To RODVIK - Request meeting with Merchants on CommerceTeam concerns

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

AND... in the end.... it was fun to manipulate the lil Teen Bullies into generating so much attention on this thread and its TOPIC TITLE that you created Luna and that stayed on the top of the busiest forum thread for almost 2 days.

---

And, when you asked, someone explained to you how to email Lindens direct  (firstname@lindenlab.com), so it certainly wasn't a wasted visit.

[Couldbe Yue]

and one last thing whilst I'm still on my high horse..

I've only been in sl since 2006, during that time I've lived through VAT, openspace, adult content, XSL/SLM and countless other dramas where the emotional pitch has been borderline hysteric and threats of lawsuits and leaving have been rife.  Adult content was an absolute classic for that, countless people threatened to leave and you know what?  I still see them around. 

Those threats are empty and do nothing to support any case.  Reasoned argument (as with your LM suggestion Toy) goes further.

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Couldbe Yue wrote:

and one last thing whilst I'm still on my high horse..

I've only been in sl since 2006, during that time I've lived through VAT, openspace, adult content, XSL/SLM and countless other dramas where the emotional pitch has been borderline hysteric and threats of lawsuits and

leaving have been rife

.  Adult content was an absolute classic for that,

countless people threatened to leave and you know what?  I still see them around. 

Those threats are empty and do nothing to support any case.

  Reasoned argument (as with your LM suggestion Toy) goes further.

---

Disregarding your first posting as I know you didnt like me putting the SLU thread thug regulars in a bad light.....

So Couldbe, Could you please point out where any one of us Merchants on this thread as well as those on the SLU thread threatened in ANY WAY to pull up stakes and leave?  If this was such a strong message you read in the SLU thread or this one, you should have no problem at all finding at least 2 examples where any one of us that have been trying to get Rodvik to take notice of the fiasco that he has allowed to continue in the Commerce Team.

It sorta proves that you were so tied into the emotions of the thread with the SLU that you failed to notice that it was the SLU Thread Thugs that constantly threw up the same lame argument that I have always heard from the LL CheerLeaders over all these years.....

"If you really hate MP and the Commece Team so much then just leave! - Only Sell in-world"

One of the most stupid and ignorant responses that a LL FonBoy seems to keep using.  Why?  Because they know full well as do all of us responsible Merchants of SL that LL's MP is a monopoly and as much as we hate the incompetance that is running MP and the lack of customer support and the constant bugs that impacts sales and take $L from our accounts without notice and unauthorized.....  as Pamela has said many times and almost all Merchants agree  "A BROKEN MP IS STILL BETTER THAN NO MP"

I suspect you will not be able to meet my challenge and find that clear statement from any one of us that said we will leave if Rodvik doesnt talk to us.

Maybe you should go back to the SLU thread and be less sympathetic to the childish Thread Thugs who's only purpoose is to thump their chests and try to prove to the other regulars that they know better than any non-regular SLU member.

While I am still on my high horse...

Ask yourself this Couldbe....   Why would I, Darrius, Dart, Luna, and many others in the Merchant community go through so much trouble and take so much time and endure so many arrows from thread goofs to take up a cause simply for the purpose of wanting to leave MP?  why?  I can tell you as a fact that I would not waste my time and effort for any cause that I did not care about and that I had no care for its future and that I could just as easily abandon.

Unlike the SLU Thread Thugs that do not care about MP (as one of them have stated many times in the SLU thread) and would rather take up their valuable time disrupting other's causes, we do care and that is why we take the time.

[Toysoldier Thor]

PPS...

You may or may not be right about Rodivk's reaction to the thread... but the entire topic of the value of the $L is a critical aspect IMHO to getting Rodvik's attention as much as the long laundry list of other issues that needs to be addressed within the Commerce Team. 

Getting the point across and having Rodvik realize that others are realizing that LL cannot hide behind a TOS statement that the $L is simply a game token without value is a critical point that will scare Rodvik more than anything else.

Why?  Because if the $L has proven value and if there is enough shouting about it on the open threads that LL is trying to pretend that their practice of running a virtual economy using a $L currency that can actually be exchanged for true $US currency as not only endorsed by LL but actually promoted and run by LL.... enough RL attention might be drawn to this that LL would have to deal with RL litigation and Government scrutiny as to "what is LL doing here and maybe these so-called virtual currencies need to be better regulated".

We Merchants have ZERO power to get Rodviks attention since we know, LL Commerce Team knows, and Rodvik knows that the MP is the only game in town and all the complaining and conerns we have wont change the fact that we will continue to use this poorly run untrusted MP until SL shuts it down.

BUT... Rodvik absolutely does not want to draw the attention of government regulators that find out that LL is running a virtual currency that has real value and that poor LL practices are causing potential fraudulent activities to happen due to negligence on the part of his staff.  i.e. LL could not hide behind the argument in the TOS that "any losses we incur - we are not liable for it"  even if it means we put in poorly developed and inadequately audited controls on the financial systems that cause a LL customer to have his/her lindens taken without concent or not receive lindens for sales made.

So ... I would completely disagree with you that the "does $L have value or not" debate in the SLU thread was only a distraction that would have made Rodvik move on to another thread.  It was likely one of the only reasons he is likely reading the thread even with the FUD and thread stomping that the SLU regulars are doing to the thread.

 

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

Because if the $L has proven value and if there is enough shouting about it on the open threads that LL is trying to pretend that their practice of running a virtual economy using a $L currency that can actually be exchanged for true $US currency as not only endorsed by LL but actually promoted and run by LL.... enough RL attention might be drawn to this that LL would have to deal with RL litigation and Government scrutiny as to "what is LL doing here and maybe these so-called virtual currencies need to be better regulated".

...

Rodvik absolutely does not want to draw the attention of government regulators that find out that LL is running a virtual currency that has real value and that poor LL practices are causing potential fraudulent activities to happen due to negligence on the part of his staff.

---

I sincerely hope you're joking about this being your strategy.

Take ten minutes, think it through. Is this something you want to have said in this thread?

[Innula Zenovka]

Unless you're seriously expecting Rodvik to say, "Good heavens!  You've persuaded me that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency.  I shall direct my legal department to rewrite Section 5 of the ToS forthwith, in the hope we can thus stay under the radar of government regulators",  which seems a bit fanciful,  to my mind the only thing that's going to persuade LL that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency would be a judicial ruling to that effect.    Making claims is one thing.    Persuading a court to enforce them is quite a different kettle of fish.

Has anyone, in fact, sought profession advice from a competent attorney about the likelihood of a court being persuaded to set aside the ToS in this respect?   It seems to me rather a specialist area of the law, I have to say.

[Couldbe Yue]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

---

Couldbe Yue wrote:

and one last thing whilst I'm still on my high horse..

I've only been in sl since 2006, during that time I've lived through VAT, openspace, adult content, XSL/SLM and countless other dramas where the emotional pitch has been borderline hysteric and threats of lawsuits and

leaving have been rife

.  Adult content was an absolute classic for that,

countless people threatened to leave and you know what?  I still see them around. 

Those threats are empty and do nothing to support any case.

  Reasoned argument (as with your LM suggestion Toy) goes further.

---

Disregarding your first posting as I know you didnt like me putting the SLU thread thug regulars in a bad light.....

So Couldbe, Could you please point out where any one of us Merchants on this thread as well as those on the SLU thread threatened in ANY WAY to pull up stakes and leave?  If this was such a strong message you read in the SLU thread or this one, you should have no problem at all finding at least 2 examples where any one of us that have been trying to get Rodvik to take notice of the fiasco that he has allowed to continue in the Commerce Team.

It sorta proves that you were so tied into the emotions of the thread with the SLU that you failed to notice that it was the SLU Thread Thugs that constantly threw up the same lame argument that I have always heard from the LL CheerLeaders over all these years.....

"If you really hate MP and the Commece Team so much then just leave! - Only Sell in-world"

One of the most stupid and ignorant responses that a LL FonBoy seems to keep using.  Why?  Because they know full well as do all of us responsible Merchants of SL that LL's MP is a monopoly and as much as we hate the incompetance that is running MP and the lack of customer support and the constant bugs that impacts sales and take $L from our accounts without notice and unauthorized.....  as Pamela has said many times and almost all Merchants agree  "

A BROKEN MP IS STILL BETTER THAN NO MP

"

I suspect you will not be able to meet my challenge and find that clear statement from any one of us that said we will leave if Rodvik doesnt talk to us.

Maybe you should go back to the SLU thread and be less sympathetic to the childish Thread Thugs who's only purpoose is to thump their chests and try to prove to the other regulars that they know better than any non-regular SLU member.

While I am still on my high horse...

Ask yourself this Couldbe....   Why would I, Darrius, Dart, Luna, and many others in the Merchant community go through so much trouble and take so much time and endure so many arrows from thread goofs to take up a cause simply for the purpose of wanting to leave MP?  why?  I can tell you as a fact that I would not waste my time and effort for any cause that I did not care about and that I had no care for its future and that I could just as easily abandon.

Unlike the SLU Thread Thugs that do not care about MP (as one of them have stated many times in the SLU thread) and would rather take up their valuable time disrupting other's causes, we do care and that is why we take the time.

---

go ahead and ignore the gist of what I say and concentrate on the irrelevancies..   but your emotive, deliberately insulting language about thugs a great example of the use of language designed as dog whistle to prejudices rather than anything rational and certainly does nothing to enhance what you say (I'd suggest a quick read of this for anyone who is interested in seeing how many you can spot  http://lifehacker.com/5948535/how-to-prime-your-bs-detection-skills-before-the-presidential-debates).

 

 

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Unless you're seriously expecting Rodvik to say, "Good heavens!  You've persuaded me that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency.  I shall direct my legal department to rewrite

Section 5 of the ToS

forthwith, in the hope we can thus stay under the radar of government regulators",  which seems a bit fanciful,  to my mind the only thing that's going to persuade LL that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency would be a judicial ruling to that effect.    Making claims is one thing.    Persuading a court to enforce them is quite a different kettle of fish.

Has anyone, in fact, sought profession advice from a competent attorney about the likelihood of a court being persuaded to set aside the ToS in this respect?   It seems to me rather a specialist area of the law, I have to say.

---

In all honesty... what Merchant has the financial capability to expend that much $ to prove this?  And also, its moreso a factor that Rodvik would just want this to stay quiet so that it never even comes up as a challenge - either legally or because of regulatory review.

And for the Merchants - most of whom do understand that regardless what LL's TOS states knows full well that $L has actual value - its not as big a deal for us if LL or the outside world officially recognize it or not.... we Merchants simply want Rodvik and LL to provde a level of service with the understanding that they are dealing with systems that their customers use to generate RL incomes from these $L tokens.

As such, IF ... IF... Rodvik would rather that this topic is not even discussed... the solution is so very very simple..... listen to the concerns from the Merchants and address their frustrations and concerns and provide a healthy trusted reasonable MP service to the Merchants so that there is no reason at all for Merchants to bring up the topic.

Its really quite simple.

[Deja Letov]

I've stayed out of this thread for the most part because quite honestly the legality of it all is probably way over my head and I would most likely be making guesses and inaccurate guesses at this. But I have seen the TOS about L$ not being real currency. So I guess my question is...if L$ isn't real currency how are people filing for losses against people and taking them to court for actual financial losses due to theft or whatever in SL? When someone files a DMCA and gets their contact info to take them to court...how can they sue for any damages or loss of revenue, if they in fact haven't really lost any real money? Only L$?

[JoJo Aurelia]

It goes back to a couple of lost cows on a Zynga game... Actually, in my OP I didn't get into specifics, but repeatedly I lost inventory on several of their games and the inventory was restored with an email to their CS along with additional money or gifts for the trouble. True, you can't cash their money out into PayPal, but during my three years as a merchant here, I never cashed out. I used all monies earned to keep my business going--to pay tiers and to purchase items to keep my store operating, either seasonally or things like mesh, etc--in other words to pump it back into the SL economy. 

I beat myself up too over this, thinking I shouldn't have been organizing my inventory, that I shouldn't have emptied the trash,  I should have... I was emotionally invested in all the work.  Linden's final message to me regarding I played this game with no guarantees, was my final reason for defeat.  There is a guarantee they'll take your money...but none it's safe. Go figure.

I appreciated all responses here because I really just posted mostly to the blog and slinked away rather depressed, alone in my depression, and saddened by it all.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Unless you're seriously expecting Rodvik to say, "Good heavens!  You've persuaded me that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency.  I shall direct my legal department to rewrite

Section 5 of the ToS

forthwith, in the hope we can thus stay under the radar of government regulators",  which seems a bit fanciful,  to my mind the only thing that's going to persuade LL that the L$ is, in fact, a form of currency would be a judicial ruling to that effect.    Making claims is one thing.    Persuading a court to enforce them is quite a different kettle of fish.

Has anyone, in fact, sought profession advice from a competent attorney about the likelihood of a court being persuaded to set aside the ToS in this respect?   It seems to me rather a specialist area of the law, I have to say.

---

Professional advice? No.

I almost hesitate to bring it up ... I agree with you, this whole thing isn't about a legal argument really. But yes, I've had the occassional and casual water cooler type of conversations about the legal issues with some of this stuff about IP, virtual goods, currency, etc. We're maintaining some legal support software and services and I get to have casual conversations like this in passing.

I wouldn't repeat any of it, mostly because of the ethics ... they were second hand non professional hypothetical conversations, opinions vary, they're aren't my attorneys, or ours and one set of answers can be moot depending on the legal strategy involved and what angles and how many are being targeted. It's best left to official representation  In the end no one can offer legal advice but your own attorney(s).

My personal opinion is that the biggest bang for the expensive or crowd sourced buck are things like regulation, lobbying, awareness, watchdog organizations, etc. I think you could get more done for the same price on a global scale for the money that you could in a case that will probably end up as a settlement anyway and you get to address what you're trying to address at the heart of the matter ... which is a something you believe is bad practice or lack of protection rather than legally nitpicking at details with one specific company.

That said, I think if this were framed not as a threat, but as a warning that these things "can" be challenged, which they know already, so it just serves as a reminder that legal action does cross your mind as a solution when things get this bad. Legally who knows until it's resolved, but we feel led to believe that this should be more professional and responsible to customers and those self employed.

And that the idea is that no one wants to go down that rabbit hole, but that there are avenues available to consumers of SL to try to protect themselves, if need be. It's not a threat, it's a response to looking for a solution to what we perceive as an over burdening problem while trying to get the company to step up and solve it themselves.

[Ela Talaj]

"Has anyone, in fact, sought profession advice from a competent attorney about the likelihood of a court being persuaded to set aside the ToS in this respect?   It seems to me rather a specialist area of the law, I have to say."

That is the last thing we need, Innula, and exactly the direction I warned against in my post in this thread. The advice you wish for would costs anywhere from $800 to $1500 per hour and before we know it there would be no Lab and no SL just heaps of legal bills, which their dilapidated red brick building would be hardly able to hold.

As for unprofessional advice I fail to see a substantial difference between L$ and casino tokens (aka chips) issued by a specific establishment for a specific purpose yet convertable on demand to real dollars. To my knowledge there is no precedent declaring them "currency".

[Innula Zenovka]

I agree, Ela.   While I certainly don't understand that potential benefits and pitfalls of having the L$ declared to be something other than what the ToS say it is, I am certain it would complicate my tax situation if I had to provide an accounting for all my L$ transactions rather than just decare what I cash out, and I'm equally certain that, as you say, it would be very expensive indeed to find out what a court thinks about it all.  To my mind, that's one game that certainly wouldn't be worth the candle.

I'm not even sure L$ are akin to casino chips, which at least the casino says it will buy back from you.   LL just  provide a mechanism -- the Lindex -- whereby I can sell my L$ to other people who're willing to buy them at a mutually agreeable rate.      

My point, anyway, was that I don't think arguments about whether L$ are currency or not really get anyone very far and are pretty much a waste of time and energy.     And I don't see "The L$ is currency so that means you've got to make a better fist of running the Marketplace" is much of an argument, anyway.   

[JoJo Aurelia]

This is from 08, but it's worth a read about virtual goods and the law.

 

If a player in a MMOG were to accumulate a large amount of in-game currency (or
special items) and then lose it through another player’s fraudulent actions, was anything
actually lost?

[Dartagan Shepherd]

---

Deja Letov wrote:

I've stayed out of this thread for the most part because quite honestly the legality of it all is probably way over my head and I would most likely be making guesses and inaccurate guesses at this. But I have seen the TOS about L$ not being real currency. So I guess my question is...if L$ isn't real currency how are people filing for losses against people and taking them to court for actual financial losses due to theft or whatever in SL? When someone files a DMCA and gets their contact info to take them to court...how can they sue for any damages or loss of revenue, if they in fact haven't really lost any real money? Only L$?

---

Heheh, that's a point. I think it's enough that there are two real money endpoints, purchasing them and the ability to cash them out and what created the value to the real money that was cashed out.

It's not so much whether they're currency as whether they have worth to people in real money terms, or probably more specifically does the use or abuse of them relate to real money earnings or losses. In the middle we have our content that can easily be proven to have worth.

When you cash it out, for an item of yours that you sold that you had IP rights to, where did the value of those tokens come from? That bit is a pretty clear path.

It's the value of the tokens that means more than whether it's a currency. There's more than enough to connect the "value" dots. The banks are more concerned about the tokens role as currency, they're the ones missing out on the "transaction" fees. As far as taxes, hitting the payment provider is enough so far.

It's the cashing out part that puts it in another class than game money that doesn't have any worth.

Just a note about our liability and taxes, etc. There are plenty of content sales sites out there, Turbosquid being a great example because we're talking mesh content sold directly for real money. Even when it IS real money and has real value, they easily deal with liability, tax issues and consumer protection without any of the nonsense we see here.

Of course they're on top of their game and treat their sellers with respect and responsibility without skirting all of these issues with funny money. So that it's more "dangerous" or costly than here if it had real value or had to obey real laws or to be treated as real money really doesn't hold a lot of weight.

It's not going to destroy SL any more than it destroyed Amazon and sellers.

[Toysoldier Thor]

I agree as well that no Merchant really has the means nor would it be of interest to most Merchants that they take the legal sword up.  Nor have I ever stated that they should.  In fact I already posted previously what I said just now.

But if there is an entrenchment belief in the community and moreso with Rodvik and the Commerce Team that $L are not real currency and have no value and we at LL have even covered our butts to officially tell you it has no value.... then it give the Commerce Team an easy out whenever their many changes directly impact a Merchants EARNED $L account to do what they clearly are doing now..... ^shrugs^ and state to the merchant community .... "well sorry about your loss from our boo boo" and then point their finger to the TOS that you really didnt lose anything of value nor are we responsible for what ever you did lose.

I have in no way threatened Rodvik in anyway because of this.  How can I or any Merchant honestly "threaten" Rodvik or LL?  If they and their lawyers truly beleive they are in the right and their position on the true valuation and governance of the $L currency is accurate, then why would he care if we are discussing if $L currency has value or not?

If he would rather it not be discussed and its generally ONLY being discussed now because Merchants want to point out that the failed / weak practices and management of the MP is causing RL losses to Merchants... one would think a CEO of a company would want to **bleep** this whole issue in the behind and do what any leader of a company should want to do -

Sit down and listen to and understand the frustrations and concerns from this segment of his customers regarding one of his departments and a critical aspect of what makes SL successful (i.e. the main distribution of content into the SL grid).

 

I dont even care if he would want to conduct this session as a BLOG he initiates on this SL Community that starts out with him saying

"Merchants of SL... I have been hearing you have some real concerns with the Marketplace and how it is managed and run.  I am aware of some of these issues but it is clear that maybe I am not aware of all the issues that truly are concerning you.  I have talked to my Commerce Team management to get their perspective on the situation and why this team's respective Merchants community is frustrated.  But now I would like to hear your concerns. 

As such, I invite any Merchants and even Customers of Marketplace to post your comments as to the list of your concerns.  I want to assure you that I will be reading all the comments and that I will also be asking a member of my staff to develop a list of the concerns that I am sure you all are more than willing to share with me.

After 1 week, I will ask my staff to post a followup to my Blog with the top 5 - 10 concerns (that was determined by the frequency and overall popularity of the concerns among all the comments from you).  I will ask you all if myself and LL captured your top concern accurately.   I will then promise the community that I will instruct my team to come up with an action plan for each of the concerns and come back to you within 60 days with how I and my management team will address your concerns.

In conclusion... I want to tell you that maybe LL has not paid enough attention on the concerns by this segment of the SL community but you have my attention now.  And I promise to come up with a plan to address your concerns because I do fully understand that without a healthy Merchant / Creator community - there is no SL.  And we cannot have that.

signed <Toy wishing it was Rodvik that blogged this>

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Faye Feldragonne wrote:

This is from 08, but it's worth a read about virtual goods and the law.

 

If a player in a MMOG were to accumulate a large amount of in-game currency (or

special items) and then lose it through another player’s fraudulent actions, was anything

actually lost?

---

WOW... that was a VERY INTERESTING READ !

And SecondLife is even mentioned in the detailed discussion.

 

Thanks for sharing that.

[Dartagan Shepherd]

Just finished that, it is a good read. Thanks as well.

[Prokofy Neva]

Some SL history for you young whippersnappers and those who don't remember history and may be doomed to repeat it -- as to what happens when you demand -- and get -- a meeting with Lindens and demand -- and get -- a list of your requests:

In 2005, the Lindens decided to deprecate the telehubs, because they wanted to introduce point-to-point teleportation. They didn't inform the public they were going to do this. They continued to sell scarce and valuable telehub land on the auction and accept payments from unwitting merchants. They continued to roll out new sims with telehubs, place the bid higher than for other land on the auction, and accept payments. Anshe Chung cornered the market on a lot of this land as she often did with higher bids, but instead of renting a lot of it, she began to sell it instead for a higher price. This was either because she, like other sharp-eyed power players spotted the implications from the Lindens new improved map features that showed buildings, and realized they would move to PPT, or else she had an inside tip, or both. Long story short, many merchants got caught with a lot of suddenly very worthless land they'd paid a huge amount for when the Lindens announced the removal of telehubs -- which were hated by an old guard of early adapter merchants with stores in remote places on old sims, because they enabled newer merchants to more democratically enter a free market just by paying highter telehub mall prices. Most transactions in Second Life were happening at telehub malls, and despite the horror stories of lag and blight, that's where most people shopped.

A group of land barons demanded a meeting with the Lindens over the telehub and other issues of the day -- everything from a demand to have a corporate ethics manual (people were tired of Linden staff endorsing some of their friends in business and throwing them more revenue that way) to an end to the practice of having invisible Lindens enter sims to spy on people.

The land barons got their meeting. Let me tell you that it was quite a sight when a dozens of land barons on a fully packed sim faced down Philip Linden and Robin Linden, and stood up and said they would take action if he didn't meet their demands.

The forums went wild with hatred of land barons and jealousy that they got a meeting. All they did was get organized and be public about what they did, which was normal in a democratic society. The scripters and oldbie designers who already got their meetings with Lindens in real life or inworld on their alts secretly were fuming.

The result? Well, not a real lot. A sort of half-hearted corporate ethics manual was made, but it didn't deal adequately with the issue of residents-turned-Linden who didn't abandon their conflicts of interest in huge businesses or influential social projects.

But on the telehubs, the Lindens -- after their minds were concentrated by getting a letter from some lawyers noting that they could face "bait and switch" charges under California law -- and ads from Anshe saying "Turn Your Back on Governor Linden" threatening to stop buying Mainland on the auctions, the Lindens decided to provide compensation. They agreed to buy back the now-useless telehub land at the reasonable price of $6/meter. Not great, when it sold for $20 at the time or more, but it was something.

The Lindens got back at the revolting landlords -- they then suddenly land-glutted with dozens of pretty white sand sims in a separate area off the mainland -- but still mainland -- called "bulk sims" -- so that Anshe was forced to buy this higher-priced land, even with her coffers filled with compensation from the telehub malls, and thus not get ahead as originally planned. Then later, the Lindens had to eat some of their profits again over the island pricing scandal (they were about to raise the price and were going to let developers inworld on their SL Dev list get an early whack at last-minute sales and grandfathering). Then the Lindens got their revenge back by changing the homestead pricing. There's much more to this story which I've blogged about in the past, but the moral is:

Yes, you can demand inworld meetings and maybe get them. And yes, it makes sense to go to the Lindens with demands, and even lawyers. They do respond. In part. Then they get revenge. Never forget: it's their game.

I think personally on the Marketplace issues, that there has been just too much hurry to ascribe ill will to Lindens at the helm here, and not willingness to see that their business interest requires a fast and furious move to the Marketplace to try to change their model of sole reliance on server leases to one in which move revenue comes in the form of digital content sales commissions.

It's sad, and short-sighted and all the rest, but it's their business, not ours, and they aren't required to help our businesses, and don't, and it's better to accept that and move to other grids, or adjust.

In a world where first voting on the JIRA was shut off, then the very view of the JIRA was shut off and limited to only a very select short list of scripter friends, you can hardly say that communications are two-way in other aspects of SL. They aren't, and this is indicative.

[Darrius Gothly]

Interesting post Prok .. thank you.

You've hit a nail on the head I've been trying to spotlight for a while. That being .. why do the Lindens see the SL Residents as enemies? And why do they feel the need to seek "Revenge"?

That seems to be at the core of all the ill-fated and ill-envisioned initiatives the Lab undertakes .. that somehow LL must either get back at the Residents for something, or take something away almost like a child punishing a wayward child.

Have you ever arrived at a reasonable cause for their adversarial perception of their customers?

[Rodvik Linden]

Hey folks, just dropping a note to let you know I have read the thread.  The team reads the boards every day so they asked me to pop in to acknowledge that they read the boards and I have also read this thread. I appreciate the feature requests and bug notifications in particular.

For sure we can up the tempo of communiation in blog posts and notifcations to upcoming changes & fixes. We remain commited to our merchant community and I appreciate you taking the time to write down what you would like to see in the future for SL.

 

 

 

 

[Toysoldier Thor]

---

Rodvik Linden wrote:

Hey folks, just dropping a note to let you know I have read the thread.  The team reads the boards every day so they asked me to pop in to acknowledge that they read the boards and I have also read this thread. I appreciate the feature requests and bug notifications in particular.

For sure we can up the tempo of communiation in blog posts and notifcations to upcomig changes & fixes. We remain commited to our merchant community and I appreciate you taking the time to write down what you would like to see in the future for SL. 

---

 

Thank you Rodvik.  That is all we ask is to be heard by you and to help us improve the Marketplace that only benefits you, the Merchants, and both our customers.

How would you like to collect our concerns?

[Arwen Serpente]

---

Rodvik Linden wrote:

Hey folks, just dropping a note to let you know I have read the thread.  The team reads the boards every day so they asked me to pop in to acknowledge that they read the boards and I have also read this thread. I appreciate the feature requests and bug notifications in particular.

For sure we can up the tempo of communiation in blog posts and notifcations to upcoming changes & fixes. We remain commited to our merchant community and I appreciate you taking the time to write down what you would like to see in the future for SL.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Thank you, Rodvik.

Just having you pop in here and acknowledge the discussion sincerely lifted my spirits and gave me a second wind (in Second Life) to continue to create. It's my RL birthday and this was a totally unexpected "gift". Sincerely appreciated.

And thank you to the Commerce Team for reading the threads and letting Rodvik know what's going on with the Merchant Community.

I'm sure there will be lots of comments keeping this thread active for quite a while

[Rodvik Linden]

---

Toysoldier Thor wrote:

---

Rodvik Linden wrote:

Hey folks, just dropping a note to let you know I have read the thread.  The team reads the boards every day so they asked me to pop in to acknowledge that they read the boards and I have also read this thread. I appreciate the feature requests and bug notifications in particular.

For sure we can up the tempo of communiation in blog posts and notifcations to upcomig changes & fixes. We remain commited to our merchant community and I appreciate you taking the time to write down what you would like to see in the future for SL. 

---

 

Thank you Rodvik.  That is all we ask is to be heard by you and to help us improve the Marketplace that only benefits you, the Merchants, and both our customers.

How would you like to collect our concerns?

---

Welcome. I think folks have already mentioned a lot. Maybe just adding to this thread would be good. We "dont mean the royal we, but either myself or someone form the team) will stop by and let folks know we have read the extra feedback sometime early next week.

All the best

Rod

 

 

[Rodvik Linden]

---

Arwen Serpente wrote:

---

Rodvik Linden wrote:

Hey folks, just dropping a note to let you know I have read the thread.  The team reads the boards every day so they asked me to pop in to acknowledge that they read the boards and I have also read this thread. I appreciate the feature requests and bug notifications in particular.

For sure we can up the tempo of communiation in blog posts and notifcations to upcoming changes & fixes. We remain commited to our merchant community and I appreciate you taking the time to write down what you would like to see in the future for SL.

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

Thank you, Rodvik.

Just having you pop in here and acknowledge the discussion sincerely lifted my spirits and gave me a second wind (in Second Life) to continue to create. It's my RL birthday and this was a totally unexpected "gift". Sincerely appreciated.

And thank you to the Commerce Team for reading the threads and letting Rodvik know what's going on with the Merchant Community.

I'm sure there will be lots of comments keeping this thread active for quite a while

---

You are very welcome. I know we are fairly quiet a lot of the time, but we do read customer feedback. While we certainly can improve on our performance we do come to work every day to try and serve our customers better.

 

Happy birthday by the way!