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

[bebejee]

My review of a complete avatar by a fairly well known creator was removed because I said the avatar did not look like the pics, especially its rather lovely parted lips tattoo which was obviously photoshopped, this avatar needed alot of adjuting to look anything like the pic and even then the parted lips  tatto was nothing ike the pics it was just very disappointing with scupltie  like teeth that looked bad, unlike another avatar I had bought from the same creator which was like the pics showed not requring any adjusment to the shape.

Merchants should not be allowed to remove reviews and LL should not give in to their request, there is nothing unfair in saying nice product but it could have been cheaper for being no copy.

Oh I just tried to re-post a review of the product, and got a message up in a pink banner sayng your review i.e the original one from a year ago was flagged and removed and you cannot post another, I had even given the product a good number of stars in that review despite pointing out the flaws and praised their other avatar bought much earlier, quite disgraceful of the creator to do such a thing.

[Canoro Philipp]

many merchants don't receive a negative review as they should. your review was clearly about the cons of the product and still, Linden Lab preferred to play along with the merchant, althought the review was legal.

the same as the merchant the OP was talking about, in exchange of a bad review, in which an inconvinience was mentioned, Linden Lab removed the review, and the customer deserved a ban.

mauybe thats why merchants dont receive the review system as they should, because Linden Lab play along with them.

[Sassy Romano]

MERCHANTS CANNOT REMOVE REVIEWS!!

 

They can flag a review which is then assessed by LL but they cannot remove it themselves.

 

However, LL's track record of dealing with marketplace issues has historically by empirical evidence, proven itself to be a joke.

[Caroline Takeda]

Folks,

One can buy an overpriced item knowing its no copy or not. Yes, its his choice and he might have his reasons to chew it up and pay the asked price, despite of feeling its not a fair price.

However, that does not effect his right to express his opinion in a review! If you cant say in a review what you sincerly think, the reviews become kinda censored yet meaningless for other users. 

From a business perspective it's simply stupid to ban a good customer. Instead that creator should have taken the opportunity and respond to the review in an utmost professional manner, justyfying the price by other features and benefits of the item in public. That would have impressed other potential customers and suddenly the negativ review becomes advertising prooving the designers professionalism.

Some designers apparently put ego over business sense. 

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

daisybloomer wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

You do have a right to give a negative review if the problems you found with it are about quality, misrepresentation, or material facts about the product that were not disclosed prior to purchase, however why do you think it's fair that some one buy something when the price and perms are

clearly

disclosed and then complain about it in a poor review?  Don't buy it if you don't like it.

---

I agree with this to an extent, depending if your definition of clearly also means that the permissions are stated in the Description part of the listing also. There have been some occasions where the standard permissions information that is part of the template of the listing had been indicated incorrectly.

Furthermore, going on the details that have been mentioned in this thread, I think the creator went a little overboard on the reaction to the negative review by also including a ban from their inworld store. Unless there were some details that haven't been disclosed yet that warranted this extra action, removal of the comment and working with the customer to find a resonable solution would have been adequate enough. The creator only amplified and drew much more attention to the problem than he/she was otherwise hoping to suppress.

---

No my definition does not include stating the permissions in the description as long as the permissions shown in the permission field are accurate and clear.  It is the buyers sole responsibility to check the permission field and not the sellers to make sure that they are put in two places for the benefit of an inattentive buyer.

Sometimes it is necessary to put permissions in the description.  When I list an item where the prims are mod/copy but the prim contents such as animations, scripts, etc. are copy only, then I DO state this clearly in the item description.  I show the permission field as See Description.  If I offer an item full perm to builders with restrictions on how it can be used and what permissions are allowed on resale, I show the permissions as User Licensed and explain the license in detail in the description. 

This was a clear case of the item being no copy/transfer.  Therefore it is only necessary to show the correct permissions in the permission field.The buyer clearly knew what the permissions and price were when they purchased it.

Granted sometimes a mistake is made, but if that is the case the creator is obligated to correct the permissions or refund the price IMO.  In my almost nine years in SL buying something where the permissions were mistakenly shown has happened to me at most twice, and both times the creator graciously and immediately corrected the situation.  However a mistake was not made here.

If the OP had reviewed the product and given it a good rating, as obviously she liked it, and after stating this said something along the lines that she wished it had been available as copy only and for a lower price, then I'd have no problem with that type of review.  But the buyer admits that she bought it knowing the perms and price then gave it a bad review FOR THAT SOLE REASON.  That is the actions of a child who wants a box of chocolates and is given only a couple pieces and after eating and enjoying them throws a fit that the chocolate was bad because she didn't get the whole box.

 

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

 

 a child who wants a box of chocolates and is given only a couple pieces and after eating and enjoying them throws a fit that the chocolate was bad because she didn't get the whole box.

 

---

That sounds like my daughter.

Actually, my wife too.

[JoJo Aurelia]

It would be nice to see your review. In my mind, as a designer, subject to reviews, you could have said, "I love this furniture but because it's no copy, I'll give it a 4*" That is an objective review and wouldn't have caused all this drama. If this is the designer I "think it is" I believe your review must have been unreasonable." Linden Labs would have to have removed the review. Not the designer, she can't do that. She can relist the item, however, that would put her into violation with the TOS. Linden Labs removed your review because she must have contacted them and asked them to review it and determine if it's fair. They felt it wasn't. I know this because I had bad reviews for demos because they customer didn't like how I made the demo, and Linden removed it. Also, nothing makes me madder than someone leaving a bad review without giving me a chance to fix the problem. Finally, being banned leads me to believe your review was really unreasonable. I've never banned anyone. What I've done is contacted the reviewer, made it right, and asked them to remove it. That is how it''s done. All this is your fault soley. There are so many ways to resolve issues with designers, but sparky reviews when the information was stated "NO COPY" prior to you buying it, is... Your FAULT. I might have banned you too. Next time, give the designer a chance. True some won't help, but in that case, give an honest review and fair review.

[Pamela Galli]

It is interesting to see how very differently some people see the buyer's vs the seller's responsibility in a free market.* Here is an illustrative scenario:

Daphne is looking for a red evening gown for a Christmas party, fitted mesh, with transfer permissions so she can share it with her alt.

On the marketplace she finds an evening gown design that stuns her, it is so exquisite.  She buys it.  The quality is amazing, it looks fabulous, fits perfectly. 

However, she gives it a one star review, attacking the designer. Which do you think was a reasonable reason, keeping in mind that all of these features were clear from the item listing?

 

a. The dress is black. It should have texture change.

b. The dress is not fitted mesh.

c.  The dress is no transfer.

d.  The dress is a cocktail dress (not long enough).

e.  The dress is more than she wanted to pay. Everyone should be able to afford everything.

f.   No matching shoes are included.

g. All of the above. A buyer has the right to his opinion!

h. None of the above. If these things did not suit her, she should not have bought the dress!

 

*Free market does not mean things are all free. It does mean, among other things, that a buyer is free to buy and a seller is free to sell.

[Sassy Romano]

i)  The dress was the right colour, right length, fit was perfect but she spilled tomato sauce over it and in the process ruined the silk.  Out of frustration, she then left a 1 star review attacking price because it's totally outrageous that anyone should charge that much for a dress that she had to buy a second time if she still wanted it.

[JoJo Aurelia]

J. The buyer thought this was World of Warcraft. 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

j)  The dress was perfect in every way and it was on sale for half off as a Christmas Promo.  She expected to pay a lot more so was thrilled and she bought it.  She was so excited she tried it on for her bf who prided himself that he had never spent so much as one Linden in SL.  He looked at her in the dress and said she paid way too much for it and that 1) it didn't show enough skin / 2) it showed too much skin.  She immediately gave it a one star review because it was way too expensive and 1)  looked slutty / 2) too much like something her 80 yr old mother would wear.  She ended up wearing a dress that her BF got for her that was an off color black and from 2007.  At the party 1) she got banned for flashing naughty bits  / 2) some people asked if she had joined the convent.  After the party she dumped BF and put on the first dress and was the belle of the ball at <insert popular ballroom name here>.

[Darrius Gothly]

*sigh* I don't care how modern they make that story ... I still miss the pumpkin and mice.

[Sassy Romano]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

*sigh* I don't care how modern they make that story ... I still miss the pumpkin and mice.

---

Which recipie do you prefer and did yours include the mice being sliced or boiled?  Or is it a totally different story?

[Pamela Galli]

k. The dress cost a million Lindens, which she thought was so "greedy" and "BS"'that she did the only reasonable thing: purchased it so she could leave a review warning other buyers that it was too expensive for them, since they would not be able to figure this out without her help.

[LlazarusLlong]

o. She never actually bought a dress, or complained about it, but invented the whole story because she wanted attention here in GD, where she could clutter up the forum with nonsense which belongs in  the Commerce forum.

[irihapeti]

n. She left a 1-star bc was priced at only a million dollars

whatevs is my fav designer doing these days. Letting any old scrubbers with a million dollars wear the same dress as me. Should be priced at 10 million at least and then only on special after I have worn it the one time.

bc then I chuck it in the sallybin and buy another one. As it right in the normal world

does anyone know how unnormal and terrible it is when some cheapas scrubber turns up to the summer ball in the same gown as me. Is horrible !!!! Doormen and butlers these days !?!!! useleeeesss. I am outrage !!!!!! I would have left a minus star if I could have

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

L

and

M

You guys need to learn how to use an alphabetical list...

 

@OP

You bought something knowing the perms and left a bad review... That's like someone standing outside Wal-mart and picketing about how bad they treat their employees and how over-priced their things are and then shopping there.. I worked for a department store, we had plenty of people who were banned from the store for stupid things. Still within the rights of the store owner.

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

L

and

M

You guys need to learn how to use an alphabetical list...

---

What ARE you talking about? My contribution was referenced perfectly logically.

Using a modern orthographic version of the Eblaite alphabet.

[That was the first non-abjads one.]

[Actually, I was using a Christmas List - Noel.]

[irihapeti]

i was filling in the blanks. Letters are expensive these days. So I didnt want to be wasteful