Left a negative review and am banned from sim...

[Annie Rubanis]

I left a negative review of a very popular home and furniture designer's creation (wicker outdoor furniture set) and stated it was because they charged entirely too much for a no copy item.  My review was removed and I was banned from the sim.  I find this outrageous and petty.  I'd love to put the creator's initials here but actually like their work.  I've purchased TONS of items from her but am now banned because maybe her feelings were hurt.  This is pathetic.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Annie Rubanis wrote:

I left a negative review of a very popular home and furniture designer's creation (wicker outdoor furniture set) and stated it was because they charged entirely too much for a no copy item.  My review was removed and I was banned from the sim.  I find this outrageous and petty.  I'd love to put the creator's initials here but actually like their work.  I've purchased TONS of items from her but am now banned because maybe her feelings were hurt.  This is pathetic.

---

We already know who it is, sugar - she's even quicker on the rant than you.

[irihapeti]

you bought a overpriced item so you could leave a review to say that it was overpriced ??

is a bit bananas to do that I think

 

[Annie Rubanis]

My review was about the item being overprices AND No Copy.  So no, not bananas.

[irihapeti]

like if was your intent to advise the merchant that you thought the item was overpriced then could of just sent them a IM

 

eta: just so we clear

what the perms settings might be have nothing to do with it really. Other than affect how you feel

 

eta more:

a IM yes. specially when you have a longstanding mutual relationship with the other person 

[Annie Rubanis]

The entire scenario is that I purchased this room of furniture and hadn't used it in awhile.  When I went to my inventory to find it, it was gone (not sure how deleted but gone, nonetheless, it was gone).  Knowing the prices of furniture at this store, I assumed (yes, my mistake) that it was copyable.  I found out it wasn't and really was astonished.  Now, also, I re-purchased the entire room of furniture as a gift for a friend (this is where I was going to rez it, originally) because it's lovely furniture.  I never, not once, believed I'd be banned from the store for a negative review, ffs!  This behavior is beyond childish especially when real $$ are at stake.

 

And I do not owe anyone an IM before a negative review.  This store owner is not my friend, she's a business person in SL and deserves no more courtesy than I'd show a business with a bad practice in RL.  However, when I take an item back to a store in RL with a complaint, they NEVER bar me from the store and lock the doors so I can never get in again.  I guess that's the perk of SL, business owners can be shrewish children with no consequence.

[irihapeti]

---

Annie Rubanis wrote:

I do not owe anyone an IM before a negative review

---

true

adage: we get back what we give

[Ariel Vuissent]

If you can leave a review, you must have purchased it on the marketplace; and if you purchased it on the marketplace, you could see when you bought it both what the price was and that it was no copy. You have only yourself to blame, there. 

You do, of course, have a right to leave any sort of review you choose, for any reason. The seller has a right to request that LL take the review down if they don't think it's fair, which, evidently, they didn't. If I recall correctly, they cannot remove reviews themselves. It likely doesn't have anything to do with hurt feelings. Your negative review brings down the overall rating of the product and may discourage others from making a purchase. It was almost certainly a business decision, not a personal one.

You have two options. Either move on with your SL, or send a politely worded message to the creator explaining why you left the review and that you wish to be able to purchase from their store. Frankly, you probably should have sent the message before you left the review. I've bought lots of furniture in the past, and most scripted pieces I own are no copy. If I like the piece enough, I make the purchase no matter the price, and if I like it enough to do that, I don't really think I have a right to complain about it later. 

As you have a long-standing history of purchases with this seller, you may get desirable results if you send a private message to him or her.

 ETA: You posted again while I was typing, so I see more of the issue now. When you first purchased it, you did not realize it was no-copy. Makes sense. Sort of. Regardless, however, any landowner may ban any user for any reason, so I'm afraid you're still in that buyer beware sort of area. I do agree, however, that you may actually have a leg to stand on with the "I didn't realize it was no copy and it's very pricey for that" thing. 

[Tamara Artis]

Can you honestly say your intentions were fair with that negative review? 

 

I mean the description of the item on the marketplace states the item is no copy, the price was there too, so there is really no reason to give the item a negative review. 

Now I won't ask why a person, that has bought many items from this certain merchant doesn't want to contact the merchant personally and explain, ask questions.. whatever, it is the normal and polite way to deal with the problem that you can only blame yourself. Normal way that many people use and often, even if the original listing says no copy, the merchant is willing to send a copy item, you just have to ask politely. 

It is really a shame....

[Canoro Philipp]

it seems the creator made the item no-copy for the purpose that if one would have a place that would need 2 tables looking exactly the same, the customer would have to pay double the price, i don't see other reason really why would a creator make an item no-copy.

you wrote a bad review making use of your right that Linden Lab grants you, and that the creator grants you at the moment of selling their products on the marketplace, the review system exist for the purpose of customer awareness, it is good that if you were not pleased with the product in any way, you let other potential customers know about the inconvenience, and then they decide if they don't mind and buy the product even with the problem, you did your civil duty, and i thank you for that.

now, it seems that many merchants in SL feel free to have low ethics, or no business ethics at all. by deciding to sell its products in the marketplace, it accepted the fact that some customer would probably would not be pleased and may express what it found uncomfortable about it, if the creator didn't agree to the idea, and as form of justice look for revenge, the creator shouldn't sell the products in a place that that could happen, because it seems the conditions to sell there are unfair, according to the creator.

it is definitly a very immature and unethic position of the creator to look for some kind of revenge, if the creator don't agree with the terms of the marketplace, it shouldn't be doing business there.

maybe you can still enjoy the products buying them "for a friend", using an alternative account.

it's pathetic how "responsable" business owners decide to attack their customers, forgetting about their business ethics, when they see themselves in a place that have little regulations. i wonder if they would be like that doing business in real life.

[irihapeti]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

it's pathetic how "responsable" business owners decide to attack their customers, forgetting about their business ethics, when they see themselves in a place that have little regulations. i wonder if they would be like that doing business in real life.

---

if you stand in a RL shop with a sign that throws shade on the business (bc you feel is your civic duty to inform other customers how unhappy you are) then the shopkeeper will not indulge you. They will trespass you

[Perrie Juran]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

it seems the creator made the item no-copy for the purpose that if one would have a place that would need 2 tables looking exactly the same, the customer would have to pay double the price, i don't see other reason really why would a creator make an item no-copy.

you wrote a bad review making use of your right that Linden Lab grants you, and that the creator grants you at the moment of selling their products on the marketplace, the review system exist for the purpose of customer awareness, it is good that if you were not pleased with the product in any way, you let other potential customers know about the inconvenience, and then they decide if they don't mind and buy the product even with the problem, you did your civil duty, and i thank you for that.

now, it seems that many merchants in SL feel free to have low ethics, or no business ethics at all. by deciding to sell its products in the marketplace, it accepted the fact that some customer would probably would not be pleased and may express what it found uncomfortable about it, if the creator didn't agree to the idea, and as form of justice look for revenge, the creator shouldn't sell the products in a place that that could happen, because it seems the conditions to sell there are unfair, according to the creator.

it is definitly a very immature and unethic position of the creator to look for some kind of revenge, if the creator don't agree with the terms of the marketplace, it shouldn't be doing business there.

maybe you can still enjoy the products buying them "for a friend", using an alternative account.

it's pathetic how "responsable" business owners decide to attack their customers, forgetting about their business ethics, when they see themselves in a place that have little regulations. i wonder if they would be like that doing business in real life.

---

You are talking here with what appears to be knowing only one side of the story.

Some of us know who the Merchant is and they have very high ethics.  They sell very high quality creations, products that are worth the premium price.

The OP as far as I know made NO attempt to contact the Merchant about what happened, a Merchant who many of us know is very willing to work with their customers.  The Merchant has in no way attacked this customer.  But nothing requires her to take any sass from a customer. 

 

[Sassy Romano]

The review system is there for the purpose of commenting on the item itself, not for delivering hate speech about choice of permissions or price, especially when both are available and known PRIOR TO PURCHASE.

If the prospective customer doesn't like the price or permission combination, don't buy.

If having purchased the product, they feel that they can leave an objective review about the quality of the item in relation to the price, then that's valid.

I suggest you and anyone else who is confused about this, refer to the guidelines here:-

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Writing-item-reviews-on-the-Marketplace/ta-p/954941

I saw the review on the item in question and the review was invalid.

[Canoro Philipp]

if the owner of the shop agrees to sell in that area, under the condition that it would allow people to talk about the products just outside of the store, s/he shouldnt be looking for revenge against customers that have said something bad.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

if the owner of the shop agrees to sell in that area, under the condition that it would allow people to talk about the products just outside of the store, s/he shouldnt be looking for revenge against customers that have said something bad.

---

 

Canoro, banning and muting someone isn't "looking for revenge". It is simply a way of stating, "I don't need the aggravation of dealing with you. I find you both rude and ignorant. Now please go away and leave me alone and we'll both be the better for it." It's not griefing or AR'ing or counter-reviewing or anything else. It's just, pffft. May or not be a good business practice—that's a matter of opinion (mine's with the merchant given the facts as so far presented)—but it is hardly "looking for revenge".

[Canoro Philipp]

as the results of the information i gathered, the merchant, when it noticed that a customer wrote a bad review, took revenge against the unpleased customer by banning it from their store. that doesn't sound ethic.

when a merchant sell its products in the marketplace, it has to accept the fact that many people may find the products unfavorable, and as a result, they are going to use the review system to express it, that is a fact that may be unavoidable. the merchant has to accept that the risk is there. Linden Lab grants the customer the right to express its inconformity, by doing business in the marketplace, the merchant should accept the risks.

if the customer was banned for another reason that it was not because of the review, than i think i dont have that part of the information to have a more clear judgement of the situation.

[Canoro Philipp]

well, i haven't seen the review, if the review doesnt fit the guidelines, maybe it can be fixed by Linden Lab for not being appropiate.

if Linden Lab consent to that review, than the customer is excercising the right to express its inconformity in the review system, and should not recieve any revenge because of it.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

as the results of the information i gathered, the merchant, when it noticed that a customer wrote a bad review, took revenge against the unpleased customer by banning it from their store. that doesn't sound ethic.

when a merchant sell its products in the marketplace, it has to accept the fact that many people may find the products unfavorable, and as a result, they are going to use the review system to express it, that is a fact that may be unavoidable. the merchant has to accept that the risk is there. Linden Lab grants the customer the right to express its inconformity, by doing business in the marketplace, the merchant should accept the risks.

if the customer was banned for another reason that it was not because of the review, than i think i dont have that part of the information to have a more clear judgement of the situation.

---

If the customer found the merchant's products unfavorable, why would their not being able to go there be a hardship? Wouldn't it actually a benefit, so they wouldn't run the risk of buying something else unfavorable accidentally?

[irihapeti]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

if the owner of the shop agrees to sell in that area, under the condition that it would allow people to talk about the products just outside of the store, s/he shouldnt be looking for revenge against customers that have said something bad.

---

the MP reviews are not outside the store. They are in the shopkeeper's store

that the mall owner (LL) owns the building and dont charge the shopkeeper rent, doesnt make it (the shop webpage) not the shopkeepers store

if the reviews were not in the shop then they would be in the mall outside the shop. A separate facility. Same as a RL mall's help and complaints desk

[Sassy Romano]

Yes, that's fine but there's no revenge.  Just as in RL, a vendor makes an "invitation to treat".  They're not obliged to sell anything and that's what happened here.  The merchant exercised their right to attempt to NOT sell to the invidividual, certainly inworld.

Merchants have asked for a method to block potential purchasers who they may not wish to sell to on Marketplace but like many USEFUL features, it hasn't been implemented.  Marketplace only gets the features that nobody needs.

However, as I pointed out, the review system is intended to review products objectively and in this case that didn't happen and the review was flagged and subsequently removed as not being compliant with the process.

Merchant then chooses to not accept further business from this individual, nothing wrong there.

For what it's worth, i'm usually the one fighting for the customer and calling out bad merchant practices of which I agree, there is plenty of in SL but equally in this case, that's not what happened.

[Canoro Philipp]

i agree that a merchant reserves the right to serve a certain type of customers. if the customer attacked in an illegal way the store, by copybotting, by distributing libellous information about the store, by being threatening to other customers or employees, or other illegal way, i agree that no merchant need that type of customers, and they would be better outside of the store.

what doesnt fit to me, is that for using a legal way to express their unconformity of the product, that the merchant accepted it can happen, the customer had negative consequences.

as i read the OP, the customer was very pleased with the products, so much that was a frequent customer, attracted by the constant quality, it only found fault in that specific product, if the merchant wouldn't have banned him/her, it may have kept a loyal customer.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Canoro Philipp wrote:

well, i haven't seen the review, if the review doesnt fit the guidelines, maybe it can be fixed by Linden Lab for not being appropiate.

if Linden Lab consent to that review, than the customer is excercising the right to express its inconformity in the review system, and should not recieve any revenge because of it.

---

Again, you still don't seem to know the whole story or you are conveniently choosing to ignore it.

And again, what revenge?  The customer tried to take revenge on the Merchant over their own mistake.  The Merchant now does not want to deal with this Customer.  How is that "revenge?" 

Now the Merchant can not stop the customer from buying on the MP, but if the customer posts reviews that are in violation of the guidlines then then Merchant has every right to ask LL to remove the review. The guidlines are there for a reason.  If you don't like them,take it up with Linden Lab and don't buy on the MP.

[Sassy Romano]

NO, in this case the customer came back to the marketplace store a long time later since buying the item and because they'd lost the item, complained that the price was too expensive for an item that was no copy and they complained in a quite specific way, it wasn't what I would call an objective review.

They knew both of these constraints prior to purchase and it's not the merchants fault that they lost it.  They're just unhappy that they spent L$ and either have to buy it again or go without.

That said, a merchant is within their rights to choose not to serve someone for any reason whatsoever.  If someone buys something for say L$50 and then asks a lot of questions, say requiring an hour or two of the merchants time, the merchant is perfectly within their right to refund that for example and ask the customer NOT to purchase anything else and ban them. 

It might not be the best way to gain business but they're not doing anything particularly wrong when they could use that time to make something else that they sell to 1000 people who need no support whatsoever.

Merchants/Creators aren't slaves to the customer but neither should the customer be abused by the merchant.  Both should exist in harmony WITHIN the framework and guidelines set out for the marketplace (by marketplace here, I mean both Marketplace and inworld) but yeah, just as a customer can choose not to purchase, so can a merchant choose not to sell.

 

[Canoro Philipp]

if Linden Lab agreed that it was a misuse of the review system, than i think its favorable to not make business with customers that may do something illegal against the company.

i dont know what the review was, it seems in this thread that the customer was pleased with the rest of the products, it may have expressed in the review a desire to not continue buying the products, if thats so, then i guess the banning was convenient to both.

[Canoro Philipp]

i dont have access to "the whole story", i have access to what i read in this thread, and i am taking conclusions on this information.

i now know that the review was against what Linden Lab would consider a fair review, it was out of bounds, probably the informaion in the review didnt specifically helped other potential customers to make a deicision about the product.

Linden Lab knows better the reason why they decided to take action against the reviewer.

altought its a risk that every marketplace merchant would have, that some time a customer that is not pleased with the product would express it in the review system, if its done properly, the review may not be considered "revenge" against the merchant for selling a product that did not fit the taste of the customer, if the customer used the review system inappropriately, beyond what it is allowed, than yes, depending on the content, it may be considered revenge, and a merchant has the right to not do business with someone who is against what Linden Lab considers acceptable.

if the illegality of the customer actions is the reason why the merchant do not want to make any business with that person, than i guess is their right, nobody wants to do business with people that illegaly affect negatively the company.