Melita Magic

Gunner Grun wrote: Did you try and get a hold of the merchant first to see if there was a fix for whatever you didn't like or did you just leave a bad review without contacting them. The customer has absolutely no obligation to the merchant. Why do some merchants feel otherwise? That is a rhetorical question. There is no defensible reason a merchant should order a customer to contact them prior to leaving a review, let alone break TOS and harass them for leaving a review.

melaniehaughton wrote: I am sure that there are several of us who have purchased an item off Marketplace and have not been satisfied for whatever reason. We then decide to make a negative review of that product. However, on occasions some of us have received abusive IMs from that vendor over the review. Perhaps I am being naive, but surely it is the vendor's responsibility to either assist the customer or make an effort to improve their product rather than attack the customer. In other words... After Sales Service! Yes. I could not agree with you more. I recall this topic coming up some years ago here. Out of curiosity I peek in here once in a great while if I have to update my account or something. It is sad to hear this is still going on. I haven't changed my opinion on this, ever, despite being harassed about this myself. A product should be ready for use and review when it is sold. The customer pays real money, however small a real life amount, and has every right to leave a review. Merchants who do not like the review process do not have to sell things in Second Life, or can take it up with LL. The forum hasn't aged a day.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. If your intent is to start arguments with people, at least have the common decency to reply to what they've actually said, rather than what you've conveniently misinterpreted in some vain attempt to paint yourself as some sort of martyr. It's as if you think that every post is about you or what you've had to say, therefore you must scour them all in order to find the one sentence that you can twist into something of which you are able to take offense. That was actually an interesting thread until you got all bent out of shape over nothing. ...Dres YAWN. Oh, why couldn't all of your replies be so concise and well thought out as this? ...Dres Why can't your insults at least be accurate?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. ...Dres Here is the quote, nit picker: "even if you are not employed and never have been"

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. If anyone has difficulty perceiving reality, my dear, it's you... as evidenced by the fact that no one actually wrote what you quoted in reply to you nor anyone else in that thread. If your intent is to start arguments with people, at least have the common decency to reply to what they've actually said, rather than what you've conveniently misinterpreted in some vain attempt to paint yourself as some sort of martyr. It's as if you think that every post is about you or what you've had to say, therefore you must scour them all in order to find the one sentence that you can twist into something of which you are able to take offense. That was actually an interesting thread until you got all bent out of shape over nothing. ...Dres YAWN.

I know that Ceka and my reply was to the topic not to you as such. This (ETA: what you said about only replying to something in the actual post you replied to, not the topic) was made more clear in the other thread when you said you had not actually read the whole topic, only skimmed it. What I was really saying is why I did not focus on those happy times. I wasn't implying anything about your own posts. (ETA I will say though that a positive reply to someone who is saying all kinds of smack to someone else would imply 'siding with' to the casual reader. Knowing your post history as I do, I didn't feel that is what you were doing, personally.) PS I don't expect or really even want anyone to fight my battles for me or get between me and somebody rabid. I can take it. And I have to learn to step away from BS.

Except that wasn't how they said it. (That's actually what I was saying though; which of course was ignored since I somehow becasme the villain of the piece. I said 'yes it's wonderful when that happens but there's no reason they SHOULD - SHOULD - go through all of that first.' In an attempt to understand just how much they expect a customer to go through before being allowed to post a review - and that's really the correct word if what they expect is this delay - I asked "how long?" I never got a real answer on that - not a direct one. A partial one.) The customer you find "Duh" is probably an average customer. If he found it difficult to use, others likely will as well. He has no obligation to go to the merchant before posting his review. That's all I was saying. And some were insisting the opposite.

I have to remind myself to do that with any thread one or two people are posting in. Can't blame you Ceka. There was a LOT of tension in that topic. I tried joking at one point that it was ironic that some merchants were harassing people for even mentioning the customer right to a review. Completely ignored. I have to learn that when I'm being talked AT and not TO, it's time to go.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: I think most people are willing to give merchants or creators (in or out of SL) a chance to make things right before writing scathing reviews on the internet that may or may not have any basis in fact. No, no customer is ever "obligated" to do so, but the squeaky wheel gets greased, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, etc., etc., etc. And yet I never said I wrote a 'scathing' review - I was replying to someone's post about being harassed for writing a barely even tepid review. (That's what the topic was actually about - is it wrong when a merchant harasses someone for that. That was, as I even said in the topic, what was coloring my posts there.) The topic became "a customer should contact a merchant before posting a review" which I find ridiculous. I never could have predicted the outrage my reply "that's not their obligation" would cause. I even pointed out more than once in that topic, that the worst I'd written was a tepid three star review and that usually my reviews are glowing and five star and have likely increased business for those people. That was followed by long rants by some about horrible lazy customers and lots of other 'shade.' (Like the "dear sweet Melita" jab here.) But if called on it OMG the drama. (I'll give Dres this though: at least he doesn't pretend his vinegar is honey so, no need to even discuss it.) Apparently in some reality "maybe you never worked a day in your life" is appropriate and not an insult. I am not saying your post was about me but since most of the replies in there are about or in reply to my posts (as well as some posts here now about whether or not anyone was being negative toward me, in that topic) there's a good bet some walked away with the impression you just posted. The people who actually READ what I posted in entirety and hopefully have good reading comprehension skills won't. I think if some of the merchants in the other thread were being honest they'd simply state they don't feel a customer should ever post a review. Not unless it's absolutely glowing with praise.

Thanks for the feedback on the 'does the customer have a right to review' issue. No offense but if skimming a thread a lot of the subtlety would be lost, including subtext. (My posts were long as were some other people's, to be fair; just saying: I was trying to be helpful, my points were being ignored though and the others' opinions hammered repeatedly, trying to drown anyone else's out. Was I repeating mine in reply? Yep. But also trying to continue discussion in a meaningful sense.) As for Dres your reaction is as valid as mine is to anything either of us have read. As for my 'ganging up on me' post that was clearly a joke - notice the LOL? FFS when did this forum lose ALL of its humor (except for Ceka.)

I've met some wonderful creators too in the past through buying their products, but didn't feel those stories were pertinent to the topic (and neither was my personal life nor job history.)

Thank God someone finally posted a logical response from the merchant's perspective. I made several what I thought were salient points and helpful suggestions including a suggestion box or adding something in their product page and what I got was a bunch of emotional jibber jabber in response, followed by "you're stalking me." When someone clearly does not reply to any actual points made or questions posed and yet demands a response to their own highly inappropriate question it's time to pull the plug, which I should have done rather than keep trying to steer things back to sanity. I appreciate your post below, Sassy. ___ Sassy Romano wrote: Melita Magic wrote: My point is still being missed. It isn't whether it's great when a customer goes to 'work with' a creator but whether that is their obligation. That was my point. The question was not how long a merchant gives to reply. The question was how long before a person is allowed to write a review. Speaking as a customer, if i'm not happy enough with something to the extent that I feel others should be aware of an issue then I am prepared to wait ZERO TIME. Yes, I'll happily slap that review up there immediately but I try to remain objective and if there are positive points i'll highlight those too. I will usually also contact the merchant in parallel, more likely if they don't make me jump through hoops and let me use MY preferred method of contact which is IM's (send them to email, stop making excuses about them being capped). Example, was last week when I bought some lovely jewellery. One piece was a multi set of hip beads which were only resize. My review was fair and described that they were absolutely beautifully textured, well made and so on but being only resize wasn't a good fit as it needed to be stretched not sized. Anyway, I did send the merchant an IM and even gave her a link to a product that would do x,y,z stretch. I was pleasantly surprised by the IM an hour or two later where she agreed and later sent me the product, modify perm and also with the new script i'd suggested. It wasn't difficult to go back and re-visit the review i'd left and add that extra information but what i'm not going to do is try to keep a log of who I have contacted and for what so if the merchant does not respond, then the review sticks. How quickly they respond will also directly affect how quickly the review is modified where appropriate. In the past when merchants were not notified by email of a review being left, there was a much stronger argument for asking the customer to contact the merchant first (although it's not one that I supported then, onus is on the merchant to watch their store). However, now that merchants get an email when a review is left, if they're not attentive to that in a prompt manner then why expect the customer to care either? There is very little damage that a bad review can do if the merchant is responsive and a good merchant will take all comments and act accordingly. While it may be harsh to sometimes hear criticism about their "baby", that's how it is, people have opinions and have a right to air them.

Pamela Galli wrote: Yet you have stalked me through this entire thread, commenting on every reply I make to someone else an interpreting it as if it was all about you. Guess what? It's not. And now I am putting you on ignore. First of all - you won't be missed. Second - that wasn't the way it was phrased. Third - a discussion in an open public forum is not 'stalking.' Get over yourself, take a chill pill, and stop the hysterical retorts. If putting me on ignore is what it took to get you to stop the passive aggressive jabs followed by "who me?" then I am thrilled with that.

Extrude Ragu wrote: When you buy a house in the middle of a street you should expect people to walk past, this is what mainland owners seem to forget, they brought a parcel to develop on, where they have the right to ask people to leave, but they don't have the right to disturb everyone around them unnessacarily just for passing by, they should get off their high horse. Well, Second Life was not really designed with 'sidewalks' or throughways, unless you count Linden roads and water ways and Linden owned land. Maybe you'd enjoy places like Blake Sea (Amethyst had a good suggestion about only flying over such places) or some of the Linden-planned communities such as Shermerville or the former teen grid (not sure if it has a name now) or - gosh I haven't been there in so long - what is the other one?? (sigh) And again to reply to your real life analogy (which, as with most such, doesn't uniformly apply to Second Life) not all real life communities like people ambling through either and not all streets have a public sidewalk in them. There are even gated communities and such in real life, or if you look like you don't "fit in" (for any reason) you could have some curtains twitching at you or phone calls made. So it isn't quite so bucolic in real life in that way either, in my opinion/from my experience. Second Life apparently had a huge 'boom' and land was added such that in many places there is no road, sidewalk, water way etc., for people to 'pass through' and in some places the parcel line and road overlap a bit. That's when you can get knocked out of your vehicle on a public road, if one of those people has added a ban line. Or if their orb doesn't fit their parcel perfectly, or isn't scripted perfectly, the orb range extends into the road - I have run into both situations. Of course it's nicer when people are friendlier. Unfortunately not everyone is - and with some it's because of very negative experiences with griefers, nosey parkers, or even, people living in their house full time. I know it had to be infuriating to have your blissful immersive experience interrupted but perhaps ask some here the reasons they have used a ban line or an orb even temporarily in the past and you could see another side of it.

Extrude Ragu wrote: private land is Land, not Private Air.For example, when I brought my house in the real world, I didn't buy the right to stop harry in his piper club from flying over, or John in his Jet. When I brought my home in the real world I also didn't buy the right to vaporize my neighbour when he stepped onto my drive with no warning, . part 1: Yes it's their air space too. They own everything on, under and above that parcel. part 2: People make a mistake in my opinion, in the forums, making too many 'real life' analogies. Part of the wonder of a virtual world is that it is pioneer territory. And part of the joy is that the TOS enables you to do exactly that ('vaporize') if someone steps on your virtual land - if you want to look at it that way. Did you ever notice the 'heart' icon? Do you know what it means? ETA and actually in some places you do have a legal right in real life to shoot a trespasser; but that's a whoooole controversy I am not willing to get into here (or anywhere online actually. Useless/fruitless expenditure of energy.)