New Gacha Policy Discussion

[Kyau Brodie]

4 minutes ago, Lucia Nightfire said:

Not talking about fatpacks. Those were already "legal".

I'm talking about LL having to rescind their declaration that "conveyor belt" type machines are allowed because of

"REGULATORY CLIMATE CHANGE" 🥵🥶

AKA, "Our lawyers didn't read the fine print." or "Our lawyers goofed." or "Our lawyer's lawyers told them, 'Wrong again, Bob!'."

So now the discussion is the competency of Linden Labs lawyers?

[Lucia Nightfire]

2 hours ago, Irina Forwzy said:

I'm going to ask:  Do you know what the law conveyed?  Are you aware that a conveyor machine is breaking said law?  Do you know more than their lawyers at this given time? And by the way,  regulatory changes are always existing, and thus what may be a regulation now, can be paused in the future and vice-versa. That, is always the case with everything. No one is negating that fact.  The question at bay is:

At this present time, with current regulations and laws,  does the conveyor machine break any? If it does,  then fine. If it does not, then they will continue. Until the governments tighten their regulations. If they do.  Neither of us know this.

Of course no one knows 100% what WILL happen, not even LL.

I and others are speculating.

It's opinion.

It's completely redundant and unnecessary to remind any of us that our opinions are not facts.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Lucia Nightfire

[Komarimono]

3 minutes ago, Irina Forwzy said:

I'm going to ask:  Do you know what the law conveyed?  Are you aware that a conveyor machine is breaking said law?  Do you know more than their lawyers at this given time? And by the way,  regulatory changes are always existing, and thus what may be a regulation now, can be paused in the future and vice-versa. That, is always the case with everything. No one is negating that fact.  The question at bay is:

At this present time, with current regulations and laws,  does the conveyor machine break any? If it does,  then fine. If it does not, then they will continue. Until the governments tighten their regulations. If they do.  Neither of us know this.

Well, we know the conveyor system that was able to bypass the law where it was implemented before SL, had not just a preview, but an auto reset timer if purchase wasn't made.  This is why people were asking for clarification from Patch.

[Rowan Amore]

34 minutes ago, Finite said:

 My initial statement was lindens you buy have no value and cannot be converted back to real money.

Yes they can.  Go.ahead and purchase 100000L.  Now turn around and sell them back.  You will get $ back into your US$.  Then process credit out to your PayPal account.The LindeX has no idea how those Ls were obtained.  I could have spent the initial 100000 or passed it to my alt then had someone else give me 100000.  People have made mistakes when purchasing amounts.  They can get most of it back by selling.them on the LindeX minus transaction fee then process credit minus fees.  

Net proceeds are what you have sold your Lindens for minus transaction fees.

This is exactly why you have to register an account on Tilia with more RL.information in order to process out credit.to your. Paypal

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Rowan Amore

[Irina Forwzy]

18 minutes ago, Komarimono said:

Well, we know the conveyor system that was able to bypass the law where it was implemented before SL, had not just a preview, but an auto reset timer if purchase wasn't made.  This is why people were asking for clarification from Patch.

The question I have with this is:  Is the conveyor system built by LL and will the script be the only one allowed to be used. I have more trust in it if it's built by LL. Even if there may be some crashes at first as they fix any lag issues.   One from a private seller may have some "edits".

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Gas, grass or @$$, nobody rides for free!

I'm old enough to remember when that phrase was common.

Edited August 7, 2021 by LittleMe Jewell

[Finite]

47 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Yes they can.  Go.ahead and purchase 100000L.  Now turn around and sell them back.  You will get $ back into your US$.  Then process credit out to your PayPal account.The LindeX has no idea how those Ls were obtained.  I could have spent the initial 100000 or passed it to my alt then had someone else give me 100000.  People have made mistakes when purchasing amounts.  They can get most of it back by selling.them on the LindeX minus transaction fee then process credit minus fees.  

Net proceeds are what you have sold your Lindens for minus transaction fees.

This is exactly why you have to register an account on Tilia with more RL.information in order to process out credit.to your. Paypal

 

Not according to Bae Linden.

"Purchases of account credits and credits due to gift codes or other promotional account credits are nonrefundable, and may not be processed as a payment to you."

 

 

There's also this in the linden TOS.

4.4 Linden Lab has no obligation to accept returns or provide refunds of any amounts paid for products or services purchased from Linden Lab.

Except as set forth above or in any Additional Terms, purchases of Linden Content (including but not limited to Usage Subscriptions, Virtual Tender, and/or other Virtual Goods and Services) are final, non-refundable, have no monetary value (i.e. are not a cash account or equivalent) and are purchases of only a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-assignable, personal, and non-transferable license to use content Inworld, even if they come with a durational term (e.g. a monthly subscription).

https://www.lindenlab.com/tos

Edited August 7, 2021 by Finite

[Prokofy Neva]

8 hours ago, TDD123 said:

@Prokofy NevaStop lying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtransaction

You will see gachas mentioned there as well as they are in Dutch law since 2018.

ETA : Admitted. Gachas referring there to those in mobile gaming specifically.

It isn't "lying" to point out the facts about the common-law system of the US that does not have ANY federal law on gatchas and has NO judicial decision concerning gatchas in the state of California or any other state whose individual gambling laws have been involved in class-action suits or any kind of lawsuit launched by either consumer or prosecutor. The bar takes an adversarial approach to the courts and defends clients against the state and in this case Google, Apple and its lawyers prevailed against irate parents on lootboxes, and *no court of law* -- repeat, *no court of law* has ruled *on gatchas as fitting the lootbox definition or mentioned them.

That's how it works, and it works differently in European and Asian systems with civil law and a magisterial approach.

You *do* realize that the US is a federal system, where every state has its own laws, right? And federal law can only override them on some issues, like civil rights.

So you seem to be fired up to impress upon me the fact that oh, there's a Japanese law, or a Belgian  law, or a Dutch law, and I can only say, nu? Show me the legal action? Because it *does not matter one whit* what another country's law is if they have not invoked or applied it THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCEDURE against LL. And NO ONE HAS CITED THIS ANYWHERE, LEAST OF ALL LL.

The *existence* of a law on the books is not enough. You can invoke it til the cows come home as your privilege and right as a private company. But you have not established anything but a cultural and political precedent; it's not a legal one. The Dutch government has not moved to bar its citizens from SL; it has not warned LL of any action; nothing occurred. And PS, as you admit, SL isn't a mobile "game" or mobile anything, except in some third-party apps that have very limited mobile access to SL features. That's important to acknowledge for people like you so bent on shouting to others that they are "lying" merely because they understand how law is more complicated than you imagine.

And as I've stated repeatedly, the elements of children, the monopolist game company selling the loot, and the element of non-transferable items all make SL gatchas different. PS also the amounts spent, which are not comparable in every case. 

EA.com can pay a fine over FIFA *because it applies*. They are the game company monopolist in this case, they sell loot boxes, they sell them *to children*. In SL, the situation is more sophisticated. The platform provider doesn't sell loot but only taxes it; the merchants have a wide variety of this "loot" of widely varying prices; and customers get an transferable item on every play, unlike the lootbox mechanism. All of these differences are important for acknowledging the role of gatchas: they support a secondary economy that makes it possible to live in SL and pay its expenses.

 

[Mollymews]

4 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I'd say it was the ladies that created the "world's oldest" profession, that brought about the need for marketing/advertising.  That makes marketing the second oldest profession.

marketing is the second oldest profession

the oldest profession is preaching

God preached: Don't eat the apple.  Followers: 2

the Devil came along next with a marketing pitch. Followers: 2. God followers: 0

😸

[Chris Corvinus]

I wonder if there’s a stash of Extra Strength Tylenol at Linden Lab HQ they use when they come in every Monday before reading this thread.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Chris Nova

[Rowan Amore]

16 minutes ago, Finite said:

Not according to Bae Linden.

"Purchases of account credits and credits due to gift codes or other promotional account credits are nonrefundable, and may not be processed as a payment to you."

 

 

I just sold Lindens on the LindeX.  I make no money in SL.  All the Lindens sold were Lindens I had purchased.

[Prokofy Neva]

9 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

https://screenrant.com/lootbox-gambling-microtransactions-illegal-japan-china-belgium-netherlands/

THEY DID NOT ENFORCE IT ON SL ON GATCHAS.

My God, that's the topic of this thread.

If you all can still smugly keep pasting your google search self-confirming links, at least have the decency to acknowledge they are not about SL or gatchas, but about lootboxes.

NO COURT OF LAW ESTABLISHED THAT GATCHES IN SL ARE LOOTBOXES, DO YOU REALIZE THAT? THE FACT THAT JAPAN HAS AN ANTI-GATCHA LAW DOESN'T MEAN IT APPLIES TO SL GATCHAS, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

What's *extraordinary* about all the Puritans in this thread invoking gambling law is that you imagine that law is like Claude Rains coming in and blowing his whistle to close a cafe after the Nazis told him to. In modern real life in democratic societies,  law doesn't work that way. There are no Nazis and no Claude Rains character and more Ricks and Victor Laslos who are willing to resist tyranny, for one, but more practically, there have to be judicial actions and judicial interpretations to APPLY a gambling law against any activity.

As I've noted, New York State gambling authorities haven't broken down the door of my small apartment to arrest me for having medicine that has "gamification" to remind me to take it and rewards me with points in a random lottery. It hasn't arrested me for shopping enough at Gristedes to get the $5 loyalty award and the random coupons put out at the door. The gumball machines out at the mall have not been chainsawed. Father Jim hasn't been taken away in cuffs for his Friday night bingo games at our church, and the parish council has not been raided for selling raffle tickets for the school fund-raising drive. Etc. Etc. Yes, people comply with gambling law with various notifications drawn from legal texts. They monitor and limit activities and the amounts are small. But they don't shout smugly that everyone is a liar and a thief and a criminal regarding laws that HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO THEM. If Gov. Cuomo decides that Bingo is illegal under NYS law then we will hear from the district attorneys, but he didn't.

Let's revisit the Japanese law that your linky link mentions and which others in this thread keep invoking aggressively: The article says:

Japan was the first country to take regulatory action against loot boxes. In 2012, Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency declared complete gacha to be illegal. In their ruling, via Venturebeat, the agency said that complete gacha violated laws against “unjustifiable premiums and misleading representation.” Complete gacha, a monetization mechanic, is basically a loot box variant in which individuals pay to get some random reward. The contrast, and what makes it especially predatory, is that in order to progress in the game a set of rewards must be obtained, meaning players must continue to buy boxes, or whatever the package of rewards is called, until they acquire the proper set. Japan still allows for other types of microtransactions, but this particular model, once very popular in social games, has been outlawed.

 

We all get it that the SL gatcha is like the Japanese gachapon even in terminology, but it is different in substantial ways, and it bears repeating until you admit it:

o there is no misleading representation, the key is on the front of the machine, both merchants and event organizers all have publicly stated policies regarding gatcha as a game of chance where refunds are not provided, and exchanges are provided only at the discretion of the merchant and under certain terms. Some events go further specifying the exact nature of script and percentage involved. Gumball machines don't do that, but as they are nickels and in RL and only gum or little toys, you don't here complaints. And that's because...

o gatchas in SL are not required to "advance gameplay". It's not a game. Unless you think acquiring a Lelutka head is required to advance in the social "game" of SL in some way but most normal people acknowledge it's not a game;

o gatchas are only to a small extent "monetarization" for LL; the most monetarization occurs for independent designers using the platform, and their customers, who resell them;

o there are no children;

o the gatchas give you a prize on every turn, not a disappointment with nothing, and they are transferable.

So any rational lawyer of good will, or active bent on protecting the consumers of SL who resell gatchas and survive, and the creators who make them and survive, will point out all these arguments in a court of law and get a judicial decision.

There isn't one regarding SL gatchas.

There are decisions on SL land, or breedables, usually on the way to settlements out of court that yielded only judge's comments, not rulings. 

There is nothing on gatchas. And please don't start in about how "LL can't wait until there is one and the ban hammer strikes" because they would be allowed a period for compliance in the even there was such a ruling without prejudice. That's how normal life works.

And the reason I bother with anything is, once again, for the suspicious haters, is not because I gain from gatchas -- I don't make them, I don't resell them in any substantive way and mainly give them away, and I don't have tenants who make them, and only a small number who re-sell them on my properties in any significant way. 

I bother because I think it is very, very important how cultural and legal precedents get set in the Metaverse by the premiere Metaverse maker which is not even acknowledged as such by the big guys. What we have now is a cultural and political policy setting a precedent without RL law. I don't believe the Metaverse should be a unicorn realm untethered to RL law; I think laws against gambling, child pornography, etc. must be applied and that the decision of various UN treaty bodies that universal human rights in the organic world apply online should hold. I don't think the culture of technocrats or tech bros or technocommunists should be a substitute for the rule of law, and that's what we have here with this policy.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Prokofy Neva

[Mollymews]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

Pages ago I mentioned that they must say "no monetary value", "not real currency" or "not redeemable" to avoid liability if they ever decide to make L$s completely non-convertible or if they go bankrupt: the last thing the other creditors need is L$-holders lined up with claims.

as i remember the wording for L$ got changed after there was a mass banning of accounts of an inworld group into disruptive behaviour

the accounts holders brought a class action lawsuit. It went to arbitration and part of the settlement was that Linden reimbursed the L$ amounts for US$ held by the banned accounts, due to the way in which the then ToS described L$ 

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I bother because I think it is very, very important how cultural and legal precedents get set in the Metaverse by the premiere Metaverse maker which is not even acknowledged as such by the big guys. What we have now is a cultural and political policy setting a precedent without RL law. I don't believe the Metaverse should be a unicorn realm untethered to RL law; I think laws against gambling, child pornography, etc. must be applied and that the decision of various UN treaty bodies that universal human rights in the organic world apply online should hold. I don't think the culture of technocrats or tech bros or technocommunists should be a substitute for the rule of law, and that's what we have here with this policy.

page 138 of this thread, right here, is best place to platform these ideas

[Prokofy Neva]

11 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Prokofy, normally I would not engage with you at all on here as our respective histories indicate that we would seldom, if ever, agree or even find common ground. I see little point in what would rapidly devolve into "arguing for argument's sake" and beyond this reply you will therefore receive no further response from me on this thread.

However, having said that I have some responses I must make regarding your post quoted here.

Firstly, holding up a mirror to the post as a whole suggests that if my position is unduly harsh then so is yours. This is human nature at play, I suspect and the objective truth lies somewhere in the middle, uncolored by our respective life experiences.

Secondly, I take issue with your assertion that I am "no longer in business" in SL. I may no longer be an active asset creator for sale into the marketplace but I assure you the business of performing live is a business, as much in SL as it is IRL. I put in long hours working on it offline and it is because of those hours that even though I perform in a niche genre my SL still turns a small RL profit. I have marketing issues to address as much as I ever did in the past and those decisions directly impact my bottom line as much as they do for anyone selling inworld assets.

Finally, I may not post much but I read daily - including your comments. I confess to briefly plonking you in the past but no matter how vehemently I disagree with them your comments are usually thought-provoking so, after some reflection, the ignore tag was removed. A paucity of posting on my part does not indicate a lack of interest, just a willingness to keep my yap shut until I have something substantive to say.

Our opinions differ on the main subject of this thread. That's fine. I hope we can each respect that difference, you certainly have my word that I will try to. You do you, I'll do me and at the end of the day LL will do what LL do without either of our opinions counting for much.

There is nothing "harsh" in defending decent creators and their customers -- mainly poor people in poor countries -- from the outlandish hate in this thread.

Yeah, I totally agree that musicians are a business in RL, and a livelihood for some and an offset of costs for others, and merely a free hobby with socializing with still others. And that's fine. But this is a thread about the business of selling products, not services or art, including music. It's a thread about gatchas and their meaning and laws about them and how people will change; it's not about resisting a policy that is a fact on the ground in any event but in my case, challenging the smug and misguided invocation of the rule of RL law against people they don't like for ideological or cultural reasons, when the law has not been proven to apply in any court in the land or overseas, the end.  APPLY. That means not just "EXIST" or "seem to imply to me on an Internet forums". That means APPLY through *judicial procedure*.

It's about keeping the world more free and the market more democratic with variety and levels and not turning it into a Renaissance Faire with Medicis, Michaelangelos and peasants and all the stratification that implies. You may enjoy and feel more comfortable in such a world but I don't.

So to characterize your remarks as some kind of "rebuttal" and collect your fan likey-likes without substantively addressing ANY of my substantial points about the secondary economy as a *necessity* for many people to be here at all, is really low. Maybe when your concert fans stop dropping dimes in your tip jars because they can't sell gatchas any more and the breedables market is oversaturated, you will connect up the dots.

You've called hardworking, creative, decent, honest people who earn a living on this platform "carnies" and told them to "fold their tent", claiming they engage in a carnie-like "bunko" and a shill, although they are beloved by customers who are not "rubes" but grownups, and not just grownups having fun who got cheap furniture for their homes, but grownups who were thus enabled to enter an economy that would otherwise only be dominated by elites like you from RL professions. All this haughty talk about how merchants should "suck it up" and "adjust" and "make fatpacks" is nothing more than tech bro "learn to code". 

How about enabling a society that flourishes even if not everybody "learns to code" or becomes a professional artist, designer or coder?

So I can only say shame on you; you could purvey your ideological notions about risk and gambling and content delivery systems without this kind of character assassination. And PS nobody is going to fold their tent because the bien pensant have told them to.

I really don't care if you or any others put me on "ignore," I rarely do that to people unless they become totally aggressively obnoxious with blatant TOS violations while the Lindens look the other way. Yeah, I totally get all your "subtle" insults in what you perceive to be flowery and witty language. When I "open my yap" even if it is too often for your comfort, I feel I have something substantive to say, and I don't let you be the judge of it, so again, nice try at a put-down but it doesn't fly.

I really don't think you can get off with pious nostrums about "respect" when you have failed to acknowledge that your views shafted a very vital and talented part of this community, and shafted a means by which people not cool like you are can be here. I don't expect you to reach an awareness of that or change. I will call it out, however.

[Prokofy Neva]

13 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

page 138 of this thread, right here, is best place to platform these ideas

Yes it is, thank you. I write on a variety of platforms.  There are many people who read the forums silently and even send me fan letters.

[Katherine Heartsong]

27 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I just sold Lindens on the LindeX.  I make no money in SL.  All the Lindens sold were Lindens I had purchased.

Sniped me! I was just about to do the same thing.

Lindens are certainly convertible back to US$ that I can get out and back into my hands. 

[Silent Mistwalker]

24 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

THEY DID NOT ENFORCE IT ON SL ON GATCHAS.

My God, that's the topic of this thread.

If you all can still smugly keep pasting your google search self-confirming links, at least have the decency to acknowledge they are not about SL or gatchas, but about lootboxes.

NO COURT OF LAW ESTABLISHED THAT GATCHES IN SL ARE LOOTBOXES, DO YOU REALIZE THAT? THE FACT THAT JAPAN HAS AN ANTI-GATCHA LAW DOESN'T MEAN IT APPLIES TO SL GATCHAS, CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

What's *extraordinary* about all the Puritans in this thread invoking gambling law is that you imagine that law is like Claude Rains coming in and blowing his whistle to close a cafe after the Nazis told him to. In modern real life in democratic societies,  law doesn't work that way. There are no Nazis and no Claude Rains character and more Ricks and Victor Laslos who are willing to resist tyranny, for one, but more practically, there have to be judicial actions and judicial interpretations to APPLY a gambling law against any activity.

As I've noted, New York State gambling authorities haven't broken down the door of my small apartment to arrest me for having medicine that has "gamification" to remind me to take it and rewards me with points in a random lottery. It hasn't arrested me for shopping enough at Gristedes to get the $5 loyalty award and the random coupons put out at the door. The gumball machines out at the mall have not been chainsawed. Father Jim hasn't been taken away in cuffs for his Friday night bingo games at our church, and the parish council has not been raided for selling raffle tickets for the school fund-raising drive. Etc. Etc. Yes, people comply with gambling law with various notifications drawn from legal texts. They monitor and limit activities and the amounts are small. But they don't shout smugly that everyone is a liar and a thief and a criminal regarding laws that HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO THEM. If Gov. Cuomo decides that Bingo is illegal under NYS law then we will hear from the district attorneys, but he didn't.

Let's revisit the Japanese law that your linky link mentions and which others in this thread keep invoking aggressively: The article says:

Japan was the first country to take regulatory action against loot boxes. In 2012, Japan's Consumer Affairs Agency declared complete gacha to be illegal. In their ruling, via Venturebeat, the agency said that complete gacha violated laws against “unjustifiable premiums and misleading representation.” Complete gacha, a monetization mechanic, is basically a loot box variant in which individuals pay to get some random reward. The contrast, and what makes it especially predatory, is that in order to progress in the game a set of rewards must be obtained, meaning players must continue to buy boxes, or whatever the package of rewards is called, until they acquire the proper set. Japan still allows for other types of microtransactions, but this particular model, once very popular in social games, has been outlawed.

 

We all get it that the SL gatcha is like the Japanese gachapon even in terminology, but it is different in substantial ways, and it bears repeating until you admit it:

o there is no misleading representation, the key is on the front of the machine, both merchants and event organizers all have publicly stated policies regarding gatcha as a game of chance where refunds are not provided, and exchanges are provided only at the discretion of the merchant and under certain terms. Some events go further specifying the exact nature of script and percentage involved. Gumball machines don't do that, but as they are nickels and in RL and only gum or little toys, you don't here complaints. And that's because...

o gatchas in SL are not required to "advance gameplay". It's not a game. Unless you think acquiring a Lelutka head is required to advance in the social "game" of SL in some way but most normal people acknowledge it's not a game;

o gatchas are only to a small extent "monetarization" for LL; the most monetarization occurs for independent designers using the platform, and their customers, who resell them;

o there are no children;

o the gatchas give you a prize on every turn, not a disappointment with nothing, and they are transferable.

So any rational lawyer of good will, or active bent on protecting the consumers of SL who resell gatchas and survive, and the creators who make them and survive, will point out all these arguments in a court of law and get a judicial decision.

There isn't one regarding SL gatchas.

There are decisions on SL land, or breedables, usually on the way to settlements out of court that yielded only judge's comments, not rulings. 

There is nothing on gatchas. And please don't start in about how "LL can't wait until there is one and the ban hammer strikes" because they would be allowed a period for compliance in the even there was such a ruling without prejudice. That's how normal life works.

And the reason I bother with anything is, once again, for the suspicious haters, is not because I gain from gatchas -- I don't make them, I don't resell them in any substantive way and mainly give them away, and I don't have tenants who make them, and only a small number who re-sell them on my properties in any significant way. 

I bother because I think it is very, very important how cultural and legal precedents get set in the Metaverse by the premiere Metaverse maker which is not even acknowledged as such by the big guys. What we have now is a cultural and political policy setting a precedent without RL law. I don't believe the Metaverse should be a unicorn realm untethered to RL law; I think laws against gambling, child pornography, etc. must be applied and that the decision of various UN treaty bodies that universal human rights in the organic world apply online should hold. I don't think the culture of technocrats or tech bros or technocommunists should be a substitute for the rule of law, and that's what we have here with this policy.

 

Don't ask for information if you don't want it. *plonk*

[Prokofy Neva]

5 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

2020 is still current enough to give an indication of where things are moving, in the legal arena.  If I was LL, I'd want to be very careful and minimize the chance that I'd get pulled into a lawsuit.

The US is a land of legal precedent and has a common law system, and recent court cases trended away from prosecuting platform providers over lootboxes made by their contractors or customers.

That other countries have laws doesn't matter when they have not interpreted them against LL.

And the "better move now before the law is applied, that is prudent" argument fails to account for how LL didn't do this with so many other issues in 18 years. It was the last to move reluctantly on some fronts like child pornography which has a higher threshold to prove as a violation of law in the US. It didn't get rid of gambling or fake banks until the credit card companies warned them they would cut them off. They have defaulted toward protecting their prosumer customers, not shafting them. Therefore they need to explain themselves.

[Prokofy Neva]

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

Don't ask for information if you don't want it. *plonk*

There's no "information" or cases that apply to the rule of law here *plonk*. 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/

[Finite]

8 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Sniped me! I was just about to do the same thing.

Lindens are certainly convertible back to US$ that I can get out and back into my hands. 

The tricky part is having tilla send that back to your paypal. That's the part I was denied at.

[Finite]

41 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I just sold Lindens on the LindeX.  I make no money in SL.  All the Lindens sold were Lindens I had purchased.

Now process the credit and let us know what they tell you in 2 or 3 days.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Finite

[Silent Mistwalker]

8 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

There's no "information" or cases that apply to the rule of law here *plonk*. 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/

Excuse me. When did I ask you for any information? I didn't. You're arguing with everyone else, not me. 🙄

All I posted was a link and you went ballistic on me.  No wonder people don't want to deal with you.

[Rowan Amore]

5 minutes ago, Finite said:

The tricky part is having tilla send that back to your paypal. That's the part I was denied at.

Had you registered with Tilia and provided all the verification they needed.  Linked your PayPal to a bank account.  There are a few reasons why it may not have gone through.  

[AriaMoonlit]

3 hours ago, snowvoice said:

The specifications of this conveyor belt bender are explained in the maker's Tweet here and in the reply section.
Did you approve the specs, including the one that makes the buyer impatient and rushes the decision, where if the buyer doesn't buy the next displayed item within 10 seconds, the priority will be transferred to someone else?

 

Here we go. More gacha work around . I don't think that fixes the problem, now people will be forced to buy an item they see  clearly , only to make the next item available for purchase. That's like those coin machines in arcades where you keep adding tokens- so slowly but surely the real "big" prize is shaken out from the massive amount of tokens you'll have to put in to keep the machine chasing the shelf of tokens down.at that point people won't bother playing if they see something undesirable , that they don't want coming next. They need to stop with the gacha PON ,everything pon , that pon in the name is very sneaky because pon ties back to GACHA, since it's normally call gachapon but in the USA is just shortened to GACHA for the English speakers.