I am adding this to my resolutions list.

I am no longer a resident.

I am a customer.

Crap, it was you that planted the seed in my head! :D In combination with a book that tells the story of a language without the word “I” and thus the user has no idea of the existing of “a self”. (Kinda like “/me” but then a bit different. :D) Can’t think of the title at the moment, but it’s a pretty short story, so sure you’ll love it, although it’s a bit beyond 100 words! ;)

I ceased referring to myself as a “resident” a long time ago (about 18 months ago, I believe), seeing myself purely as a customer. Since I started my blog 13 months ago (yep, I’m still a relative newbie blogger), I’ve only ever referred to us as either “customers” or “users”.

My major critique in the use of the term “resident” has always been that it provides the illusion that we are a valid partner in SL; the implication that we’re on something of a par with LL in terms of growing the SL environment, economy, et al., and that they are prepared to be open and transparent with us.

Obviously, none of the above are true - and haven’t been for a very long time. Like any other service user, we’re a commodity, where LL is concerned, nothing more. That’s why there is so much emphasis on drawing in new (and niave) users; the simple hope that drawing new people into SL will off-set any attrition seen due to people leaving SL.

At the end of the day, they are effectively a server provider. While it may not improve things in terms of our in-world experience, we should take every opportunity to remind them of that fact.

We don’t use the term ‘resident’ anyway - we use the term ‘users’. Whatever the original reasons for the Lab choosing “Resident”, ultimately, it is a misleading term for the mass-market.

Who’s the “we,” Tateru? “I” use “resident” quite happily and don’t pretend to speak for anyone else. And whether you prefer “user,” “customer,” “player,” “shareholder,” “stakeholder,” or anything else, “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Or give off some kind of odor ;)

I have to admit that I’m not a customer of SL, or at least not a customer of LL. I don’t pay them anything–the people I pay are the content creators. I’m a customer of the Crystal Queendom, Foxbean Laboratories et (many) al., or of Cheyenne Palisades, my SL landlady.

I definitely agree, though, that talk of rights in the context of SL is pointless.

I was speaking on behalf of our organization. Sorry if that wasn’t clear. It’s our policy to use ‘user’ or ‘customer’ depending on context.

Mellissa, how do you purchase your L$ to pay those creators? Don’t you think LL takes a “bite” out of L$ transfers? And who does your SL landlady pay? ;)

SL users have no rights. LL owns SL, and the servers they run on. All these people crying over their ‘rights’ to do this or that in SL is hogwash. Users are allowed to do, what LL allows them to do. That is, as it should be. LL owns it all, they put the work into it, they put the money into it, it is their company, their product, and, as far as I’m concerned, they can do with it whatever they please.

That doesn’t mean that everything they do makes me happy, some of it downright pisses me off. But I recognize it is *their* business, and they’ll do with it what they want to do with it.

Their actions (or in-actions) will either create them profit, or drive them out of business. Either way, we, as userresicustomitizens have no rights what so ever.

But Danny, even as a company, they _are_ a “service provider”, no? ;)

We have the same basic rights as the customers of any other service, do we not? Leastways I don’t see any reason why we should have any less or any more than if we were the customers of any other kind of service.

True, the do provide a service, and they provide it as they see fit. If you think you have a ‘right’ to use their service, I don’t see it. I remember signs ‘back in the day’ in restaurants and elsewhere which read “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Some businesses (at least in the US) still have such signs.

Just as those who run around in child avatars, as well as Goreans, and the BDSM crowd, somehow thought maybe they had a ‘right’ to participate in that birthday celebration a few months back. They found out they were wrong. Along the lines with the Open Spaces people, who somehow thought they had a ‘right’ to cheap land found out they were wrong.

LL can take your objects, take your lindens, ban you and even delete you, for whatever reasons they see fit. They don’t really *have* to justify it, they try to most of the time I think, because they want people to populate their world, but they really don’t have to.

I’m not saying it’s right, I’m not saying we don’t deserve better. I’m saying, this is how I see it. It is LL’s property, everything in SL is, regardless of how they try to convince us otherwise. I create something, they say it’s mine, but if they can delete it from their databases in the blink of an eye…how is it really mine then?

And so, yes, they do provide a service, one they have every right to deny to us at their whim. I’m really not trying to argue with anyone here, but as I see it, we ‘reside’ in a (mostly) benign dictatorship. Where one group holds power supreme over all that is, and can be, in their universe. They want people to stay there, the want their economy to thrive, so try to make things as painless as possible. But they also have overlords (different world governments, with their own rules, laws and regulations) whom they must keep happy as well.

I don’t envy their position, not even a little bit. Kind of between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they have to deal with varying levels of laws in various countries. In some countries, a picture might be illegal, while in others, it isn’t. All the while, the ‘residents’ who like the pictures, think they have a right to have and display them. While those that don’t like the pictures, think they have a right to have them removed, and the owners/creators of said pictures executed (banned).

“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” => I believe that would be illegal in Belgium. Dress codes allowed, but anyone would mean you can refuse them for being gay, Hispanic or a lawyer. Not allowed. :)

And DagnyT, with the service they provide of ‘hosting land’, they do have obligations. Uptime, functionality, … . Then, they sell the “land” with “to start your own business” in Second Life. Which means they have an obligation to make sure payments actually work, transfers work, … . They promise DRM tools (transfer, mod, copy), so they have the obligation to make sure those work. (And are not easily bypassed.) Etc?

True, Vint, LL has agreed to behave in a certain way. They have bound themselves by their agreements. But a contract does not give one rights. And they can change their ToS at will, as they see fit - which we have seen happen in the past.

Again, there are agreements in place, in which LL had agreed to behave in a certain manner, to provide certain services, at certain prices. This does not give anyone a right to anything though.

If LL wanted to, they could remove the copy/mod/xfer restrictions on items. They don’t because it benefits them (financially) to have them there. If you believe that LL would not remove those restrictions, if it meant they would get more money by doing so…I don’t know what to tell you, I believe you are wrong. They are capitalists, in a capitalist country (not that there’s anything wrong with that). If you somehow think they are maintaining SL for the common good, instead of hoping to turn a good profit, I think you’re mistaken.

In Real Life (RL), I sleep, eat, and perform various other biological functions that keep my “human” alive. Due to various limitations, however, I don’t socialize, engage in many entertainments, or otherwise have what most people would call “a life.” So I have a Second Life® (SL).

In SL, I dance, laugh, play, and love and fly (oh! I soooo love to fly) and any number of things I can’t do in RL. And, yes, I cry and ache because I can’t separate my emotions from my “human.” It may seem sad to some, but I put as much of me into SL as I can for in many ways it is my life. I can imagine what shut-ins like me did before virtual worlds and it doesn’t seem pretty.

While I’d love to have more in-world civil rights or features like property insurance for when my inventory disappears (again), I realize that we residents/customers/users are not far ahead of the cutting edge. Life on the internet moves at a blazing speed compared to life off the grid but even electronic evolution takes time.

Thanks to all of you that have steadier nerves to push the evolution along. I hope that in doing so everyone looks at all the potential consequences. What would we lose compared to what we could gain? One’s innocence can be lost but once.

::::reaches for the fruit of the Tree and prepares to leave paradise::::

Melissa Yeuxdoux– I think that LL needs to be a little more open with SL in the sense allowing for more instances people like you to BUY land… BUY land and pay tier, know what I mean? I think that they would actually earn more money if they would have a decent “varification” system in place, and yet allow Non “Members” (who are still customers) to take a larger roll in the economic system in place.

The flow of money via Non-Members I find could actually be and often IS more than those of us who pay yearly membership fees ect… We get something for those fees, a 512 tier discount, maybe an “allowence” to supliment our budgets but then nothing more.. maybe there should be MORE incentive to pay the premium fee… but nothing BLOCKING people who are not paying anything.

It shouldn’t be an exclusive thing, it should be a sensible buisness plan.. I believe this wouldn’t disrupt the order of things and I believe that it would make things cheaper for the rest of us, and the people who shop a little more active.

I don’t really like the idea, for one.

It seems to me to be “fighting fire with fire”. It’s just…a bit tacky, to me.

It’s all my honest opinion, though. I could be wrong!

[…] Falken’s recently wrote about dropping the word “Resident” and using “Customer” instead. After leaving a (pretty weak) comment on that post, I figured it was time I said a few qualifying […]

ego’s?
The dreaded greengrocer’s apostrophe strikes even in Flanders.
Isn’t the plural of ego nos?