Arielle Popstar Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 At the page https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts-to-share-access-responsibly @Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote a fairly lengthy response to the matter in which she pointed out a mostly Linden employee written Wiki on Managing business projects in Second Life which strongly suggests businesses follow the recommendations for keeping a multiple resident business account secure. The suggestions in that Wiki now are against the current interpretation of the Terms of Service. Seems to me the left hand doesn't know what the right hand recommends. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said: The phrase "for avoidance of doubt" or "for the avoidance of doubt" is a correct and widely used phrase in written English. It is often used to express a clear and definitive statement or warning. For example: "For the avoidance of doubts, any further discussion on this matter is strictly forbidden." As the entire sentence quoted starts with YOU MAY NOT, the sentence in parenthesis also includes YOU MAY NOT Yep, and "including" means "additionally" here. Just another example they gave, but used awkward language that can be intentionally (or MAYBE unintentionally) misunderstood. Watching people try to "Lawyer" gives me shivers, and not the good kind! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlshayne Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Modulated said: That's the thing, it would seem this was not random or without justification , and we are only getting one side of the story. If things are above board, the account will likely be reinstated, if they disappear...then there was more than likely something going on that shouldn't have IMO. My understanding: DRD was account sharing, which got them in trouble. They pointed out that the TOS states - hey, be careful about account sharing, and there are official channels to account share safely (both of which imply that it's in theory permissible). LL did not (once DRD was in trouble) let them do it officially, and said they'd revise TOS - bc oops, they didn't mean to clearly imply you can account share. Now, yeah, DRD could by lying about all of this, for sure. Maybe something else got them in trouble, but judging by the public convo involving LL employees on this forum - it was account sharing. I only mention random bc - there are huge businesses on SL that are always online and available: landlords, head makers, body makers. That'd be a 30 hour a day job. All speculation on my part, ofc, but I get where they are coming from. Edited June 17 by stlshayne 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modulated Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, stlshayne said: My understanding: DRD was account sharing, which got them in trouble. They pointed out that the TOS states - hey, be careful about account sharing, and there are official channels to account share safely (both of which imply that it's in theory permissible). LL did not (once DRD was in trouble) let them do it officially, and said they'd revise TOS - bc oops, they didn't mean to clearly imply you can account share. Now, yeah, DRD could by lying about all of this, for sure. Maybe something else got them in trouble, but judging by the public convo involving LL employees on this forum - it was account sharing. I only mention random bc - there are huge businesses on SL that are always online and available: landlords, head makers, body makers. That'd be a 30 hour a day job. All speculation on my part, ofc, but I get where they are coming from. I never said anyone was telling a lie...but maybe we don't really have the whole story, and that is different. If it's as DRD says, then yes they should be allowed to continue using their account that way, as long as parties are verified, etc. I see no issue with that personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlshayne Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Just now, Modulated said: I never said anyone was telling a lie...but maybe we don't really have the whole story, and that is different. If it's as DRD says, then yes they should be allowed to continue using their account that way, as long as parties are verified, etc. I see no issue with that personally. The fact, though, that LL in the thread (as far as I remember, I'm not a reporter, not going to reread) only said "the TOS are out of date" and didn't refute DRD's claims, kind of imply - at least to me - that the only infraction was the account sharing. You're correct, though, we don't have all the facts. I just feel, though, that if there were more to it - we'd at least have an inkling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 minutes ago, stlshayne said: You're correct, though, we don't have all the facts. I just feel, though, that if there were more to it - we'd at least have an inkling. and let''s not forget the ways how LL acts are far from transparent, some actions may look random for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said: and let''s not forget the ways how LL acts are far from transparent, some actions may look random for us. Might even be at random at times. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlshayne Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) I'm gonna be completely honest - I though yall were the same person for an embarrassing minute just from glancing at the PFPs next to eachother, I don't mean that as a dig! It was the collars, I swear! Edited June 17 by stlshayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, stlshayne said: I'm gonna be completely honest - I though yall were the same person for an embarrassing minute just from glancing at the PFPs, I don't mean that as a dig! who?... and what's PFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlshayne Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, Alwin Alcott said: who?... and what's PFP? Profile picture. And... it's early. 😂 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Just now, stlshayne said: ... it's early. 😂 i'll forgive you 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorientje Woller Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said: Nothing bizarre about it. Neglecting features is completely on brand for LL. Ever noticed the staff turnover in IT companies? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 13 minutes ago, Dorientje Woller said: Ever noticed the staff turnover in IT companies? So...? There should be one or more people in each company who have the task to guard consistency IMHO. So staff turnover should not be hampering things. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlshayne Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Modulated said: That's the thing, it would seem this was not random or without justification , and we are only getting one side of the story. If things are above board, the account will likely be reinstated, if they disappear...then there was more than likely something going on that shouldn't have IMO. It was reinstated afaik? Edit: didnt meant to reply to this. The forum pushed it to me like it was a new post. Go figure. Edited June 17 by stlshayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said: I've not really been following this but if I correctly understand what was said at the Governance User Group meeting last week (I had an alt parked there, and have only skimmed the conversation log) Governance don't discuss individual reports but, in general, when they receive a credible report that accounts are being shared they automatically place that account (and, apparently, any associated marketplace store) on hold while they investigate the matter. This seems a pretty obvious precaution against fraud and account theft. Then, assuming they establish that the account hasn't been compromised, they'll advise the account owner that account sharing is against the ToS and then restore their access to the account. They also said they don't go looking for people sharing their accounts -- someone has to report it to them. I suspect, though, that large and unexpected L$ transfers might trigger some automatic flagging mechanism. So I would assume not that "LL has backed down" but that, once they were satisfied the account hadn't been hijacked by an unauthorised third party, they restored the account to the business owner. If what you say is true, then this opens a vector for greifing. Don't like the shade of purple in the t-shirt fat pack you just bought? You could just leave a review about it on the MP, or... you could report them for account sharing! You can't have good customer service without sharing accounts, so if they have good customer service, they are almost certainly sharing accounts. The only way to protect yourself against this, as a business in SL, is to have terrible customer service, or no customer service, at all, to remove all suspicion of account sharing. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xDancingStarx Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 minutes ago, Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia said: You can't have good customer service without sharing accounts, so if they have good customer service, they are almost certainly sharing accounts. How can you say that? The way it's usually working for me when I have an issue with a product.. 1) I click the creator's profile 2) They instruct to not message directly but message a CSR 3) I message the CSR that is showing online to me and they either solve the issue or relay it to the owner 4) if not solved directly I get messaged back by the owner at a later point to solve my issue What you claim, that in order to have good customer service you almost certainly have to share accounts, is factually wrong. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 LL doesn't do 24/7 customer service so I guess they figure storeowners and creators shouldn't need to either. 4 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elleevelyn Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) am now waiting for the Governor Linden account to get a 3 day suspension 😸 as has been mentioned already the most probable solution is for there to be a Premium Merchant/Business account. One of the benefits being the ability of the principal account owner to share the account login with anyone else they choose. With the proviso that Linden will not accept any liability if the account is hacked/compromised in any/every circumstance a way to authenticate would be for the Merchant/Business account to be linked to an ordinary account. The ordinary account holder (the principal) applying for the merchant/business account. The ordinary principal account cannot be shared ps edit. Now that I think about a bit more, this kind of account already exists. Has been ages since and I can't remember exactly, but I think business named accounts cost $US500 a year. Not sure exactly but maybe is how the big land baron is able to operate their accounts as they do Edited June 17 by elleevelyn () 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codex Alpha Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) What may trigger a lock of an account that maybe 'account sharing' for whatever reason, is frequent access by different IPs (some across the world) to the same account that clearly wouldn't be the same person. Doesn't have to be a report could be an automated security process that got triggered. If you're a store big enough to have multi-contributers or employees and there will be multiple people logging into the account to manage its affairs, customer service, or uploading and creating listings, it would probably be best to get LL's okay on that, as it is not normal account activity. Edited June 17 by Codex Alpha 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animats Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 5 hours ago, MBeatrix said: No code needed if they reformulate the ToS a bit. Businesses need roles. Giving someone "Add product to store" authority should not require giving them "Withdraw all the money" authority. It is useful to have separate roles for things that can be undone and things which can't. Then you can have employees who don't have the keys to the safe. SL has this worked out reasonably well on the land side. Marketplace and money need to catch up. Edited June 17 by animats 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said: What may trigger a lock of an account that maybe 'account sharing' for whatever reason, is frequent access by different IPs (some across the world) to the same account that clearly wouldn't be the same person. Doesn't have to be a report could be an automated security process that got triggered. There are people nowadays using VPN and Tor for their connections. That's not even counting in logging in from the home computer or the mobile one as I do fairly regular. I regularly get emails from the lab mentioning that I logged in from another IP address and asking whether I'm okay with that. It's never resulted in any kind of ban or follow up to verify. Edited June 17 by Arielle Popstar 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, Dorientje Woller said: Ever noticed the staff turnover in IT companies? I've been with my IT company 26 years, some of my peers longer.. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 3 hours ago, stlshayne said: 3 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said: who?... and what's PFP? Profile picture. And... it's early. 😂 You are only the third person to use the abbreviation "PFP" that I've known on the Forum! A few weeks ago, I had to ask someone else what it meant. So, if Alwin and I are any indicator, I guess it's not a common abbreviation (at least for Forumites). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: You are only the third person to use the abbreviation "PFP" that I've known on the Forum! A few weeks ago, I had to ask someone else what it meant. So, if Alwin and I are any indicator, I guess it's not a common abbreviation (at least for Forumites). Which makes no sense at all. Profile is one word, ffs. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 12 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Which makes no sense at all. Profile is one word, ffs. You're right! "ProFile Picture" lulz!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now