Breedables in SL.. Meeroos Creators have too much power?

[Clarissa Lowell]

I don't think it's part of the roleplay. I think the meepet thing is supposed to let you keep them forever. If he had meepets I don't know why they took those too. They can't put their side of it here though. So I am trying to be fair.

[Ziggy21 Slade]

There is a difference between a Meeroo and other items you may buy in SL.

Meeroos is a game which you participate in, obviously the creator of that game has to reserve the right to remove people from playing it in order to keep it safe and fair for all the players. This right is detailed in their TOS here...

Malevay Studios may review these instances at their discretion, and may revoke entirely, suspend or reinstate an offending player using assessors own judgement.

Now although you havent tampered with anything or attempted to cheat, what exactly did you do?. Let's face it, you werent banned for being polite and reasonable.

Having created a breedable myself, I can tell you, I banned people from my game for things they said in my group, it wasn't that I wasn't prepared to accept criticism, there was always plenty of that, but often people in SL forget they are dealing with Real People, they are so used to constantly bitching about LL they think it's ok to say anything they like, so whilst I was ok hearing criticism of my pet, the breeding game, prices etc, I absolutely was not prepared to be insulted nor was I prepared to provide a group for certain individuals to libel me. Did you accuse the creators of dishonestly, or ripping off customers or something of this nature? if you did you shouldn't be surprised that you got the boot. 

I don't have any Meeroos, but they are without a doubt, one of the most popular products SL has ever seen, having read their forums it's quite clear there are a number of players who need to calm down, remember there are human beings behind every avatar and stop trying to run one of SLs most successful businesses on behalf of it's creators.

I am not really sure how you are going to take this to RL, Meeroos have a no warranty clause, and a limitation of liabiltiy clause, plus your losses can't amount to more than a few dollars, certainly too few for any kind of offical legal action.

All that said I am genuinly sorry you lost your stuff. 

[Qie Niangao]

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

[...]

I don't have any Meeroos, but they are without a doubt, one of the most popular products SL has ever seen, having read their forums it's quite clear there are a number of players who need to calm down, remember there are human beings behind every avatar and stop trying to run one of SLs most successful businesses on behalf of it's creators.

---

Gambling was orders of magnitude more successful.  So was banking.  Where are they now?

---

There is a difference between a Meeroo and other items you may buy in SL.

Meeroos is a game which you participate in, obviously the creator of that game has to reserve the right to remove people from playing it in order to keep it safe and fair for all the players. This right is detailed in their TOS here...

Malevay Studios may review these instances at their discretion, and may revoke entirely, suspend or reinstate an offending player using assessors own judgement.

---

Perhaps that business should consider using "their discretion" over their "game", as you say, "to keep it safe and fair for all the players," instead of using it to court Teh Drahmaz.

In fact, of course, it's not for that purpose at all.  It's merely a loophole that keeps them from getting ARd for fraud.

[Melita Magic]

If it was a forum based offense then I wonder why the ban wasn't limited to their forum. 

Then again one needs to be able to access the forum if one owns the pets, since they will only listen to tickets filed on their website. There is no in world way to reach one of their customer service people (that they will respond to.)

I think there should be some other way than taking back what someone has paid for. (ETA: Maybe a system of three warnings on the offensive action itself, and then, final warning gives ten days notice to give away the meeroos to someone else before they vanish? At least it's better for the customer(s) than simply poofing it all.)

I also wonder why other pets don't need a subscription fee to work, but then I'm not scriptwise, or educated in these types of technical things. And are servers really expensive?

[Ziggy21 Slade]

 

Qie Niangao wrote:

Gambling was orders of magnitude more successful.  So was banking.  Where are they now?

---

The point I am making is this product is very successful because it is a very good product, created by people who know what they are doing, they really don't have much to learn from the nutters screaming abuse in their forums.

I am not really sure what point you are making. Gambling was not a business, it was a type of business with many operators and it was stopped because it contravened California Law, banking also was a type of business rather than a single one and it was stopped because one particular operator did a runnner with everyones cash, so what comparison are you drawing here?  

Qie Niangao wrote:

In fact, of course, it's not for that purpose at all.  It's merely a loophole that keeps them from getting ARd for fraud.

---

Here you illustrate my point perfectly, are you really in a position to accuse a business of commiting fraud? this is a libelous statement unless you have clear evidence to support it. Before you post a response check that what you are saying actually constitutes fraud, so you may want to take legal advice, and also make sure you have sufficent cash to defend yourself in any possible law suits

[Qie Niangao]

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

 

Qie Niangao wrote:

Gambling was orders of magnitude more successful.  So was banking.  Where are they now?

---

The point I am making is this product is very successful because it is a very good product, created by people who know what they are doing, they really don't have much to learn from the nutters screaming abuse in their forums.

I am not really sure what point you are making. Gambling was not a business, it was a type of business with many operators and it was stopped because it contravened California Law, banking also was a type of business rather than a single one and it was stopped because one particular operator did a runnner with everyones cash, so what comparison are you drawing here?  

Qie Niangao wrote:

In fact, of course, it's not for that purpose at all.  It's merely a loophole that keeps them from getting ARd for fraud.

---

Here you illustrate my point perfectly, are you really in a position to accuse a business of commiting fraud? this is a libelous statement unless you have clear evidence to support it. Before you post a response check that what you are saying actually constitutes fraud, so you may want to take legal advice, and also make sure you have sufficent cash to defend yourself in any possible law suits

---

Firstly, it wouldn't be libel even if I'd mentioned RL fraud, which I was very careful not to do.

An AR for "fraud" is for whatever Linden Lab determines is "fraud" on their platform.  Same as "gambling" and "banking" offenses, the examples I cited, which have real life legal meanings that differ dramatically (and fairly hilariously -- see "Zyngo") with their interpretation by Linden Lab.

Moreover, even if I'd said "prosecuted" instead of "ARd", it wouldn't be libel, since it's a very different thing to suggest somebody might be prosecuted for something than to accuse them of actually doing that thing.  

So you see, I didn't even go so far as to refer to them as "alleged" perpetrators of LLs make-believe AR "fraud."

Nonetheless, I was saying something quite serious, to those willing to read what I actually wrote:  Like "gambling", Linden Lab permits and even promotes those in-world businesses that are seen to be positive for the platform, and those businesses are generally those that are perceived positively by LL's customers.  Several generations of breedables have come and gone now, and they generally are perceived as positive, at least at first.  Indeed, Meeroos -- like earlier breedables, and other once-popular, once-permitted businesses -- are generally perceived positively.  

But that can change, as it did for so many earlier businesses, some of which not only fell out of favor, but became violations.  And I submit, as I've argued all along: Meeroos makes a grave business error that tempts that change of perception, first by even instituting a "subscription" business model, and then by allowing it to be used in ways that seem certain to create a backlash by its customers -- who are, first and foremost, LL's customers.

[Eloise Baily]

---

Clarissa Lowell wrote:

 They can't put their side of it here though. So I am trying to be fair.

---

Yes they can. This forum is open to everyone.

its appears to me that this guy paid for something to become his and then the creator of said item took it back because it's "my ball my game!".

I would like nothing more than to see a post from someone who can adequately explain that and make it seem right and fair. I've a feeling I might have to wait a while for that.

Because it's not.

[Ceka Cianci]

breedables are fads that come and go like beanie babies..

meeroo's will be sitting along side sion chickens as soon as a better breedable comes along..and one will come along..they always do..

each  hopefully learning from the last ones mistakes they made with the public..

[Melita Magic]

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

n

utters screaming abuse in their forums.

 

---

Guess we know how you feel about breedables customers?

What's funny is that  you went on to make a veiled threat at Qie about a lawsuit. He made some good points. Public perception is everything, and, any merchant must remember they are on Linden Lab's turf, they are not, in the end, calling the shots.

Also: No contract can supersede the law, which recent SL lawsuits have shown.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

Ziggy21 Slade wrote:

 

Qie Niangao wrote:

Gambling was orders of magnitude more successful.  So was banking.  Where are they now?

---

The point I am making is this product is very successful because it is a very good product, created by people who know what they are doing, they really don't have much to learn from the nutters screaming abuse in their forums.

I am not really sure what point you are making. Gambling was not a business, it was a type of business with many operators and it was stopped because it contravened California Law, banking also was a type of business rather than a single one and it was stopped because one particular operator did a runnner with everyones cash, so what comparison are you drawing here?  

Qie Niangao wrote:

In fact, of course, it's not for that purpose at all.  It's merely a loophole that keeps them from getting ARd for fraud.

---

Here you illustrate my point perfectly, are you really in a position to accuse a business of commiting fraud? this is a libelous statement unless you have clear evidence to support it. Before you post a response check that what you are saying actually constitutes fraud, so you may want to take legal advice, and also make sure you have sufficent cash to defend yourself in any possible law suits

---

Firstly, it wouldn't be libel even if I'd mentioned RL fraud, which I was very careful not to do.

An

AR

for "fraud" is for whatever Linden Lab determines is "fraud" on their platform.  Same as "gambling" and "banking" offenses, the examples I cited, which have real life legal meanings that differ dramatically (and fairly hilariously -- see "Zyngo") with their interpretation by Linden Lab.

Moreover, even if I'd said "prosecuted" instead of "ARd", it wouldn't be libel, since it's a very different thing to suggest somebody might be prosecuted for something than to accuse them of actually doing that thing.  

So you see, I didn't even go so far as to refer to them as

"alleged"

perpetrators of LLs make-believe AR "fraud."

Nonetheless, I was saying something quite serious, to those willing to read what I actually wrote:  Like "gambling", Linden Lab permits and even promotes those in-world businesses that are seen to be positive for the platform, and those businesses are generally those that are perceived positively by LL's customers.  Several generations of breedables have come and gone now, and they generally are perceived as positive, at least at first.  Indeed, Meeroos -- like earlier breedables, and other once-popular, once-permitted businesses -- are generally perceived positively.  

But that can change, as it did for so many earlier businesses, some of which not only fell out of favor, but became violations.  And I submit, as I've argued all along: Meeroos makes a grave business error that tempts that change of perception, first by even instituting a "subscription" business model, and then by allowing it to be used in ways that seem certain to create a backlash by its customers -- who are, first and foremost, LL's customers.

---

omg Qie did he just accuse you of  commiting libel when you were not??isn't that commiting libel itself??you should sue for libel now lol

ignorance is no excuse when it comes to law

hehehehehe

[Zippo Baxton]

Thanks for the heads up on breedables. If i buy something and the builder has the ability to steal (make the item poof), I will not be wasting my L's on them.

[Paul Hexem]

Using the script function llDie(); to remove purchased content from your customer's posession after they paid you is fraud, by the legal definition.

 

If you AR it and LL responds and tells you tough luck, you may very well have the ammo for a suit against LL there, as well as the item creator.

 

The issue is if it's worth it, monetarily, to pursue it. Individually, no. Because of the microtransations in SL, it's not. As a class-action suit, though... That might have more weight. if you can get enough peopl together, it's worth consulting a lawyer.

 

Otherwise, all you can do is warn people that a certain creator has scripted llDie(); into all of their products and no one should buy from them.

[Melita Magic]

---

Dev Khaos wrote:

For this reason and more, the eco-project was developed to expand the "breedable-pet" market to everyone in Second Life. The code itself can handle an infinite number of simulations ranging from pets with gimmicky accessories to entire eco-systems of reproducing food sources and predator/prey simulations, as well as huntable animals for role players and easy-to-develop extensions for coders who want to contribute to the project while earning an income with a highly documented system. I urge everyone interested in developing their own 'breedables' to read up on it and think about how you can change the game from a cornered market of profit driven authoritarians to a community driven platform of exciting and easy to impliment eco-breeds.

---

Would love to know more about this. Links?

[Ceka Cianci]

they had a video of it back in the RA forums..i remember watching it..some tadpole looking things were going around eating these other things and then growing and  if i remember right also making other things from them as well..kind of like an ecco system in a way..

it was really neat..

i wish i could remember the video name or the thread from back then..i believe it was before all these breedables came along..

[Melita Magic]

Thanks Ceka.

I have no clue about any of this. It sounds like Spore. This has been possible since before breedables? That's a while ago. I guess I am still confused. 

But anyone can make non subscription breedables now and other stuff too? That sounds really cool.

[Ceka Cianci]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Thanks Ceka.

I have no clue about any of this. It sounds like Spore. This has been possible since before breedables? That's a while ago. I guess I am still confused. 

But anyone can make non subscription breedables now and other stuff too? That sounds really cool.

---

ya we should make something really cute then since cute is our expertise..we can be the new cute and cuddly breedable team that  is hitting the grid and let all these others hang out with the sion chickens talking about the good old days  when they were the hot thang LOL

[Melita Magic]

No one's made dinosaurs yet. ;p

[Feldspar Millgrove]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

Using the script function llDie(); to remove purchased content from your customer's posession after they paid you is fraud, by the legal definition.

 

How do you get that?

I don't know anything about Meeroos, but it sounds like what you are buying is a license to play a game, and the temporary use of some supplies.  Their ads say that if you don't play correctly, you will be booted out and forfeit your money.  (Your Meeroo can "run away" and only chooses to stay with you if you are playing according to all the rules, which includes rules about how you can use their game forums and such.  And especially, that they can boot you and take your Meeroo away any time they want.

Since they are up front about the whole thing, and you agreed to the contract, where are you getting "fraud" from?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Dana Hickman wrote:

---

Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

In any case, if you're so "fed up with meeroos," why do you care?

---

Probably because it's not about the breedable itself so much as the fact that creators are allowed to script in ways to return, delete, or cripple a valid purchased product at their own whim,

without

having to clearly and blatantly notify the customer before purchase.

---

Actually they -DO- notify the customer of this before purchase. Its on their TOS, and a number of other places.

Almost all breedables include this to be able to cut out hacking and other things that disrupt the "game" for the other "players" or for the larger health of the game itself.

The real lesson is to not get involved if sone thinks oneself might be a loose canon or otherwise unable to resist reporting on problems or issues with less than polite verbage.

 

[Clarissa Lowell]

It isn't in their TOS that they can delete anything for any reason. They just say they will ban anyone who opens their scripted products. The new TOS so far never came out.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ian Undercroft wrote:

With respect Ceka, what you say is nonsense.

The Meeroos ToS gives you licence you access to the product and database. If you breach that licence, it may be terminated at the instance of the licensor. The meeroos will then "poof" because they are, for their continued existence, dependant on access to the database. The right of a licensor to terminate a licence in specified circumstances is a basic and elementary element of the law of contract.

---

Sorry that this is a repsonse to a post on page 1 of this thread, but I'm not into meeroos, or anything like that, so I haven't read it until now.

Ian, you are only right if, when buying the object, it is made very clear to the buyer that s/he merely licenses the use of it, and isn't actually buying the right to own the object. Of course, cutting off access to the server is fine, but deleting the object can only be justified as long as it's been made very clear at the time of purchase that the buyer will not own the thing. Otherwise it's exactly as Ceka said - pure theft.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Ian Undercroft wrote:

With respect Ceka, what you say is nonsense.

The Meeroos ToS gives you licence you access to the product and database. If you breach that licence, it may be terminated at the instance of the licensor. The meeroos will then "poof" because they are, for their continued existence, dependant on access to the database. The right of a licensor to terminate a licence in specified circumstances is a basic and elementary element of the law of contract.

---

Sorry that this is a repsonse to a post on page 1 of this thread, but I'm not into meeroos, or anything like that, so I haven't read it until now.

Ian, you are only right if, when buying the object,

it is made very clear to the buyer that s/he merely licenses the use of it, and isn't actually buying the right to own the object.

Of course, cutting off access to the server is fine, but deleting the object can only be justified as long as it's been made very clear at the time of purchase that the buyer will not own the thing. Otherwise it's exactly as Ceka said - pure theft.

---

It is amazing (well maybe not) that at this point in time in the digital age, however young it may be, how many people still do not understand what this distinction means.  And while in some cases I can see possible reasons for 'licensing' versus out right 'selling,'  I think it sucks that the purpose for this distinction can be abused like it is here, where the seller can just cut you off for any random reason they choose.

[Ceka Cianci]

can they actually say..yes i agree to the tos and will give every user a non exclusive license so that i can sell my stuff on second life to all the users that come along..then turn around and say..all users buying our stuff in second life are under an exclusive license that trumps what we agreed to?

Oo

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

can they actually say..yes i agree to the tos and will give every user a non exclusive license so that i can sell my stuff on second life to all the users that come along..then turn around and say..all users buying our stuff in second life are under an exclusive license that trumps what we agreed to?

Oo

 

---

I am going to have to respond by saying that I am not a lawyer and that I really do need to go back and read the fine print in the TOS but my basic understanding is that THEIR TOS is no more valid in SL than the 'private message disclaimers' people post in their profiles.

But the other thing is that ala Redzone, it will take a lot of people speaking up to get LL to enforce the TOS in this instance or they will rewrite the TOS to accommodate businesses that must be contributing a lot of money to their coffers.

[Rene Erlanger]

I don't think those Meerpetted Meeroos should be taken away....as they're effectively out of the ball game so to speak. They won't be used for breeding, so need for them to be listed on their website as such.

In this instance i'm on the side of the OP....being a bit of vocal on their website still doesn't warrant removal of non-breeding Meeroos to which he paid an additional 1k for each. I wouldn't be happy either