Open letter to Linden Lab: Enforcing policies?

[Dorientje Woller]

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk". Does it harm your experience of SL? Is it so hard to log back into SL and pick up where you have left? Wonders how you react when you go afk on a place that is hit with a rolling update and force you to log off? It's a setting that you user can use, not forced upon you.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 minute ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

ssshhhhhh, i won't tell on you if you don't tell on me  

Though in thinking about it, I mostly do not have more than 5 "per email"

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

13 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

My guess is that because we no longer can talk about politics, religion or anything unrelated to SL that some people, that love to debate and argue, have taken to now giving LL what they asked for .

A lot of boards disallow discussion on controversial topics like politics, etc. Even the amateur radio board I'm a Mod on disallows that. Too many feelings get hurt. There are boards on the big wide web made for those topics and leave the other boards like the amateur radio board for radio stuff, this board for SL/Lab stuff and so on.

[Kathlen Onyx]

4 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

LOLOLOLOL

We won't talk about how many accounts I currently have.

SO...It's ok for you to skirt the rules but not other people?  It's kind of hard to ask LL to uphold the TOS when you are violating it yourself.  How would everyone feel if LL actually policed that and (poof) all your avatars that were created after five suddenly disappeared?

Edited January 23, 2023 by Sam1 Bellisserian

[Sid Nagy]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

LOLOLOLOL

We won't talk about how many accounts I currently have.

I'm within the guidelines.
Some of my former alts used to live next door with my neighbors.
Nowadays I only have three avatars.
 

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, Dorientje Woller said:

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk". Does it harm your experience of SL? Is it so hard to log back into SL and pick up where you have left? Wonders how you react when you go afk on a place that is hit with a rolling update and force you to log off? It's a setting that you user can use, not forced upon you.

There was a time when you couldn't turn the option off like you can now in the TPVs and it was also in the official viewer. The majority of the residents didn't like that and LL fixed things so that we could opt out of being logged off. We aren't going to give that up for the few. We had to fight to get it and we will fight to keep it.

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk".

My previous comment was due to me being against the idea of an LL enforced logoff after some period of inactivity -- not tied to a user setting.

 

[Sid Nagy]

5 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk". Does it harm your experience of SL? Is it so hard to log back into SL and pick up where you have left? Wonders how you react when you go afk on a place that is hit with a rolling update and force you to log off? It's a setting that you user can use, not forced upon you.

A bot with even only a tiny bit of self respect will log itself in automatically  as soon  as it is logged out (region restarts for instance)

Edited January 23, 2023 by Sid Nagy

[CaithLynnSayes]

1 minute ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk". Does it harm your experience of SL? Is it so hard to log back into SL and pick up where you have left? Wonders how you react when you go afk on a place that is hit with a rolling update and force you to log off? It's a setting that you user can use, not forced upon you.

I don't think there is a backlash against it. It just won't defeat the bots and i think that's the reason it was proposed.

[Rowan Amore]

7 minutes ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

No you can't

"You are allowed to create 5 accounts per household" - Source: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Alt_account_policies

Yet another policy that will never be enforced especially with a.lot of them being premium accounts.

  Only policies.that don't directly effect our bottom line will be enforced.

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

SO...It's ok for you to skirt the rules but not other people?  It's kind of hard to ask LL to uphold the TOS when you are violating it yourself.  How would everyone feel if LL actually policed that and (poof) all your avatars that were created after five suddenly disappeared?

It's all about INTENT.  

However, so I'm not seeming hypocritical, I'll go create a new email address and modify the few accounts that are passed the "5 per email" limit. 

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

And their response is to lock the threads. Doesn't look good for LL. 

I'm pretty sure that locking a thread on a gaming platform is the least of LL's worries.  98% of users don't even use the forum.

[Prokofy Neva]

8 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Is there an option in the linden official viewer search to use traffic as a factor? I can't find one.. It's definitely not putting up the same results as my classic search in places is in my third party viewer  that I have set to traffic..

If there isn't one and it only exists in 3rd party viewers, do we really want them eliminating things from those viewers? because they may just find more than traffic  to start to work on fixing.

This is all based on if there isn't a way to use traffic in the official viewer, because i can't find one..

LL can use traffic as one of the factors for their search algorithms, which they do not disclose. Just because it doesn't show in search on the regular viewer doesn't mean it isn't used.

[Kathlen Onyx]

6 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

It's all about INTENT.  

However, so I'm not seeming hypocritical, I'll go create a new email address and modify the few accounts that are passed the "5 per email" limit. 

From what CaithLynnSayes posted it's "five per household" not email address

Sorry, I got the name wrong.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Sam1 Bellisserian

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said:

Don't understand the "backlash" against a timer that you as user can set to log off in event of going "afk". Does it harm your experience of SL? Is it so hard to log back into SL and pick up where you have left? Wonders how you react when you go afk on a place that is hit with a rolling update and force you to log off? It's a setting that you user can use, not forced upon you.

Because single afk avatars are not an issue.  No one cares.  Armies of afk avatars ARE an issue and rest assured, they won't be setting any timer to log out.

There's just no point to your suggestion.  You could just as easily program  your computer to shut down after idling for a certain amount of time.

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

It's all about INTENT.  

However, so I'm not seeming hypocritical, I'll go create a new email address and modify the few accounts that are passed the "5 per email" limit. 

 I'm sorry. It's not per email. It's per household.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Silent Mistwalker

[CaithLynnSayes]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

It's all about INTENT.  

However, so I'm not seeming hypocritical, I'll go create a new email address and modify the few accounts that are passed the "5 per email" limit. 

@LittleMe Jewell I should clarify, it's not "per email" it's per household. I quoted it wrong at first and edited my post. The link i provided is from LL itself, but i found it on google as "per email" but the LL Links says "per household". You quoted my post just before i corrected it  

[TimKoul]

5 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

SO...It's ok for you to skirt the rules but not other people?  It's kind of hard to ask LL to uphold the TOS when you are violating it yourself.  How would everyone feel if LL actually policed that and (poof) all your avatars that were created after five suddenly disappeared?

Everyone can have as many alts or bots as they wish regardless of what the TOS says. There's literally nothing stopping you from using different emails and having 10 alts per email. The honor system they apparently use is seriously flawed. They should absolutely police the grid like they do these forums. But maybe they won't....can't even...the cleanup job would probably take decades.

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

From what Rowan posted it's "five per household" not email address

Wasn't me and I explained why that one is never enforced either.

My point being, they need to revamp all those things if they don't enforce them.  Why have a bot policy when in reality, those aren't really bots but user accounts that inflate SL numbers.  Same with people having those numerous premium accounts.  They allow things if they serve the bottom line...$$$$.  

The forums bring in NO money.  Someone is still getting paid to moderate them.  Closing threads doesn't cost anything.  2 seconds of time?

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

I'm pretty sure that locking a thread on a gaming platform is the least of LL's worries.  98% of users don't even use the forum.

They are just bots anyway so no matter.

[LittleMe Jewell]

8 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

From what Rowan posted it's "five per household" not email address

 

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

It's not per email. It's per household.

 

Yes, it has now been mentioned that the original quote, that my posts were based on, was not correct (and at one time, I knew that)

 

Though, given the money that LL makes on Premiums these days, and the fact that many households have multiple family members in SL, that is another one of their super old policies that needs a bit of updating.  And it is also probably part of why it is not heavily enforced.  

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by LittleMe Jewell

[TimKoul]

11 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

From what CaithLynnSayes posted it's "five per household" not email address.

That can be exploited so easily. Create 3 accounts in your house. 5 at the local library. 5 more at a friend's house. 5 more at a Starbucks. Etc etc etc.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, LittleMe Jewell said:

 

 

Yes, it has now been mentioned that the original quote, that my posts were based on, was not correct.

 

Though, given the money that LL makes on Premiums these days, and the fact that many households have multiple family members in SL, that is another one of their super old policies that needs a bit of updating.  And it is also probably part of why it is not heavily enforced.  

 

Agreed. If there are more than 5 people in the household means at least one person in the house aren't allowed to have an SL account. That's not right. It also loses money for LL.

Is a college dorm considered a household? That's one of the reasons LL doesn't enforce it. There have been many instances of people living in dorms or group housing having issues because of this policy as well as some idiot griefing and causing others to lose connection because the IP was banned.

LL knows it's shooting itself in the foot with it but apparently the loses are acceptable to LL.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 minutes ago, TimKoul said:

That can be exploited so easily. Create 3 accounts in your house. 5 at the local library. 5 more at a friend's house. 5 more at a Starbucks. Etc etc etc.

Good luck. Don't come crying when you get banned for it.

[Tommy Linden]

Hey Everyone,

I am sure it comes as no surprise to see me commenting in this thread. As you are all aware, there have been multiple other threads closed on the topic of a very specific group of bots. We are not trying to prevent you from discussing the bot policy in general, which is why we chose to leave this thread open for discussion. 

As we previously mentioned, all of the information that is currently being displayed on a third party website, is all accessible via lsl script call, and is considered to be public information. I understand there are some of you that don't agree with that decision, but at this time that information is considered public.

I will however say that information such as your real name, your email address, etc. that are considered to be Personal Identifying Information (PII) is not made public, and we would never make that information public. If however you put that type of public information in your profile, that is a choice that you are making.

I would also like to note, that there seems to be a lot of speculation about what gets actioned vs. what doesn't, and that I can understand why it seems we are enforcing the rules on the forum more strictly than we do in world. A locking of a thread, is quite visible, the suspension of an account is far less visible (and before anyone asks, no, we won't be sharing when we suspend another Residents account), just something to think about.

So if you can not keep it on topic, we will close this thread as well. I don't want to do that though, and would much rather see the conversation continue, as I am following along.