong indicator of the quality of messages coming from an account. But there's value in letting individuals have the tools to make their own choices. For example, the more heavily griefed sandboxes have had good success with requiring manual invites for people without payment info on file.

If you had the ability to restrict IMs from users without PIOF, how would you want that to work if you had sent an IM to the non-PIOF person first? Or if you had sent them L$ or inventory? Would that exempt them?

How would you want this to work with ad-hoc chats? (For example, chats created by selecting a group of contact cards)

Presumably you would also want anyone on your friend list to be exempt as well. Are there other users who should be exempt?

Also, how big of a problem is this really solving? How many of you are frequently approached by a series of fresh anonymous accounts, and how big of a deal is it for you to block them?

I read the responses and was amused at the imagination of what kind of person I am for wanting to block such people. A few posts even suggested ideas about my name, which is actually only an abbreviation of Josephine Marie, my real name.

The reason I want to get away from NPIOFs is mostly because when I am exploring/traveling I've encountered many NPIOFs who were aggressive. The post here that suggested they ask for sex immediately is just about came closest to the issue. They ask for everything- money, too. And do I think these people are actually new? Who would? Recall what it is to be a noob? How likely were you to bounce into SL and start immediately asking for sex and money? Not likely.

 

Next, when someone here is 12 years old and they have NPIOF in their account, it's kind of obvious they are on an alt. Do I hate them for being on an alt? No. They can be perfectly legitimate, though I personally don't trust them, nor do I care to engage with them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/28/2019 at 1:33 PM, JoiMarie said:

Is there a way to halt people with "No Payment on File" in their profiles from being able to contact me? 

I know there is a way to restrict contact to friends list, but I really only want to halt the alts/noobs from IMing me.

 

 

 
I wrote this response to soft Linden:           
 
I read the responses and was amused at the imagination of what kind of person I am for wanting to block such people. A few posts even suggested ideas about my name, which is actually only an abbreviation of Josephine Marie, my real name.
 
The reason I want to get away from NPIOFs is mostly because when I am exploring/traveling I've encountered many NPIOFs who were aggressive. The post here that suggested they ask for sex immediately is just about came closest to the issue. They ask for everything- money, too. And do I think these people are actually new? Who would? Recall what it is to be a noob? How likely were you to bounce into SL and start immediately asking for sex and money? Not likely.
 
Next, when someone here is 12 years old and they have NPIOF in their account, it's kind of obvious they are on an alt. Do I hate them for being on an alt? No. They can be perfectly legitimate, though I personally don't trust them, nor do I care to engage them. Blocking such avs is is only a feature I wish was offered. I am not suggesting everyone employ such a feature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JoiMarie said:

I read the responses and was amused at the imagination of what kind of person I am for wanting to block such people. A few posts even suggested ideas about my name, which is actually only an abbreviation of Josephine Marie, my real name.

The reason I want to get away from NPIOFs is mostly because when I am exploring/traveling I've encountered many NPIOFs who were aggressive. The post here that suggested they ask for sex immediately is just about came closest to the issue. They ask for everything- money, too. And do I think these people are actually new? Who would? Recall what it is to be a noob? How likely were you to bounce into SL and start immediately asking for sex and money? Not likely.

 

Next, when someone here is 12 years old and they have NPIOF in their account, it's kind of obvious they are on an alt. Do I hate them for being on an alt? No. They can be perfectly legitimate, though I personally don't trust them, nor do I care to engage with them. 

Oh, I kind of thought it might be that as well with the "slex" thing.  I have encountered it as well a few times with noobs (2 or 3 day old avi's)...not a lot though.  

Also, most noobs know to go to London City...that's where I started.  London City was very friendly and had a lot of people able to help.  London City is for newbies.  I felt comfortable there. 

There is not much of a solution when traveling or exploring because even if you turn on the friends only can contact me for a short time, then sim owners cannot contact you either.  

Edited by FairreLilette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Soft Linden said:

This is an interesting request/proposal.

I suspect payment info on file isn't a terribly strong indicator of the quality of messages coming from an account. But there's value in letting individuals have the tools to make their own choices. For example, the more heavily griefed sandboxes have had good success with requiring manual invites for people without payment info on file.

If you had the ability to restrict IMs from users without PIOF, how would you want that to work if you had sent an IM to the non-PIOF person first? Or if you had sent them L$ or inventory? Would that exempt them?

How would you want this to work with ad-hoc chats? (For example, chats created by selecting a group of contact cards)

Presumably you would also want anyone on your friend list to be exempt as well. Are there other users who should be exempt?

Also, how big of a problem is this really solving? How many of you are frequently approached by a series of fresh anonymous accounts, and how big of a deal is it for you to block them?

If I were a Linden and the tech person that sets these up, I'd likely set it up like this:

The simple and best solution:

A "Block IM from NPIOF" actually acts more like BUSY MODE: The IM comes through, but no doorbell, no blinkie tabs, no visual or audio indicators at all. (This would likely be the easiest to implement and also have the best balance: A "busy mode" but only for NPIOF-initiated IMs and Inventory offers (straight to trash)) - and does not apply to group notices and chats. And if interaction happens then that IM is "unlocked" (acts normal) for the full logged-in session and does not reset until the user relogs (for that specific IM with that person.) Offer an optional auto-reply sentence created by the user.

Though if I were to get silly-detailed on it, then the rules could be like these. If "No IM from NPIOF Persons" is turned ON (do not want):

  • NPIOF Cannot initiate an IM, however this person can always initiate an IM to NPIOF - IM will stay alive during this logged-in session (relog to reset)
  • Friends can be set to always allow IM initiation, even if NPIOF
  • Can create ad-hoc IM chats that include NPIOF (as per #1 above) - and also be invited to ad-hoc chats created by others, even if it include NPIOF persons, as long as the one doing the invitation is not NPIOF; it the person doing the invitation is NPIOF then unable to invite this person; rule stands.
  • Sending inventory items, Linden Dollars, Friendship requests, any other interaction invokes rule #1 above.
  • Group notices and group chats are immune to this setting and NPIOF restriction never applies.

This is how I would set it up.

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoiMarie said:

I read the responses and was amused at the imagination of what kind of person I am for wanting to block such people. A few posts even suggested ideas about my name, which is actually only an abbreviation of Josephine Marie, my real name.

The reason I want to get away from NPIOFs is mostly because when I am exploring/traveling I've encountered many NPIOFs who were aggressive. The post here that suggested they ask for sex immediately is just about came closest to the issue. They ask for everything- money, too. And do I think these people are actually new? Who would? Recall what it is to be a noob? How likely were you to bounce into SL and start immediately asking for sex and money? Not likely.

 

Next, when someone here is 12 years old and they have NPIOF in their account, it's kind of obvious they are on an alt. Do I hate them for being on an alt? No. They can be perfectly legitimate, though I personally don't trust them, nor do I care to engage with them. 

Soft's last name is Linden, which means he is not only a Linden Lab employee, he also happens to be in charge of security, the very department that implements such "fixes".

Soft will go to bat for you IF the situation calls for it. Your life is not in any kind of danger the way mine was during the RedZone fiasco. 

Neither LL, nor Soft, is going to deploy a "feature" simply on the demand of one customer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JoiMarie said:

Next, when someone here is 12 years old and they have NPIOF in their account, it's kind of obvious they are on an alt. Do I hate them for being on an alt? No. They can be perfectly legitimate, though I personally don't trust them, nor do I care to engage with them.

So, no matter how obvious it is, that they are on an alt, they are not trustworthy?

 

The reason why people got so heavly into discussing your reasons for wanting to block everyone without PIOF is, that there are basically two main options of it: a) desperate attempt to stop stalking/harassement or b) huge snob with lots of prejudice. The second option rubs people the wrong way and...is sadly not less likely than the first.

Others have said it already: Its not possible to do that, but I would say you should really consider if the benefit would be worth it for you. You would cut out a huge portion of SLs population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic has brought to my attention though...why do we have PIOF in our profiles?

What is it's purpose?

It seems to me something that should be our own business and kept private.  

Maybe just age verified 18+ is better and something to consider. 

You wouldn't have to have PIOF to be verified 18+, you could send in your driver's license for example.

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should have a way to block people by various attributes such as piof, join date, chosen gender, what groups they are in, what they are wearing, height, country, last name, etc. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...