can they forfeit my rental?

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, fabiansongs said:

It was end 2020 before the election result.  i was evicted then. I submitted a ticket to second life but no response from them and since then i left secondlife for a bit. I just  came back now and feel that they have no right confiscating my unused rental advance. I submitted another ticket to secondlife but was told that unlike buying things from marketplace, the rental is not protected by Linden Lab.

First, the tickets could never have worked, ever. But that's all back in 2020, practically pre-history on the SL timescale, so now it's long past time to expect a landlord to do anything either.

Maybe they should have responded differently back in 2020, depending on the details. It's not the kind of announcement I'd want a tenant to make, naming any politician, but maybe this landlord is more lax about such things. That said, I'd have refunded if I went so far as to actually evict, which I can't quite imagine doing.

But that's all just me, not this landlord—who is named, so has anybody mentioned that it's a violation of Forums rules to "name and shame" here? The name of the landlord really shouldn't appear. Might be prudent to edit that out of posts where possible.

Back to the tickets:

1 hour ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

As far as I know, if something is sold On MP and it’s against the TOS or it’s a blatant scam, LL might help. For most MP disputes though it’s my understanding that they won’t get involved.

Exactly. For the Lab to respond to a Marketplace complaint it must fit specific, undisputed categories of bad practice or obvious error (empty boxes, etc), and even then they'll often go out of their way to give the merchant every chance to "make right" on a purchase. LL wants as many transactions to complete as possible, and to stay completed.

[Sid Nagy]

We only hear one side of the story.
Let's keep that in mind.
And wasn't naming and shaming a thingy in the rules of these forums?

[Finite]

2 hours ago, fabiansongs said:

For what is worth, The reply from Linden Lab is very clear that if you buy things from Market Place and get cheated, Linden Lab would jump in and help . But if you enter into a rental agreement with the landlord, you are not protected at all.

Then what is the point of covenants? There's either more to the story or this is pretty $hitty imo. 

[Qie Niangao]

59 minutes ago, Finite said:

Then what is the point of covenants? There's either more to the story or this is pretty $hitty imo. 

Imagine yourself in the shoes of a Governance person trying to enforce a freeform covenant written by some SL landlord. I for one do not want my tier paying to run a Linden "land court" responsible for interpreting rules drawn up by videogame players.

I guess that's pretty analogous to what a Supreme Court must do when they act as the final appeal for lower (provincial, state) jurisdictions, but I'd rather my taxes didn't pay for that, either.

[Chaser Zaks]

After reviewing their covenant, I found the following:

Quote

* All sales are final. The tenant may terminate the agreement at any time. A refund will not be given for any time remaining on the tenancy.

...

o We have the right to terminate your rental agreement at any time if you are using more resources than the size of your land allows.

...

* RESIDENTIAL ONLY: No commercial activities. This includes: no "private" party clubs, no vendors on your plot and no commercial adds leading people there. This way you can live and build in a low lag surrounding.
Unless you are on a full prim commercial region and it is stated commercial is available.  Excludes boat slips/rentals via Casper Units.

All sales are final is a keyword here, you entered an agreement where you are not obligated to a refund. Additionally, depending on how one may interpret it, "A refund will not be given for any time remaining on the tenancy." is also in effect.

While I personally find it scummy to refuse a refund on a tenant if they "reserve the right to terminate it for any reason", it is an agreement. Even then, LL is unlikely to get involved.

Now, the second part is that quote is the zoning and resource usage. If you were using more than your fair share of avatar slots, OR using residental land for a "private party club" as said specifically in the covenant, then you would have violated the covenant, thus are subject to eviction.

One can argue the owner wishing good luck as a "go ahead", but one can also argue that they did not know what type of land zoning you were in. If I managed many many parcels, I certainly wouldn't know what tenant is on what land unless I looked it up in a database.

 

I also recommend removing the name, as per LL's no name and shame policy.

But, back when the 3rd party exchange program was around, I used a paysafecard to buy $50 of L$. It worked fine until up to the last month it was allowed, in which they shutdown their bots the moment they were told the program was closing, but still had their site operating and accepting payments. I lost $50 that day, and no one was able to do anything about it because LL doesn't get involved in that stuff, and the company was in England or something and had no contact info.
So I know how you feel in this regards, it's a poopy situation to feel absolutely helpless when losing a bunch of money. Now I do have to take what you read as "their word against theirs", so I have no idea if the covenant changed, or if you were in violation of the rules, or whatever, so I can't really say if the company is good or bad, but assuming you are telling the truth, it is this kind of behavior which makes me not like LL's no name and shame policy. It's a double edge sword though:

• One hand, they tell people ceviet emperor, but then remove any way for people to make other's aware of bad behavior of sellers.
• On the other hand, you have people who don't tell the whole story, and can smear a company's good reputation.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Chaser Zaks

[Modulated]

All the political stuff aside, its amazing that landlords can get away with this kind of thing in SL. Out of SL, this would be a legal issue and there would be some redress.  The larger problem is you have a bunch of people with no acumen running  a business who think its perfectly ok to steal someone's money in SL and get away with it.  It's not ok.

[Lindal Kidd]

4 hours ago, fabiansongs said:

Linden Lab is very clear that if you buy things from Market Place and get cheated, Linden Lab would jump in and help .

No, they won't. They will help in certain specific circumstances, but if you are simply arguing with a seller over something...you got the wrong color boots, you meant to send it as a gift to someone, you didn't understand the outfit was made for a different mesh body than yours, the product doesn't look like the picture...LL will be its usual massively unhelpful self.

Just as in your dispute with your landlord. I agree that it's an awfully large "fine" to pay, but they are completely within their rights to evict you and keep any unused rent. If they choose to exercise that right, then you're out of luck.

[Modulated]

11 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

.....

I agree that it's an awfully large "fine" to pay, but they are completely within their rights to evict you and keep any unused rent. If they choose to exercise that right, then you're out of luck.

This is flawed logic IMO. Rights exist for both tenant and landlord, but that doesn't mean someone can just keep a huge chunk of money for whatever reason.   Anyone doing land business in SL should have to reveal exactly who they are in RL, what their business operates as, LLC for example or some other legal entity with a real world address. This is how a real business operates.  You don't get to steal and just be anonymous under the guise of running a virtual business.

[Katherine Heartsong]

4 minutes ago, Modulated said:

This is flawed logic IMO. Rights exist for both tenant and landlord, but that doesn't mean someone can just keep a huge chunk of money for whatever reason.   Anyone doing land business in SL should have to reveal exactly who they are in RL, what their business operates as, LLC for example or some other legal entity with a real world address. This is how a real business operates.  You don't get to steal and just be anonymous under the guise of running a virtual business.

It very much depends on the covenant/contract the renter agreed to when renting. If mine clearly stated "I can boot you off the land and keep whatever monies remain in the rental period without any cause or notification" or some variation thereof and you click yes and rent land from me, then I certainly can keep any chunk of money you gave me. We haven't seen the contract here and are all making wild assumptions, it may be the OP has no rights at all to a refund.

The points I'm trying to make here: read the rules/covenant/contract carefully, and NEVER pay more than a week's rent at a time regardless of any "deals" a landlord may offer.

[Modulated]

1 minute ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

It very much depends on the covenant/contract the renter agreed to when renting. If mine clearly stated "I can boot you off the land and keep whatever monies remain in the rental period without any cause or notification" or some variation thereof and you click yes and rent land from me, then I certainly can keep any chunk of money you gave me. We haven't seen the contract here and are all making wild assumptions, it may be the OP has no rights at all to a refund.

The points I'm trying to make here: read the rules/covenant/contract carefully, and NEVER pay more than a week's rent at a time regardless of any "deals" a landlord may offer.

My point is this, a landowner should SAY THAT DIRECTLY to the potential tenant before any money changes hands. Burying it in a covenant and never disclosing it is dishonest on its face and just plain unscrupulous.

[Miguel Rowley]

1 minute ago, Modulated said:

This is flawed logic IMO. Rights exist for both tenant and landlord, but that doesn't mean someone can just keep a huge chunk of money for whatever reason.   Anyone doing land business in SL should have to reveal exactly who they are in RL, what their business operates as, LLC for example or some other legal entity with a real world address. This is how a real business operates.  You don't get to steal and just be anonymous under the guise of running a virtual business.

Not trying to be the Devils Advocate, but if their rules states that they don't give refunds on any situation and that they have the right to end the rental agreement, the person who rented should already be aware of that possibility.

While on the other side, I don't think people should even rent land with those kinds of rules to begin with.

Stories like this just makes me glad that Linden Homes exist.

[Luna Bliss]

6 hours ago, fabiansongs said:

What do you think I should do?

Your actions also played a part in this incident and I don't see you taking responsibility for them.

Imagine if every resident of a huge estate like this sent notices out advertising their own ventures. Group notices would be flooded and people might turn them off so as to reduce spam and so not receive important updates sent out by the estate. People don't like excess messaging, and wise group owners usually try to relay only what is vital, even with their own messaging. Messages are capped too, and if we send out too many some end up not getting important updates.

I may be venting here a bit, as I still cringe when thinking of my time managing a very active community with many store customers and rentals situated mostly below the store, all a part of one group. I took extra care even sending out my own messages so as not to turn off store customers who might leave my group and be less inclined to buy my merchandise, or to offend renters who would turn off messages and so not receive important community information.
Yet there were always these few who felt entitled to advertise their own business or project within my group, as if my group existed for their personal benefit.

I ejected one guy advertising his concerts and his ire was so great he even followed me around and harassed me at a public speech I gave as well as in private IM, for quite some time. It never occurred to him that he might have done anything wrong, but instead felt entitled to use my group as he saw fit.

I do have sympathy for those who don't know the ropes yet, but in my experience these newbies were never the offenders -- the offenders were those who had a strong sense of entitlement and thought they had a unique right to do whatever they wanted within someone else's group.

So the way I see it, you have paid your bill in full. Self-centeredness and lack of empathy for other people has a cost.  

[Katherine Heartsong]

55 minutes ago, Modulated said:

My point is this, a landowner should SAY THAT DIRECTLY to the potential tenant before any money changes hands. Burying it in a covenant and never disclosing it is dishonest on its face and just plain unscrupulous.

Nope, doesn't happen in the real world, won't happen in SL. YOU, the consumer, are responsible for fact checking. See every EULA and every service you have ever signed up for. If you have a cell phone, I can guarantee you the sale person did NOT cover the contract word for word with you. Always assume the "business" has the advantage.

I grant you that would have been the right/polite thing to do, but is not required and life's simply cavaet emptor, my friend.

[Modulated]

4 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Nope, doesn't happen in the real world, won't happen in SL. YOU, the consumer, are responsible for fact checking. See every EULA and every service you have ever signed up for. If you have a cell phone, I can guarantee you the sale person did NOT cover the contract word for word with you. Always assume the "business" has the advantage.

I grant you that would have been the right/polite thing to do, but is not required and life's simply cavaet emptor, my friend.

Fair point, but I can contact the companies I do business with for possible solutions, and not just dealing with someone who hides behind an avatar doing business who never answers you or just doesn't care and steals your money.  Big difference there.

[Sparkle Bunny]

The OP obviously wasn't that bothered about the money if they merely flounced for eighteen months rather than taking it up directly with the landlord at the time, and couldn't even initially remember when they supposedly lost it. Given their faulty memory, I would also be very surprised if abuse of group notices was their only infraction.

[Qie Niangao]

33 minutes ago, Modulated said:

Fair point, but I can contact the companies I do business with for possible solutions, and not just dealing with someone who hides behind an avatar doing business who never answers you or just doesn't care and steals your money.  Big difference there.

Yeah, but there are many of these big differences. US$80 doesn't go far towards real world rent. But it's the principle of the thing? Well, not when somebody has to pay all the overhead of contract litigation and enforcement: that's when principle hits pragmatics.

At one point, ages ago, I tried to argue that SL landlords, including private estates, should have the option of outsourcing all tenancy contract terms to the Lab, so tenants could choose that model for protection from whatever craziness the private landlords might otherwise dream up as a "covenant". Basically, the landlord would give the Lab control of standardized terms and conditions, with land rentals managed pretty much the same as Mainland ownership.

That was a really dumb idea. There's simply no market for it. It would be fair, and completely prevent disputes such as the one in this thread, but it satisfies a need that doesn't exist—especially now, with Linden Homes so popular and addressing most of that potential demand.

Maybe somebody with more patience could figure out a cost-effective analog of, say, the Amazon marketplace, to apply to SL land rentals: a set of uniform terms and conditions to protect (to some degree) both buyer and seller, with enough flexibility for sellers to tailor to the situation—and critically, enforceable in less than a minute of employee attention per dispute. But then the same old question: would many people want that, or would they circumvent the structured commerce in favor of the SL land equivalent of craigslist?

[diamond Marchant]

43 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

At one point, ages ago, I tried to argue that SL landlords, including private estates, should have the option of outsourcing all tenancy contract terms to the Lab, so tenants could choose that model for protection from whatever craziness the private landlords might otherwise dream up as a "covenant".

...dipping a toe in

Setting aside the OPs particulars, if a landlord evicts a tenant, it is reasonable to return prepaid future rents.

My thinking is in the same ballpark as Qie's... how does one deal with the mess of land ownership in Second Life? Imagine you have a friend who asks you how to acquire land... and you start reeling off all the ways... the pros and cons of each.

The virtual worlds (metaverses?) that will dominate in the coming decades need to do better.

[Silent Mistwalker]

11 hours ago, fabiansongs said:

I was a resident in [ESTATE NAME REMOVED] for the longest time in second Life, and I have the habit of paying my tiers months ahead.

Last year i  sent an invitation to the group inviting residents to join a Trump boat parade. Some joined but some complained to [ESTATE NAME REMOVED] that my invitation was an harassment (I sent only one short invitation though)

As a result [ESTATE NAME REMOVED] evicted me from their land. I don't think they have also the right to confiscate the 19000 Linden I paid in advance. What do you think I should do?

[ESTATE NAME REMOVED] groups are not there for renters to use for advertising their personal events. You violated that when you sent the invitation through the group(s).

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

[ESTATE NAME REMOVED] groups are not there for renters to use for advertising their personal events. You violated that when you sent the invitation through the group(s).

Yes, but to the tune of L$19000?

The issue here is not the eviction, I think.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Dakota Linden
[Moderator Edit: Identifying Estate Name Removed]

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes, but to the tune of L$19000?

The issue here is not the eviction, I think.

See my recent post. Of the L$19000, did they really lose all of that? Half? 1/10th? How much time was left on their rent?

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yes, but to the tune of L$19000?

The issue here is not the eviction, I think.

An excerpt from the FI covenant has been posted in the thread. He agreed to those terms and then violated them.

 

4 hours ago, Chaser Zaks said:

* All sales are final. The tenant may terminate the agreement at any time. A refund will not be given for any time remaining on the tenancy.

Never pay more than one month's rent in advance.

If the tenant didn't read the covenant thoroughly before paying in advance, any losses are on the tenant, not the landlord.

[Paul Hexem]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Your actions also played a part in this incident and I don't see you taking responsibility for them.

Imagine if every resident of a huge estate like this sent notices out advertising their own ventures. Group notices would be flooded and people might turn them off so as to reduce spam and so not receive important updates sent out by the estate. People don't like excess messaging, and wise group owners usually try to relay only what is vital, even with their own messaging. Messages are capped too, and if we send out too many some end up not getting important updates.

I may be venting here a bit, as I still cringe when thinking of my time managing a very active community with many store customers and rentals situated mostly below the store, all a part of one group. I took extra care even sending out my own messages so as not to turn off store customers who might leave my group and be less inclined to buy my merchandise, or to offend renters who would turn off messages and so not receive important community information.
Yet there were always these few who felt entitled to advertise their own business or project within my group, as if my group existed for their personal benefit.

I ejected one guy advertising his concerts and his ire was so great he even followed me around and harassed me at a public speech I gave as well as in private IM, for quite some time. It never occurred to him that he might have done anything wrong, but instead felt entitled to use my group as he saw fit.

I do have sympathy for those who don't know the ropes yet, but in my experience these newbies were never the offenders -- the offenders were those who had a strong sense of entitlement and thought they had a unique right to do whatever they wanted within someone else's group.

So the way I see it, you have paid your bill in full. Self-centeredness and lack of empathy for other people has a cost.  

 

1 hour ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

[ESTATE NAME REMOVED] groups are not there for renters to use for advertising their personal events. You violated that when you sent the invitation through the group(s).

Bad takes. You're letting your bias against the action (and I suspect political affiliation) influence your perception.

Effectively stealing 80 USD in a game where most things cost 2 or 3 USD is not a good thing.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

15 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

See my recent post. Of the L$19000, did they really lose all of that? Half? 1/10th? How much time was left on their rent?

I asked this question also, above. We have nothing to go on but what we've been told. If the OP is lying, of course this is inapplicable.

But we're now discussing the principles, function, and ethics of the system. And I'm not simply going to assume that the OP isn't being straight here.

13 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

An excerpt from the FI covenant has been posted in the thread. He agreed to those terms and then violated them.

 

Never pay more than one month's rent in advance.

If the tenant didn't read the covenant thoroughly before paying in advance, any losses are on the tenant, not the landlord.

I'm honestly surprised to hear this from you.

The landlord has the power to pocket whatever remains of the rent. In fact, given the lack of regulation in SL, the landlord could do that without even requiring a justification.

But having the power or even "the right" to simply walk off with L$19000 (or L$1000, for that matter) does not equal having the moral justification to do so.

If the landlord did this, it is horribly unethical behaviour.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 hours ago, Chaser Zaks said:

• One hand, they tell people ceviet emperor, but then remove any way for people to make other's aware of bad behavior of sellers.
• On the other hand, you have people who don't tell the whole story, and can smear a company's good reputation.

Shocked as I am to find myself agreeing with Chaser, this is an important point. I'd say the "system is broken," but actually it's never worked as it should.

I thought about mentioning to the OP the "name and shame" rule here near the beginning of this thread, but decided not to because the system as it currently stands is terribly unbalanced.

The "free market" approach to this kind of dispute only works, even by the standards of those who support it (of which I am emphatically not one) if the power of the seller / landlord is balanced against the power of the consumer to let "word of mouth" govern the marketplace. The theory is that if "bad players" are bad enough frequently enough, they will go out of business as "word of mouth" gets around about their behaviour.

But if you disable the ability to spread that word, then frankly you are robbing the consumer of the one lever they should have at their disposal. More to the point, you are creating a structural, systemic imbalance in the system that ensures that it cannot, and never will, function as it is supposed to.

Now, I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to come here and simply name anyone they feel has done them wrong. That would turn this place into a chaotic hell hole.

So . . . my conclusion is that we need some form of top-down regulation for this kind of thing.

[Luna Bliss]

20 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Bad takes. You're letting your bias against the action (and I suspect political affiliation) influence your perception.

Effectively stealing 80 USD in a game where most things cost 2 or 3 USD is not a good thing.

No, I'm letting my frustration due to managing hoards of demanding renters who interrupted me repeatedly with all too often very silly problems, as well as frustration with those advertising in my group when it was clearly stated this was against the rule when I wanted to desperately to be creating instead, influence my emotional state and desire a harsh penance! 

Now for the Trump affiliation a burning at the stake is in order.  Gathering tinder as we speak...

Edited July 20, 2022 by Luna Bliss