Jump to content
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 100 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Fenimore Hapmouche said:

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

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

That'll be a lot of claims. 🤣

Very true!  If people would just stop buying items that don't have demos, that would send a message.  For clothing, I never ever buy without a demo.  As their one example states, "item says rigged when it clearly isn't", some is just really badly rigged.  There are a couple of stores that are consistently at the major events and I've yet to purchase anything from them.  Not because I don't like the look or they don't have a demo but they can't rig to a body to save their life.  

I've often wondered if I should bother mentioning to them how many sales they've lost to me and I'm sure others, with their poor rigging.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

This is not a good faith attempt to raise standards. It's fashion creator mud slinging by proxy .. ALL OVER AGAIN.

I have objections to most of it. "Altered ad photos or that do not look like their ad". If I buy a RL dress with some supermodel in the ad, the dress will not look the same on me. In RL, designer

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Fenimore Hapmouche said:

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

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

That'll be a lot of claims. 🤣

Wow.  While I usually will not (but sometimes do) buy something without a demo, I sure as hell wouldn't call it a shady or abusive business practice to do so.  If people are willing to buy items without demos, then I can't quite say that any problems with said products are totally the fault of the creator. 

Interesting, and odd, point of view this so-call BBB site has on what constitutes reasonable reasons to call a creator out.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it just sounds like negative reinforcement.

Who would want to be a creator if you found yourself in a position where if you do something wrong you'd find yourself threatened with being put on some wall of shame, told how bad you are or worse harassed.

There is enough performance anxiety at our real jobs. SecondLife is a place where we can try and fail repeatedly and feel like we are not risking our lives doing so. It gives us freedom to experiment. 

Why not do something positive that encourages positive behaviour? A creator rewards, reward people who do go above and beyond with recognition, give creators something to work towards, something they can be proud of.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

It is quite correct. The SL Secrets blog owner was nailed on using SL/Second Life as part of their name, not for sharing logs outside of Second Life.

I go back to - blogs exist that blatantly use chat and IM logs without any permission whatsoever given by the relevant users. Many were reported. None had any action taken against them.

The ToS applies to their services, alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I haven't been in sl long enough to know about all the drama. I guess I'm coming from the perspective of wanting more information. Before I buy from a new website irl or even visit a new restaurant, my default first step is to google them and check out reviews. To me that's just natural.

By now I know all the main sl brands so I know who to trust, but as a newcomer there really isn't much to go by. There are some brands that are known for their shady practices that we mainly know of through word of mouth - something that doesn't reach everybody. I don't see how a review system would hurt here, aside from the challenge of making it legit and drama-free.

Mp reviews - not everything is on mp, and reviews can be deleted by removing the listing.

True, I can imagine something like this turning into a negative, toxic mess, but perhaps the naive and idealistic part of me is open to the idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

True, I can imagine something like this turning into a negative, toxic mess, but perhaps the naive and idealistic part of me is open to the idea. 

 

grasshopper.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said:

Why not do something positive that encourages positive behaviour? A creator rewards, reward people who do go above and beyond with recognition, give creators something to work towards, something they can be proud of.

^^ this

i don't have any inclination to wade thru lists of things that people don't like. Negativity is not something I care to indulge myself in. (even if sometimes occasionally I might have a spit about something that irks me)

am far more interested in reading/learning about great work that other people like. Work that I might buy myself based on the recommendation of people with good reputation

as you say, acknowledge the creators who do make great products. Is much more rewarding for everyone concerned, the creators, us as buyers and the rating bureau owner(s)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have objections to most of it. "Altered ad photos or that do not look like their ad".

If I buy a RL dress with some supermodel in the ad, the dress will not look the same on me. In RL, designers does not go to the Wal-Mart parking and ask a random customer to model it on the spot. Even if that is true to the reality. In RL, they use a model with the right light and makeup in a studio.

So in SL, buyers can put on the item in default midday light and say "It does not look like the ad!" It is demanding stricter rules on Secondlife marketing than RL marketing.

"Untimely response". Most SL sellers are doing this as a hobby, it is not enough to live of. And they can't hire a manager, office assistant or CEO to answer questions 24/7. Who decides what "untimely" is?

How are the "BB" going to verify an item is defective/broken? They are going to buy it? We know a lot of malfunction is due to the customer's ignorance. Saying it does not work can not be enough proof.

How are the seller going to come clean if they are made to look like a villain due to uninformed people, altered chat logs or prejudice?

For me it sounds like this avatar behind it, is going to be the sole judge. Why trust an unknown avatar that's just popped up? And think she is objective and always right? I am more likely to believe she's an alt out to stir up things.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

I have objections to most of it. "Altered ad photos or that do not look like their ad".

If I buy a RL dress with some supermodel in the ad, the dress will not look the same on me. In RL, designers does not go to the Wal-Mart parking and ask a random customer to model it on the spot. Even if that is true to the reality. In RL, they use a model with the right light and makeup in a studio.

So in SL, buyers can put on the item in default midday light and say "It does not look like the ad!" It is demanding stricter rules on Secondlife marketing than RL marketing.

"Untimely response". Most SL sellers are doing this as a hobby, it is not enough to live of. And they can't hire a manager, office assistant or CEO to answer questions 24/7. Who decides what "untimely" is?

How are the "BB" going to verify an item is defective/broken? They are going to buy it? We know a lot of malfunction is due to the customer's ignorance. Saying it does not work can not be enough proof.

How are the seller going to come clean if they are made to look like a villain due to uninformed people, altered chat logs or prejudice?

For me it sounds like this avatar behind it, is going to be the sole judge. Why trust an unknown avatar that's just popped up? And think she is objective and always right? I am more likely to believe she's an alt out to stir up things.

All of this. Completely, and I really think that myself.

 

Someone mentioned the "no Demo" thing being a problem, and that was one that set off red-flags for me, too. Not EVERYTHING needs a demo. Clothing, mesh attachments, sure. Sometimes skins too, to make sure certain things are in the 'right place.' But textures? Scripts? Sounds?? How do demo those?

 

This is clearly just going to be someone who is going to use it as an excuse to hate on creators who don't fit into their standards, which THEIR STANDARDS, are clearly not "SL standards." Because standards on SL doesn't exist. People do what they want to do, that's what makes SL so great for creators.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

All of this. Completely, and I really think that myself.

 

Someone mentioned the "no Demo" thing being a problem, and that was one that set off red-flags for me, too. Not EVERYTHING needs a demo. Clothing, mesh attachments, sure. Sometimes skins too, to make sure certain things are in the 'right place.' But textures? Scripts? Sounds?? How do demo those?

 

This is clearly just going to be someone who is going to use it as an excuse to hate on creators who don't fit into their standards, which THEIR STANDARDS, are clearly not "SL standards." Because standards on SL doesn't exist. People do what they want to do, that's what makes SL so great for creators.

I mean...there are good business practices. Thing is, a lot of people just don't follow them in SL and a lot of times people applaud the bad ones. It really should be expected, because most people on SL aren't business people, it's just someone who makes things on their PC and most people just do what other people are doing or what "works" which usually has nothing to do with good business practice.

You'd be surprised how many creators just don't know how to do certain things. Couple that with people's high expectations and lack of knowledge about how certain things work and you get what you get. Since a lot of know-how isn't readily accessible, there are creators that just don't know how to do certain things. I bought a top that had a little poke through, so I im'd the creator for an alpha. In the meantime, I started making one. When they finally got back to me, they asked me to show them  what was wrong. So I did. Nothing, so I went ahead and make the alpha and sent it to them. When I was done, they im'd me...."How did you make that?" So this person, knew how to model, rig and texture, but didn't know how to make an alpha. So I told them, then I passed them a video. Things like this are normal and happen all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Janet Voxel said:

I mean...there are good business practices. Thing is, a lot of people just don't follow them in SL and a lot of times people applaud the bad ones. It really should be expected, because most people on SL aren't business people, it's just someone who makes things on their PC and most people just do what other people are doing or what "works" which usually has nothing to do with good business practice.

You'd be surprised how many creators just don't know how to do certain things. Couple that with people's high expectations and lack of knowledge about how certain things work and you get what you get. Since a lot of know-how isn't readily accessible, there are creators that just don't know how to do certain things. I bought a top that had a little poke through, so I im'd the creator for an alpha. In the meantime, I started making one. When they finally got back to me, they asked me to show them  what was wrong. So I did. Nothing, so I went ahead and make the alpha and sent it to them. When I was done, they im'd me...."How did you make that?" So this person, knew how to model, rig and texture, but didn't know how to make an alpha. So I told them, then I passed them a video. Things like this are normal and happen all the time.

I'm a creator, yes, I know there's plenty that have no clue how to do things. That really isn't their fault, though as there's no real "standard" that the community shares, they have to learn the hard way. Especially when it comes to meshing, there are countless creators who have no clue how to model correctly, and create something that doesn't lag their customers. I could go on tangents on how fellow creators just don't know 'some things' that should be common among us.

But that's why I don't like the idea of some random person giving creators hell for something that they might not understand, like the whole 'customer is always right.'

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Becky Nosferatu said:

But textures? Scripts? Sounds?? How do demo those?

I'm not disagreeing with you! Some things don't need demos. However, the things you mention here CAN be previewed before purchase. The seller could put out a sound player at their store, an object that demonstrates how a script works, a wall of texture images...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 9:14 PM, 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.

Haven't read the whole thread yet but just in case no one said anything.

image.png.4f2dde5cfed6c7a70eb33122844561ca.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 9:28 PM, Becky Nosferatu said:

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. xD

Yeah no. LL has never changed that policy. LL has no legal authority over anything that is NOT on LL servers (or the ones they pay AWS for). It's been that way since 2003 when I did my first free (one week) trial that they offered up until either sometime in 2005 or 2006. I've been a permanent resident since 2004.

Edited by Silent Mistwalker
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2021 at 9:33 AM, RowanMinx said:

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.

IMs within SL are covered by that. Always have been. It says sharing or posting a CONVERSATION. It does not distinguish between open chat and IMs for a reason. IMs are on LL property the same as open chat is. 

I'm starting to wonder how many of you are aware of how many times this very thing has been hashed out over the past 15 or so years. If it's on LL servers it can NOT be shared without EXPRESS permission FROM ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. If you take if off LL's property (SL) and post on a forum or some other site that is NOT under Linden Research's legal jurisdiction, there is no action LL can legally take and have it stand up in a US court of law (since that is where LL/LR is based). 

That is the long and short of it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

IMs within SL are covered by that. Always have been. It says sharing or posting a CONVERSATION. It does not distinguish between open chat and IMs for a reason. IMs are on LL property the same as open chat is. 

I'm starting to wonder how many of you are aware of how many times this very thing has been hashed out over the past 15 or so years. If it's on LL servers it can NOT be shared without EXPRESS permission FROM ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. If you take if off LL's property (SL) and post on a forum or some other site that is NOT under Linden Research's legal jurisdiction, there is no action LL can legally take and have it stand up in a US court of law (since that is where LL/LR is based). 

That is the long and short of it.

IM chat  wouldn't fall under any copywrite is what I was referring to so therefore they won't bother with anyone posting IM offsite.

I probably could have worded it better.

 

 

 

Edited by RowanMinx
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

IMs within SL are covered by that. Always have been. It says sharing or posting a CONVERSATION. It does not distinguish between open chat and IMs for a reason. IMs are on LL property the same as open chat is. 

I'm starting to wonder how many of you are aware of how many times this very thing has been hashed out over the past 15 or so years. If it's on LL servers it can NOT be shared without EXPRESS permission FROM ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. If you take if off LL's property (SL) and post on a forum or some other site that is NOT under Linden Research's legal jurisdiction, there is no action LL can legally take and have it stand up in a US court of law (since that is where LL/LR is based). 

That is the long and short of it.

It's what I call the hearsay affect,  lots of people,  never have read the TOS, lots of them hear about the tos from long time members and sim owners and group owners and such and typically they always have it wrong, because they never checked and never provide sources,   so I'm happy to see some people here getting the TOS out and providing it,  the relavant parts should be stickies to the top of general discussion, so people go "hmm I wonder" and they dont have to go hunting in a miles long TOS or into the wiki and get even more lost and find something from 15 years ago... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

IM chat  wouldn't fall under any copywrite is what I was referring to so therefore they won't bother with anyone posting IM offsite.

I probably could have worded it better.

 

 

 

You posted the relevant section yourself. It didn't say anything about copyright when it was referring to conversations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

You posted the relevant section yourself. It didn't say anything about copyright when it was referring to conversations.

The quote from Molly was about copyright and why the owner of SL secrets was banned.  She wasn't banned for posting IMs but for using the SL in the website name.

IMs do not fall under copywrite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2021 at 9:32 PM, 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.

This one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

The quote from Molly was about copyright and why the owner of SL secrets was banned.  She wasn't banned for posting IMs but for using the SL in the website name.

IMs do not fall under copywrite.

It wasn't Molly's quote I was talking about it was your post that you quoted yourself. At least I think that was you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

This one.

Yes, I know.   But my last statement was in reference to this quote

On 2/1/2021 at 4:20 AM, 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

 

IMs do not fall into that category which is why they can be posted offsite.

As I said, I could have phrased it better

Edited by RowanMinx
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 100 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...