SL's "Better Business"

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

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.

Shared within Second Life or shared outside of it?

The former is actually against ToS.

[Becky Nosferatu]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Shared within Second Life or shared outside of it?

The former is actually against ToS.

I don't remember at this point, but I believe it was outside. Could have been either or, though, at the time I was security for a sim. Like I said though, this was over a decade ago.

[Solar Legion]

Just now, Becky Nosferatu said:

I don't remember at this point, but I believe it was outside. Could have been either or, though, at the time I was security for a sim. Like I said though, this was over a decade ago.

In the earlier days you had people pushing to make external sharing of logs against the ToS and a very small number of Governance team members who would act on such reports despite it being outside of their jurisdiction. You also had those pushing to allow exceptions for In World sharing of logs - in the form of Notecards - between Club Managers, Owners, Security and similar roles within Role Play regions.

At one point they did have to make it plain that In World sharing without express permission was what was against the ToS.

To this day you'll still find those in such roles who will not hesitate to share a Notecard around, despite the risk associated with it. That is not even touching the venues and such that try to skirt the rules by having some sort of blanket statement that amounts to simply existing on their region giving them the right to share any such Notecards In World. A blanket statement that is null and void I might add - simply being there or engaging in conversation/play is not the same as giving express permission.

[Paul Hexem]

Drama perpetuating drama is all this is.

[Bree Giffen]

They can't call themselves "Secondlife Better Business". That breaks paragraph 1.1 of the TOS.

Quote

In addition to Linden Lab's ownership of the Intellectual Property Rights set forth in the Terms of Service, you understand and agree that without a license agreement with Linden Lab, we do not authorize you to make use of the Linden Marks. Use of the Linden Marks in whole or in part, including without limitation "Second Life," "SL," and the Eye-in-Hand logo, is subject to the guidelines and terms of any applicable license provided in the Second Life Trademark Guidelines and Second Life Brand Center.

LL can't have someone operating with their trademarked name. This SLBB could probably get around it by renaming themselves something unrelated. 

[AdminGirl]

1 hour ago, Bree Giffen said:

They can't call themselves "Secondlife Better Business". That breaks paragraph 1.1 of the TOS.

LL can't have someone operating with their trademarked name. This SLBB could probably get around it by renaming themselves something unrelated. 

Do they pass by using "secondlife" instead of "second life"?

[Syo Emerald]

20 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

Do they pass by using "secondlife" instead of "second life"?

I think this could depend if LL a) decides to care enough and b) how much those instagram idiots make themself (intentional or unintentional) look like they are 'official'.

[AdminGirl]

I personally think this is a good thing. At a glance, it seems like an attempt to have a rating system on sl businesses, which is something we are lacking. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't but what we are currently (not) provided with is not sufficient so at least someone is trying.

[Coffee Pancake]

This is not a good faith attempt to raise standards.

It's fashion creator mud slinging by proxy .. ALL OVER AGAIN.

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Bitterthorn said:

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. 

Linden cited clause 2.7 of the ToS in terminating the accounts behind SL Secrets

2.7 is the clause that forbids the inclusion of any Linden Lab copyright content on any site/platform anywhere on the internet without the prior permission of Linden. When a site/platform owner allows other people to post Linden copyrighted content without permission then Linden (as in this case) can and does hold the site/platform owner responsible

the whole story is here: https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2018/09/sl-secrets-linden-lab-second-life-blog.html

 

[Syo Emerald]

1 minute ago, AdminGirl said:

I personally think this is a good thing. At a glance, it seems like an attempt to have a rating system on sl businesses, which is something we are lacking. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't but what we are currently (not) provided with is not sufficient so at least someone is trying.

I don't think this is good. Just read SL Marketplace comments. So many people aren't able to even read what they are buying or request the shop owner takes care of their mistakes.

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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.

"Blast them" is basically what the OP is doing to the cited organization.

[AnthonyJoanne]

I'm going to be quite blunt:

I've seen reviews of products on the MP where people complained that the item didn't fit their particular mesh body. For products which don't list that mesh body and never have.

I've seen reviews of products on the MP where people have complained that it didn't fit, for products with a free demo clearly referenced in the MP listing.

I have helped people in SL who were having trouble with something who admitted that they hadn't read the instructions. I've met people who are proud that they are too lazy to RTFM.

SL users contain a high percentage of the lazy or stupid. Creators can't be expected to spoon feed these people indefinitely.

I've dealt with hundreds of creators in my time in SL ... and a few of them sucked. The majority, however, were helpful and courteous.

I've also dealt with busy bodies like the people who think they get to set up the SLBB and get to be the 'product police' and they ALL sucked.

 

LL has mechanisms in place for creators who misrepresent (incorrect listings, false advertising, etc). I have no idea if LL are actually any good at dealing with that stuff, but the fact remains the mechanisms are there. I certainly hope they pay attention when we flag MP listings ... I'd hate to think I've been wasting my time reporting keyword spam for no reason. :p

At the end of the day, if the SLBB approached me the only result would be a quick trip to the bit bucket for them and all their communications.

 

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

"The hair I bought looks stupid on my tiny head, this b***h is going down!"

This is what's going to happen.

[Rowan Amore]

5 hours ago, Mollymews said:

Linden cited clause 2.7 of the ToS in terminating the accounts behind SL Secrets

2.7 is the clause that forbids the inclusion of any Linden Lab copyright content on any site/platform anywhere on the internet without the prior permission of Linden. When a site/platform owner allows other people to post Linden copyrighted content without permission then Linden (as in this case) can and does hold the site/platform owner responsible

the whole story is here: https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2018/09/sl-secrets-linden-lab-second-life-blog.html

 

This is probably the reason for the name change to Virtual secrets.  I wonder if someone has already alerted LL about this site using the SL label and #s.  

[Ceka Cianci]

Have things like that every really gotten traction?

Usually by the time I hear about these places, they are dead in the water.

[Janet Voxel]

The idea is good, the practice is going to be way less than. The creative business in SL is already shady and cutthroat, this could end up being another vehicle for more shadiness. LL has product reviews on MP and look at how that turned out. Something like this, that is already limited by platform (how many people have a SL instagram account?) is already going to only be accessible to certain people, which ok is fine I guess, but how are actual perpetrators going to be held accountable? There in lies the problem: It has too much potential to be abused and a lot of he said she said, a lot of edited logs, etc, etc.

There are a lot of shady business practices in SL, but I can't see this going anywhere good for anyone.

I remember a couple of those gossip sites started out like this. They were pointing out creators that were copying other people's work, with receipts. It really didn't stop people from buying things from them and then it devolved into "Who's banging who" and other nastiness. While the scope of this seems a bit more limited, I still don't see it accomplishing when it's attempting to do.

[Laurel Aurelia]

The idea sounds great on paper, but like others I think it will be too easy to abuse. My track record with creators is not 100 percent perfect, but for the most part I've had pretty exceptional service. I follow one simple rule. Demo. I must either be able to try it on or see it in world before I buy it. I  also try really hard to resist the urge to impulse buy. Still some stuff gets by me, like complexity on mesh hair. I think what I'd like see is a system to help designers with their customer service. Some designers have CSRs and some designers do it themselves. Some creators treat this like a job, and  for others this is strictly a hobby. There is no consistency across the platform with how to contact designers for help and the expectation of when that help may or may not arrive is usually not very apparent. So if we could have standard practices that everyone followed that stream lined the process for both designer and the consumer maybe that would help. I have no idea what that would entail really or if it was feasible.

[Ingrid Ingersoll]

47 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Have things like that every really gotten traction?

Usually by the time I hear about these places, they are dead in the water.

Not with LL so much as the community, who loves the drams. 

[Gage Wirefly]

Agree with what was stated earlier about it sounding good. It will eventually be used for abuse, no doubt in my mind. 

[Rowan Amore]

I've had mostly positive results when contacting creators.  Sometimes, it's not what you say to them but how it's said.  

[Janet Voxel]

14 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

I've had mostly positive results when contacting creators.  Sometimes, it's not what you say to them but how it's said.  

Most creators will respond in one way or another. I've contacted creators about a missing hud or the color being wrong or the wrong item before and gotten anything from an IM, the item itself with nothing being said, to a profuse apology and a 15 minute conversation.

 What I've found is a lot of people don't even bother to contact the creator, they will complain in a group chat or write a bad review, no problem though. Often in the group chat it's pointed out that they're doing something wrong and they keep ranting. There is a certain segment of the SL population that is "I want what I want and I want it NAO!" unreasonable.

[Lindal Kidd]

11 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

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.

I don't think that's correct, Solar.  Note, for example, the avatar behind the "SL Secrets" blog...earlier in this thread, it was said they had been banned from SL because of that blog.

The ToS doesn't say, "you can't share chat and IM logs in SL" It simply says you can't share them period.

It's true that LL does not have power outside of SL. But they do have power over us here in SL and on their website, and can exercise that power if we do something they object to OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction. If we share chat and IMs on Facebook or on a blog, they could punish us by suspending or banning our SL accounts.

[Rowan Amore]

19 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I don't think that's correct, Solar.  Note, for example, the avatar behind the "SL Secrets" blog...earlier in this thread, it was said they had been banned from SL because of that blog.

The ToS doesn't say, "you can't share chat and IM logs in SL" It simply says you can't share them period.

It's true that LL does not have power outside of SL. But they do have power over us here in SL and on their website, and can exercise that power if we do something they object to OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction. If we share chat and IMs on Facebook or on a blog, they could punish us by suspending or banning our SL accounts.

 

8 hours ago, Mollymews said:

Linden cited clause 2.7 of the ToS in terminating the accounts behind SL Secrets

2.7 is the clause that forbids the inclusion of any Linden Lab copyright content on any site/platform anywhere on the internet without the prior permission of Linden. When a site/platform owner allows other people to post Linden copyrighted content without permission then Linden (as in this case) can and does hold the site/platform owner responsible

the whole story is here: https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2018/09/sl-secrets-linden-lab-second-life-blog.html

 

SL secrets used SL in their name.  This is copyrighted content IMO.

11 hours 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.

Chat is specifically covered with this.  What is not is anything they see as copyrighted by them.  IM chats wouldn't fall into this category.

[Fenimore Hapmouche]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CJ605l0sk_m/

Examples of valid claims: "... items sold with no demos ... "

That'll be a lot of claims. 🤣