Group Liability Opt In Jira

[Chelsea Malibu]

I had posted for some input yesterday on the group liability issues where group owners can randomly charge their members without the ability to opt in or without notice.  This is an unfair practice and I see this as a violation of the ToS though it is a gray area.

I recently opened a Jira and have seen that there are others on the same topic with few votes dating back 4 years which tells me that either many don't think this is a problem or that they are not aware of a Jira being posted.

Please look up: https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-4549 and post your comments and/or vote if you would.  It seems to me that it's time LL put an end to this antiquated practice.

 Edit:  BTW, I was contacted by someone outside the forums yesterday who told me they had an alt with a -2,500L balance that she hasn't used in some time and all of that was from group liabilities that she was not aware of.  It can add up.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

No, it's not an unfair practice.

It is not a violation of the TOS in any respect as businesses can charge for their services, which include membership in a group, which is a privilege, not a right.

As there are all kinds of situations you shouldn't be forcing this on everybody through the client and through automatic code just because you yourself once had an experience where you got charged.

It's a good practice to put group liability warnings on the charter of the group. (But I don't believe that anyone should be FORCED to do that -- it's wrong.)

That's what I do, I put a notice on the charter. I insist on charging group liability. I run large mainland groups and I keep them *open* to anyone to join any time. Then I add resident powers to those who are paying tenants. They can have friends, room mates, builders, etc. join at will any time. So because the group is open and they can leave any time, I insist on charging as part of their rent a small fee of $4 a week. This help pays for the classified ads of all the store rentals in the group, and enables them to have cheaper ads. All the tenants get the advantage of these stores and their offerings.

This is how I wish to run it; this is my choice; I get to do this. If you don't like it, run your group differently, but don't impose your rules on me.

In fact, I have *four forms of notifications* of group liability: on my profile, on the lease card, on notecard givers on site, and on the group charter. Many people never read even one of these four forms of notification. A small number of them get mad when they find they've been charged $4 on top of their cheap (i.e. dollar a prim) rent. I ask them if they'd like everyone to have a $50 rental increase. They don't. That's the end of the discussion.

Group liability is usually a tiny amount, a fraction of a penny, it offsets the cost of ads that people need to run to do business, and so some businesses will charge you. If you don't like it, leave the group and find another rental or business, you have lots of choice in SL.

Somebody who lets an alt acquire a -$2500 balance is just plain careless and negligent and that is no reason for all of us to be forced to use SL the way you want, instead of the way we find useful for our businesses.

[161488303349]

agree

group members should not have the ability to opt out of paying group fees on an individual basis

leave the group if you not want to pay

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

I see this as a violation of the ToS though it is a gray area.

---

This is definitely not true. It's not against ToS and it's not a grey area.

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

 Edit:  BTW, I was contacted by someone outside the forums yesterday who told me they had an alt with a -2,500L balance

that she hasn't cared about for some time

and all of that was from group liabilities that she was not aware of.  It can add up.

---

FIFY. If the account owner can't even bother to check where their L$-drips are going, there's no way anyone else need try to save their money.

[Hugsy Penguin]

I don't know much about group liabilities since I've never formed a group with them or been part of a group that had them.

With that said, no one should be taking money out of my account without my explicit approval.  This means prior to joining a group, I should be informed of how much group membership will cost by the system.  It should not be left up to the good graces of the group owner.  This includes:

1. The cost to join the group.  This already happens.  Good!
2. Any periodic amount of money (group liability) that will be deducted from my account.  This apparently does not happen.  Bad!  Must change.

If I don't want to join a group based on cost and/or group liability, then I don't join.  If I accept the cost and group liability, then I do join.  That's fair.

Furthermore, once I've joined a group in a role that doesn't have group liability, the owners should not be allowed to impose a group liability on me without my explicit approval.  If an owner wants to add group liability to my role, then I should be notified upon my next login.  If I agree, I stay in the group.  If I disagree, then I'm ejected from the group.  This apparently does not happen.  Bad!  Must change.

If this JIRA gives group liability knowledge and choice to group members and would-be group members, then that's a good thing.

[161488303349]

the jira only asked that group members could pay or not pay group liabilities as they choose

+

a jira informing group members when the owner changes the liabilties is a good thing. yes