daisybloomer

To answer your question, the reason they need your RL ID is not only for identification purposes of who you actually are as others have mentioned, but also they will use that info to send you any tax related paperwork that would be required should your cash out and subsequent cash outs require you to report as income. You will probably even notice in the Netverify form they ask for a photocopy of some form of ID. Basically you will reveal more about yourself than the standard info. I believe they do give you a certain amount of time by which ti respond and comply and provide that info and in my understanding once that time period expires, if you choose not to provide that info they will continue to put the effected account on hold but also place a hold on any other accounts you have. You won't be able to login into SL at all. The best honestly is not to rely on SL as your source of income for living and make it a one way street with just buying only as much L as you need and not cash out if you do not want to have to provide personal information to LL.

Using this existing thread to post this, though a new topic thread can be started. But have been hearing that quite a few people with "No Payment Info On File" were able to enter Skill Gaming Regions. Does anyone know if LL is aware of this, and what is the course of recommended action that should be taken? AR report or otherwise? As I understand the policy is that only those with a payment info listed can enter these regions. Allowing these people who have somehow circumvented the system is disservice to those who are and have been following the rules when gaming.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: You do have a right to give a negative review if the problems you found with it are about quality, misrepresentation, or material facts about the product that were not disclosed prior to purchase, however why do you think it's fair that some one buy something when the price and perms are clearly disclosed and then complain about it in a poor review? Don't buy it if you don't like it. I agree with this to an extent, depending if your definition of clearly also means that the permissions are stated in the Description part of the listing also. There have been some occasions where the standard permissions information that is part of the template of the listing had been indicated incorrectly. Furthermore, going on the details that have been mentioned in this thread, I think the creator went a little overboard on the reaction to the negative review by also including a ban from their inworld store. Unless there were some details that haven't been disclosed yet that warranted this extra action, removal of the comment and working with the customer to find a resonable solution would have been adequate enough. The creator only amplified and drew much more attention to the problem than he/she was otherwise hoping to suppress.

Bobbie, that is wonderful to hear, especially your talent for knitting. You are a perfect example of someone who even though disabled still makes an effort to balance between the time on SL and finding other enjoyable things to do outside of it in RL along with your daily routine. The only point I was trying to make in my original opinion was that those that have or don't have a disability not try to use that as an excuse to legitimize spending extra long periods of time in SL at the expense of neglecting RL. One example I can give you, is someone I use to know who was disabled who spent 8-10 hours in SL a day. That doesn't leave much room to do much else. It started to affect her physically and mentally and when asked why don't you switch things up a bit and have more of a balance with some RL things, she simply said because she was disabled and didn't have much more reaction, interest or motivation to explore anything non-SL related. In the end, her husband had to intervene and help her get more balanced in her life.

Pamela Galli wrote: It is you who seem to be missing the point, which is that no one here considers himself accountable to you for how he spends his time, and therefore is not in need of any pass, free or otherwise, from you. Pamela, in case you haven't figured it out yet, I was only stating an opinion. I did not go writing it as a rule or order that needed to have been followed and carried out after my posting. No need to get so defensive and personal about it.

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: And just how easy is it for a wheelchair bound person to get out and about in the winter with 4 feet of snow on the ground? Are you disabled? You do know there are thousands of types of disabilities, right? Take someone who is severely agoraphobic. They can barely walk outside of their house. FUlly functional body, terrifying fear. So, tell me, how do they explore the world? You are coming off as a very smug person telling others what to do with their lives. I think you missed my point. I did not say they shouldn't be in SL period. I am saying that if they are disabled it is not a free pass to spend an even larger portion of their daily life in SL at the expense of RL. Both your examples of being wheelchair bound or agoraphobic have RL treatments and solutions. And if they still want to be in SL fine, but it does not mean just because of their conditions it is good for them to be in SL 80% of the time daily. I do know quite a few people with disabilties and they try to make every day count. Most are not SL users.

Pamela Galli wrote: Same here -- there is no reason to separate my life into parts like that. My RL job is SL. So how exactly would I go about separating my life into compartments? The question is asking how many hours you spend in RL and how many hours you spend in SL on a daily basis. That means how many hours you spend at the computer actively doing stuff in SL versus stuff completely unrelated to SL either at or not at the computer..

Bobbie Faulds wrote: Be careful of stereotypes. Many in SL are disabled and have limited transportation. SL becomes their window to the world, if you will. I fall into this category. I've interacted with people from around the world. Just saying That is not a good excuse to be in SL a whole lot more and limit themselves in RL If they are capable of logging on to a computer and have some mobility with their arms and legs, there are still many things in RL they can do and explore. SL would be an added bonus not a substitute. The only people that would qualify where they could not do anything in RL would be if they are severly paralyzed or in a medically unconscious state.

Charli Infinity wrote: so it's taboo to ask how much time people spend on SL...silly if don't want to share then just don't answer don't have to get defensive and i thought here people were proud of being on sl because because sl is sogreat and there's so much to do and all Charli, I think it's a fantastic topic thread to create. I am surprised there aren't more serious responses to it. My opinions only, but those that would get defensive or find the question humorous are likely spending their time in that 70% SL/30% RL proportion you mentioned and would feel embarassed to come out and answer the question straightforward. The topic does have a level of seriousness to it as there are quite a number of users whose RL has been significantly impacted (more so negatively) as a result of how much time they spent in SL As for me, the ratio of time I spend would probably be just the flip of what you mentioned, 70% RL/30% SL. It is just an temporary escape for relaxation and to hone creativity and imagination for me. A healthy balance is best and as the saying goes "You can't have a second life if you don't have a real life first."

Magadski, if you are debating about losing that mainland parcel or not, I would suggest to let it go if you are needing to downgrade to the Basic Membership. Unless there is an absolute necessity to hold on to it, you will lose a lot more money than L$3500 in the long run if you keep it and the Premium Membership. Someone in this thread suggested to sell it first before you downgrade. That is a good suggestion but would add that I would try to sell it up until the point prior to the expiration of your current cycle in your Premium Membership. This would ensure you don't lose more money if you are tight financially. Finally, as someone else also mentioned, there are indeed plenty of other nice lands available (even with the same size that you have) that you can rent with a Basic Membership.

VillaDiVerona, after reading your post two suggestions come to mind that might temporarily ease things a bit there while you wait for a response from LL. 1. If you haven't already done so, the person's avatar and their two script heavy alts need to be region banned. If you are the owner of that sim/region/estate just go into the Region Settings and ban from there. This ensures he and his alts can't tp in at all. If you are not the sim owner then you'll have to contact the person who is and have them add the names to the ban list. 2. Assumng the person will likely come with other alts once banned, I would purchase and set down a script monitoring item and set it to automatically kick anyone out who exceeds a certain amount of memory usage in scripts. So regardless how many alts he uses and how script heavy he wants to be, he gets a free ride back to his home location. Hope this helps and good luck...

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Kelli May wrote: GingerHenderson wrote: Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group. It is Mainland. Mr Accused can ban whomever he likes from his parcel, assuming he doesn't use any kind of security orb that extends beyond his borders. Assuming that, the author of the note doesn't have any kind of complaint to base his threats on. Even assuming he had a valid complaint, he should be ARing Mr Accused, not making threats to 'set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here'. Mr. Accusor would also be entirely within HIS rights to put up an obnoxious eyesore on his property, though. Also, many people who live on the Mainland do so to operate vehicles. Banning by name creates an impenetrable wall and the implication is that Mr. Accused is doing this only to inconvenience the members of Mr. Accusor's group, and not because of anything they've done. It sounds like this is either a case of "blockbreaking" by Mr. Accused or "extortion" by Mr. Accusor. Of course, we don't know the actual facts of this case. AAANNNDDD this is why Linden Lab doesn't get involved in resident-resident disputes. And this is exactly why I asked for clarification earlier. Everything we say right now is on assumptions and what could be. Too much gray area until she can give more details.

Could you describe a little more how the 3 of you neighbors (the accuser, accused neighbor and yourself) are exactly situated? I ask this because if the accused neighbor is banning only on his/her parcel, I do not see how that becomes an issue for the other neighbor who wrote the notecard.

RIP Joe Cocker...you are up where you belong...in heaven... Up Where We Belong (1982) Grammy Award - Academy Award - Platinum - International Hit Song

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Still you are asking people who pay a fortune for land to give part of it up for public use but still pay for it, which is great if they choose to, but if they don't want to they shouldn't be condemned by the people who want to boat. Don't forget that if this is a renter, and if it is explicitly stated in the rules or covenant of that estate that ban lines cannot be used or certain amount of prims needed to be given up for public use of the waterways then that supercedes any "I pay so therefore I am entitled" logic or mentality. My opinion on the matter is ban lines are not so much a nuisance as long as it's used in a respectful manner to everyone around or have a very valid reason for doing so, and not because the resident suffers from paranoia or has their stupid hat on.

These weird encounters should be no surprise to anyone on SL. Everyone new and old has run into strange people at least once in their SL lifetime. All I have to say is "Welcome to SL!" Bobbie, it is a weird event but for as long as you've been on SL (since you've mentioned you have RP'd for 6 years) this should come as no surprise to you and I'm sure you've ran into this before. From the dialog you pasted, if you think about it, it's actually a compliment that he thinks you look good. Means you did a good job with your avatar. Would have just said, thanks for compliment but not interested and here's a few LM's where you can go satisfy yourself. Your unused comeback, while I understand what you meant, sounds arrogant and stuck-up unless that is the way you are and want him to perceive you.

Bobbie Faulds wrote: As I nderstand the reply, It was returned because the Gov8 Linden saw it just as a game of chance because of havig to pay to get into the group and that it didn't always pay out (ie the goal wasn't reached). We have since reviewed the general operating premise of this scenario, and have decided that -- given the behavior outlined above -- it is not a violation of the Terms of Service or any Policy referenced within. So they reviewed the decision that was made and decided it wasn't a violation. So MM boards are good to go. Which is a good thin given how many stores use them. There was never an issue with the MM boards in general as an object. I tried to explain this earlier in the thread with the issue being the group join fee and it having an element of chance and you said it was unrealistic and now you've jumped to the other side of the fence...facepalm. As for that section of the support ticket response you highlighted in blue, I think that is in reference to the general operation of an MM board. I do not think it was in reference to NickyMinaj's pay-to-play setup being cleared as if that was the case they would not have indicated in the paragraph before that there was a violation. "Unfortunately what did cause the violation is that in order to use it, they had to pay a fee to join a group, and then it was a chance on whether or not an item would be distributed based upon how many people signed up. The paying to access and no promise of a prize, is what makes the board a game of chance and not a game of skill."

Elecktra Miami wrote: I don't know if that means she can put her board back since hundreds of merchants still use group boards in a pay to join group....or not. To me that's a mystery until they make it clear in the policy. If you haven't viewed it yet, the ticket response is here LL Skill Gaming - CasperTech Wiki . Just saying....it's not fair that she was singled out and that no announcement has been made in the policy saying you can't use a group only board in a pay to join group....and everyone else can continue to use theirs while she can't. No, I would not suggest putting the board back as the support ticket clearly shows there was a violation. Only way she can place the board back is if she does not charge a group join fee or makes it not a requirement to join the group to play. As far as your claim about hundreds of merchants that have group MM boards that require a group fee to join....I don't know how you came up with that statistic, but a little proof please? From my own experiences, every since place I have seen a MM board around it is either not a requirement to join a group to play or you can join the group for free to play.

Pandarania wrote: 3) Also it's not hearsay. There's a chat log & screenshot of the situation. While it wasn't involving me directly, as a store owner, I do ask out of curiosity because if these boards pose and issue, then everyone needs to be made aware. 4) Casper Warden was made aware by his own staff about the situation; and also commented on the post previously with his own bit of input. Thanks. There wouldn't be a need to involve CasperVend in this in the first place as the board in question doesn't have any pay mechanism. This wasn't an issue about the object but moreso how it was applied by the end user in what form and setting. MM boards have never had a problem whenever it was setup to be played for free without any pay elements direct or indirect.

NickyMinaj wrote: [19:38] Governance8 Linden: Any non-skilled games that require payment of any kind are a violation of the Terms of Service. Any skill-based games that cost money can only be operated by a licensed operator in a licensed region. First sentence refers to the Wagering Policy. Second sentence refers to the Skill Gaming Policy. Judging from those words LL didn't say the violation was due to the Skill Gaming Policy only. I am more inclined to lean towards the terms of the Wagering Policy as the reason.

NickyMinaj wrote: Also the reason y my group isnt free to join is because i sell only full permission items, and people come with alts and click the board to recieve the free items. I dont consider this gaming, if the person doesnt want to pay to join the group, no one is forcing them. Thanks for posting and clarifying some of the details of the situation. However, If you are so concerned about people using alts to receive the free items then why do you even put up a board in the first place? You could have alternatively just set those items you would giveaway on the board, as paid group gifts (like 10L or 25L each). Your tone of voice in the first sentence sounds like you want to be the only beneficiary from that perk hoping your group members don't reach the target number often.

Cerise Sorbet wrote: OP's story is that this was about the skilled gaming policy, not the wagering one. My money's on somewhere between the telphone game and fairy tale. It is also possible the OP did not know there were two separate policies in effect. Many have the inclination to point fingers at the Skill Gaming Policy first since it has gotten a lot of attention in recent months unaware there is another Wagering Policy.

Bobbie Faulds wrote: It's not an entry fee. Some groups have fees to join to keep out the spammers. Others give out lots of gifties..Like a free skin every month with WoW and 7Deadly Skins do or getting store discounts or credit if you wear your group tag. It's just another perk of membership. Yes group gifts and store discounts and the MM boards from a group fee are perks but let me take it one step further that sets the boards different from the first two perks. Group gifts and store discounts are guaranteed to the joining member. On the other hand MM boards are not guaranteed. Either you will win it that day or you don't. It is a perk (as you call it) that has an element of chance. Factor in the group fee you have to pay to participate in it and you have all the components there for fitting under the terms of the Wagering Policy. From the SL Wagering Policy: "It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life® environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games: Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,OR Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND provide a payout in Linden Dollars (L$)OR Any real-world currency or thing of value." "1. Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner," = The chance occurence of the MM reaching the target number by midnight "2. Any real-world currency or thing of value." = The item prize on the board if event occurs "What does "wagering" mean according to this policy? The term "wagering" applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary." = The group fee to play the board And there you go, all 3 mechanisms are there to fit the criteria of the Wagering Policy...

Theresa Tennyson wrote: We need more specifics about this situation. It's almost certain that this particular board was taken down because someone AR'ed it - I'm not aware of roving governance Lindens going through places on spec. Definitely need more and accurate details other than what the OP has written in order to make a constructive comment. Most on this thread assumed far too quickly that the parties involved and the object in question was innocent. MM boards if free to slap and free to join a group to slap should not be a problem. My best guess is the MM board was in violation of the Wagering Policy and not the Skill Gaming Policy. It could have very well been that the board required you to be a group member in which you had to pay a fee to join. But here's the catch...MM boards need a certain number of slaps by the deadline for everyone to get the prize. This would mean that there is a chance to win and not win, which would make this a game of chance that you pay to play (if you had to pay to join the group), hence not legal based on the Wagering Policy. Again this is my best guess given the very vague description in the original post. No one can really say more without additional information...

Not to derail this thread and the subject in the current posts, but those that want to read additional posts relating to the new Skill Gaming Policy and the new November 1st deadline can also look here: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/You-ve-Got-Till-November-1st/td-p/2834050 Original official LL blog positng on November 1st deadline: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/Update-to-The-Skill-Gaming-Application-Process/ba-p/2833570