Jump to content

Flagging reviewed by human or not? The evasiveness continues...


Josh Susanto
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4074 days.

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

Recommended Posts

I say you should storm the place, get cought by cops and go to jail with bubba and bubbette. Sure, go and find the glory you seek! Let them know for sure you want change and will get it the hard way if needs be! But, I think that is a silly idea...but still, I will say it anyway just because it sounds funny!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that a lot ot people assume there's "nothing we can do" about it.

But what we CAN do is to make sure that the issue doesn't just go unaddressed as it continues to affect more and more people.

LL needs to learn, one way or another, that failure to acknowledge problems just creates more problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you're pointing to 3 issues, delivery, which as pointed out is rather a non issue in the face of delivery undergoing an overhaul. Except for things that can be worked with in that very detailed overview you got about what constitutes a failed delivery, and a variety of solutions to try by other merchants. So filing that one under dead horse.

If I thought there might actually be a willingness to compromise and accept input about category problems, I might say to start a thread discussing what categories issues Merchants would like to see addressed if you want to poll for some input as step 1.

Step 2 would be to put that in a Jira, along with what other Linden input you may receive along the way, and see how that goes for a bit while we discuss some other equally important issues.

Step 3 as a work-around in the meantime would be to re-organize your problematic products into something that does more easily fit into a clearly defined category.

Maybe waiting more than 24 hours on a weekend before passing something off as a support failing. Although, if memory serves, I thought there was actually a response about how they wouldn't take a stance on telling you upfront about which category to place your product? Unfortunately you'll have to bite it on that one.

Flagging? Agree there are some rough edges there. If you'd care to start a thread suggesting how that process might be improved, without the innuendo and cruft, I'm all ears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)It's not 3 issues.

It's 1 issue: the inability of LL to talk straight with us.

2) Telling me that direct delivery is going to solve the trust problem is not the same thing as telling me that direct delivery will solve the box problem. Even if we were specifically talking about solving the box problem, DD continues to be vaporware for the foreseeable future, and if it is asclose to what they say it will be as mesh is turning out to be, I'll prefer to also keep my box, thanks.

3) My instructions from Dakota were specifically to contact Customer Support for the answer Dakota would not give me on the Merchants forum.

Dakota responds to the Customer Support inquiry, saying that the category I had originally chosen was an acceptable category, but does not explain why, if it was in an acceptable category, it was delisted when it was flagged for being in the wrong category.

Can I get the answer to that question here, or will I have to submit the question somewhere else? Is that what the JIRA is for? Should that really be necessary?

4) As for "problematic products", nothing could be less applicable in this case. In fact, I defy you to find or produce ANY product that more perfectly exemplifies what is supposed to in the category in which this product was flagged.

5) 24 hours is 24 hours, even in SF. Saturday isn't Saturday everywhere, all at once. Sunday isn't Sunday everywhere, all at once. I worked 7 days a week in SF, up to 5 months at a time without a day off. And I wasn't even administering problem resolution on a million-dollar internet service that's on 24/7/365. Maybe they should all just clock off at 5 and forget about everything. Or they can pull the plug on the whole system for 16 hours. Who cares anyway?

6) Whether they "will" or "will not" take a stance on correct category, they have now done that. What they have not done is explain how something that they agree was in the correct category got flagged and delisted.

7) I don't necessarily need them to fix or improve any one thing in particular as regards the technical parts of the system. I can practically endlessly forgive all forms of honest mistakes. I just have a special intolerance for shameless bull$hitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So adding to the formula I mentioned a couple posts back, also depends on A) Obfuscation, B) Verbosity, C) Jumping to other topics when the conversation gets very close to fact and clarity, in that order.

As I stated elsewhere I also believe communication needs to improve.

I mean this whole hacker with a heart of gold exposing security flaws for the good of everyone thing, sounds like a rather noble tact at first, but again this isn't that, it's manufactured and does not help.

You say you can deal with endless issues, but bring up non issues and then turn around and create your own falsehoods. Direct Delivery is vapor? Wondering what place you pulled that one out of, assure you that's a reality.

So while you go on with your little revolution about shaming and blaming, embarassing and making Lindens grovel and admitting to perceived lies, might want to consider that if your riot consists of burning down your neighbors businesses, you're not any bigger than the "problems" you're trying to solve.

Yesterday for instance should not have happened like it did with login problems before it was announced and identified. I still don't see a final resolution on the status. Was it or wasn't it finally resolved?

Reporting in the Marketplace is a mess. We could use some features that have been gone over many times. Development is slow.

So yes, agree on most common points like every other merchant. My point is that the games you're playing to prove your point is not helping communication. If you can't be bigger than the problem, you're part of the problem.

Open dialog can work, and should work. It doesn't work when you don't silence the people playing silly games to make their points and let cooler heads prevail.

[Edited: typo and under-caffinated wording]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LL is playing the games.

If they weren't, I d have had an answer by now to my question about why the item was delisted.

I appreciate your criticism of my methods, and I'm sympathetic to the sentiment that maybe we can eventually all somehow just jump into a big cuddle-puddle with the Lindens and everything will be groovy.

But look at the methods of other merchants, as a whole, and tell me whether they have really been any more effective than my own. I understand that people who are dependent on SL for income have been hesitant to criticize things they don't see as clear and present threats to their income. But their codependent attitude has gradually enabled LL's dysfunctional behavior to spiral out of control, as you can see by checking today's new threads.

If this many new people start playing bad cop tomorrow, maybe I should join you in playing good cop. But until then, I don't see what harm I'm doing by repeatedly letting LL know that they're just digging themselves deeper into the credibility hole every day.

The most basic example is the 24 hour thing, and I think if you truly understand my point about that, you'll understand most of the difference between your philosophy of Linden criticism and my own...

72 hours would be a very acceptable turn-around time for my Customer Support inquiry. But the web page doesn't say 72 hours. It doesn't say 48 hours. It says 24 hours.

Why should it say 24 hours and be wrong when it can say 72 hours and be correct?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe they're playing games, I believe that they're conservative with their feedback for various reasons. Responding mostly to your methods, because the manufactured ones detract from others issues. Doesn't help when you throw the made up things in there, as there's no shortage of "real" feedback that needs to get noticed.

I don't do the good cop thing any longer. Long boring story if you're referring to that as a reputation. During the "M" era, there were some good moves that depended on it being sold and sold hard by the community, so the idea was to generate some positive energy to pull that off, and it needed advocating.

I believe I called that one right, as we see what happened when that didn't sell. Had we sold it, we'd be sitting on a larger SL I believe, but that's yesterdays news, and that set of goals no longer apply.

So right, but here's a point. Personally I miss office hours, I think the opportunity to get some face time was a great thing. The problem is, I have no ammunition to make a case to bring them back, because the very kind of behavior I was talking about here makes an office hour useless as feedback. That's why we lost them in the first place.

So, still an optimist, but not a very good cop, I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My challenge content of my rhetoric escalates as challenges are left unmet.

You call that "making stuff up"; I call it "elaborating a plausible theory"; the longer LL declines to demonstrate any evidentiary flaw in the theory, the more readers should ask the question "why not just dispute Josh's first point?" That they do not, and continue not to, fairly encourages the belief that they effectively cannot. 

If there are things imputed to them which are not true, they need to demonstrate the untruths, or they're passively inviting greater confidence in our various suspicions.

By never admitting any mistakes, they imply that all acts are intentional.

I give them every opportunity to set us straight on such points, but they seem, thus far, to be incapable of doing so.

I have tried to push them to it, and have not yet succeeded. But this does not mean that I will not succeed. At some point, it's my expectation that they will realize that admitting errors is a better choice than denying errors and engendering a broader culture of distrust among their customers.

They may soon be taking my thousands subtle-as-a-sledgehammer hints. Today's little clu$terphuk is what they should HOPE is the customer service meltdown I've been prophesizing for months. If it's not, the real thing is only going to be bigger. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and yet LL continues to choose to do business with me just as I choose to continue to do business with them, because this context is not a normal context.

In almost any other context, the refusal of a company to answer a question such as they have effectively refused to answer would not be met with anything as amicable as escalating conspiracy theory.

Most consumers would simply not use that company again, and most business partners would begin looking for a competing service.

So, really, I'm just showing them a lot of extra patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

I don't believe they're playing games, I believe that they're conservative with their feedback for various reasons. Responding mostly to your methods, because the manufactured ones detract from others issues. Doesn't help when you throw the made up things in there, as there's no shortage of "real" feedback that needs to get noticed.

I don't do the good cop thing any longer. Long boring story if you're referring to that as a reputation. During the "M" era, there were some good moves that depended on it being sold and sold hard by the community, so the idea was to generate some positive energy to pull that off, and it needed advocating.

I believe I called that one right, as we see what happened when that didn't sell. Had we sold it, we'd be sitting on a larger SL I believe, but that's yesterdays news, and that set of goals no longer apply.

So right, but here's a point. Personally I miss office hours, I think the opportunity to get some face time was a great thing. The problem is, I have no ammunition to make a case to bring them back, because the very kind of behavior I was talking about here makes an office hour useless as feedback. That's why we lost them in the first place.

So, still an optimist, but not a very good cop, I'm afraid.

Okay son .. now ya gone and did it....

You state "I believe that they're conservative with their feedback for various reasons." Okay, accepted. Except for one important point you keep blindly ignoring. Those reasons are the wrong reasons, and the outcome to their conservatism is more negativity. That behavior has been shown, over and over again, to be the worst possible response. So fine, they do what they do because they have "various reasons". Well it's long past the time for those reasons to change.

You state "I believe I called that one right,..." referring to being M's cheerleader. No, no and .. oh yeah .. NO! M hadn't the slightest clue who we (his paying customers) were. He set about changing the philosophy and psychology of Second Life to suit his mistaken impression, and HAD we sold it ... I'm damn sure SL would be even worse off today. If there has been a director-level personality at Linden Lab more wrong about how to make SL succeed than M Linden, I don't know them. (And I seriously doubt there has been one.)

It is exactly your "opinion" that dissent of any nature, tone or tenor is the inevitable outcome to Office Hours that has given LL leeway to cancel them. Yet every decent Office Hour meeting I've been to where troublemakers appeared, (the REAL kind, the kind that drag out naked lady animated dolls to do lewd things for attention) they were rapidly orbited and banished .. and the conversation carried on.

Office Hours are NOT cheerleading and Happy Days reruns. They are times when the community brings Issues to light. Issues .. as in problems .. as in CONFLICT .. as in "you peed in my cornflakes again and I'm upset". Expecting them to be polite, civil and Aunt Rosie's Tea Party times is delusional ... and wrong.

Anyone with a half-hours training can be taught how to handle troublemakers at those meetings, and anyone with an additional 30 minutes tutoring can be given enough education to pull aside those with loud, overbearing presentation methods to "kid glove" them into quiet submission. If someone comes with shotguns loaded for bear, pull them off to another shooting range and let them empty their clip.

And then FIX THEIR PROBLEMS! Or tell them why you can't.

As to your final point .. that you're no longer the "Good Cop". Well .. never mind. Suffice to say we differ in our opinions on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:


Okay son .. now ya gone and did it....

You state "I believe that they're conservative with their feedback for various reasons." Okay, accepted. Except for one important point you keep blindly ignoring. Those reasons are the wrong reasons, and the outcome to their conservatism is more negativity. That behavior has been shown, over and over again, to be the worst possible response. So fine, they do what they do because they have "various reasons". Well it's long past the time for those reasons to change.

You state "I believe I called that one right,..." referring to being M's cheerleader. No, no and .. oh yeah .. NO! M hadn't the slightest clue who we (his paying customers) were. He set about changing the philosophy and psychology of Second Life to suit his mistaken impression, and HAD we sold it ... I'm damn sure SL would be even worse off today. If there has been a director-level personality at Linden Lab more wrong about how to make SL succeed than M Linden, I don't know them. (And I seriously doubt there has been one.)


I seriously doubt that we were basing opinions based on the same data, or lack thereof. But, like I said, that was yesterday and not worth the debate.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

I seriously doubt that we were basing opinions based on the same data, or lack thereof. But, like I said, that was yesterday and not worth the debate. 

Then why did you bring it up? Really son, if you're going to make assertions and state conclusions, you must expect to justify them as well.

I happen to think your assertion that M Linden had the right idea and if only everyone else had fallen in line that we'd be better off is positively ludicrous and proves my point that you are not here to debate or put forth opinions, but simply to prove how wrong everyone else is.

I truly do not like to "get personal" with you son, but you honestly have not contributed at ALL to this thread in the least. You simple wade in to contradict and state that others are wrong and just making stuff up to have something to bitch about.

Josh's point is that the official words from LL on this issue fly directly in the face of their actions. Furthermore when caught red-handed, and even though they stated quite plainly that the product was already in a very proper category it was STILL delisted, they stand silent and offer neither apology nor explanation.

A fair hit is a fair hit. When slapped for doing wrong, the adult takes the blow, corrects their behavior and presses on. But in this case it was admitted by Dakota that no wrong was done. And yet Josh was still "slapped". The adult would apologize and make amends. Yet none of that is forthcoming.

What are these "various reasons" you speak of btw? Perhaps they are "we hate to admit when we've done wrong"? Or maybe "we do no wrong, so you're mistaken if you think we did"?

Those are not "reasons" son .. those are EXCUSES .. and it's high time some maturity was added to this process. Josh is well within his rights to want an explanation.

And you are far from furthering the discussion by chiming in and casting further aspersions on his character, his methods of seeking redress and his motives. Shame on you Mr. Shepherd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dartagan Shepherd wrote:

So, while the parental thing is cute, there may be valid reason why I won't go into that. Still believe reading too much into every sentence equates to nitpickery though.

LOL There MAY be? Sure son .. we get it. Now run along and go pull the wings off some other fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinlein was a great one for common sense platitudes. He was also one able to listen, comprehend and reason his way to a logical conclusion. Adopting the writings of a smart person does not make you smart by association. It only means you lack the creativity or intelligence to mount a reasonable defense of your own tactics.

Now, back to the point of this thread ... Why did LL delist Josh's item while stating it was in the proper category to begin with? And now that their error has been well documented, why do they not make reasonable amends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4074 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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...