Jump to content

Sassy Romano

Advisor
  • Content Count

    5,107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sassy Romano


  1. It's going to be a complete hoot, I know i've got knives out for a handful of select companies from whom i'll be extracting my pound of flesh!

    This is good: Companies being required to respond about the data which is held about a data subject at no charge. Presently there's provision for an admin fee to find out what data is held in DPA, superceded by GDPR removes this charge.

    This is not: Best of all and frankly the most ridiculous is that a data subject can have a passing conversation with a toilet cleaner, a canteen worker, a pond cleaner etc. and say "please remove all my data" and that can form a perfectly legitimate request for fully qualified action on the part of the organisation and it must be actioned within 30 days or they would have to justify the delay.  There's no prescribed standard phrase, no requirement to do it in writing and no requirement to request it of a specific part or person/office within the organisation.  An absolutely reckless bit of legislation and they'll wonder why this cause headaches and problems.


  2. I would suggest that Casper's text is somewhat too broad. Specifically, from the regulation:-

    For the purposes of this Regulation:

    1. ‘personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

    Things like IP addresses can sometimes be construed as personal data, particularly when other data is aggregated. An IP address by itself would not necessarily be classed as personal data.

    Similarly, I doubt that merchants can identify a natural person by an avatar name even along with an IP address.

    LL on the other hand clearly have a much better opportunity where they have payment info on file but as far as I read GDPR, if a data subject cannot be tied to a natural person, then it seems a bit of a leap to suggest that a list of unidentifiable pseudonyms somehow constitutes personal data, when there are no natural persons who can be identified.

    Seek your own legal advice though, there are plenty of opinions and "experts" out there offering consultancy before any of this is even tested in court.

    Basically, it's all a bit of a minefield and going to be a fun ride.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1

  3. 4 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

    I just downloaded it in 10 seconds, from the UK.

    Nevertheless, I think the OP should contact Firestorm and demand her money back.

    Noooo Innula, YOU need to ask VM for your money back since they clearly delayed you by 2 seconds compared with me!

    • Haha 2

  4. 5 hours ago, MissNomer Gothly said:

    Why the hell is it taking 30 minutes to download Firestorm? They need to fix this issue and the need to do it NOW.

    Well what an unhelpful bunch on this forum since nobody has actually answered your question! :P

    The answer as to why is because of poor bandwidth between the server hosting the download and you.

    Now, I just downloaded it in 8 seconds and benchmarked my speed (between me and the nearest speed test server) at 378Mbps, this isn't the full answer though because that doesn't test the speed all the way to the Firestorm server but it would give me an idea as to whether the issue is within my control.

    Go to https://www.speedtest.net and see what result you get but clearly "They" have nothing to fix since it seems that only you have reported an issue so far but it could still be anywhere between you and the rest of the path to the Firestorm download server.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  5. It's a shame that the "works with" thing on the listing is just so inadequate and that there's no sensible way to specify "accessory for" and a pick list (plus freeform field" method of stating all the other products that the item works with.

    I'll get back under my rock (or bridge, depending on your point of view!)


  6. You could try a dynamic DNS provider or it may be the port that's upsetting it or that you're not specifying a page to process it.

    It has been too long since I did it last.

     


  7. If you want to disallow a review that says "I do not like it" 1 star, then by the same logic, reviews that give 5 stars "I love it!" should also be removed.

    Neither follow the essence or guidelines of the review system.

    Would you be wanting to have the second example removed?

     

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1

  8. Based on my RL experience, there seems to be a trend where the definition of "Rude" is being taken as any opposition to their desired expectation or level of entitlement, e.g.

    "Can I have? Can I do? I need..."

    "NO"

    "That's rude!"

    This is particularly evident amongst a certain age group.  Given that the above represents a typical vocal exchange, one can see just how easy it is to also take from that their understanding that unhelpfulness also occurred at the same time.

     

    • Like 9

  9. 3 hours ago, EllieAnne Silverfall said:

    @bigmoe Whitfield are you talking clothes/hair/skin? I sell home goods - do you expect me to offer a demo of those other than in-world?

    No reason why not, same principles apply - additional rotating demo prim etc. Although you'd need to make the demo no mod, don't forget that part!


  10. 27 minutes ago, angeoco said:

    all 5 stars, had been posted within a day or two of each other then nothing for the past year or more. It was obvious what was going on, so I left a one-star review mentioning all the fake 5-stars; I don't know if it survived.

    In defence of this, that doesn't actually surprise me and shouldn't be taken as clear evidence unless they're clearly writing information which cannot be substantiated.  I released a product for the first time in probably a couple of years.  Several of my long standing loyal customers immediately left reviews.  None since.  I have rarely received reviews sometimes gaps of years between reviews and the number of reviews compared to the number of purchases is massively one sided.

    What would be a better indicator would be to be able to view the other reviews of a purchaser.  We could do that once, before Linden Lab bought Xstreet, you could see what else someone had reviewed.  It would be fairly obvious if someone used an alt to pimp their own products and only their own products.  Yes they could still game the system by purchasing other items and writing reviews but then that's effort.  Not everyone can be bothered.

    • Like 1

  11. On 11/28/2017 at 11:49 PM, Haggerty said:

    It raises a lot of questions as how much does it cost Linden Labs to support a virtual sim? I doubt it costs them a high fee a month to maintain the sim, so where does this $295 a month fee come from?

    The common mistake that some people make is that they say "I can get web hosting for $xxx (which is a server in a rack) so why does a sim (which is a server in a rack) cost so much more?"

    Second Life is a product, software with a development lifecycle.  It's not just about hosting a bit of existing standard software on a server like a web server.  You should expect the fee to go towards software development and all that entails as well as the hosting, oh and they'll want some profit too for future ventures as Second Life won't go on forever.


  12. 11 hours ago, Neural Blankes said:

    Agreed.  Unless Dakota clarifies it further, that to me says that you *can* have cheaper prices in world, but you can *not* use the marketplace listings in any manner that would communicate to shoppers that your prices are cheaper in world.

    Further clarity IS required because Dakota has since stated the only definition of the flagging option:-

     

    14 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

    There aren't new terms. The terms are the same as they have always been.  If Linden Lab is advised that a Marketplace Merchant is selling the same items in world for a lower price than on the Marketplace, the issue will be addressed with the seller. 

    It is even an option when reporting a product listing using the Flag option:

    Spam or Disallowed Listing Practices - Inflated Listing Price

    There are no other terms, no new terms, that's the only definition that has ever been written in the terms.  Offering the same price inworld or on other e-commerce sites than on MP is subject to flagging for the disallowed listing practice of inflated listing price.

    Never has there been anything in the terms about unfairness to other merchants or it's ok if it's a sale but not advertised on MP.  NEVER.

    If these are acceptable, i'm merely asking to see them in the terms and then it's clear for all.  Just document what's acceptable and what's not, be complete, clear, concise, transparent.  If it requires LL legal to re-write the terms then they should do so, if not, then ambiguity reigns and that's when merchants do their own thing and unfairness creeps in.

    I have a product that has been de-listed because people think it's just too expensive.  That, only that reason.  LL staff have incorrectly de-listed it and i've had to file tickets more than once.  I've had an apology from Dakota over this item, I know full well what the flagging option is for and if LL staff don't even seem to be in agreement as to what it means, what chance do us mere merchants have when everyone seems to have their own take on it?


  13. Yes, that has been my whole point, it has never had anything to do with fairness towards other merchants but always about a merchant selling the same items inworld for a lower price than on Marketplace, exactly the flag option that i've referenced in the thread earlier.

    So, back to the question then as to how a merchant holds a sale inworld when the price will be lower inworld price than on Marketplace without falling foul of this disallowed practice?!  The price will be lower inworld than on MP irrespective of whether the listing advertises it to be cheaper inworld or not.  As I have pointed out, such additional terms have never been referenced in the MP terms.

     


  14. That phrase is not referenced in the MP terms.  What has always been defined is the disallowed practice of "inflated listing price against inworld or other e-commerce sites" but with no reference to fairness with other merchants or disallowed advertising of inworld sales.

    I'm suggesting a re-write of the MP terms to provide suitable clarity as there now seem to be new terms and their definitions, that would be by far the simplest and clearest mop up.


  15. 6 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

    My post specifically states, and ONLY states, Marketplace Merchants. Not inworld merchants.  My post also does not state, anywhere, that Marketplace Merchants must sell similar items for the same price as other Marketplace Merchants. 

    It shouldn't matter whether the merchants have presence only on MP or inworld or both, per the ToS, any issue between residents and thus by definition, their pricing should be between residents, it's not an LL matter.

    7 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

    I said that in the example of 2 Marketplace Merchants who sell a similar item of the same quality for the same price that it is not fair for one merchant to advertise that they offer the item in world for a discount. 

    Not fair to whom?  Why is this an LL concern?  It's a resident to resident issue, buyer, sellers.  LL has no factor in this.

    8 minutes ago, Dakota Linden said:

    but personally, I am offended.  

    Come now Dakota, you know me well enough to know that my post is not intended to cause offence and you shouldn't take it but what you've stated is contrary to all the previous information that has ever been given about the MP terms statements and the reason for the phrase "anti-competitive against inworld and other e-commerce sites".

    I suggest that the MP ToS is more clearly defined such that the phrase "but not limited to" is removed and all conditions are explicitly stated, then there can be no need for confusion and no offence taken!


  16. 12 hours ago, Neural Blankes said:

    For starters, regarding the quote above:  Have you considered the cost of tier in world?  If you have a store in world, that's the equivalent of $200-$300/month for LL regardless of whether or not your pose-ball sells (yes, I'm ignoring homesteads because your example is also on the top end).  Doesn't matter if you personally pay $5/month for a tiny parcel, the sim is generating the full amount for LL.

    Ironically, the ToS subsection statement itself is anti-competitive behavior.  LL is competing against it's own users and it's own product.  It is absurd that they do not want people to use their product, but that is effectively what is going on.  "we want you to use our website, not Second Life".

    Regarding the statement that we pay no fee to list things...   I don't recall paying listing fees to the independent predecessors of the MP either, and they didn't use a ToS to threaten users with de-listing products if you dared to sell them cheaper in world.  So that puts LL in a somewhat negative light.  They killed off EB and XStreet and are now acting not unlike the mob.

    My point was that an inworld store is a cost of doing business, the 5% MP commission is a cost of doing business. In both cases, the merchant can chose whether they use one or the other or both, they're not forced down any particular route and I remember the dialog with Pink Linden that it was considered a fair amount for running the platform.  Pink Linden was ex Ebay, Ebay doesn't host listings for free, it makes no sense!

    You're not the only one to point out LL's own goal about MP taking away inworld store sales.  When other merchants were suffering huge swings to MP, mine was quite resilient with something like 95% sales still inworld so MP made little difference to me.  A few months ago I closed inworld and now list just a few items on MP only (much of this was my own lack of effort but the trend eventually caught up to MP sales being significant), so yes, another inworld sim user gone.

    There are many things that have been requested with regard to MP integration but they don't happen.  People have asked for the ability to do sales, like reduce the price across the whole store by a percentage (even on MP only) for a short time but that didn't happen, it's just too impractical to edit listings one by one.

    When people have had sales in the past, it has also introduced problems since if you discounted an item and someone put it in their cart but didn't purchase but then the price reverted, the item in the cart would still be charged at the price it was when it was put in the cart.  Opinions will vary as to whether this is the right or wrong approach but I don't know if that has ever changed.  I've never done a sale.

    An integrated system where you could reduce across both MP and inworld if you wished, an inworld sales system that wasn't a scripted vendor but still coupled to MP billing... all quite possible but there's no appetite from LL which is a shame.  We've all had great ideas and given input but... *crickets*


  17. 9 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

    The anti-competitive clause is not there because it affects Linden Lab, it is there because it affects your fellow merchants.  It is not fair to someone who does not own land, or have an in world store. If they sell a similar item of similar quality for 500L on the Marketplace, and you offer an equal quality item for 500L, but also give a 10L discount to your customers to buy your item from your store in world, that gives you a direct, and unfair, advantage over the user that does not have an in world store. 

    With respect Dakota, I believe you're on exceptionally shaky ground with that statement!

    The 5% thing was always quite clearly explained by Pink Linden and with regard to the above, that holds no correlation where merchant A who purchases say a mesh template, sticks a floral texture on it and offers it on MP for L$500 and merchant B who purchases the same template, also slaps on a floral texture and offers it for L$10 inworld.

    Second Life operates entirely on caveat emptor and if a buyer cannot find the cheaper, similar quality item, that's their failure, it has NEVER been a role of Linden Lab to police fairness in pricing between merchants either in-world, on Marketplace or between the two.  If you're sure about your statement, please cite that section out in the ToS.

    Taking an example of my L$1,000,000 poseball (which is now on MP only) over which we've had such fun in the past, what you're saying above is that now if someone else offers a poseball that offers the same feature in-world but for L$1, LL will then take action?!  If so against who?  Me for offering the one with a high price or the other merchant for offering the other one at a lowball price?  What you've offered above makes no sense!

    Lets reference the listing guidelines:-

    https://marketplace.secondlife.com/listing_guidelines#abusive-behavior

    Anti-Competitive or Abusive Behavior. Examples include, but are not limited to:

    • inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites,

    Now, if you *really* want to make examples "not limited to" the bullet point given there, then I'll expect to see a change to that to the following effect:-

    • inflating prices on the SL Marketplace, in comparison to in-world or other e-commerce sites, or other similar quality items from other merchants.

    I don't believe that i'm ever going to see that in writing, thus I really think that you need to reconsider the statement about comparison with other merchants.

    If you retain your statement then you are also directly contradicting the ToS https://www.lindenlab.com/tos pointing specifically to 1.4 where it's made perfectly clear that LL does not control and is not responsible or liable...

    Similarly, section 6 " We are not responsible or liable for the conduct or content of any user"

    Section 9:-

    "9.1 Linden Lab is NOT liable for its users' actions, and you release Linden Lab from any claims relating to other users.

    You agree not to hold Linden Lab liable for the Content, actions, or inactions of other users. As a condition of access to the Service, you release Linden Lab (and its officers, directors, shareholders, agents, subsidiaries and employees) from claims, demands, losses, liabilities and damages (actual and consequential) of every kind and nature, known and unknown, arising out of or in any way connected with any dispute you have or claim to have with one or more users, including whether or not Linden Lab becomes involved in any resolution or attempted resolution of the dispute."

    Your statement claiming supporting "fairness" between merchants quite clearly indicates an intent to control and take responsibility of users and content as content will also include the price and any inference of leveling price is interference via control.

    Either LL is involved or it's not, the ToS absolutely states in numerous places that it's not.

    • Like 3

  18. In general, my apathy towards all things here has continued to rise but I have a grease monkey script installed in firefox that shows the Marketplace keywords right there on the listing and it's just sad when you see respected merchants utterly spamming their listings with just about anything.  Examples for completely different products from the same merchant:-

    Top:

    Keywords: sexy,top,sheer,beach,holidays,twisted,satin,folds,lycra,ruched,fun,metals,shiny,soft,lara.body,bust,gorgeous,breast,attractive,glamour,flirt,fashion,style,beautiful,seductive,pretty,erotic,50 shades,

    Bra:

    Keywords: sexy,top,sheer,party,holidays,valentines day,satin,,lycra,ruched,fun,metals,shiny,soft,lara.body,bust,gorgeous,breast,attractive,glamour,flirt,fashion,style,beautiful,seductive,pretty,erotic,50 shades

    Coat:

    Keywords: sexy,top,sheer,beach,holidays,twisted,satin,folds,lycra,ruched,fun,metals,shiny,soft,lara.body,bust,gorgeous,breast,attractive,glamour,flirt,fashion,style,beautiful,seductive,pretty,erotic,50 shades,

    Sweater:

    Keywords: clothes,clubwear,fashion,female,flashy,funky,hot,neon,outfit,block,print,seamless,sexy,stylish,teen,mesh,casual,chic,loose,off shoulder,country,top,sweater,pullover,color block,

    Shorts:

    Keywords: sporty,sport,skirt,fabric,zipper,gold,colors.colorful,nice,comfortable,shorts,fabric,jeans,denim

    Occasionally, they actually get a word in there that matches the product but other than that the rest is just utter spam. Any suggestion that all that has to be done is to flag the item for keyword spam is pointless because for most items, the MP created problem of multiple listings for different colours exists.  So, you would have to go through a dozen listings and flag each one, for each product.  Anyone got time to go through 1685 listings which is the number in the store?

    Maybe that's the solution to getting products DE-LISTED for keyword spam, just spam the MP with multiple items (variation in only the texture).

    I don't even suspect that most merchants do this deliberately, they're genuinely trying to get items returned in search but the above just illustrates how pointless keywords are.  Consolidation of related listings should have happened a long time ago, maybe limiting each item to say 4 keywords would require merchants to focus somewhat more?

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
×