SL's "Better Business"

[Becky Nosferatu]

If this caught your attention, it should.

https://www.instagram.com/slbb.sl/

These folks, are attempting to not only break the TOS, but also harass creators on Second Life that don't hold up to their standards, as evident with the pictures involved. I want to point these guys out because at NO POINT, is this even legal or something that should be used. I don't know how else to report them, as they don't actually have a name attached, but they operate out of this website: https://linktr.ee/secondlifebetterbusiness/

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

If this caught your attention, it should.

https://www.instagram.com/slbb.sl/

These folks, are attempting to not only break the TOS, but also harass creators on Second Life that don't hold up to their standards, as evident with the pictures involved. I want to point these guys out because at NO POINT, is this even legal or something that should be used. I don't know how else to report them, as they don't actually have a name attached, but they operate out of this website: https://linktr.ee/secondlifebetterbusiness/

Well, first, this doesn't break the ToS.

Second, how is this not legal?

Third, it looks like they are making real attempts to validate complaints, reach out to the creators, and help resolve issues between merchants and consumers. So, assuming that they are actually doing this (and do you know for a fact that they aren't?), your problem with it is  . . . ???

PS. "Report them" to whom? LL won't touch it -- it isn't on their platform. And, again, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about this, that I can see.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Becky Nosferatu]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, first, this doesn't break the ToS.

Second, how is this not legal?

Third, it looks like they are making real attempts to validate complaints, reach out to the creators, and help resolve issues between merchants and consumers. So, assuming that they are actually doing this (and do you know for a fact that they aren't?), your problem with it is  . . . ???

How would you provide proof of failure to them? You would have to provide logs or screenshots of conversation- Which is against the TOS.

My problem is this person was seen in this screenshot, which was linked in a the Kinzart Community discord server with the link (I forgot it on the first post, sorry);

My problem is they will do nothing but harass creators, as shown here. "I'm blasting them." That is "I'm going to white knight them!" Which goes against the TOS, as that is harassment.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

How would you provide proof of failure to them?

Well, they ask, as you say, for screenshots and logs. I'm not sure that's sufficient to prove something actually doesn't do what it says it is supposed to do . . . I think they should examine it themselves. But, they do seem to be trying to establish the legitimacy of the complaint. In other words, they aren't simply taking a disgruntled customer's word for it.

2 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

You would have to provide logs or screenshots of conversation- Which is against the TOS.

No, it is not. Not so long as it is not on LL's platform.

Do you have any idea how many blogs and web sites include screenshots and conversation logs? Check out Virtual Secrets, for a start. (On second thought, don't. It's really really stupid.)

4 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

My problem is they will do nothing but harass creators, as shown here. "I'm blasting them." That is "I'm going to white knight them!" Which goes against the TOS, as that is harassment.

Not how I would handle it, I'll confess. I'd just make it public. But, again, it's not against the ToS unless it is actually happening on one of LL's platforms.

[Dragon Mommy]

I can't really speak to if this breaks the TOS, but regardless of intentions of the folks starting this I don't see this ending well. I just see it being an avenue of harassment like some other confession websites are. 

Just a note about Virtual Secrets since it was directly named, the person behind it is banned from SL due to that blog. It doesn't stop the blog at all but I'm guessing LL doesn't exactly take kindly to those sorts of sites overall. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Bitterthorn

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Bitterthorn said:

I can't really speak to if this breaks the TOS, but regardless of intentions of the folks starting this I don't see this ending well. I just see it being an avenue of harassment like some other confession websites are. 

That is certainly possible. But that is not what is suggested in their description of their procedures.

That said, I'm unclear what "blast them" means. Again, not how I'd handle it, and not actually a very effective way of dealing with a problem.

[Becky Nosferatu]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, they ask, as you say, for screenshots and logs. I'm not sure that's sufficient to prove something actually doesn't do what it says it is supposed to do . . . I think they should examine it themselves. But, they do seem to be trying to establish the legitimacy of the complaint. In other words, they aren't simply taking a disgruntled customer's word for it.

No, it is not. Not so long as it is not on LL's platform.

Do you have any idea how many blogs and web sites include screenshots and conversation logs? Check out Virtual Secrets, for a start. (On second thought, don't. It's really really stupid.)

Not how I would handle it, I'll confess. I'd just make it public. But, again, it's not against the ToS unless it is actually happening on one of LL's platforms.

You mean logs would have to be like in a notecard? Cause I've gotten warnings in the past for sharing them outside of SL. Which is why I don't share logs anymore.

 

3 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

I can't really speak to if this breaks the TOS, but regardless of intentions of the folks starting this I don't see this ending well. I just see it being an avenue of harassment like some other confession websites are. 

That's my issue with this. Nothing good will come of this, it will be only for harassment purposes. Creators have a hard enough time with people who refuse to read the instructions and get crap in IMs for this stuff, let alone someone taking a complaint into their own hands and "Blasting them" for it.

[Dragon Mommy]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is certainly possible. But that is not what is suggested in their description of their procedures.

That said, I'm unclear what "blast them" means. Again, not how I'd handle it, and not actually a very effective way of dealing with a problem.

Putting someone 'on blast' is usually harassment / repeated attacks. Might just be *****ty wording in that post-- it's only one post to go by.

Still, way too easy for a personal agenda or bias to go into something like this. 

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

You mean logs would have to be like in a notecard? Cause I've gotten warnings in the past for sharing them outside of SL. Which is why I don't share logs anymore.

 

 

Warnings from who?  It is NOT against ToS to.post chat logs on non LL.websites.  

I do see.good intentions behind a site like this but unless they research each and every complaint thoroughly, it will just end up Virtual Secrets 2.0

[Becky Nosferatu]

1 minute ago, RowanMinx said:

Warnings from who?  It is NOT against ToS to.post chat logs on non LL.websites.  

I do see.good intentions behind a site like this but unless they research each and every complaint thoroughly, it will just end up Virtual Secrets 2.0

You can get warnings from LLs via Emails. That's how they usually handle the 'minor' offenses, like sharing logs. As for sharing outside, that must be something that ended up getting changed, cause this was over a decade ago I got that warning.

I wish I could see good intentions, but having dealt with "White Knights" in the past, I already see this as someone using it as an excuse to harass people.

 

If none of this violates the TOS now, harassing creators will be. Because there's multiple reasons why a creator simply wouldn't talk to a customer, via their own volition (which they have a right to,) or various issues involving technology (Capped IMs, for example,) and I just simply don't think this is something SL needs and wish to bring awareness of how bad this could go. This person, (it seems to be one person,) could easily be biased with very little info or do nothing but make the situation worse. And even if they are doing it for the betterment of customers in SL, how exactly are they going to handle a creator who just simply mutes them? What are they going to do? Spread 'awareness' by slandering the creator's name? Which, again, is ALSO against the TOS? (Slandering, I mean,) so... it's not going to do anything but cause issues.

[Rowan Amore]

Disclosing private Second Life conversations

Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service.

NOTE: This does not include posting of chat to social media sites or other websites. Posting such logs on web pages, emailing them, or printing them out and posting them on utility poles in the "real world" -- are all actions beyond the scope of the Second Life Terms of Service. ; while that might be illegal, but those laws must be enforced by the proper law enforcement agencies.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Bitterthorn said:

Putting someone 'on blast' is usually harassment / repeated attacks. Might just be *****ty wording in that post-- it's only one post to go by.

Still, way too easy for a personal agenda or bias to go into something like this. 

Again, yes -- there's that danger.

I've talked about something like this in the past, and one of the things that I stipulated, and that is absolutely vital is that the process / investigation be transparent. It's not clear that any of this process will be . . . the more I read this, the less it looks like a sort of "better business" thing, and the more like vigilantism -- which, I'll agree, is not good.

But it does look as though the intent is a good one: they've said

• That they require proof of a deficiency in goods or services
• That they will contact the merchant to hear their side of the story
• That they will try to mediate a resolution between merchant and consumer before taking further action.

Now, to that I'd add:

• That they will, when appropriate, test deficient goods or services themselves to ascertain the validity of the complaint
• That they render the entire process transparent (i.e., public)
• And, importantly, that the "action" they take is simply to provide a kind of online database of problems that they have, to a reasonable degree, ascertained are valid and legitimate complaints. "Blasting" someone isn't going to help anyone.

And all of this assumes that they are in fact going to follow their own procedures. If they don't, then it is certainly bound to become a waste of time and possibly as stupid and useless as Virtual Secrets.

I'd like to hear from them, tbh.

[Becky Nosferatu]

3 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

Disclosing private Second Life conversations

Sharing or posting a conversation inworld or in the Second Life forums without consent of all involved Residents is a violation of the Terms of Service.

NOTE: This does not include posting of chat to social media sites or other websites. Posting such logs on web pages, emailing them, or printing them out and posting them on utility poles in the "real world" -- are all actions beyond the scope of the Second Life Terms of Service. ; while that might be illegal, but those laws must be enforced by the proper law enforcement agencies.

Ah hah, so it is different now, thank you for clarifying that. I was under the impression it was still just "you can't share logs period!" as it was over 7ish years ago. I always did find that silly, how were they going to enforce that? So thank you for that.

That said, there are plenty of people who share logs IN SL, as well, which breaks the TOS. This person could get themselves and the 'customer' they're trying to help in trouble for that, if they aren't privy to that.

More over, I just would like folks to be aware this is something that some unknown person is trying to start, and it doesn't look like they're in it for any other reason than to be the White Knight. The wording they use is very akin to that of an SJW or other crazy Internet "Warrior," and it will only end poorly for all sides.

[Becky Nosferatu]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Again, yes -- there's that danger.

I've talked about something like this in the past, and one of the things that I stipulated, and that is absolutely vital is that the process / investigation be transparent. It's not clear that any of this process will be . . . the more I read this, the less it looks like a sort of "better business" thing, and the more like vigilantism -- which, I'll agree, is not good.

But it does look as though the intent is a good one: they've said

• That they require proof of a deficiency in goods or services
• That they will contact the merchant to hear their side of the story
• That they will try to mediate a resolution between merchant and consumer before taking further action.

Now, to that I'd add:

• That they will, when appropriate, test deficient goods or services themselves to ascertain the validity of the complaint
• That they render the entire process transparent (i.e., public)
• And, importantly, that the "action" they take is simply to provide a kind of online database of problems that they have, to a reasonable degree, ascertained are valid and legitimate complaints. "Blasting" someone isn't going to help anyone.

And all of this assumes that they are in fact going to follow their own procedures. If they don't, then it is certainly bound to become a waste of time and possibly as stupid and useless as Virtual Secrets.

I'd like to hear from them, tbh.

I'd like to as well. Because they're treading a fine line, here. I do hope that I'm just worried for nothing, I would prefer to be wrong in these situations, but there's just to many things that point to otherwise.

 

EDIT: whoops, sorry didn't realize this would double post. I don't use these forums very often.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Becky Nosferatu
double post

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

More over, I just would like folks to be aware this is something that some unknown person is trying to start, and it doesn't look like they're in it for any other reason than to be the White Knight. The wording they use is very akin to that of an SJW or other crazy Internet "Warrior," and it will only end poorly for all sides.

lol

Well, speaking as a card-carrying SJW . . . that term, "White Knight"? You're using it wrong. A White Knight is someone who, unasked and uninvited, more or less hijacks someone else's grievance as a way of virtue signalling, or just being a pain in the ass.

This person is not seeking out merchants, but rather waiting to be contact by disgruntled consumers. In other words, they are providing a service -- apparently for free. It's not at all the same thing as "White Knighting."

I don't see anything in their language to suggest that they are being "crazy internet warriors," or that their motives are particularly suspect. You might, of course, be correct -- I don't know this person. But neither do you. What are you basing that on?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

I'd like to as well. Because they're treading a fine line, here. I do hope that I'm just worried for nothing, I would prefer to be wrong in these situations, but there's just to many things that point to otherwise.

I don't see it, myself, but again . . . I'd certainly like to see some clarification from them about how they intend to go about this, and in particular, what actions they intend to take if they do ascertain that the merchant is at fault.

At the moment, there just isn't enough information here to either cheer, or throw rotten veggies.

[Becky Nosferatu]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

lol

Well, speaking as a card-carrying SJW . . . that term, "White Knight"? You're using it wrong. A White Knight is someone who, unasked and uninvited, more or less hijacks someone else's grievance as a way of virtue signalling, or just being a pain in the ass.

This person is not seeking out merchants, but rather waiting to be contact by disgruntled consumers. In other words, they are providing a service -- apparently for free. It's not at all the same thing as "White Knighting."

I don't see anything in their language to suggest that they are being "crazy internet warriors," or that their motives are particularly suspect. You might, of course, be correct -- I don't know this person. But neither do you. What are you basing that on?

Okay so I'm using the term wrong, thank you for clarifying.

As for why I think it's a bad idea is it's not, for one, apart of Linden Labs, and 2 the single use of "Blasting them. Period" comment. They have no real means to force the merchant's hand other than harassing them and "slandering" their name. The point of a BBB is to report being screwed over by a business and then the BBB actually having the power to do something about it.

These people and/or person lacks any sort of power due to them NOT being associated with LLs.

[Solar Legion]

.... It was never against the ToS to share chat logs and such outside of Second Life. If you were suspended after doing so, there were other reasons for your suspension. Any Linden that would list such as the "reason" behind such an action back then was taking action on something wholly out of the scope of the ToS.

Now how do I know this? I've shared logs externally countless times before and also tried to report one or two malignant bloggers/users for using their logs to harass or ***** talk other users.

No actions were ever taken.

[Becky Nosferatu]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

.... It was never against the ToS to share chat logs and such outside of Second Life. If you were suspended after doing so, there were other reasons for your suspension. Any Linden that would list such as the "reason" behind such an action back then was taking action on something wholly out of the scope of the ToS.

Now how do I know this? I've shared logs externally countless times before and also tried to report one or two malignant bloggers/users for using their logs to harass or ***** talk other users.

No actions were ever taken.

I was never suspended, it was a warning, for sharing logs. The only time I was 'ever' suspended was someone hijacked my account while I was on hiatus. And I never even knew it was hijacked until months later.

[Solar Legion]

Making this a separate post simply because they're two different kettles of fish.

The notion of a Second Life Better Business Bureau is not new nor is it anything that has ever truly gone/ended well. It has been tried in the past and the only ones that ever took it seriously were drama mongers.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Becky Nosferatu said:

As for why I think it's a bad idea is it's not, for one, apart of Linden Labs

No, and LL won't touch this sort of thing with a 5 metre barge pole. But that cuts both ways: unless there is demonstrable harassment occurring here on the forums, in the feeds, or in-world, they won't do anything about any possible "harassment" aimed at merchants either.

One of the reasons why a thing like this exists is that there are literally no protections for consumers in SL. Except in very rare cases, such as outright financial fraud, hacking an account, or things of that nature, consumers are on their own. And that's why a thing like this might potentially be useful.

But, again, only if it is done in a fair, even-handed, and transparent manner.

4 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

the single use of "Blasting them. Period" comment

Yep. Agreed. I want to know what that actually means. Writing something nasty about them on a blog or web site?

The proper way to approach this would be to document the entire process, and provide public and verifiable proof that something is not as advertised.

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

I was never suspended, it was a warning, for sharing logs. The only time I was 'ever' suspended was someone hijacked my account while I was on hiatus. And I never even knew it was hijacked until months later.

Warning, suspension .... The point being that such should not have been given at all as it was never against the ToS to share such things outside of the service.

Edited February 1, 2021 by Solar Legion

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

The notion of a Second Life Better Business Bureau is not new nor is it anything that has ever truly gone/ended well. It has been tried in the past and the only ones that ever took it seriously were drama mongers.

And that's actually a shame. It would be, managed well, by someone with some integrity, a great thing.

(And don't look at me. I have no integrity whatsoever.)

Edited February 1, 2021 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Becky Nosferatu]

Just now, Solar Legion said:

Warning, suspension .... The point being that such should not have been given at all.

And that makes me question, cause I got it over logs being shared, the other had something like "your account was suspended due to harmful activity" or something to that effect.

 

So now that I know it's not against the ToS, I wonder why I got it.

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And that's actually a shame. It would be, managed well, by someone with some integrity, it would be a great thing.

(And don't look at me. I have no integrity whatsoever.)

Unfortunately there's not a snowball's chance in Tartarus of it being managed well as such people won't touch it with a three thousand foot barge pole.