Rolig Loon Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: I don't think it is up to the community to come up with a solution as the Lindens are in control of both the ToS and the wiki's. I disagree. That's exactly what business owners and interested people in this forum should be doing. Expecting LL to come up with a solution without constructive input from the community is a sure-fire way to make a lot of people unhappy. It's the sort of thing that you have complained about yourself for ages. 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Mote Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: How could existing policies or wiki descriptions be changed to recognize the challenges that business owners have when they are not allowed to share accounts? The wiki should be done away with, as it's obviously outdated and abandoned, good for historical reference and not much else. Linden Lab may as well have been a different company 15 years ago, besides that. Mirror the LSL info elsewhere, as needed. If LL were going to make any effort to edit and keep the wiki up to date, they'd have had a paid employee doing this somewhere along the way over the past decade. They haven't, in any relevant way. Kind of shows the importance of it. Edited June 18 by Ineffable Mote 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 7 minutes ago, Dyna Mole said: Hi gang -- Once again, it's time to remind you to step back from the keyboard when you feel the urge to get into a personal argument (or respond to one), especially one that is off topic. Sorry, Dyna. My fault for this.particular derail. I just got tired of someone using keyboard warrior as their go to insult repeatedly. I'm sure it's the excessive heat here today. I'll behave. 4 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: I disagree. That's exactly what business owners and interested people in this forum should be doing. Expecting LL to come up with a solution without constructive input from the community is a sure-fire way to make a lot of people unhappy. It's the sort of thing that you have complained about yourself for ages. I think this is exactly correct. We complain when LL makes important moves without consulting the community: this is an opportunity to provide consultation and ideas. It would be nice to see more creators here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said: I disagree. That's exactly what business owners and interested people in this forum should be doing. Expecting LL to come up with a solution without constructive input from the community is a sure-fire way to make a lot of people unhappy. It's the sort of thing that you have complained about yourself for ages. When others are trying to convince the community that the Lab is hiding behind a privacy veil and that there is more to the story (which I personally doubt) it becomes a guessing game as to what the Lab's real problem is. In such a case, how are we expected to give any real input to the matter other then to affirm a large portion of the community is ot happy about the Lab's actions in this regard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Mote Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) Brigadeering or brigading was probably the more accurate term for it, rather than keyboard warrior. But most people are smart enough to figure out what they meant by it, even if they don't like it being pointed out. Edited June 18 by Ineffable Mote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 36 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: As a matter of curiosity, why do you keep misgendering Rowan? When I do it, it's a sign of intentional disrespect to indicate I think the person may be fibbing about their gender. I only did it once recently, the person merely acted confused. Regrets? Not really. But someone misgendering Rowan? That's just nuts! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 30 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said: How could existing policies or wiki descriptions be changed to recognize the challenges that business owners have when they are not allowed to share accounts? I left some great ideas and questions, no replies. * sad face * 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 Just now, Love Zhaoying said: When I do it, it's a sign of intentional disrespect to indicate I think the person may be fibbing about their gender. I only did it once recently, the person merely acted confused. Regrets? Not really. But someone misgendering Rowan? That's just nuts! I am sure it's very deliberate, and intended to convey disrespect. And I think it says a great deal about that poster. However, Dyna has quite rightly suggested that this kind of back-and-forth is inappropriate, so we'll let it drop. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: It would be nice to see more creators here. Guess creators don't feel safe to post in these forums? Lot of posting in the feedback threads on 3 different feature requests now: https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/suggestion-multi-user-company-accounts https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts-to-share-access-responsibly 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 13 minutes ago, Ineffable Mote said: Brigadeering or brigading was probably the more accurate term for it, than keyboard warrior. But most people are smart enough to figure out what they meant by it, even if they don't like it being pointed out. We're very fortunate having you to help us figure it out. Thank you so much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: Guess creators don't feel safe to post in these forums? Lot of posting in the feedback threads on 3 different feature requests now: https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/suggestion-multi-user-company-accounts https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts-to-share-access-responsibly They're probably correct in thinking that those are better places to make suggestions. Which doesn't entirely make this thread pointless, however. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said: I have an idea. By discussing the differences that may explain why some types of Second Life business may not have the same critical need for sharing logins, it may highlight some changes that could help. What gave me this idea is "SL Real Estate". Real Estate is controlled by either individuals, or Second Life Groups. The Groups can determine ownership, roles, payments, etc. I assume that a Real Estate company in Second Life could have one group for the "Land Rentals Sales" ("Real Estate Agents"), one group for "Customer Support", etc. What appears to be missing in the type of Second Life businesses being discussed, is "Group" control/ownership/etc. of "Marketplace Stores". I propose that if the "Group" concepts used for other things in Second Life were extended to the Marketplace, it could alleviate the main pain points referred to often in this thread. That would require multiple users in a Group to be able to contribute / maintain Items in a Marketplace store, maintain listings, etc. Someone is likely to say, "but by using Groups, don't you multiple the risk factor of fraud and theft" (by the number of users with the same Group rights)? I thought about, and my initial answer is: not really, no more than any individual user can be "hacked", or any land group can be "robbed"/"griefed" by individual users. For the "Customer Service" aspect, that certainly seems fixable by using Groups in the first place. One example caveat being, if individual Group users need to manipulate "original objects" sold on the Marketplace, then they would need to be able to have access to those inventory items somehow. You would think that having the "original" items owned by a Group, stored in some common-accessible place, would be the answer for that. For the "Employee payments" aspect, I would think that is also doable with "Groups": a. Money goes to the group automatically. b. Assign users to certain Group roles who need to pay employees. c. Employees get paid. In my understanding, anything you do with Groups, that can be assigned to Roles, can be given multiple users ("backup users"). So, if one person is sick / out of the country / cannot login, a designated "backup user" in the same Group could take over at any time. (Sorry if this came up before, but I've been told that I'm not interested in this topic - so if that's true, I may have missed it.) Please let me know of any thoughts, specifically WHY you think this is a "good" or "bad" idea. "Groups" are used successfully today in Second Life as a main mechanism for sharing different responsibilities already. Trying again. Any thoughts on my ideas above? I didn't see that any other actual ideas in the thread, to be honest. A few. But what I wrote above does not require sharing accounts. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 4 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said: 8 hours ago, Luna Bliss said: It's upsetting what happened to DRD, and I'd like to see something put in place for those businesses that need to access their MP store via multiple owners/managers. But, I just don't think many businesses will need this feature (most businesses are small) and I can't tell you the number of times residents go into business together and fall out with each other and then go on a rampage, deleting each others stuff/borking the land builds, etc...whatever they can do to exact revenge. Likely it's more cost effective for LL and actually of benefit to many more residents the way it's currently set up. Expand This is a good point. I've seen some fallings out between business partners in SL too, and it can get ugly. Of course, that would be an interpersonal dispute, despite the business aspect, as far as LL would be concerned, so they wouldn't want to be involved in it in anyway that might make them responsible for some aspect of it. Yes, and it seems if password sharing became allowable in some cases LL would need to spend time/money in a vetting process as stores submitted information regarding who should be allowed/possibly removed later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: They're probably correct in thinking that those are better places to make suggestions. Which doesn't entirely make this thread pointless, however. No and I agree as I think barring derails and intentional straw arguments, the back and forth can lead to some resolution. Edited June 18 by Arielle Popstar missed word 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thecla Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Trying again. Any thoughts on my ideas above? I didn't see that any other actual ideas in the thread, to be honest. A few. But what I wrote above does not require sharing accounts. I'm assuming that most people feel if LL left well enough alone and went back to letting individuals decide who they share their account info with, and let them assume all the risk, that would be fine. It has been generally fine for 21 years. Adding group functionality and sharing creator rights is likely to get extremely messy when it comes to some copyright and trademark scenarios. LL has already changed or rather "clarified" 4.1 of the ToS from what I can see, adding (including, for the avoidance of doubt, permitting another individual to access your Account). In effect doubling down. One can only hope they are working diligently on a solution because the current status quo is pretty Micky Mouse given the size of some of the businesses in SL. Edited June 18 by Thecla typo 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Mote Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Trying again. Any thoughts on my ideas above? I didn't see that any other actual ideas in the thread, to be honest. A few. But what I wrote above does not require sharing accounts. in response to the "That would require multiple users in a Group to be able to contribute / maintain Items in a Marketplace store, maintain listings, etc." (I can't be bothered to multi-quote and what not sorry) but this arguably should have been done a decade ago following the purchase of xstreet. Though it still leads to usual drama issues that SL has and would necessarily need ample protections built in. This platform isn't an especially professional one to work in, and to think otherwise is just delusional, and creators/business people here maybe need to realize and learn to work with that too. (adding to this: at some point there are limitations which are reached, expectations need adjusting, and people still have to follow rules/regulations anywhere) Edited June 18 by Ineffable Mote 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said: Yes, and it seems if password sharing became allowable in some cases LL would need to spend time/money in a vetting process as stores submitted information regarding who should be allowed/possibly removed later. According to the wiki which I linked earlier under the Corporate Account section, sharing a password for the business owner wasn't a deal and was actually recommended while pointing out that: Linden Lab's Terms of Service apply, but were primarily written for consumer users where sharing a password can be a serious problem. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Managing_business_projects_in_Second_Life 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 7 minutes ago, Ineffable Mote said: This platform isn't an especially professional one to work in, and to think otherwise is just delusional, and creators/business people here maybe need to realize and learn to work with that too. They have had ample time however to change that but seemingly resist any attempts to. Guess we still hold out hope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: It would be nice to see more creators here I think most of them have better things to do than participate in drama threads like this. No Linden will wade through these pages full of drama to find s possible gold nugget. Only our Moles will keep an eye on this, so they can lock it after one or two fair warnings. Edited June 18 by Sid Nagy 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: According to the wiki which I linked earlier under the Corporate Account section, sharing a password for the business owner wasn't a deal and was actually recommended I imagine allowing such a thing led to an excessive amount of time/cost for them. I remember when it changed, and most who created projects for residents/corporations began advising their clients to (should a mishap occur like builds disappearing from land or inventory), when submitting a support ticket, say THEY themselves caused the problem, and never to say a partner/group member did it. At that time, LL would fix an honest mistake, but not fix a mistake (mainly do a rollback) if the region owner had trusted someone else who proved to be untrustworthy. Edited June 18 by Luna Bliss 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moles Quartz Mole Posted June 18 Moles Share Posted June 18 (edited) I've just hidden a lot of posts about keyboard warriors and various other matters that had no apparent connection to the original topic under discussion. Please try to keep the discussion civil and focussed. Edited June 18 by Quartz Mole 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJoyful Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said: Yes, and it seems if password sharing became allowable in some cases LL would need to spend time/money in a vetting process as stores submitted information regarding who should be allowed/possibly removed later. I wonder if it would be possible to have multiple log-in passwords or something? 1 Account but with multiple logins and maybe using the multi-factor authentication be a requirement of having this privilege? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: I think this is exactly correct. We complain when LL makes important moves without consulting the community: this is an opportunity to provide consultation and ideas. It would be nice to see more creators here. One problem with that is that those affected citing their personal experience may well be drawing themselves to attention of Governance where otherwise they would not. "I do want to note though, that this is not something we actively go looking for, but if it is something that is brought to our attention, we do need to investigate and take the appropriate actions. " The information then goes on to talk about needing prior permissions, I had thought those account made when advice was from Linden Lab to make joint business accounts in SL, would be considered to have prior permission. The interprestation of policy illustrated in actions against DRD is very different to the way it is has been expressed before, the consequences of this could be major for many accounts holding alot of value for communities and businesses. Edited June 18 by Aethelwine 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolig Loon Posted June 18 Share Posted June 18 (edited) 33 minutes ago, BJoyful said: I wonder if it would be possible to have multiple log-in passwords or something? 1 Account but with multiple logins and maybe using the multi-factor authentication be a requirement of having this privilege? You may want to add your comment to a current feedback thread like https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/allow-business-accounts-to-share-access-responsibly or https://feedback.secondlife.com/admin/feedback/feature-requests/p/suggestion-multi-user-company-accounts or perhaps start your own feature request in Canny. Edited June 18 by Rolig Loon Additional information 1 2 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