Madison Heartsong

On mp I tend to filter for copy, and depending in the item type that causes at least 1/5 to disappear once I apply the filter, even for clothes; and a lot more disappear in other areas. Today I forgot to filter, and was ready to buy something, but checked perms, saw no copy, and so didn't buy it. If enough people do the same people will stop selecting it if they want to sell things. No mod is also a very annoying thing. If I pay for the item I should be able to modify it all I want. The more people insist on copy/mod, the more such items there will be. I've read about how, before my time, most things were no copy; and then some sort of bug made a lot of things disappear on rez, so many wouldn't buy no copy; so a lot of creators gave in to that and made their items copy. I don't want more bugs, but I want what the OP seems to want, for creators to know they must do copy/mod or their item won't sell. Then more and more would by copy/mod.

I think that's what should be the rule. Apparently the rule still is that in-world can't be cheaper, but just that many get around it, or am I reading something wrong? I think that it's backwards if the MP ad cannot state the in-world discount, though I think there should be a limit to the in-world discount, probably the 5%. Then I'd have a rule that if there is a cost difference between the MP and in-world, the ad must say so. But two reasons if I were a merchant I might want to offer the 5% in world discount, but actually should have to disclose it if I did: 1) There is a 5% MP commission. By default that is paid by the merchant, and that should be the default. The merchant should, however, be able to pass that along to me, a convenience fee for buying on MP, if the merchant chooses-- but should have to say so. Then I can choose to pay it and buy on MP, buy in world instead, or, if I were offended (which I wouldn't be but I'm sure someone might be), not buy the product. It would have to be pretty expensive for me to go in world to save 5% if I didn't want to buy it in-world otherwise. A L$500 would be at least L$475 in world, so to save $L25 I'm not going there unless I had some other reason to want to. A L$5,000 item to save $L250, then I likely would go in world to save that. 2) I think if I were a merchant I'd value in-store business more than MP business even if there were no MP commission, just given that someone in world is more likely to find something else to buy at my store. That's a discount incentive. Definitely, there has to be a limit or people would use MP at super-high prices to show their stuff off and then one would have to come into the store to buy it for a price that wasn't outrageous; but 5% is fair for that.

It's not a win for me if I can't find otherwise good items that I can mod to taste. Fortunately most creators of things like furniture have made their items mod. It's mostly things like clothing that creators refuse to allow mod. The more copy/mod is the norm, the more wins for the end user. No, what you don't want is competitive behavior in the marketplace. If people won't buy no mod, more people create mod items-- which compete with yours, and you lose and are coerced by the market, if it's important to you to sell much. If you're creating them for yourself and don't care if you sell a lot less, you won't care. But hopefully, for the good of the end-users, items that aren't copy/mod will sell less and less, and that will lead to more being available as copy/mod, for those like me who want it. You're the one afraid of more competition from more good creators giving mod permissions.

My taste as a consumer is better for what I want than a creator's is. It isn't better objectively, but I pay for the creator's ability to create things that I couldn't. I also can (if moddable) modify some things so that I like them better. That is not snobbish. A creator thinking that their creation will satisfy me more than I can satisfy myself by modding it, is what is snobbish. And if, as it should be, it is also copy, if my modified version turned out to satisfy myself not as well, I could get the old one back from the box, so win/win.

I pay 3 months at a time, which is still just $7.50/month, which would be significant except for the Linden allowance. But since we get about $5/month worth of Lindens, my actual membership is only $2.50/month. At these rates, no one should rent now that 1024 sq m comes with the membership. Own and: 1) Outside the very loose limitations on all sl land, you can do whatever you want with the land (maybe a bit less if zoned PG, but don't buy PG land unless that really is okay with you). 2) No hassle if the landlord leaves sl, sells, or abandons the land. 3) No extra rules the landlord can place on the land, or additions or changes in the rules. 4) No landlord just deciding they don't like you so they kick you off. Linden houses, though I started with one, aren't enough for everyone. In the long run they weren't enough for me, so I bought some land and pay a bit of tier (even now with the larger free-for-premium allotment) So when premium membership only came with 512 sq m I understood renting so as not to have to be premium. $72 and a year at a time is a significant commitment, though if you're near completely certain you'll stay the whole year it's a great value, but even at $22.50/3 months, with $5 worth of Lindens per month (2/3 of that payment) returned as a stipend, for 1024 sq m, I don't see why someone wouldn't join and take the free land now (and even if they want a little more, paying tier is usually better than renting). The only way I'd recommend anyone to rent now is if they're just testing out sl. You need somewhere to rez items, and you don't want to have to have to do it in a public sandbox (though some clever people find other, more private, places they can rez), so renting for a month or two while seeing if you want to keep playing, I can see. You also aren't then paying for the land itself. Once you decide you want to stay, go premium, pay 3 months at a time (or a whole year if you're really sure you'll be staying that long), and get your almost-free 1024 sq m of land, that you can do anything you want with, you can't get kicked off for anything that won't get you thrown off sl, and would be a better value than rented land regardless, but the total freedom from a landlord makes it far better. Even if you want a bigger plot, tier fees are usually better than what you'll get from a landlord for the total number of prims and space you're getting, especially with the first 1024 sq m now free with premium.

Well, it's confirmed as an outside attack, and it didn't disrupt things for very long...and I did edit one of my posts to add that I've been in sl over 9 months, during which nothing like this happened and if there's just one bad two day period per 9 months that's overall performance I can be very satisfied with...and credit should be given where it's do, but complaining should also occur when something is screwed up. If it were a glitch (hardware or software) that was purely LL's fault, and it were still going on now, 4 days later, I get the feeling there'd still be people saying not to be too critical, and that would be uncalled for. It was an outside attack, and it was fixed in less than 2 days, so I'm fine with it, and it's the scumbags who did the DDoS who ought to have to compensate people. It's absolutely true that almost all software makes you agree to "I have no rights and the developer has infinite rights," and LL just does in their ToS what everyone else does. I'd likely put that in ToS if I had a site, because I can and everyone accepts those, because if you don't accept those kinds of ToS you may as well not have a computer. You'll hardly find any software to run without onerous ToS. I also understand that in some cases that's likely led to results I'd agree with, that if LL didn't have some latitude to enforce rules they couldn't have realized they'd have had to enumerate, they couldn't have stopped some truly destructive users who might have found a way to cause a lot of trouble while adhering to the letter of a very specific ToS. I furthermore believe LL acts in good faith as far as how they enforce the ToS. My issue was with those who seem to want to support LLs' supposed rights not to act in good faith, if they so chose. If it were LL not acting in good faith, it's most likely that courts would not side with them; and regardless, while the extreme latitude the ToS gives them might allow them to close with no notice and no way to cash out unused Lindens (though I'd imagine if they did that they'd face and lose a class action suit if the closure was not by absolute necessity), people defending them would be justified in saying "They wouldn't do that; they've always played fairly." The problem is people who almost encourage them to abuse power in a way that my experience is they do not do. And the way I'd change the law would be to make it clear that no matter what ToS say, any company must act in good faith toward all users who act in good faith, and have some heavy civil penalties toward companies that did not. Courts might do that anyway, but I'd want laws to make that immensely clear.

Actually, I've had cable go out, and if it goes out for at least three days (which has only happened twice), I call and demand a credit for the lost days-- and I get it. I don't know what would happen in court for a day or two or three of downtime. I'm more talking about what things ought to be like. Note in your quote my having written "if I could change the law." No matter how a court would rule, very few people would find it worth suing over a day or two or three of downtime. I know I wouldn't regardless of tier. I might be noisy about deserving a refund for lost use if I had a full region, although to be honest I'd probably decide it wasn't worth the trouble even then unless I'd lost weeks of service. Edited to add: Especially with things working better, I've calmed down enough to want to add that I've now been in sl for over 9 months and the last couple of days are the first truly bad stretch I've seen; so if this only happens for a couple of days every 9 months, overall that's solid performance that I can easily live with.

I just want to say that the TOS doesn't only not make it okay if LL behaved wrongly. It also doesn't even make it legally binding. All software, online, offline, whatever, comes with terms of service that basically says I have zero rights and the creator has all the rights. Courts don't accept those in a lot of cases. There are a lot of rights you can't sign away, even if you chose to. Example: If it could be binding, every doctor's office would force every patient to sign something agreeing that no matter what the patient couldn't sue for malpractice. Every doctor would do it, so there'd be no other way to get medical care but to sign it. But courts would never enforce such a contract. There are TOS that courts definitely would enforce-- rules against griefing, sex with underage avatars, etc.. There are others that would be deemed so unfair that no matter what, like a pledge not to sue for malpractice, courts would not uphold them. Everything eventually ends, so whether it's in 3 years or 20 years or 50 years sl will at some point be closed. I hope (even if it's 50 years, in which case I'd likely be long gone from sl, for the sake of those who'd be on then) that LL feels the need to give some notice so people can get some use out of recently bought items, and also allow people to cash out unused Lindens. I hope if they don't do that, they get sued and lose. And if I could change the law, I'd make the law make it clear that any entity that charges for its use has to provide the product/service or refund the money, and that no terms of service could override that. There are reasons in the case of this down time to defend LL (besides the fact it's been a lot better lately), most clearly that from what I've read it's been caused by a malicious third party, not LL screwing up in a big way. I'm all for "Go LL! Defeat the DDos scum!" What gets me worked up is when customers defend ToS that basically say paying customers have no rights, beyond saying it's not only a SL thing but done in almost all software ToS-- meaning one can't blame LL for doing what everyone else does-- not just that they think it's automatically enforceable, but they want it to be. Why does any customer want no rights to what they paid for?

They certainly aren't doing any of this on purpose, as it would be foolish for them to give intentional awful service to everyone. Quoting from my post, to show I said exactly that I know they don't want to do this; they'd only lose from doing it. I'm saying they shouldn't be defended, so as to increase the pressure to do better, and I probably wouldn't have even gone into the thread to do make that comment if not for the people saying defending their rights to refuse to behave reasonably if they chose to, even though as far as I know they are reasonable.

I can't believe the people-- and I had a different argument some time ago with this view-- who basically are saying they'd defend LLs' rights to do it if they took a boatload of money from someone, that person, did not break the TOS, but they chose to give them absolutely nothing by shutting off access to the servers. I'll give you this much: I think expecting compensation for lost income is too much to ask. I do think if someone is paying LL a large amount for the use of their servers (in tier fees or whatever sort of fee), they should get a refund for days they pay to use the servers and the servers are not reasonably available. My fees, membership plus tier fees, are low enough that my refund would be so small I'd never make an issue of it (on principle, they should owe me 30 cents or something, but I don't really care about not getting 30 cents). If I owned an entire private region, they would owe me something not so insignificant. No business has the right to take money from a customer and not give them what they paid for. From what I've read elsewhere, this is probably an attack from outside, and the liability should belong to those who are intentionally denying the service rather than LL, though LL is failing to adequately protect their servers as well so LL still is not blameless, though the main blame, by far, belongs to the intentionally malicious who are doing the attack, assuming that's what it is. LL doesn't act unethically from all I know and doesn't intentionally deny access for no reason, but what I find inexplicable are those who would defend them if they did. If this isn't caused from without but someone screwed up at LL, people still shouldn't be defending them. If it is an attack from outside, which seems from what I've read most likely I understand better people defending them. I get sucked in because I disagree strongly with "They could shut down the ability to cash out their tokens at any point or even close down their servers and you would have no recourse whatsoever." If that is the law, the law needs to be changed. Businesses should never get to say "I don't care what you paid, you get absolutely nothing. Bye." In the other argument I was in people brought up the signs "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," which of course isn't literally true: If someone is denied due to race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or various other reasons, that is not legally acceptable. If it is not for those reasons, the law backs it up to a large degree; but if the business has been paid and then they decide to refuse service, I believe that even under the law they have to refund it, and if not they absolutely should. They can say "You aren't allowed to shop/eat/whatever here" but they can't take your money, keep it, and not give you what you paid for. It's a hypothetical argument, as LL is guilty of no worse than incompetence in this case, and again I don't think at all they ever intentionally arbitrarily deny service. If I weren't confident that as long as I follow the rules I'll never be denied service I wouldn't be here. They certainly aren't doing any of this on purpose, as it would be foolish for them to give intentional awful service to everyone. But people should complain about bad service, and customers shouldn't defend poor service. It puts pressure on the provider to improve. Apparently it has by a great deal compared to many years ago, but people who defend them when they screw up only slow down the progress.

This is not a Firestorm bug. It's probably a DOS attack by some scumbag, as I guess that was reported after yesterday's problems. If not that, then it's an issue with the hardware or the Net connection or something. It can't be a software bug, or they'd just roll it back to what worked. But it's not a Firestorm bug, as people have had issues with other viewers, though some in this thread have said that the basic viewer isn't effected quite as badly today as third party viewers (but it still is effected).

I know you smiley faced it, so you accept it's not really serious, but I will say at some point I think I wrote it didn't really matter whose fault it was, that the key was that I paid for the item and never was able to make use of it (unless i'd known it was coming back to my L+F).

@Phil Deakins I'd be surprised if many sellers made a practice of accepting "My item was lost, I'd like a replacement" because I can't prove a negative: I can't prove that I lost it and am not just looking for a free copy, and any with no-copy they don't want to give a free copy or it wouldn't be no copy. One of them eventually showed back up in Lost and Found but the other was lost, and I run area searches no matter what (and much more of course when I lost no copy items) on my parcel, just to make sure I'm not wasting prims, even on copy items I re-rezzed in case the rez I seemed to lose is just way up in the air or otherwise just hidden from my view. I don't want spare copies just lying around my parcel and using up prims, so even with copy I look. Sometimes I find, and sometimes not. I doubt it's too common for people to have copies of others' items on their parcels as gifts. From what I've seen of the controls, I can't pick who can or can't keep items on my parcel, so I have an 8 hour return set up so I again, don't waste prims if someone accidentally (or in theory on purpose) leaves something on it. I'd want to allow it if someone were giving me free use of a copy of an item I wanted, of course; but I'd then have to open up non-return rezzing to anyone at all Maybe it can be a group and only that group, and I guess then I could make a group just for it if I really wanted; and on thought that likely happens as there are roommates in sl, including partnered couples and for that matter I'm sure there are poly groups that share a house. I definitely can believe some rental property owners buy copy items and leave them in all units, and I just visited a couple of days ago someone who lived in a pre-furnished rental unit-- but if that were your only concern a limit of 5 copies would satisfy that if it were possible and you didn't think it would. I don't think it's that common to have others' items permanently in one's owned house. Roommates or partners live there too, so it's a different case.

Here's where I very strongly disagree. I bought two no copy items in that past (more than two, but I'm speaking of the two that gave me problems). There were problems rezzing them, so I lost them. The money I paid for them was thrown away. I sometimes have failures in rezzing copy items I have. But when that's the problem, I can always pull another one out. Buying no copy is as bad a gamble as playing in skill gaming regions. People should come to realize that, and then no copy items will not sell. The market already seems to punish "no copy" which is why the vast majority of items are copy or at least have a copy version. I'm glad for that.

Well, what actually happened with me was I lost two no-copy items due to problems with them rezzing, which I guess happened but at a much worse rate when the bug that blessed us long term with copyable items existed. It still happens. I only screwed up one item through a mod/linking it, and that one was copy, so I lost nothing there. I pulled the original back from my inventory. If it hadn't been copy I would have lost it, although if it had been yours you'd have replaced it. But, losing an item through rezzing problems happened twice (one of the two actually eventually got back into my lost and found folder, but I'd already bought a similar, copy, more expensive, replacement), I couldn't have returned it because I lost it, maybe due to an error on my part, or maybe a glitch in sl. It doesn't really matter much, in that I paid for it and didn't get the use of it. So now it's copy or no sale. And in non-clothing, non mesh body/head, where requiring copy/mod doesn't limit me all that much, it's copy/mod or no sale. And if it's no mod clothing, it had better at least have a hud to at least change textures.

@Phil Deakins While it's probably a dream compromise to think LL will make it possible, when you created objects, if there had been a way to allow copies but only a certain number (like 5), would you have been willing to sell copy versions then? It seems like the perfect compromise, if it were possible, between letting people put an unlimited number on rental properties and protecting the customer from loss of the item through one or two mistakes (or as still can happen when rezzing mesh on mesh among other things, bugs).

I understand why a seller might want no copy. Some put out a no-copy/trans version for a lower price, which is fine with me if they also have a copy/mod/no-trans for a higher price that isn't ridiculously higher (double at most) to make up for the fact that sometimes it will be used in more than one place. I have a few items, and I know others do as well, that are copyable, in use in my house, and in use in a sim I play in. I know that's "abusing" copy privileges to some extent, and if the problems with no copy were fixable without letting that happen, I'd understand preventing it. As a buyer, there are two reasons though that I think it's foolish to buy no-copy: I directly referred to the possibility of loss, and then, indirectly mentioned, that I can safely mod something that's copyable and if that screws something up I can grab a new copy. I'm glad that now that the market is set up as it was (which without the glitch may never have happened, so here's to the glitch), I'd be much more limited if I wanted copy items only. For those who might use them in 50+ places, it would be perfectly fine with me if there were a way to limit the number of copies to, say, 5. I know (or am pretty sure) nothing like that can be done with the current system, but it would be a fair compromise. Lose one or two, mess up one or two trying to mod it, you're fine then...but you can't run off an unlimited number for rental properties. If you mess up more trying to mod them, show the seller the ones you messed up and the seller hopefully will let you have an extra one above the 5 if you agree that if you mod that one and mess it up it's your loss. But that isn't possible, and losing one or messing one up meaning your money is thrown away, I find unacceptable. Even from a seller perspective, no copy for clothes or animations or anything that stays in the inventory and is no-trans, can still only be used by one avatar, so I can't imagine why those are ever no copy, though there do exist some that are. Copy is very useful there, in the case of clothes not only for the above reasons but even just to have different colors for different outfits without having to change them every time I put a different outfit on. And I don't see with something like clothes, how no copy helps the seller at all.

In the other thread, I definitely saw some posts where people defended making things no mod, though I'm guessing what brought this on were similar arguments the OP has seen elsewhere. It is educating the public as much as creators, which needs to be done to bring pressure for more mod items. I didn't know that it took a technical glitch to allow me to enjoy that most items for sale can be copied. I'd be very unhappy if my choices were very limited if I didn't want to buy no-copy items (and I don't, because I lost two no-copy items to glitches, so I will no longer buy them; but if copyable items were as rare as moddable items are in some areas, I might have not have enough copyable choices). I don't know if, without a glitch, there will be enough demand for moddable items (really, resistance to no mod) to make creators who want to sell their content feel they need to make it moddable to sell much. but I'd really like to see that happen. I can't do major mods, but I certainly can and do resize and on occasion recolor and on even rarer occasion link. I did link a scripted item and broke it, but it was copy so I pulled out a new one from my inventory and it was all fine (if someone uses that to defend no mod, I'd instead suggest making sure the folder it ends up in says clearly "NO SUPPORT FOR MODDED ITEMS. IF YOU MOD, KEEP THE ORIGINAL AS BACKUP OR YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN." I hope as many people as possible let people know all the things they can't do if an item is no mod and how it could hurt them in the future (I know much less about how to mod than i will, say, a year from now, and anything I might think I wouldn't mod anyway, I might in a year-- or some glitch with a change in the engine could occur). I'll slightly defend no mod in a limited case, of artistic vision, for someone who creates items they like, and any they sell is a bonus. They aren't making them to sell, but making something for themselves to use, and figure they may as well sell it to anyone who likes it. If they want a wider market, they should have to make it mod, and a resizer script if it's no mod is common sense. But you mentioned the one no mod item you ever sold was a sculpture, and I get that. You made a work of art, and while you should have (if you didn't) included a resizer script for those for whom the size didn't fit, you wanted your work of art to look like you made it. As long as you were willing to accept fewer sales, I think that's reasonable In all sorts of endeavor, there's a clash between what artists want artistically and what's likely to have more commercial success. I think going for art is acceptable there, though one should have to accept that it will limit commercial success. A work of art I likely wouldn't discriminate so much against no mod if I liked it, as long as it could be resized through a script. Furniture and clothing, someone can feel like fulfilling an artistic vision in things like that, but people should be very reluctant to buy it such that if one wants to sell many they should have to go mod; moddable clothing is unfortunately not as common as i'd like, so I often have to settle for a hud to change texture; which is too bad, because (while keeping an original as a copy in case I screwed it up) doing things like resizing clothing-- which I know works for some kinds of mesh clothing and not others-- or turning full bright on or off, etc., are things that can make an item work better with my avatar. I won't buy clothing if I neither have mod nor a hud to retexture; but I wish I could have mod on everything. Furniture (and any other things for the house like plants), enough is mod that I can outright refuse to buy no mod and still have a very good selection. It's copy/mod or I don't buy it. Even things I don't touch as of now, I want to be able to down the road when I know more-- or in case something no longer works as apparently happened with what people have spoken of with invisiprims.

I'll only play with gachas when they're really cheap because they (understandably) have to be no copy. I almost never do. Of the two items I referred to in the post you quoted, one I got back a day later in Lost and Found (I don't even recall if that was a rezz error; it was in my house where I never have trouble getting things to rezz). That was the one I'd bought another copy of by the time it was returned, so I still double-paid. The other, the one I never replaced, was a rezz error on land I didn't own but I has rezz rights to, but it was the mesh-rezz on mesh rezz error. I decided to see if I'd get it back, and then when I didn't-- I never did-- I decided I still wasn't going to double-buy it. One of those was furniture and one an appliance, so while I still hate no copy in those areas, at least I get why it's done. My copyable furniture I've at times used in more than one spot, and not necessarily even all in one building. I still say no copy should be no sale in those cases, and will not buy it myself (outside of tiny amounts I've spent on gachas, a total probably less than $L300), but with something like furniture I understand it. It can be used in multiple places if it's copy. There still is so much copyable or with copy versions I think people should avoid no copy, but there's some reason for it being no copy. But why does clothing, skins, hair, animations, etc, that is no copy even exist though (non-gachas)? There is no excuse for making it no copy-- maybe a trans version, which has to be no copy, for someone who might want to pass it on (though if it's a gift on marketplace it can be directly bought for the recipient, so I don't really get that). Before my most recent post, I had just gone to write a positive review of an animation that was imperfect but a type I'd been looking for without success-- others that were awful existed-- and was low-priced enough I thought it deserved praise. When I bought i, it was a "no trans" version, which also had a "no copy" version, but now it was no copy/no mod/trans according to marketplace. I went through with the positive review, but almost decided not to, that if the creator made it no copy/no mod (which mod for an animation just means change the name, as they can't be modded in game anyway). I've seen no copy clothing also. Why?! If it's no trans, it can't be used by more than one avatar. The only reason to make it no-copy is to hope someone loses it and has to buy another. There is zero excuse for it, and that should never, ever be bought.

I dislike no mod. I have to like something a whole lot to buy no mod, and then it had better have a hud to change textures and the like. If it's exactly the way the creator sold it and no changes can be made, no sale. I wish more would do that, and anyone who wanted to make money from their creations would allow mods (or at least a hud with many options). But you know what really gets to me? No copy, particularly when it's something (clothes, animation, etc.) that can only be used from one's own inventory, and it's not a Gacha item. If it's no copy furniture or something, at least they can say they feel that each use of it you should pay for. I still won't buy it because lose it, which due to bugs is very easy to do, and your money is thrown away for nothing. But some clothes or animations or skins are no copy. They can only be used one at a time so no one is getting the use of multiple copies for one purchase. It just allows you to make copies in case you lose one. No copy is no sale to me in almost all circumstances, and should be to everyone.

...

What bothers me here is that you're arguing that LL has zero responsibility to us. "Why do you think LL should owe you continued access...at all...?" Meaning that you're saying that I could comply with the TOS, have a paid up premium account, and they would have the moral right to decide "I don't like her" and deny me access? That would be unethical and also awful business. Ethically, they would have gotten me to spend money (most important to them) but also time and effort, much of which was fun or I wouldn't do it, but if suddenly cut off would feel wasted, and then cut me off for no decent reason. They own the servers. But there's an implied promise once they take money that there will be a very good reason if I'm denied access. And of course that's also bad for business. If people who did nothing wrong (forget about owing money; what you're saying is they have the right to deny customers access to their servers regardless, which is probably legally true but unethical if for no strong reason)...if they started doing that more than very rarely, people would leave in droves. It takes some serious actions to lose an account; and if it didn't, people wouldn't trust LL with their money, or even effort. The mountain out of a molehill, well, I didn't intend this to be a big topic of discussion, but I got very bothered by the harshness of the responses to a small comment I made, when my basic post was in favor of a one time $5 fee to confirm a non-premium account, to give people a quick way to figure an account is probably not a throwaway. Then the lockout came up, and the reactions made no sense to me, as if people forget that behind whatever account is a person, and in most cases they probably did not intend not to pay, but might be denied access to something that-- it varies by the person, but could be extremely important to them. And so the discussion went.

If I fell behind due to such a thing as identity theft (or even if I got a bigger tier than I could financially handle every month, though that would at least mean I'd made a dumb decision to bite off more tier than I could chew; I'm on a small tier and I know that won't happen short of a logistical problem, which would definitely have happened had I had the account when I had my bank account/card numbers stolen) then why should they take from me things I'd have had I never paid them anything? I could log in to a basic account, never paying a tier fee, and always could log in. If I missed my rent in real life, there might be some strict law somewhere that could let them take my access to my apartment the same day, and if it were no more important than a sl dwelling, there would be fewer tenant protections so there'd be many places that one day late would allow them to deny my access to my apartment. And I say, fine if I had a logistical nightmare and missed a tier payment: Make me essentially banned from my own land. But no one should ever be barred from sl itself (or forced to log in an alt but not one's "real" account) due to missing one month of tier fees-- because that can happen to anyone, and losing access to what you pay for is enough to give you a reason to pay for it. But I should still be able to log in and play the game, even if I'm treated by the system as not even being premium at all. I wouldn't have paid anything for that month, so I should then only get what LL gives others who pay nothing. But that I should get. And I should get time (I was saying 10 days, but it appears to be 30 days-- and that's better) to get things in order with no permanent damage. If I could set up the rules, missing fees wouldn't ever cause someone to be disallowed login. You should lose what the fees pay for. Maybe if it's a huge debt and they have no other way of collecting, that might be leverage. I accept that it'll be used as leverage if I didn't clear it up within 30 days, and could accept it if it were 10 days. In my case, beyond the regular membership fee, my tier is under $10/month, so I'm comfortable that unless I lost access to the very sources I use for online payment (though that happened once, so I'm wary of that) I'd always be able to pay it off. ,,,and I'd regain a source within 10 days, also. But I could miss the fee at a specific time, and others who had easily affordable (to them-- to some people though not me, $50/month is easily affordable; to others even my tier might be a problem) circumstances could cause it to be missed at a given time. I think after reading that the policy is that permanent damage, or loss of privileges that one can have for free, only occurs if you're over 30 days overdue, and assuming warnings occur so someone doesn't change real life cards and not realize they aren't paying, that's perfectly reasonable. I'm not thrilled with the idea that someone could lose privileges they could get for free by failing to pay for others, but I'll accept that LL may see that as the only leverage they have for collection, if someone no longer cares about their land but might about their account. But for anything huge to happen when one day late, you really don't see that anywhere. And it should at the least not be taken lightly to take away something other than what was not paid for. It would be like turning off my power if I failed to pay the cable bill.

Somewhere what I read suggested that immediately if you're behind in tier fees you're prevented from logging in. If there's a 30 day grace period, that's much more reasonable. It's even reasonable if as soon as you fail to make the tier fees you can't access your land. It just sounded like if I'd had my id theft problem when my tier fees were due, I'd immediately be locked out of my SL account, and it might have taken a week for me to get the payment info back, and all. But as long as there's a 30 day grace period, during which one can still log in (whether or not one can use the land), it's not so bad.

Heh, okay...I guess I won't do it then. I'd have paid $20 or something....