[Redacted] Landlords shut down access

[Orwar]

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Again, why should Landlords have this special consideration?

   It's not a 'special consideration', it's 'the wrong bloody place to discuss it'. Should we also run to the SL forums to whinge when it turns out the barely legal-looking escort we threw our rent money at turned out to be a mid-50's man with enough body hair to dress a dachshund and a half? 

[Arielle Popstar]

17 minutes ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

The forum is not a place for leaving reviews of goods or services. If it was an item on MP, that would be the proper place for leaving a review.

You might want to look at the forum again, it is full of opinions and reviews of goods, services and businesses, not all of them complimentary like the Legacy thread as an example. 

 

8 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   It's not a 'special consideration', it's 'the wrong bloody place to discuss it'. Should we also run to the SL forums to whinge when it turns out the barely legal-looking escort we threw our rent money at turned out to be a mid-50's man with enough body hair to dress a dachshund and a half? 

I disagree because though you mentioned in your first post about a resident to resident dispute, here it is a resident to business dispute and from that perspective, it is quite common for residents to relate their disputes with the business of Secondlife as a precedent.  When one is making an income through S/L, it should be held to a higher standard and a bad review of it is not personal but business.

I can think of a fairly frequent poster in the forums who was such an escort as it all came out over a period of a few threads, so your example is not without precedent there.

[Rowan Amore]

The escort outed themselves so...

Discussions about products/services (LL's thread about Caspervend, for example) are different than simply stating, "So and so ripped me off and I want everyone to know!"

[Arielle Popstar]

18 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

The escort outed themselves so...

Discussions about products/services (LL's thread about Caspervend, for example) are different than simply stating, "So and so ripped me off and I want everyone to know!"

[bigmoe Whitfield]

I will 100% say this, it's the residents word against the landlords word, it's hearsay and we are not starting a witch hunt because of it, it's why LL has the policy no naming and shaming.

Edited December 27, 2022 by bigmoe Whitfield

[Love Zhaoying]

I submit the following assumptions:

1) The access was probably not "shut down", something else happened such as:

2) The land owners are probably behind on rent and / or have their accounts locked, and are going out of business.

IMHO:  Any number of "things that happen to landowners" can prevent "renters" from getting access to land - without the landowners doing it on purpose.

#MyOpinionMakeItYours

 

[Sid Nagy]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

So you're saying Landlords should be given this cover of anonymity by the Lab so they don't have to lie?

On SLuniverse naming and shaming was allowed.
That never ever solved anything. It only delivered popcorn threads with pages of flaming, that not seldom ended in Cristiano Midnight having to ban one or two in the end.

I think it is a good policy over here to not allow naming and shaming.
This has nothing to do with covering something in anonymity. Disputes between two residents are simply non of our business.

[Arielle Popstar]

10 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

 

IMHO:  Any number of "things that happen to landowners" can prevent "renters" from getting access to land - without the landowners doing it on purpose.

 

It automatically becomes "on purpose" when the Landowner does not either forewarn residents what is about to happen or respond to queries of why it did.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Arielle Popstar]

4 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

On SLuniverse naming and shaming was allowed.
That never ever solved anything. It only delivered popcorn threads with pages of flaming, that not seldom ended in Cristiano Midnight having to ban one or two in the end.

I think it is a good policy over here to not allow naming and shaming.
This has nothing to do with covering something in anonymity. Disputes between two residents are simply non of our business.

But this a dispute between a resident and a business operating in S/L.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It automatically becomes "on purpose" when the Landowner does not either forewarn residents what is about to happen or respond to queries of why it did.

Wow, harsh.

1) If their account is literally locked..it could be difficult to respond to queries after the fact.

2) RL issues - tragedies, health problems, death, etc. can prevent people from responding to queries.

I seriously doubt "small" landowners are in the habit of "forewarning" their renters of impending issues like the above.

 

[Sid Nagy]

10 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But this a dispute between a resident and a business operating in S/L.

True, but still none of our business.
We simply read only one side of the story, when lucky even two sides, but we are never able to determine what is true and what not.

Only thing we can do, is telling over and over again what every experienced SL resident knows: Be careful out there when it comes to money and essential RL information.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Sid Nagy

[Rowan Amore]

17 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said:

True, but still none of our business.
We simply read only one side of the story, when lucky even two sides, but we are never able to determine what is true and what not.

Only thing we can do, is telling over and over again what every experienced SL resident knows: Be careful out there when it comes to money and essential RL information.

Also, unless the business in question has a RL basis, it's still run by a resident not a corporation or other such entity.  You sell items in your virtual store.  YOU, not some RL company.  If your SL company were incorporated in RL with all that entails, that would be a different thing.  Most SL business are not.  They are residents selling an item, service or access to virtual land.   Hence, a resident to resident transaction.  Period.

@animatsprovided the only recourse most people would have in these cases.  As mentioned, the OP could try filing a report for fraud and hope for the best.   It's certainly not something for US to decide or even have an opinion about since, as you said, we only know one side of the story.  

 

[Marianne Little]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You might want to look at the forum again, it is full of opinions and reviews of goods, services and businesses, not all of them complimentary like the Legacy thread as an example. 

 

I disagree because though you mentioned in your first post about a resident to resident dispute, here it is a resident to business dispute and from that perspective, it is quite common for residents to relate their disputes with the business of Secondlife as a precedent.  When one is making an income through S/L, it should be held to a higher standard and a bad review of it is not personal but business.

I can think of a fairly frequent poster in the forums who was such an escort as it all came out over a period of a few threads, so your example is not without precedent there.

I think a review is different from "They took my money and I did not get what I paid for". I see threads about vendors where a customer come to the forum and write "The vendor in store___ did not give me the dress after I paid, and the store owner___ ___ does not reply to Ims and notecards". The names is removed there as well.

I am sorry that I can't provide the link, I just remember that I have seen it.

If you buy something and get the item, you can say to people who ask: "No, I do not recommend this because..." and it is  different from claiming you were scammed/lost your money.

But that's just my opinion.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, bigmoe Whitfield said:

I will 100% say this, it's the residents word against the landlords word, it's hearsay and we are not starting a witch hunt because of it, it's why LL has the policy no naming and shaming.

/me has no shame, so gets a brush and eyes your tail!

[animats]

The law on this just changed a few hours ago, when the President signed H.R.2617, the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The INFORM act was added to that bill as an amendment. This is aimed at eBay and Amazon, and their unidentified sellers, and it should apply to Linden Lab as well. Most sellers on SL will be well under the US$20,000/ year threshold, but some of the big landlords will be over it.

TITLE III—INFORM CONSUMERS
SEC. 301. COLLECTION, VERIFICATION, AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO INFORM CONSUMERS.

(b) DISCLOSURE REQUIRED
(1) REQUIREMENT.
(A) IN GENERAL . An online marketplace shall
(i) require any high-volume third party seller with an aggregate total of $20,000 or more in annual gross revenues on such online marketplace, and that uses such online marketplace’s platform, to provide the information described in subparagraph (B) to the online marketplace; and
(ii) disclose the information described in subparagraph (B) to consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner—
(I) on the product listing page (including via hyperlink); or
(II) in the order confirmation message or other document or communication made to the consumer after the purchase is finalized and in the consumer’s account transaction history.
(B) INFORMATION DESCRIBED .—The information described in this subparagraph is the following
(i) Subject to paragraph (2), the identity of the high-volume third party seller, including
(I) the full name of the seller, which may include the seller name or seller’s company name, or the name by which the seller or company operates on the online marketplace;
(II) the physical address of the seller; and
(III) contact information for the seller, to allow for the direct unhindered communication with high- volume third party sellers by users of the online marketplace, including—
(aa) a current working phone number;
(bb) a current working email address; or
(cc) other means of direct electronic messaging ...

Notes:

• Takes effect in 180 days, not immediately.
• There are privacy provisions for people doing business from a residential address. Those sellers can avoid having their address published until there's a dispute. If they're not responding, their real address gets unmasked. It's complicated.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

20 minutes ago, animats said:

The law on this just changed a few hours ago, when the President signed H.R.2617, the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The INFORM act was added to that bill as an amendment. This is aimed at eBay and Amazon, and their unidentified sellers, and it should apply to Linden Lab as well. Most sellers on SL will be well under the US$20,000/ year threshold, but some of the big landlords will be over it.

TITLE III—INFORM CONSUMERS
SEC. 301. COLLECTION, VERIFICATION, AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO INFORM CONSUMERS.

(b) DISCLOSURE REQUIRED
(1) REQUIREMENT.
(A) IN GENERAL . An online marketplace shall
(i) require any high-volume third party seller with an aggregate total of $20,000 or more in annual gross revenues on such online marketplace, and that uses such online marketplace’s platform, to provide the information described in subparagraph (B) to the online marketplace; and
(ii) disclose the information described in subparagraph (B) to consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner—
(I) on the product listing page (including via hyperlink); or
(II) in the order confirmation message or other document or communication made to the consumer after the purchase is finalized and in the consumer’s account transaction history.
(B) INFORMATION DESCRIBED .—The information described in this subparagraph is the following
(i) Subject to paragraph (2), the identity of the high-volume third party seller, including
(I) the full name of the seller, which may include the seller name or seller’s company name, or the name by which the seller or company operates on the online marketplace;
(II) the physical address of the seller; and
(III) contact information for the seller, to allow for the direct unhindered communication with high- volume third party sellers by users of the online marketplace, including—
(aa) a current working phone number;
(bb) a current working email address; or
(cc) other means of direct electronic messaging ...

Notes:

• Takes effect in 180 days, not immediately.
• There are privacy provisions for people doing business from a residential address. Those sellers can avoid having their address published until there's a dispute. If they're not responding, their real address gets unmasked. It's complicated.

 

Wow, thank you, @animats!

[LittleMe Jewell]

52 minutes ago, animats said:

The law on this just changed a few hours ago, when the President signed H.R.2617, the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The INFORM act was added to that bill as an amendment. This is aimed at eBay and Amazon, and their unidentified sellers, and it should apply to Linden Lab as well. Most sellers on SL will be well under the US$20,000/ year threshold, but some of the big landlords will be over it.

Depends on whether SL is considered an 'online marketplace'.  It definitely is not such in the same way the eBay, Amazon, Etsy & other online places are.  Online 'game' venues might sell things and let other people sell things on their platform, but they still may not actually be considered a "marketplace".

No doubt that the LL legal team will dig into the specifics and make the determination.  

[Rowan Amore]

54 minutes ago, animats said:

The law on this just changed a few hours ago, when the President signed H.R.2617, the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The INFORM act was added to that bill as an amendment. This is aimed at eBay and Amazon, and their unidentified sellers, and it should apply to Linden Lab as well. Most sellers on SL will be well under the US$20,000/ year threshold, but some of the big landlords will be over it.

TITLE III—INFORM CONSUMERS
SEC. 301. COLLECTION, VERIFICATION, AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY ONLINE MARKETPLACES TO INFORM CONSUMERS.

(b) DISCLOSURE REQUIRED
(1) REQUIREMENT.
(A) IN GENERAL . An online marketplace shall
(i) require any high-volume third party seller with an aggregate total of $20,000 or more in annual gross revenues on such online marketplace, and that uses such online marketplace’s platform, to provide the information described in subparagraph (B) to the online marketplace; and
(ii) disclose the information described in subparagraph (B) to consumers in a clear and conspicuous manner—
(I) on the product listing page (including via hyperlink); or
(II) in the order confirmation message or other document or communication made to the consumer after the purchase is finalized and in the consumer’s account transaction history.
(B) INFORMATION DESCRIBED .—The information described in this subparagraph is the following
(i) Subject to paragraph (2), the identity of the high-volume third party seller, including
(I) the full name of the seller, which may include the seller name or seller’s company name, or the name by which the seller or company operates on the online marketplace;
(II) the physical address of the seller; and
(III) contact information for the seller, to allow for the direct unhindered communication with high- volume third party sellers by users of the online marketplace, including—
(aa) a current working phone number;
(bb) a current working email address; or
(cc) other means of direct electronic messaging ...

Notes:

• Takes effect in 180 days, not immediately.
• There are privacy provisions for people doing business from a residential address. Those sellers can avoid having their address published until there's a dispute. If they're not responding, their real address gets unmasked. It's complicated.

 

Which is awesome but still doesn't allow anyone to discuss (name and shame) on the forums.   It might cut down on the sellers on the MP if they have to disclose their RL identity AND physical address to everyone in SL.

[CaithLynnSayes]

What's that other website called again? Virtual Secrets or something? Don't search for my name there though. I've unintentionally made it a couple of times on there.

[Aethelwine]

Am I right in thinking that if the landowner hasn't paid their tier then their account would disappear for time it isn't in good standing? If so then if the landlord's account is still showing that possibility can be ruled out, giving hope some mistake has happened that could be resolved through communicating with them with courtesy and a little patience?

[LittleMe Jewell]

17 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Am I right in thinking that if the landowner hasn't paid their tier then their account would disappear for time it isn't in good standing? If so then if the landlord's account is still showing that possibility can be ruled out, giving hope some mistake has happened that could be resolved through communicating with them with courtesy and a little patience?

Someone's name only disappears from search if they are permanently banned or many months have passed since they were first in arrears with LL.

[DaniRost]

14 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I do want to emphasize something that a number of people here have hinted at: that while you may have been "unwise" or even "foolish" to have paid so much in advance, this is still not your fault, anymore than someone who forgets to lock a window is "responsible" for having their house broken into. You made yourself more vulnerable to such an occurrence, but you are not, as they say, "the baddie" here, nor are you to "blame" for what happened. It's possible that your landlord may themselves be the victim of something that has caused this -- an illness, a death, or whatever. But in any case, what happened is not your fault, even if the magnitude of the consequences are the result of being too trusting. But then, I don't see being trusting as a "fault."

And for that reason, I'm very sorry: you have my sympathies.

Thank you very much. It wasn't a lot of Lindens but it just ticked me off. And knowing I wasn't the only one and that there is no recourse (inside SL) doesn't make me feel any better at all. I always try to treat people how I want to be treated. And if something happened - then I would tell them. You're absolutely right, STUFF HAPPENS. But be up front about it. 

[DaniRost]

I've tried searching for them. They don't show up, at least the names I have for them. There was one individual that would contact me from time to time. I have not gotten any answer from them. 

I don't want to belabor this anymore. I just wanted to see if there was any recourse for me. And quite frankly I assumed there wouldn't be. I'm a skeptic. And I don't know why in the world I wouldn't go to a forum to find information about an issue like this. I do it in all the other forums I belong to. Anyway, thanks for the positive responses. And no, I'm not going to pursue this in RL. It's certainly not worth that. Thanks anyway.

[Arielle Popstar]

7 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Wow, harsh.

1) If their account is literally locked..it could be difficult to respond to queries after the fact.

2) RL issues - tragedies, health problems, death, etc. can prevent people from responding to queries.

I seriously doubt "small" landowners are in the habit of "forewarning" their renters of impending issues like the above.

The tenants are the victims here, not the Landlord. The onus is on the Landlord to have processes in place for the continuance of the business in the event of some problems and not use it as a justification to shaft prepaid tenants out of what they paid for.

4 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Which is awesome but still doesn't allow anyone to discuss (name and shame) on the forums.   It might cut down on the sellers on the MP if they have to disclose their RL identity AND physical address to everyone in SL.

You are beating a dead horse. It is not a question of the policy but whether or not the policy is prejudiced against S/L consumers by unfairly anonymizing potential scammers, griefers and others who take advantage of the systems in place to bilk people of their monies. Even your government seems to recognize that there is a problem considering their enactment of  the H.R.2617, the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The policy is definitely anti consumer and just begs for lowlifes to use it as a means to steal monies from residents with S/L policies and procedures aiding and abetting that potential.

6 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

I think a review is different from "They took my money and I did not get what I paid for". I see threads about vendors where a customer come to the forum and write "The vendor in store___ did not give me the dress after I paid, and the store owner___ ___ does not reply to Ims and notecards". The names is removed there as well.

I am sorry that I can't provide the link, I just remember that I have seen it.

If you buy something and get the item, you can say to people who ask: "No, I do not recommend this because..." and it is  different from claiming you were scammed/lost your money.

But that's just my opinion.

Scams take different forms but the end result is consumers not getting what they paid for. We should have available to us a way to protect ourselves from those who do so, whatever form that has to take. How can one do any sort of due diligence when the very people and businesses who do so is anonymized?

7 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Also, unless the business in question has a RL basis, it's still run by a resident not a corporation or other such entity.  You sell items in your virtual store.  YOU, not some RL company.  If your SL company were incorporated in RL with all that entails, that would be a different thing.  Most SL business are not.  They are residents selling an item, service or access to virtual land.   Hence, a resident to resident transaction.  Period.

@animatsprovided the only recourse most people would have in these cases.  As mentioned, the OP could try filing a report for fraud and hope for the best.   It's certainly not something for US to decide or even have an opinion about since, as you said, we only know one side of the story.  

 

Splitting hairs but the fact that your government has deemed that making a profit of over $600 is considered a business income says they consider those who do so to be operating a business and should be taxed on those proceeds, therefore a business.

7 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

True, but still none of our business.
We simply read only one side of the story, when lucky even two sides, but we are never able to determine what is true and what not.

Only thing we can do, is telling over and over again what every experienced SL resident knows: Be careful out there when it comes to money and essential RL information.

How can one be careful when we aren't given the information that is needed to make informed decisions? If persons or businesses are selling goods and services to residents then i think it is most definitely our business to be able to determine whether such are honest and above board and don't have a history of conning and or defrauding their customers in past. Having that sort of information available is of benefit to the those who have reputable businesses because there would be a greater inclination and confidence to deal with such, knowing that the those who do not are not being swept under the anonymity rug by virtue of a misplaced S/L policy.

[Jaylinbridges]

4 hours ago, DaniRost said:

I've tried searching for them. They don't show up, at least the names I have for them. There was one individual that would contact me from time to time. I have not gotten any answer from them. 

Were you in their land group? Or any group associated with the owners and their bots? Does the names you worked with list any groups in their profile?  And, did they return your stuff you had rezzed on your parcel?  Seems there is more you can do, despite no help from LL whatsoever, to try and figure out what happened.  If the regions are offline and you still have your stuff there, LL will usually restart the region and allow access for a few hours, so you can reclaim your things.

It would take some effort for the owners to remove everyone (all their bots and hidden accounts) from a profile listing, which means it was no accident if they did.  They might have canceled all of their SL accounts and taken their regions offline.  In which case LL can still restart their regions.    I can see where you don't care to put in any more time chasing invisible rabbits, but surely not all of the renters feel the same?

Yes it is too bad LL has no law system for their residents, other than crooks stealing your account and taking your lindens or Tillia balance where Tillia might respond.  Governments cost money, and nobody wants to pay taxes.

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by Jaylinbridges