Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Flower Shamrock

PETITION TO ADD AVATAR BAN AND PANIC BUTTON TO MARKETPLACE STORES

Recommended Posts


entity0x wrote:


I've never had to ban anyone from my marketplace or the lands I've rented
so far

Be careful. You only have 50 items, and since your oldest items are 100% mesh I would guess you don't have the years of experience of many others here. I'd be concerned about those 2 freebies you have in your store. But you may be ok for now...you may not have enemies or strong competitors or just irrational customers with obvious personality disorders.....yet.

I  am so glad I stopped selling freebies. I saw freebies as gifts, and I didn't think people should rate gifts. So I removed my freebies.

I'd also like the ability to ban rude and unreasonable people, because I don't want to do business with rude and unreasonable people.

Some people seem to get a power kick out of giving items 1 star, and this is particularly easy with freebies because they lose nothing. Wait until you experience this.

As for using an alt, if I was banned from a store I most definitely wouldn't want to go back. I would think most people would take the hint and not return. And why would I bother with an alt? What's the point in buying copy only items with an alt if you want it for your main avatar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

entity0x wrote:


Sassy Romano wrote:

I agree about the first part, i've already said that elsewhere in the thread.  Both land ban and MP ban are placebo's but since it exists for one (inworld), it's not unreasonable to expect or even ask for the same elsewhere.

We ARE paying for the website, the upkeep, the hosting though.  That's the commission charge.  Quite how it is allocated is irrelevant but it's not a free service.

I guess I am failing to communicate to you the need for me to understand how and why a merchant would need to ban people from their SL Marketplace store, and to demonstrate an example that would warrant such a harsh measure.

I guess there is no need to understand why a merchant would need to ban people, only accept that they may wish to do so, regardless of how much we agree that it's ineffective, if that person really wants to continue to buy their items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rya Nitely wrote:

As for using an alt, if I was banned from a store I most definitely wouldn't want to go back. I would think most people would take the hint and not return. And why would I bother with an alt? What's the point in buying copy only items with an alt if you want it for your main avatar?


For a sincere and "normal" purchase then I agree.  The OP concern was theft and from that i'd take it to mean content theft i.e. copybotting.  There's an obvious reason to use an alt if the value of the subsequent sales would be expected to exceed the original outlay.

For this reason, because the original posters concern isn't met by the requested feature, it's pretty much a moot discussion.

I think we added the ability to ban inworld purchases in our vending system but I don't recall ever using it. We took the view that the risk was small, someone would always find a way around and at the end of the day, we've got the money so *shrugs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Rya Nitely wrote:

Be careful.

 Be careful of what?

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

You only have 50 items, and since your oldest items are 100% mesh I would guess you don't have the years of experience of many others here.

You're right. I don't have the years of marketplace selling experience of others here. I started out building using prims in Second Life when I joined years ago, and looked around and saw all the great things made in mesh - then went and learned how to do so. I'm still working on it and improving every day.

In the meantime I try to learn from others who are more experienced in SL and these matters.

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

I'd be concerned about those 2 freebies you have in your store. But you may be ok for now...you may not have enemies or strong competitors or just irrational customers with obvious personality disorders.....
yet
.

What would you be concerned about the freebies I have? I plan to put much more. Not only as gifts, or as a means of advertising other works, and the quality thereof - ( freebies demonstrate the quality of the merchants other products ).

Giving freebies advertises related items, and can showcase the quality of your work.

If a merchants 'gifts' and 'freebies' are garbage, then most likely the rest of their paid products are garbage.

Hunting for and reviewing quality (and not so quality) freebies is fun - gives feedback to the merchant about what is good and what is not, and also gives them a reminder that just because something is free, doesn't mean the quality should be any less than their paid products.

Also freebies are nice to have when you are new to Second Life.

I encourage creators to create quality freebies. Quality freebies makes me want to see what else you sell - and merchants have got sales from me because of their quality freebies.

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

I  am so glad I stopped selling freebies. I saw freebies as gifts, and I didn't think people should rate gifts. So I removed my freebies.

 A freebie is still a product, and subject to review. Some will be good and some will be bad. Hopefully they are all constructive. A freebie can be used to showcase and lead to your quality paid products.

Also, since the item is free, you should not care about how it is reviewed, as long as the review is constructive. If it isn't, there are tools available to you to remove the offending review.

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

I'd also like the ability to ban rude and unreasonable people,
because
I don't want to do business with rude and unreasonable people.

'Rude and unreasonable' is subjective. Some find me rude and unreasonable and would like to ban me, even though my reviews and comments are constructive criticism, and I back up what I say with reasons and examples.

It would be all but too convenient for many in SL to ban people for being 'rude and unreasonable". Some thing me coming onto their land dressed as a tiny Meerkat, standing there and looking up at them all cute like is 'rude and unreasonable'...

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

Some people seem to get a power kick out of giving items 1 star, and this is particularly easy with freebies because they lose nothing. Wait until you experience this.

Feel free to 1 star all my free products. As long as its constructive criticism, I will work to improve the product so that it gets 5 stars.

If the review is abusive, I have tools at my disposal to get rid of it, and in the short term be able to respond to the review, so that others shopping the product can make their own decision on the item.

Tell you what, you pay for your own server and all the software fixing and run your own Marketplace store, handle all your deliveries and payments, image and listing management and hostings - then you can have your ban button. Until then, we can all use the tools available and stop fearmongering about abusive reviewers.

 


Rya Nitely wrote:

As for using an alt, if I was banned from a store I most definitely wouldn't want to go back. I would think most people would take the hint and not return. And why would I bother with an alt? What's the point in buying copy only items with an alt if you want it for your main avatar?

 If an SL member was going to such extremes, which would not be the norm, I'm sure an adequate response from LL moderation could handle the problem, rather than giving every merchant a ban button that they can use 'for any reason', or because they feel someone is being 'rude and unreasonable'.

 


Sassy Romano wrote:

I guess there is no need to understand why a merchant would need to ban people, only accept that they may wish to do so, regardless of how much we agree that it's ineffective, if that person really wants to continue to buy their items.

Yeah, no need to understand. Just demand a ban button - but don't tell anyone why one feels they need it.

"I want a ban button to ban others for any reason, but I don't have to explain why"  GG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it such an enormous deal to you how others choose to manage their SL businesses?

Are you seriously saying that the possibility some merchants will ban customers who leave bad reviews trumps EVERY other concern, including copybotting and reselling full perm goods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Why is it such an enormous deal to you how others choose to manage their SL businesses?

 

Are you seriously saying that the possibility some merchants will ban customers who leave bad reviews trumps EVERY other concern, including copybotting and reselling full perm goods?

Quote me anywhere that I've said any of this, or even expressed the concern about how others manage their business.

You can't, because I've only been discussing the need for, and implementation of, and oversight of, and resultant effects of allowing the general merchant populace access to a ban button for any reason, including 'rude and unreasonable people'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

 including copybotting and reselling full perm goods?

Of which neither would be prevented by banning anyway.  This whole thread is completely moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

 including copybotting and reselling full perm goods?

Of which neither would be prevented by banning anyway.  This whole thread is completely moot.

It's moot because LL does not listen to MP requests. But if I could ban someone from buying, say, a house for their main account, it is likely they would not buy for an alt, but instead buy elsewhere, which is what I want to encourage them to do. If they were really determined, of course they could continue buying from me after I have asked them not to, this would only inconvenience them a bit. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Why is it such an enormous deal to you how others choose to manage their SL businesses?

 

Are you seriously saying that the possibility some merchants will ban customers who leave bad reviews trumps EVERY other concern, including copybotting and reselling full perm goods?

Quote me anywhere that I've said any of this, or even expressed the concern about how others manage their business.

You can't, because I've only been discussing the need for, and implementation of, and oversight of, and resultant effects of allowing the general merchant populace access to a ban button
for any reason
, including 'rude and unreasonable people'.

 

This is my last attempt to respond to your insistance that my business is somehow your business.

If I decided I wanted to ban all redheaded/dragon/clown avatars from either my inworld or (hypothetically) my MP store, it would be my right to do so, however much you or anyone else might disapprove. It is not your business!

The end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Pam, I do understand the desire to disuade someone from subsequent purchase, It works better for higher priced items.

If it were to be implemented, the logical way would be to ban someone in world and have a dialog pop up and ask if you'd like to ban the same person from your shop (under the same account name), since both pieces of data are known and accessible to LL.

Same for a MP UI ban method, it should ask if you also wanted to ban from your estate or single sim (pick list).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First page, you were taking copybotting in stride, entity. I remembered that, even if you didn't.

Theft and copybotting were the stated motivating concern for the OP. A ban option won't stop theft, but it might slow a particular thief down for a bit.

And from the second page:

"So Second Life is Real Life for you? Well that's your fault. Just because you decided to put all your financial eggs into one basket, and therefore you are dependent on  your SL success to pay the utility bills in your house - doesn't give you suddenly the right ot dictate how you do business on a site that you do not own, and have the privilege to operate on.

"Your job as a creator is to make Second Life better - not to serve your own wishes - although if the two can meet and are agreeable, and do not come at the expense of others while doing it, then that would be fine."

Not only did you take it upon yourself to tell someone what her job as a creator is, you told her how to run her RL. You told someone how to run her real life.

Third page:

"Also, in a free market society, if you want to benefit from such a system, it is a given that you will have to deal with subjectively 'unpleasant' people from time to time."

"I've never had to ban anyone from my marketplace or the lands I've rented so far. You must have a lot of enemies, though I don't understand why - you are such a kind, patient and helpful person."

all the stuff about freebies, ending in this where you tell others how to feel as well as how to run their businesses:

"Also, since the item is free, you should not care about how it is reviewed, as long as the review is constructive. If it isn't, there are tools available to you to remove the offending review."

I take it you didn't bother to reread the thread, or even your post immediately above mine, to see where I might have gotten these impressions from. So now I've done that work for you and you have your quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

entity0x wrote:

... in a free market society, if you want to benefit from such a system, it is a given that you will have to deal with subjectively 'unpleasant' people from time to time.

is not true this. It can be shown to be otherwise

more benefit, in terms of the savings in costs of time and resources, and in the time/resources saved then spent on developing new products and fostering relationships with subjectively pleasant customers, can be obtained simply by not doing business with subjectively unpleasant people

basically your supposition is a appeal to a higher authority which is non-existant

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(ETA: wherorangi .. this is not at you. It's just me being a crusty old codger .. and your post had the unlucky place last in the chain of posts. My apologies if it seems I was attacking you .. I was not)

There really is only one entity capable and authorized to mete out the correct "punishment" for abuse of others. When serial abusers and criminals create Alt after Alt after Alt, they are the only ones to whom the necessary information is both visible and legal to use.

(and now my personal opinion part...)

But they are mired in the "Free Speech" insanity mantra that they feel bestows on them the POWER to ignore criminals because they are just exercising their 1st Amendment Rights under the US Constitution.

Crimes are crimes. Our Founding Fathers never conceived that our citizens would hide behind the laws and ideals they set forth to make America a "better nation".

(and my final personal opinion in this rant...)

Linden Lab, you have a DUTY to protect your customers from the criminal acts of others. You must realize the RIGHT of Free Speech also carries a massive RESPONSIBILITY too. Please reconsider the insane "Resident to Resident" excuse and help your law abiding customers protect themselves. You DO have the power to make it happen. You just need to understand it is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes. I am generally supportive of a MP banhammer

i take Sassy's point earlier made. It is still the merchants shop. Regardless of how much the merchant may or may not pay the landlord for it in fees or rentals, including 0 fees/rents 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

(ETA: wherorangi .. this is not at you. It's just me being a crusty old codger .. and your post had the unlucky place last in the chain of posts. My apologies if it seems I was attacking you .. I was not)

is all good. You made a point which I agree with. So i respond anyways (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:

yes. I am generally supportive of a MP banhammer

i take Sassy's point earlier made. It is still the merchants shop. Regardless of how much the merchant may or may not pay the landlord for it in fees or rentals, including 0 fees/rents 

Me too. Since LL does have as much info about a single Avatar account as is possible .. and they're the ONLY ones that have the true info .. it would be very easy for them to offer a single name to be ban-hammered. It could even be done while "protecting" the real user's RL info. Protecting that RL info is probably where their biggest privacy concern lay too.

The "tech" part CAN be done without "outing" someone that just happens to have angered a Merchant with no better reason for banning than "I don't like ____" (fill in the blank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Theft and copybotting were the stated motivating concern for the OP. A ban option won't stop theft, but it might slow a particular thief down for a bit.

All my comments and attempted discussions with you and your cronies on here, has always been in the context of what the OP proposed - and can only be judged on that context.

The quote was;

Flower Shamrock wrote:

1) A 'BAN' option. We should have the right to ban anyone from buying our goods, because of theft
or quite frankly, for what ever rason we like.

 I generally stay on topic, and make responses in context to what the Original Poster requested. Although many posters here try to sidetrack, derail and disturb topics and instead try to make personal attacks - I try to keep my replies with the OP in consideration.

Keep in mind that we don't have to agree, but at least respect other forum members enough to explain WHY you don't agree, and keep it on topic and always with the OPs statements in mind.

 


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

First page, you were taking copybotting in stride, entity. I remembered that, even if you didn't.

Whatever that means. I have no patience for copyright infringement, artists claiming works and designs that are not their  own, misrepresentation of products, market listings abuse, customer reviewer abuse, bad merchant attitudes.

I am very, very sure I am on the right side of this, regardless of the current discussion. You want to discuss a different topic or get to know me? Start a new topic, or join me in an online chat room on TInyChat, lets hash it out.

 


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Not only did you take it upon yourself to tell someone what her job as a creator is, you told her how to run her RL. You told someone how to run her real life.

In the context of the discussion, not at a personal level, and items to consider, with that context in mind...

Since I am also in the same role as Pam in SL - although not as an accomplished and experienced member as herself - anything I said also applies to me. The statements were made in the context of the OP and the discussion, and that unlike rented sims, the Marketplace and its hosting -and our privileged use of it (since we don't own or run or rent it) - doesn't allow us the same sweeping powers as we would have as individual land/sim owners.

 


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

I take it you didn't bother to reread the thread, or even your post immediately above mine, to see where I
might
(
by chance
) have gotten these
impressions
(
a vague idea in which confidence is placed
) from.

Yes you may have made judgements based on assumptions of my position, and not facts. This is why we communicate, and require a vocabulary, so we can do so productively, instead of derailing topics into 'he said, she said' silly little back and forths.

I don't need to re-read the whole thread, I know what I said, and in what context it was - the context of the original OP.

When replies and statements are made, they are in the context and application of the OP, and how adding a widesweeping ban or panic button to the general merchant populace would not be a good thing in my opinion - so I stated my opinion and WHY my opinion was that way and WHAT impact such a thing could do to SL in general.

 

Which then leads us back to the same fact that I have been standing by : There are already tools in place to report/ban griefers/thieves/ne'er-do-wells, we need more LL response, not wide-sweeping ban buttons that individuals WILL abuse;

As Darrius states below;

 


Darrius Gothly wrote:

, they ( Linden Labs) are the only ones to whom the necessary information is both visible and legal to use.
...

Linden Lab, you have a DUTY to protect your customers from the criminal acts of others.
You must realize the RIGHT of Free Speech also carries a massive RESPONSIBILITY too. Please reconsider the insane "Resident to Resident" excuse and help your law abiding customers protect themselves.
You DO have the power to make it happen. You just need to understand it is the right thing to do.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


entity0x wrote:


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Theft and copybotting were the stated motivating concern for the OP. A ban option won't stop theft, but it might slow a particular thief down for a bit.

All my comments and attempted discussions with you and your cronies on here,
has always been in the context of what the OP proposed
- and can only be judged on that context.

The quote was;

Flower Shamrock wrote:

1) A 'BAN' option. We should have the right to ban anyone from buying our goods, because of theft
or quite frankly, for what ever rason we like.

 I generally stay on topic, and make responses in context to what the Original Poster requested. Although many posters here try to sidetrack, derail and disturb topics and instead try to make personal attacks - I try to keep my replies with the OP in consideration.

Keep in mind that we don't have to agree, but at least respect other forum members enough to explain WHY you don't agree, and keep it on topic and always with the OPs statements in mind.

 

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

First page, you were taking copybotting in stride, entity. I remembered that, even if you didn't.

Whatever that means. I have no patience for copyright infringement, artists claiming works and designs that are not their  own, misrepresentation of products, market listings abuse, customer reviewer abuse, bad merchant attitudes.

I am very, very sure I am on the right side of this, regardless of the current discussion. You want to discuss a different topic or get to know me? Start a new topic, or join me in an online chat room on TInyChat, lets hash it out.

 

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

Not only did you take it upon yourself to tell someone what her job as a creator is, you told her how to run her RL. You told someone how to run her real life.

In the context of the discussion, not at a personal level, and items to consider, with that context in mind...

Since I am also in the same role as Pam in SL - although not as an accomplished and experienced member as herself - anything I said also applies to me. The statements were made in the context of the OP and the discussion, and that unlike rented sims, the Marketplace and its hosting -and our privileged use of it (since we don't own or run or rent it) - doesn't allow us the same sweeping powers as we would have as individual land/sim owners.

 

Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

I take it you didn't bother to reread the thread, or even your post immediately above mine, to see where I
might
(
by chance
) have gotten these
impressions
(
a vague idea in which confidence is placed
) from.

Yes you may have made judgements based on assumptions of my position, and not facts. This is why we communicate, and require a vocabulary, so we can do so productively, instead of derailing topics into 'he said, she said' silly little back and forths.

I don't need to re-read the whole thread, I know what I said, and in what context it was - the context of the original OP.

When replies and statements are made, they are in the context and application of the OP, and how adding a widesweeping ban or panic button to the general merchant populace would not be a good thing in my opinion - so I stated my opinion and WHY my opinion was that way and WHAT impact such a thing could do to SL in general.

 

Which then leads us back to the same fact that I have been standing by : There are already tools in place to report/ban griefers/thieves/ne'er-do-wells, we need more LL response, not wide-sweeping ban buttons that individuals WILL abuse;

As Darrius states below;

 

Darrius Gothly wrote:

, they ( Linden Labs) are the only ones to whom the necessary information is both visible and legal to use.
...

Linden Lab, you have a DUTY to protect your customers from the criminal acts of others.
You must realize the RIGHT of Free Speech also carries a massive RESPONSIBILITY too. Please reconsider the insane "Resident to Resident" excuse and help your law abiding customers protect themselves.
You DO have the power to make it happen. You just need to understand it is the right thing to do.

 

 

It is as possible to "abuse" the ban function in SL as it is to abuse the "locking my front door" function in RL. 

Do you require your neighbors to justify locking their doors, to explain why they think they have the right to decide who can enter their own homes?  How about deciding who they want to invite for dinner? Is this something they can abuse?  Should they not be able to ban people from the dinner table?

Why do you care who other merchants choose not to do business with?  Why do you think it is your concern if a merchant decides he does not want to take money from clown avatars or anyone else? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Bitsy Buccaneer wrote:

entity, if all of that is what you think you're doing, all I can say at this point is that it doesn't seem like you're doing it very well.

Thats because you can't understand what you read, if you even read it at all before responding emotionally.

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

It is as possible to "abuse" the ban function in SL as it is to abuse the "locking my front door" function in RL. 

Do you require your neighbors to justify locking their doors, to explain why they think they have the right to decide who can enter their own homes?  How about deciding who they want to invite for dinner? Is this something they can abuse?  Should they not be able to ban people from the dinner table?

Let's just keep the discussion whether or not giving a ban button to merchants on the Second Life Marketplace, so they can ban whoever 'for any reason', is a good idea or not. This has nothing to do with you personally, and the discussion needs to be had in context of the OP.

 


Pamela Galli wrote:

Why do you care who other merchants choose not to do business with?  Why do you think it is your concern if a merchant decides he does not want to take money from clown avatars or anyone else? 

You're adept at quoting people posts, but not so good at reading their replies. As I have stated already, my comments are in context of the original post.

You either agree or disagree that merchants should have access to ban button, so they can ban whoever they want 'for any reason', and explain WHY you hold that position, or dont participate in the discussion any longer.

We obviously don't agree on this subject, so lets agree to disagree and move on - quit trying to make this a personal issue, and get back on topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Linden Lab reserves the right to ban people, and so do many other companies. Do you believe they shouldn't have this right? Please don't say this point is off-topic. You seem to like saying that when you don't have a response. Nothing in this thread has been off-topic, so far.

If I start talking about Pokemon Go and how I am now 100 % addicted, this would be off-topic. See the difference? Niantic and Nintendo will also ban people if they abuse the product. Apparently you can cheat, I don't know how and I don't want to know so don't ask me. Off-topic again - see? :smileyhappy:

If merchants abused a ban button wouldn't they be harming themselves more than anyone else? Customers can shop elsewhere (unlike with Pokemon Go).

If a customer gives a bad rating to an item they probably wouldn't want to shop at that store again anyway. So, if you rate a freebie 1 star ( I don't know why you go around rating freebies instead of just concentrating on your own store - sounds to me like that power trip thing I spoke about earlier) you have here decided that it's a reflection of the quality of the items in that store and you wouldn't go back, right? So, why would you care if you got banned?

So, coming back to my first question, why do you believe people shouldn't have the right to ban when so many rl companies do, including LL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

entity0x wrote:

You either agree or disagree that merchants should have access to ban button, so they can ban whoever they want
'for any reason'
, and explain WHY you hold that position ...

the rationale for a host allowing their users to block each other is a resource issue. The host doesnt have sufficient affordable resources to adjudicate every issue between users

the ability to block isnt allowed for any reason at all. Is allowed for no reason at all

+

if we blocked for any reason then it opens up adjudication as a thing to address. Should the host adjudicate ? How much resource needs to be put into this ? How much can the users be expected to pay for this ? Is the reason of sufficient concern to warrant a block ? Should the block be permanent, or should it be time-limited based on the severity of the reason ? etc

when we are allowed to block for no reason at all, then is nothing to adjudicate. There is no reason for the blocking

subjectively unpleasant person: why did you block me ?

merchant: I just did

subjectively unpleasant person: but why ?

merchant: no reason, I just did

subjectively unpleasant person: that so sux for me

merchant: not for me it doesnt

+

allowing blocking for no reason, by a host without the resources to provide a full adjudication system, is the simplist way to allow their users to control their own experience within the host-provided experience  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...