Listing violations that are allowed?

[Paul Hexem]

Anyone that reads the forums will be aware that there are a number of stores violating the listing policies.

They mark an item full permission, but when you purchase it you get a limited permission and a notecard saying that only certain creators will be sent the full perm version.

I've asked for ways to flag entire stores and been told that it's not possible. Instead, I filed abuse reports, and was told to flag the stores (which isn't possible). I've also flagged a number of items... That remain, months later.

So it looks more and more like this is allowed. If it is, how do we know which other marketplace rules are only suggestions? Are we allowed to ignore certain ones we don't like?

@Dakota Linden can we get some clarification on this?

[ChinRey]

One thing I've tried which seems to work, is to flag listings using the closest reason possible from the very limited list of options. In the case you describe that would probably be "item not as described" or something like that. Then file a support case referring to the flags and provide any additional information that is needed. I think Dakota loves this solution because she's always been willing to spend a lot of time replying to those support cases and my follow-up comments.

Edited April 27, 2020 by ChinRey

[Dakota Linden]

Greetings!

The Governance Team can only address a narrow set of options with Marketplace Listings.   This is why only those options are available when you click on the Flag option on a listing. Anything not listed on the flag tool is effectively outside of the scope of the Governance Team. 

For example, Copyright issues are Legal issues and not something the Governance Team can address.  Those reports MUST be filed as outlined in the Intellectual Property Rights policy pages and any attempt to report listings for those items using some other option, like Gaming Policy or Real World Goods will result in the Flag report being immediately dismissed. 

If you purchase an item that is advertised as Full Permission and you do not receive a full permission version of the item, then the the listing should be flagged with the option Item not as advertised -  Item Permissions not as advertised. 

If you buy an item that is not as described, we also strongly encourage the buyer to leave a review on the listing as well, ensuring that the review is not inflammatory.  

In the case of buying an item with permissions that do not match a simple "This is advertised as Full Permission but when received in world is Copy, No Modify, No Transfer"  (or whatever the actual permissions are on the item you received) review will not only alert future buyers, but will let the Governance Team member who reviews your flag report have an additional block of information that goes with the flag report. 

Users should always use due diligence when buying items from others. 

If you see an item that is made for certain mesh bodies, if your very specific body is not listed, do not assume the item will fit just because other, similar, bodies are listed. Many sellers take a lot of time to provide information about their items.  Users should take the time to read that information before purchasing an item, and if they are not sure, then contact the seller first to ask.  

You can also check the Contents tab on the listing to see if the items are in folders.  If the items are in folders, then you can see the individual parts that are included, along with the permissions for each of those parts. 

If you have purchased an item and you do not get what is advertised, then a clear, calm, review, even a negative one, will not be removed from the listing.  Unfortunately, many buyers, rightfully so, are upset, and they leave reviews that reflect that they are upset.  Many times we have had to remove a legitimate review because the buyer chose to use profanity or made personal attacks against the seller in their review comments. 

 

[Paul Hexem]

2 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

If you purchase an item that is advertised as Full Permission and you do not receive a full permission version of the item, then the the listing should be flagged with the option Item not as advertised -  Item Permissions not as advertised. 

These are pretty clear cases of "permissions not as advertised". The listings even say right in them that the item isn't full permission unless they like you.

The one I flagged months ago even says right in the listing, "The full perm products will be sent to Creators who have Inworld and or Marketplace stores. Must be at least a year or more old." It doesn't get any more black and white than that.

So again. If we're not going to enforce the rules, please specify how many we're allowed to ignore.

  

2 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

If you buy an item that is not as described, we also strongly encourage the buyer to leave a review on the listing as well, ensuring that the review is not inflammatory.  

I reviewed the item with a poor review and mentioned that the item isn't as listed- the merchant then re-listed the item to remove my review. Also flagged for that.

 

6 hours ago, ChinRey said:

One thing I've tried which seems to work, is to flag listings using the closest reason possible from the very limited list of options. In the case you describe that would probably be "item not as described" or something like that. Then file a support case referring to the flags and provide any additional information that is needed. I think Dakota loves this solution because she's always been willing to spend a lot of time replying to those support cases and my follow-up comments.

I've filed support tickets, abuse reports, and flagged the items. The items remain. There's not much else I can do at this point except assume the rules are just suggestions.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Paul Hexem

[ChinRey]

3 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

If you buy an item that is not as described, we also strongly encourage the buyer to leave a review on the listing as well, ensuring that the review is not inflammatory. 

That's a good suggestion, I didn't think of posting additional info in a review.

It's not always an option though. I suppose it doesn't do any harm to give a little bit more info about the cases I hinted at in my previous post. I was searcing for a boat, using that one keyword, and half the listing on the top 96 were for planes - all of them from the same merchant. I flagged them all and nothing happened, obviously because the Governance Team didn't spot the offending keyword. Since then I started filing support tickets with more info (I don't do that anymore, it's more effort than it's worth for me). To be clear, I do not hold it against LL when they can't find the reason why somebody flagged an item, it's not always that easy. What I don't understand is why they don't want that little piece of extra info that would turn a hard task into a snap.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

The one I flagged months ago even says right in the listing, "The full perm products will be sent to Creators who have Inworld and or Marketplace stores. Must be at least a year or more old." It doesn't get any more black and white than that.

Ummm... I'm sorry to disappoint you but if the listing says that, the seller actually has their back covered, at least if they remembered to check the "see item description" in the listing form. Even if the info buried in a wall of text, the item is technically as described and there's not much LL can do about it.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Hexem said:

the merchant then re-listed the item to remove my review. Also flagged for that.

Oh, that's definitely not allowed. I really hope LL acted on that flagging.

Edited April 27, 2020 by ChinRey

[Dakota Linden]

Hi!

An item listing that has permissions listed as Copy, Modify, Transfer may not be "Full Permission" just because those options are noted.  The items in the package could have a combination of the permissions on different items.  

So one item could be Copy, Modify, No Transfer and another item could be No Copy, No Modify, Transfer having mixed permissions. 

The seller most definitely should state in the Item Description the permissions on the various parts and note that buyers should see the Item Description for more information. 

If a listing was removed and new listing created for the same item, then please report the listing using Spam or Disallowed Listing Practices - Item disabled  & relisted. 

Users who have listings reported & unlisted for Keyword Spam are absolutely allowed to correct the issue & set their listings back to active.  Unfortunately, some sellers don't fix the issue and just set their listings back to active again. 

It does not, in any way, mean that the Governance Team "missed" the keyword spam on the listing and dismissed the flag report.  if you have reported a listing for keyword spam and the issue is not resolved after 1 week, report the listing again with an alt, or you may submit a ticket with the links to the listings through a support ticket.  Please be crystal clear that you reported the listing already and cannot report it again, but the keyword spam is still on the listing. 

If you get the standard reply to use the Flag Tool, please keep in mind that we are all human. Just reply to the ticket and gently remind the agent that you did that already but the keywords spam is still there. 

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

5 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

The one I flagged months ago even says right in the listing, "The full perm products will be sent to Creators who have Inworld and or Marketplace stores. Must be at least a year or more old." It doesn't get any more black and white than that.

@Dakota Linden - Regarding this comment of Paul's:  Is it allowed to list an item such that a specific version (full perm in this case) is truly only available to avatars that meet specific criteria?  The MP Guidelines don't really make this particular thing clear to me.

[Dakota Linden]

22 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

@Dakota Linden - Regarding this comment of Paul's:  Is it allowed to list an item such that a specific version (full perm in this case) is truly only available to avatars that meet specific criteria?  The MP Guidelines don't really make this particular thing clear to me.

hi LittleMe Jewell, 

There is nothing in the Listing Guidelines that specifically disallows offering different permissions to different users.  If seller does make it clear in their listing that unless the buyer has a store either in world or on the Marketplace, that they will receive a limited permission version of the item, then they are technically not in violation of the Listing Guidelines, since the item permissions are noted on the listing. 

As to whether items should be allowed to be sold like that, those types of questions are best directed to the Marketplace Team since those would be deeper compliance/legal questions that I nor anyone on the Governance team would be able to answer. 

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Dakota Linden said:

As to whether items should be allowed to be sold like that, those types of questions are best directed to the Marketplace Team since those would be deeper compliance/legal questions that I nor anyone on the Governance team would be able to answer. 

probably something for Marketplace Team is that a thing we (the buyer residents) do is use the tick boxes on the left to filter products by permissions.  Allowing vendors to list the product actually for sale on MP as full permissions when the MP listed product is not, kinda circumvents/defeats the whole purpose of this MP functionality

i think that when the product actually for sale on MP is restricted permissions then it should be tick boxed as those restricted permissions. The vendor, as they do now, can say in the description that a full permissions version can be obtained on application or at inworld store

ps. edit

when the vendors are allowed to tick full permissions when they are not, then the vendor is using the tick box permissions to advertise products which are not actually for sale on MP.  I think this form of circumvention advertising should not be permitted

Edited April 28, 2020 by Mollymews

[LittleMe Jewell]

2 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

As to whether items should be allowed to be sold like that, those types of questions are best directed to the Marketplace Team since those would be deeper compliance/legal questions that I nor anyone on the Governance team would be able to answer. 

How does one direct a question or comment to the Marketplace Team?  Flagging an item simply sends it to Governance.

[Paul Hexem]

3 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

hi LittleMe Jewell, 

There is nothing in the Listing Guidelines that specifically disallows offering different permissions to different users.  If seller does make it clear in their listing that unless the buyer has a store either in world or on the Marketplace, that they will receive a limited permission version of the item, then they are technically not in violation of the Listing Guidelines, since the item permissions are noted on the listing. 

As to whether items should be allowed to be sold like that, those types of questions are best directed to the Marketplace Team since those would be deeper compliance/legal questions that I nor anyone on the Governance team would be able to answer. 

So permissions don't have to match the listing as long as I write "some people will get the full permission, everyone else is gambling"?

That's like those people that write in their profiles they're allowed to violate TOS if you IM them. Are we going to start allowing that too?

Edited April 28, 2020 by Paul Hexem

[Paul Hexem]

8 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Ummm... I'm sorry to disappoint you but if the listing says that, the seller actually has their back covered, at least if they remembered to check the "see item description" in the listing form. Even if the info buried in a wall of text, the item is technically as described and there's not much LL can do about it.

That's the problem. The item is described as "full perm, maybe. You're gambling. Good luck".

Not "No transfer unless you meet said criteria", not "full perm model, copy only texture", etc.

If this is allowed, then that gives us permission to violate virtually all the listing guidelines as long as we admit that we're actually violating the guidelines.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Paul Hexem

[MelodicRain]

50 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

If this is allowed, then that gives us permission to violate virtually all the listing guidelines as long as we admit that we're actually violating the guidelines.

That is already allowed lol? SL is literally the only place where the seller is protected, not the buyer. The seller can literally sell you an empty box for 5000L and there's not a thing you can do about it, because taking down a listing does no good for LL, while keeping listings up = more $ spent = more $ for LL. I'm been scammed by shady a-hole sellers many times, LL really couldn't care less if you flag the report or write a negative review. Flag? They'll just ignore it unless actual DMCA's are involved. Negative review? The seller will just get LL to remove it. Sad but true.

[Paul Hexem]

24 minutes ago, MelodicRain said:

That is already allowed lol? SL is literally the only place where the seller is protected, not the buyer. The seller can literally sell you an empty box for 5000L and there's not a thing you can do about it, because taking down a listing does no good for LL, while keeping listings up = more $ spent = more $ for LL. I'm been scammed by shady a-hole sellers many times, LL really couldn't care less if you flag the report or write a negative review. Flag? They'll just ignore it unless actual DMCA's are involved. Negative review? The seller will just get LL to remove it. Sad but true.

Yeah, but up until now, LL has at least pretended like there are listing guidelines and rules. Dakota is in this thread now basically telling us it doesn't even matter anymore. We'll see if the marketplace team follows up.

[ChinRey]

3 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

That's the problem. The item is described as "full perm, maybe. You're gambling. Good luck".

Not "No transfer unless you meet said criteria", not "full perm model, copy only texture", etc.

If this is allowed, then that gives us permission to violate virtually all the listing guidelines as long as we admit that we're actually violating the guidelines.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, at least not from an ethical point of view. It depends on exactly how the perm issues are described and I don't know that.

But LL can't unlist an item just because they think it's unethical, not even if they are obviously right. They need a legal reason for doing so and if the additional perm conditions are in the description it is technically and legally "as described", even if that info is deliberately or accidentally buried in "the fine print".

 

2 hours ago, MelodicRain said:

SL is literally the only place where the seller is protected, not the buyer.

No, it's the American way. It's something I'm struggling to adapt to too. I'm European so I tend to take consumer protection for granted. But LL is a US company and they don't really have that over there. It's a very different culture.

[Paul Hexem]

5 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

if the additional perm conditions are in the description

That's what I'm saying. There are no "additional permissions" in the description.

It literally says "you won't get full permission unless I like you". It doesn't say what the actual permissions are, and the ticked options are straight up skewing filters.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Paul Hexem

[ChinRey]

26 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

It doesn't say what the actual permissions are,

Awww, that's rude! I wouln't even think of buying anything from the merchant if I saw something like that in a description.

 

28 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

and the ticked options are straight up skewing filters.

They are but do you have an idea for a better solution how to present listings with non-conventional perm setttings?

Anybody who has read my posts in this forum knows that I'm thoroughly unimpressed by the MP software and especially the MP UI but in this particular case I can't really think of a good solution.

[Paul Hexem]

25 minutes ago, ChinRey said:

They are but do you have an idea for a better solution how to present listings with non-conventional perm setttings?

Yes.

Step 1, tick the actual permissions you're using.

Step 2, specify in the listing how to get access to the permissions you'd like to offer.

Alternatively, if you don't like SL's system, don't use SL. Offer your stuff on Renderosity or something, where they actually have systems in place for contracts or licensing. 

[Paul Hexem]

On 4/27/2020 at 6:05 PM, LittleMe Jewell said:

@Dakota Linden - Regarding this comment of Paul's:  Is it allowed to list an item such that a specific version (full perm in this case) is truly only available to avatars that meet specific criteria?  The MP Guidelines don't really make this particular thing clear to me.

Two days later, this is something that really deserves an answer.

If we're allowed to violate that rule for specific avatars, what other rules can we violate for specific avatars? Can we share chat as long as we only share the chat of avatars less than 1 year old? How about scripting our objects to delete themselves if the buyer's UUID doesn't end in 1?

[Dakota Linden]

On 4/27/2020 at 9:08 PM, LittleMe Jewell said:

How does one direct a question or comment to the Marketplace Team?  Flagging an item simply sends it to Governance.

Hi!

The best way is to attend the Web User Group. 

[Dakota Linden]

On 4/27/2020 at 9:54 PM, Paul Hexem said:

That's the problem. The item is described as "full perm, maybe. You're gambling. Good luck".

Not "No transfer unless you meet said criteria", not "full perm model, copy only texture", etc.

If this is allowed, then that gives us permission to violate virtually all the listing guidelines as long as we admit that we're actually violating the guidelines.

If an item is described as Full Permission and the buyer does not receive a Full Permission item in world, then the listing is in violation of the Marketplace Listing Guidelines. 

If an item is tagged as Copy, Modify, Transfer AND See Description, that does not necessarily mean the item is "Full Permission".

Example:  If I sell a product that has 3 parts with varying permissions:

Item A - Copy, No Modify, No Transfer

Item B- No Copy, Modify, No Transfer

Item C - No Copy, No Modify, Transfer

ANY combination of permissions I pick for the product will be wrong unless I use Copy, Modify, Transfer and See Description.  If I choose No Copy, then that is wrong since part of the product IS copy.  If I choose No Modify, then that will also be wrong because part of the product IS modify.  If I choose No Transfer then that is also wrong, since part of the product is also Transfer. 

But choosing Copy, Modify, Transfer AND See Description does not, in any way, mean that the item is "Full Permission".   

This is specifically why there is the option "See Description" available.  

When a seller chooses the See Description option, they now have the responsibility to list the various permissions on their content that is included in the product.  

The buyer now also has the responsibility to review that information to determine if they want to purchase a product that has items/content with those permissions. 

 

 

[Dakota Linden]

On 4/27/2020 at 8:21 PM, Mollymews said:

probably something for Marketplace Team is that a thing we (the buyer residents) do is use the tick boxes on the left to filter products by permissions.  Allowing vendors to list the product actually for sale on MP as full permissions when the MP listed product is not, kinda circumvents/defeats the whole purpose of this MP functionality

i think that when the product actually for sale on MP is restricted permissions then it should be tick boxed as those restricted permissions. The vendor, as they do now, can say in the description that a full permissions version can be obtained on application or at inworld store

ps. edit

when the vendors are allowed to tick full permissions when they are not, then the vendor is using the tick box permissions to advertise products which are not actually for sale on MP.  I think this form of circumvention advertising should not be permitted

Hi!

It isn't permitted. 

If a seller chooses Copy, Modify, Transfer and the item received is No Transfer, then the Permissions are wrong and the listing should be reported using the Flag tool. 

For example, if you purchase a shirt (single item) and the seller put Copy, Modify, Transfer as the Permissions and the shirt is received in world and it is Copy, Modify, No Transfer, then the listed permissions are wrong and the listing should be reported by clicking on the Flag this item link.

But not every product is a single item.  If a seller is listing an outfit (pants and a shirt) and the pants are Copy, Modify, No Transfer and the shirt is Copy, No Modify, No Transfer, the seller has limited options on what Permissions they should list. If they tag the listing as No Modify, then that is wrong, since the pants ARE modify.  If they tag the listing as Modify, then they are also wrong, since the shirt is No Modify. 

At that point, the seller should tag "See Description" and then list the Item Permissions for each piece of clothing. 

Some products have multiple items, all with varying combinations of permissions on them.  As long as the seller lists those permissions in the item Description for each part, then there is no violation of the Marketplace Listing Guidelines since they do list the permissions correctly. 

 

 

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

Hi!

It isn't permitted. 

If a seller chooses Copy, Modify, Transfer and the item received is No Transfer, then the Permissions are wrong and the listing should be reported using the Flag tool. 

For example, if you purchase a shirt (single item) and the seller put Copy, Modify, Transfer as the Permissions and the shirt is received in world and it is Copy, Modify, No Transfer, then the listed permissions are wrong and the listing should be reported by clicking on the Flag this item link.

But not every product is a single item.  If a seller is listing an outfit (pants and a shirt) and the pants are Copy, Modify, No Transfer and the shirt is Copy, No Modify, No Transfer, the seller has limited options on what Permissions they should list. If they tag the listing as No Modify, then that is wrong, since the pants ARE modify.  If they tag the listing as Modify, then they are also wrong, since the shirt is No Modify. 

At that point, the seller should tag "See Description" and then list the Item Permissions for each piece of clothing. 

Some products have multiple items, all with varying combinations of permissions on them.  As long as the seller lists those permissions in the item Description for each part, then there is no violation of the Marketplace Listing Guidelines since they do list the permissions correctly.

thank you for the clarification

i understand the listing case where say a scripted product is listed as Modify. Yet shows in inventory as No Modify because while the object is Modify, the script is No Modify. Which I think is acceptable, as the object (the container of the script) is as listed - is Modify

was just the more narrow case of selling objects (containers) as Modify and/or Copy/Transfer when they are not, which you have clarified is not allowed. So that's good

[LittleMe Jewell]

7 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

Hi!

The best way is to attend the Web User Group. 

*sigh*

I work during the day just like LL.

Maybe I'll open a JIRA to suggest that someone come up with some way us peons can send out questions and suggestions for the different teams since attending inworld group meetings is just not possible for everyone.

[Paul Hexem]

12 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

If an item is described as Full Permission and the buyer does not receive a Full Permission item in world, then the listing is in violation of the Marketplace Listing Guidelines. 

If an item is tagged as Copy, Modify, Transfer AND See Description, that does not necessarily mean the item is "Full Permission".

Example:  If I sell a product that has 3 parts with varying permissions:

Item A - Copy, No Modify, No Transfer

Item B- No Copy, Modify, No Transfer

Item C - No Copy, No Modify, Transfer

ANY combination of permissions I pick for the product will be wrong unless I use Copy, Modify, Transfer and See Description.  If I choose No Copy, then that is wrong since part of the product IS copy.  If I choose No Modify, then that will also be wrong because part of the product IS modify.  If I choose No Transfer then that is also wrong, since part of the product is also Transfer. 

But choosing Copy, Modify, Transfer AND See Description does not, in any way, mean that the item is "Full Permission".   

This is specifically why there is the option "See Description" available.  

When a seller chooses the See Description option, they now have the responsibility to list the various permissions on their content that is included in the product.  

The buyer now also has the responsibility to review that information to determine if they want to purchase a product that has items/content with those permissions. 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying.

So the only question remains, why are these stores that are operating on listing all of their items with incorrect permissions allowed to stay up, despite being reported, repeatedly, for months?