Phil Deakins

The simple answer to your question is - because LL doesn't like doing anything for their paying customers that they don't have to do. They used to pay out directly into bank accounts but decided to stop doing that. It wasn't much of a task but they just didn't want to do it. So they put a minimum of US$10,000 that they would pay directly into a bank account. They didn't want to do it for that amount either but they didn't want to upset the really big players even more. Once you understand that LL does nothing for their paying customers that they don't have to do, you'll understand much more about SL and LL.

And speaking of Czari... when are you coming over to chat with me?

Perrie Juran wrote: If anything, I could see the last comments being removed as SPAM. You mean about the 'fairies'? Being judged as spam would be very harsh, imo. About the urban disctionary's definition:- The thread wasn't "too old to matter any more", imo. Especially since the OP was one of the people who continued it in it's misjudged-as-necropost period. It could be argued that it "has served its purpose" but, again, since the OP was involved, that argument may fail, as only the OP can really judge whether or not his/her thread has served his/her purpose. Imo, of course. I think the 'moderator' probably misread the year 13 as 12, and simply made a mistake.

Coby Foden wrote: Why can't they decide and define what is a necropost - and tell it in the forum guidelines too? I wonder. Shooting randomly is not very cool. There's no reason for them to decided and say what constitutes a necropost because necroposting is NOT a reason to lock a thread. The person who locked it was presumably having a bad day, causing their judgement to be somewhat iffy, to say the least. Necroposts are dealt with very well by the users, and there is never any reason for a moderator to jump in, except in the case of necroposting spam, of course..

It's even more stupid when you see that the thread's OP was active in the newer set of posts in the thread.

Hi Czari

If that was the date the thread was started, then no it's not necroposting, and the people who 'moderate' here have no idea.

Perrie Juran wrote: And welcome back Phil. Good to see you posting again. Thank you

I'm not suggesting that LL will actually do anything. All our experiences of them clearly show that they won't do anything. But, if it is as the OP described, it's fraud, and not merely a resident-to-resident dispute.

Ah. I hadn't heard of that. I'm right about one thing though - they don't moderate, so the word 'moderators' is a misnomer for them. What is the 'oru team'?

Tari Landar wrote: chrismignon McDonnell wrote: It's a team of moderator if i'm not wrong who own the forum software LL don't moderate forum I'm not sure where you got that info, but they're still linden lab employees as far as I know. That's what ll has always said anyway. I don't think they are LL employees. Whoever they are, I believe they are 3rd party moderators, although 'moderators' is something of a misnomer, because they don't moderate.

I'm thinking the same as you, Dilbert. If everything is as the OP described it, and there is no system for refunding the balance, and if the store owner won't do anything about it, then it's fraud, and that's definitely against the ToS. It isn't just a user-to-user dispute.

I was going to post the same thing to Ceka; i.e. there's no need to RIC all the threads. Just RIC one and refer to the rest of the posts by the user. That's all I ever do.

It's bugging me that there's this thread here, with the word BOT in the title, and I can't get into the discussion at all, because it's about copybots and not yer honest-to-goodness beautiful glorious ordinary bots

LOL :smileysurprised:

I'll guess that the parcel isn't set to show in search.

Perrie Juran wrote: You are trying to make sense out of a decision at Linden Lab !?!?!?! Sorry, I slipped a bit and I was doing exactly that. My mistake

What puzzles me is why they've changed it. It's obvious why they did some things. Creating the marketplace was get a slice of all the sales that merchants were making, for instance, and setting a minimum of US$10,000 for them to do a direct bank transfer was because they wanted to get rid of a little bit of work. US$100 is the typical minimum for it, so it's not a hard thing to do. But why prevent people from paying directly into their accounts? I can't think of any reason except maybe someone at LL thought it would be a good idea, and decided that time can be wasted by doing it, instead of spent doing other more worthwhile things, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the case.

I think I'm getting my head around it again. If I don't want any L$, and I have to pay LL for something in US$ - tier, land, premium fee, for instance - I can just leave it to them to get it from my credit card. Sorry for the distraction. That piece of understanding had parted company with my brain for a few minutes. I understand that the new system affects those who want to work it so they put a fixed amount into their account every month. Couldn't they put the same fixed amount into their L$ account at the same time each month? Or, if both US$ and L$ are needed monthly, couldn't they just buy the L$ they want for the month, and leave LL to collect the US$ part from their credit card each month? If something goes wrong with the payment, as it did to you once (I read back in the thread), LL doesn't immediately close accounts, snatch land, and stuff like that, so there will always be a period of grace to sort it out, as long as LL informs a user of a failed payment. I don't know if they do that.

I'm sorry if I'm not up to speed, in spite of my having posted in this thread, but is it actually true that nobody can add US$ directly into their account any more? There's no way to do it? It's hard to believe if that's true.

I'm sorry, Solar, but you lost the argument ages ago. All you're doing now is refusing to accept simple facts. Either that or you live in a far far different world to the rest of us, and what you say really is true there

I think it has a lot to do with this discussion. The point that Perrie was making is that the owner knew very well that what the manager did reflected on him; i.e. his store.

Solar Legion wrote: Wrong on all levels Phil. The manager does not represent the group - period. You just don't get it. Not at all. When a representative of an organisation meets an enquirer, to talk about the organisation, then the representative is representing the organisation to the enquirer. In the case at hand, the enquirer made an enquiry to the group, and a manager stepped forward to deal with enquiry. That manager, at that point, was representing the group to the enquirer. And his behaviour, good or bad, reflects on the group as a whole. It really is that simple. And any brain can understand it. Even half a brain can understand it lol. Not that I'm suggesting you have half a brain, you understand Now, your group experiences are your own. What they don't do is apply to all SL groups. You see, there are no rules laid down anywhere to state how an SL group must be run. Every group owner runs his/her group in the way that s/he sees fit, and, if they want managers to represent the group for them, then that's what they have. You can't win this argument, y'know Anyway,I hope that's helped you. Incidentally, the way that call centres treat callers reflects greatly on the companies that hire the call centres. If you get a good session with one, you have a rosy view of the hiring company, and vice versa. At the time you are calling one, the person on the other end is representing the company that hired the centre. That's precisely what the hiring company hired them for. Simple stuff, init?

Silliness won't help you. I didn't apply RL criterion to SL groups, you did (the call centres). I merely mentioned what you wrote. To be perfectly honest, your objections to Gadget don't make any sense. I've no idea why that is. Maybe you have something against him, I don't know, but whatever the reason is, you've been writing a lot of stuff at him that makes no sense at all. For instance:- In the post that I'm replying to, you wrote that, "The [sL group] managers manage the group and no one except the owner can represent the group or speak for the group. Period." but that's both silly and untrue. It may be true of a group or two that you are in, but it only applies if a group owner wants it to apply, and you've no idea whether or not it applies to the group in question. But it really doesn't matter either way because, if an outsider approaches an SL group, and a manager comes on to deal with him/her, then the manager is representing the group to the enquirer, and how the manager behaves during the enquiry reflects on the group as a whole as far as the enquirer is concerned. It's a fact. You can argue all you want but you can't change the fact. That was typical of the wrong things you've been posting to Gadget, and there are many more. It's good of you to welcome me to Second Life though. I've only been in SL for 6½ years and it's nice when you old-timers go out of your way to welcome us noobs

Solar Legion wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: Maybe I didn't make it clear. I asked to talk to someone in charge of that sort of thing, and then got into IM with a manager that said "I can answer your questions." I wasn't talking to the first random person I saw in group. This was a manager that stepped up and said it was his job. "I can answer your questions" is not the same thing as "This is my job, I'm a representative". Yet another assumption on your part there Gadget. Like I said, this is Second Life, where groups generally do not have the same sort of structure as, say, a real world corporation. Especally with these sort of groups. By and large, each and every manager is at least capable of answering basic questions put to them. This does not make them representatives, nor does it make it their job. Indeed, the last group I ever helped out did not even have a "General Manager" to field the sort of thing you'd have to go to them for (such as what you were looking to do). All of that had to go to the owner. You assumed you'd gotten someone who represents the group and could give you all of the information you needed. What you got was someone who could answer basic questions and who did not have the applications on hand. Only one bit here do we agree on: You should have been handed off to someone who could give you that additional information. But, as another user already pointed out, bad "employees" exist and some simply have not been caught at it yet. Heck, you might have just caught the sap on a bad day. In any event, you're under the mistaken impression (and you're not the only one) that a group in Second Life operates the same way as NPOs and corporations do offline. They don't, by and large. The only person/people who represent the group as a whole? More often that would be the owner(s). You need to give it up. You're losing very badly.