Jump to content

Madison Heartsong

Resident
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

30 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

626 profile views
  1. To the point of griefing, repetitively got spammed by the bot. LL sides with the spammers, apparently.
  2. I wish LL would enforce it, then. There are many groups (as I mentioned, just search groups for the word "spam") that openly exist for users who want to spam users with ads, provide land, for a fee, for objects to do it, and the like. LL could go through those groups and take action to prevent it (maybe warning them they had to stop and then banning members if they continued, or since it's already against the TOS, just ban them). I've sent several reports in-world to LL about Fixi's, the spammers listed by the OP, and apparently LL is unwilling to do anything to prevent them from spamming, because they continue to do it.
  3. That isn't what this is. This is when a scummy business owner sets up objects to put ads for their business into my chat window, as if it were local chat. I can block all I want, but they can still invade my window with their spammy ads. I end up blocking the business owner, the objects, various people; but when I log back in it becomes a new instance of the object so it's no longer blocked. There are actually a number of groups (searching groups for "spam" yields a list) where business owners talk about it and spam-friendly sims sell space for it, so one can set up an object to send the spam; so apparently LL is perfectly okay with this abuse.
  4. They're still getting away with this, years later. Is LL on the side of the spammers? If this isn't against the TOS it needs to be added to the ToS.
  5. It absolutely has the opposite effect. Spam me with an ad and there's no way I'll follow your link to your MP or to be tp'd or anything. Plus, I remember the name of the stores that spam me a lot. Once I was browsing mp and found something I was about to buy, and then saw the vendor was a merchant who had spammed me, so I didn't buy it. I wish they'd realize they lose more business than they gain from spamming like that. I also have received unsolicited objects from spammers a couple of times that the interface asked to add to my inventory, and I refused them, hitting to block the sender, and then found it was one of the spammers when it said who I'd blocked. I think part of what allows them to do the spamming is getting something in my inventory. I bought from LL having a first and last name on my account (Madison.Heartsong), and everything else in the game refers to me as that since I did that. The spambots refer to me by the old name with Resident, so somehow I was added some time ago and it never updated.
  6. Oh, I've blocked them, but even while blocked they get through. Blocking the object's owner should block any object they own, or at least that should be an option. There's no issue about being unable to buy from those merchants after blocking them. Spam me, I won't buy from you, simple as that. LL needs to make using objects to spam people even while blocked a major TOS violation.
  7. When you block an object (or person), it/they should not be able to get its crap into your chat box, and it should be banned to find a way around a block like that. A pair of merchants share a bot that spams me by inserting text into my chat box however it is done; and it's more feeling angry that they can do that when blocked than the actual content, which can be ignored. But I get angry that they can do it because I don't want to get their ads, have blocked the object and its owners, and they still get their ads for items into my chat box. I've used the abuse form, and LL seems not to do much, though I do come on and see messages "X has been added to the block list" so perhaps they are trying to help me keep the spam out. But they still get their ads into my chat box, and really, finding tricks to communicate in any way around a block should be a bannable offense. If I want to hear from a merchant, I'll join their group and read their notices, and I do. Getting ads into someone's chat box unsolicited, or any other way around a block, should be banned and/or made impossible.
  8. That's the thing about these spammers in general. I won't even look at what they're selling, though I will remember who spammed me, and I'll never buy from them. to the point that one of the spammers, I was looking for something on mp and I found something that seemed to look good-- and then I saw it was sold by one of the spammers, so I didn't buy it and kept looking. I might not always remember, so one might at some point sell me something they would have anyway, but I'll never see an unsolicited commercial message and look at what they're advertising. I'm sure it costs them almost nothing, but they go to some trouble to set it up, and I doubt they get many sales from it because making people angry doesn't make them want to buy from you. Some of the really good stores on sl, I sign up for their group and I look at the notices in the group, and they sometimes sell to me, because I get to choose when to look at the group notices, at my convenience, and I don't resent it at all because it isn't unsolicited. I think some spammers, and not only sl spammers but email spammers and telemarketers, enjoy the feeling of power, "Ha, ha! We can force you to deal with our advertising and you can't stop us!" But I'll never buy from an unsolicited direct ad, on sl or in rl.
  9. They don't even spam via im, which can be blocked. Somehow chat cannot be blocked, though they aren't within chat range...but they can spam my local chat window with ads. Blocking them does not prevent them from doing this. What can? And would LL take abuse reports on their doing it seriously? It is just a minor annoyance in itself, but makes me upset mostly because I get angry that they can put messages in my chat and I can't make them stop, which makes me angry. I'd feel good if I could stop them, and even better if they had to stop doing it at all (at least to anyone who blocks them, as blocking them means we absolutely do not want it).
  10. And to be fair it costs lfar ess, given the stipend. But the increasedland allowance cost them almost nothing with all the empty land, so that doesn't justify making up for it.. I have trouble understanding why LL can have a huge price hike and be defended by many. People have said they should open financial info, and I understand why they won't do that. Ir's actually no win for them: They're either struggling financially and really need the revenue, which would justify the price increases but people would be screaming the sky is failling, that sl is in big trouble; or they're doing fine and just found a way they feel will make even more money. If that's the case, the price increases are awful. So, I want to restate they aren't obligated to share financial info at all, and I wouldn't if I were them regardless of the specifics, but so many want to give them the benefit of the doubt, though regardless there'd be better ways to raise money, which might have included a smaller increasein membership fees as part of it, but this is big. The old system was, in fact, a really great deal...but that's part of why it bothers me so much that they're making it a lot less great.
  11. Lindens are money, but LL can create it at will. I really don't know if it would cost LL money to raise the premium stipend. There are probably some complications. "Printing more money" could lower the value of the Linden. But if it costs (and I don't know if it does; it seems it would but I can't claim to be sure) LL a lot less to provide L$ than the L$ are worth to the user, then they should increase the stipend to somewhat make up for the increased prices. It doesn't have to be proportional. I'll take half the difference in L$ and be willing to accept the tradeoff and stop complaining.
  12. Okay, so maybe a way to characterize the changes is a "bail out" of the land baron business. I'd wish LL had let the move, probably largely brought about through increasing the free land with a premium account, toward small ownership and less land baron/renting continue, even encouraging it. Because, I think it's better without middlemen. I know that before this account price explosion, I told a lot of people how they shouldn't be renting and should be owning and only occasionally was able to convicne someone to make the change. It was so much of a better value, even before having no middleman. If land barons have trouble filling land, some will sell the 1024 sq m parcels they now rent, to people who can get them for no tier, and not have to deal with a middleman. And only the land barons who really treated renters well, would keep much occpuancy. I f LL was going to mnake more money from account holders, land barons should also have had to pay more, so the rest could pay less. LL should have been trying toi get as many people as possible into premium accounts, rather than actually indrecitly encouraging people to rent instead of giong premium.
  13. I'd have tried to build the base of premium users further, rather than making a lot more moneyper premium user. The increased land allowance for a premium account was a great example of that sort of action. LL could have found more tnagible things that didn't really cost LL to offer but would have been valuable to premium users. Enough of them and I'd even accept a smaller price increase than the large one they implemented without complaint.
  14. You posted why owning your own 1024 sq m parcel is still more for your money than renting one. Lots of people still rented, for, especially before the premoun account price explosion, reasons I couldn't understand. The fact is though that LLs' changes make owning a small parcel a much worse deal than it was (even if generally still better than renting), and land baroning a better deal (this is not an attack on full sim owners who rent parcels; if you have the money to invest it's a perfectly legit way to make money) I don't know why LL wants to make it even better when it was already pretty sweet though, while making everyone else with premum pay a lot more.
  15. I know that landownees in general are a mix and there are many that do a lot of very nice things for their tenants. I don't mesan to imply they tend to love to abuse power or anything. My big issue is that LL seems to be accomodating landowners at all others' expense.
×
×
  • Create New...