See also:
- “Avatar of the Year, 2nd Place: The Unverified” on the Second Life Herald
- Tateru Nino’s “The Value of One” article on Second Life Insider
- Lindens’ “Diversity and an Open Community” article in 2006 December Second Opinion newsletter
10.10.2006 – My point of view about this is surely biased, because I’m on a free-account, so every restriction against residents without Payment Info on file would harm me. But the point of view of people that complain about free-account residents is biased as well, because they are obviously on paid-accounts.
That said, I think that any division between “honest” and “not honest” people is ridiculous, if based on Payment Info on file. The same applies to any division between “people you can trust to” and “people you cannot trust to”. I’m on a free account, and I never harmed any other resident.
As other people underlined, I would not play Second Life if I should pay for it. I wouldn’t even have joined in, if I should have put my personal information on the web – that’s dangerous for privacy. Also, it’s not actually even possible for people in many countries to obtain any of the payment methods that LL accepts.
Lots of people complain about free-account residents, and they don’t understand that free-account residents are an important part of the SL ecosystem.
You really think you may stop grid attacks by limiting free-account access?
Grid attacks will stop when SL code will have been properly patched or rewritten.
[...] “Open Letter” is strongly biased against “unverified accounts”. I think this is not acceptable. Paying and not-paying residents have the same dignity and must have the same [...]
Pingback by I disagree with "Project Open Letter" « Personal media in Second Life — April 30, 2007 @ 8:53 pm