[SLED] Re: new access policy
sl at globalkids.org
Mon Feb 19 06:20:58 PST 2007
I think your suggested solution raises an issue I have often
mentioned in the past - participation and management of that
participation in SL is based on its vestigial nature as a game - in
which one account is managed by one person - as opposed to the
communication tool it has become - in which organizations jointly own
groups of accounts and can manage those accounts.
It is clear to me that for SL to scale they need to provide group
management tools for, just to take one example, an educator to create
and manage her student's accounts. Once such a tool is in place, it
will be self-evident that the manager is in an approved educators
category, and the avatar accounts they manage would be associated
with an educator. We as a group could then put our voices behind
insisting that if SL wants to be used for education, they have to
acknowledge that we, the account manager, is the one to be held
accountable by a new system (e.g. have we purchased lindens) and not
the students we bring in.
But until such a group tool is in place, it seems we will be at quite
the disadvantage as we expand our programs if indeed our students are
>Would a simple solution here be:
>1 Pathfinder sets up a list of accredited educational establishments
>and an assigned avatar name to each.
>2 That each 'head edu avatar' creates a group OR fills in a 2D
>online form with a list of 'approved taking-a-class avatars'
>3 This educational batch of avatars be treated as 'paying' customers?
>Thoughts? Is this workable? Could you see LL doing this? I can't
>imagine the proportion of 'being-taught' avies being more than 2% of
>the total of 'entertainment' avies? Is this being elitist? etc etc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Educators