Sassy Romano

I don't undertand why you all fail to understand what "low poly" actually is when used in the context of Second Life. First though, in order to arrive at the definition of "Low Poly", we must first define "High Poly". High Poly (used in the context of Second Life) is an object of merchantable quality that is sought after and shown off by Fashionista's and Glamourzilla's, who insist that anyone around them should zoom into their recently purchased item of <insert jewellery/clothing or whatever> that was described in the advert as "High Poly, Best Quality". If when zooming into this item, it stands the test of revealing every single bezier curve without yielding the slightest hint of an angular step, then we're into nicely defining High Poly. Thereafter, if it's not High Poly, then it's Low Poly. See, that wasn't hard now was it?

Canoro Philipp wrote: I have thought of that, the population would be fragmented, some users would have accounts in Second Life 2003, 2007, 2010, and 2016, some people would have stay just in Second Life 2005, some would have stores in all versions, some in just the latest version. A successful merchant will folllow the money. I don't believe there's much money to be gained from creating content for obsolete PC's and would have no interest in a) creating content for "old" versions purley to keep users with no money happy b) nor spending the admin effort in maintaining the costs of stores/content across multiple versions. It makes no sense. If you look at the fashion sector which is by far the largest, the trend is mesh and has been for a long time. It doesn't matter that some people don't want to use it, their PC IS capable because they have to use a viewer which is capable of rendering it. The only content that would be typically offered would be legacy stuff created ages ago and that would be just admin effort and cost. As for reducing the size of SL in each "version", the problem there is that SL lives on the fact that it's big (as far as LL is concerned) because their cost model is all about selling land. I agree that SL is too big and that makes it anti-social but it sells the dream of land ownership and owning this big space in which you can develop your own space. Then coming back to the issue of server hardware, it'd have to defer to those who may have more insight over LL's current platform but it's my bet that the hardware that they ran in 2004 no longer exists. A corp the size of LL with the number of servers that they run would be at high risk running their current platform on obsolete hardware that will be out of warranty, nor would they want to be paying for extended warranty on obsolete equipment. What they could do, would be to stack up more regions per host for your "old version" SL but that would be more like the way that homesteads share a processor core. This said,, virtualisation has developed dramatically since the beginning of SL so the options to tune how this could work will have developed significantly. It still wouldn't work overall though, people don't really join something new to be stuck in the past and so you're just catering for people with no money and succesful companies follow the money. Sorry!

I don't see how that could work without fragmenting the user base. The administration and management of the marketplaces, inworld experiences etc. would be too difficult and unworkable for merchants.

Whether it's obvious now or should have been from the beginning is a moot point. The point is that it's ripe for change and has been for a long time, the current situation is broken and incapable of supporting a growing marketplace with the way that it's (un)managed.

it would depend on how many items were flagged to know whether an impact had been made. I favour a weighting system. There would be an "investigate this queue" which would be higher in the queue based on the number of residents flagging it. Second, based on the ratio of flagged items to the store owners sum of products, if that goes above a determined threshold, the whole store gets taken offline. it's inconceivable that all 900 would be flagged (same where the same product is listed in twenty colour variations but with keyword spamming) so based on averages, keyword spamming is good for business with little risk at present.

Nalytha wrote: We live in a world where we blindly check 'accept' to the plethora of TOSs that are thrown at us. Hmm, i'm sure i'm not unique in reading things like car hire agreements, insurance policies, TOS documents etc. before agreeing. I went to use "Free wifi" the other day but then read the TOS and immediately discarded the option. No, I don't agree to giving up all my data and accepting that it's ok to send my information to third parties, spam me with products and offers, use my phone SMS to send me junk texts, just to use the free wifi in the supermarket. If you do blindly accept agreements, don't be surprised to end up on the wrong end of one of them one day. Ever been on the wrong end of an insurance clause for example? Even if you don't read every single part in detail, there really are parts that warrant some attention.

You'll need to learn a 3D modeling application. Blender is free and popular. To help with character creation in Blender, you may want to look at the Avastar plug in. This will not be a quick process to learn but every journey starts with the first step. Suggest you also look on YouTube for Blender/Avastar tutorials. Try not to take the comments you've received as hostile. It helps to understand that some merchants derive their RL income from the efforts of their content creation so suggestions about uploading content for which the uploader does not hold the rights, does tend to get a negative reaction. Whether the intent was there or not, the complete dismissal of any consideration to the copyright holder doesn't exonerate the desire. Welcome to SL and the forums though.

I had the same thought but then there's a viewer setting to specify that IM's be redirected offline so although weird, not implausible that it shouldn't be capable of setting a server side feature via a buried setting.

I've just re-read the limits and noticed something that I hadn't picked up on before. Capped at 25 messages, unless the account has a Premium Subscription, in which case the cap raises to 50 messages. Number of offline messages (involving IMs, inventory offers, group notices, group invitations) received before messages get capped. Note: If autoAcceptNewInventory (debug setting) is set to TRUE (the default is FALSE), then all inventory offers, even above 25 (or 50 in the case of Premium members), go directly to inventory and do not count against the cap on offline messages. Which if I read it correctly would solve the lost inventory that people suffer at 25 (50 for premium) message cap.

Yes it's 25 for IM's, which includes inventory offers and it's an offline cap. See Limits http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits The messages that you refer to as being 204, are locally stored. It's an old problem and I think we all agree that 10+ years later, something that could do with improvement as there should be a distinction between an object that is being sent and an IM that is discarded. IM's can be redirected to email even though the inworld version is discarded so they're easy to mitigate against "loss" but inventory offers shouldn't just vanish. I guess it should be throttled at some limit otherwise you risk inventory offers being sent via a scripted object with the intent of griefing but the way it works right now is just "the way it has always been" and not the way it necessarily should be.

Fund the opening of a new club. Make sure it says it's the best one in SL. Must have spinny things, flashing lights, best dancefloor etc. *ducks*

SL is free to access, people wouldn't want to pay for an app from LL to get even less functionality. It really makes no sense for LL to create a chat only app when there are many already for friends to chat amongst themselves. The skill set for a mobile app is different, the Firestorm team take the LL code and create another similar viewer. To port to a mobile app is quite different. Lumiya on Android works fine, Apple is just a niche 18% or thereabouts market share device, it's just not popular enough to warrant effort or I guess someone would have done so

wherorangi wrote: tbf it isnt that stuff cant be delivered while we are offline merchants like using DATA_ONLINE so that their stuff is delivered in a way that is in our face Well the issue is that if the recipient has already reached their IM cap of 25 messages, delivery via scripted objects will FAIL and be lost automatically. It's not about being in the customers face but more about attempting reliable delivery due to the decision of those in charge of the platform, to automatically cancel inventory offers from a scripted object at a low capping threshold. So when people ask where the item is? please re-send, it's completely plausible that they didn't get it if they were sent it while offline. Were LL to raise the cap or change the delivery process so that it didn't get discarded at all, then the need for such workarounds by merchants would be reduced, it is after all a kludgy and unwelcome workaround, aimed at reducing support and sometmies a belief from the customer that the merchant never sent.

ChinRey wrote: AdamZadig wrote: ...and somethign to do with SKUID. Woops, bad typo. I meant SKU of course. No idea where the ID part came from I think you were crossbreeding a SKU with a UUID

AdamZadig wrote: So why do you charge 1,000,000L$ for a pose? Im so curious about this. Well to be pedantic, I don't charge L$1,000,000 for a pose. I offer under invitation to treat, in return for valuable consideration, a product as listed on MP in accordance with all the MP terms The long answer I already explained this in the post a few before your question. Here to be exact https://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Marketplace-Fraud-is-Alright/m-p/3038426#M56024

Hi Dakota, it has been a long time, trust you're doing well? For me, the issue is the inconsistency from LL. Take Tamara's example, flagged, already flagged, nothing done yet the listing cited was in clear violation of the rules. Then there was my L$1,000,000 poseball, compliant in every respect yet delisted by LL erroneously, more than once! Then also throw in the other actions that occurred around that product which are described in this thread but lets not go back over that, it's not appropriate. I'm sure that the number of flagged items is huge and takes time to get through but when one does come across a listing which is in clear violation, attempts to flag it yet sees it up there for an extended period, in that already flagged state, one loses hope and confidence in the process. Where LL throws its hands up and says "don't contact us" around the listings which appear fraudulent, that's when it grates, you have to understand that but then when the fraud affects LL, the lab is on it like a rat up a drainpipe. Example, my poseball incident. Anyway, I know you're on the right side and are one of the few staff who (is allowed to?) post here and any comment from a staff member is appreciated. Pity there's not more.

I can only give the empircal evidence that existed at the time. Whether they have since changed it, that's always possible but there's absolutely no way that 27 unit sales would constitute best selling at the time. Other items will have sold far more in terms of quantity and certainly over a 30 day period. Is this still the case? Who knows?!

AdamZadig wrote: haha, oh I just cant wait for all this frustration, disapointment and generally being let down by Linden Labs! So far its all been pretty good through. Despite ChinRey calling me "old" I was making a gentle dig at LL for failing to implement a number of very easy things that would have high usability value, the low hanging fruit I referred to. I'm too weary and disengaged now though to care but I wish you luck with your shiny enthusiasm, long may it last. :matte-motes-smile:

AdamZadig wrote: So im not crazy, the 1,000,000L$ asking price is rediculous right? Im just curious to know if the pose ball does somethign Im not aware of to make it worth that much. It was created by me, what else would justify the price?! :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: While i've never particularly been fussed over search rankings, there was a time when my best selling item was easily on the first page of results when using the keyword RLV. Then LL changed the search algorithm and there was a marked change with the first couple of pages listing things almost universally above L$1000 to L$3000. Then about 10 pages of L$0 and then finally my best selling item. It was blatantly obvious that search at that time ranked on price and then freebies, that's the only way that I could explain it, it made no other sense, especially as the "high priced" two pages would have netted LL a sensible commission. Thus was born the L$1,000,000 poseball as an experiment, the keywords chosen were just RLV, pose ball and the wording very carefully chosen along with a corresponding inworld product for equal entertainment, there being no actual requirement to match a MP listing with an inworld one but if they are, they should be the same price per the rules. Nobody was expected to buy it and but it sat there on MP until one day, I looked at my vending system dashboard first thing in the morning as I always would, before going to work and I was somewhat shocked to see my balance up there in the region of L$26,000,000 (LL having taken it's commission). However, I first thought the vending system had faulted and logged the sale too many times so I quickly checked with MP log and thought "Errr...". At that point it was clear that it was the subject of a fraudulent transaction with a likelihood of laundering, I was concerned about a targetted attack on this account so shunted the funds to an alt and went to work. Upon return from work, no surprise to find that the alt and this account were now suspended on admin hold. Being known to certain Lindens in the MP team helped a little, Brooke Linden did pop me an email explaining this and although I undertstood the reasons what this actually exposed were a number of system and personnel failures at LL. MP uses an intermediary in the form of Commerce Linden through which all transactions pass. At THAT POINT there should exist the business logic that validates the transaction and heurisitcs should be incorporated to trap fraud, just as banks have done it here successfully for years. Brooke acknowledged this and said it would be changed, I don't know if that ever happened. The innocent recipient (the merchant) of fraudulently obtained funds should not have their account suspended just because someone dumped L$ on them. This was an inconveniece to the running of my business at the time. LL took back ALL the funds from my alt, which also happened to be some of MY funds. Basic assumption and mistake on LL's part. LL took the funds back but never actually said that these were fraudulent and why. While I agree it's implausible, it is also possible that someone for whatever reason could have decided to spend their L$ in such a manner. e.g. Lottery winner with absolutely nothing better to do than have a laugh, more amazing things have happened. LL did not remove the inventory of 27 poseballs from the purchasing account, until I created a support ticket. Ok at this point, I was being equally beligerant but there was a principle here. LL had now been complicit in giving someone else 27 of my amazing poseballs while snatching the funds right back from me. "Best Selling" on MP results is not by quantity but just L$ raised. Finally, during the life of the poseball, it has exposed that both MP users and also LL have do not understand their own rules in terms of what "inflated listing price" actually means. I never did find out if the search was skewed though, I think I bust the price point where the search may have been looking for items with RLV keywords between a range of which I was well beyond. It did sit at top place in sales though for a day or two (see point 6 above) which clearly indicated that "best selling" actually means "raised most L$" because 27 unit sales would in no way be the best seller in terms of quantity. That's the story of the L$1,000,000 poseball and in a one day event, it highlighted a bunch of things about MP. It hasn't been flagged for a while though, maybe people have learned to read the description? (I did also entertain myself at work that day, working out how long it would take me (with the caps in place) to actually cash that out)

But Rya, the point remains that it does not automatically take longer to sell L$, the rate changes and that's the end of that, per the other thread that ran for a while. If someone chooses to pick the less favourable rate, that's an own choice, not a system failure that makes the sell process longer. By the same logic, we could all double our prices "to preserve profit" but it wouldn't necessarily make things sell any better. It is a voluntary choice to use SL as a platform after all and with that goes accepting the changes that LL may choose to introduce as a whim. You're better off thinking of yourself as an employee of LL because they set all the rules in the arrangement that you make, it's one sided and you have little chance to negotiate terms. Your only choice is to cease to participate. (I say that because I know of your intentions and offer caution once again) *hugs* By all means use SL as a platform to change your career but also look to diversify your marketing avenues so as to expose yourself to the minimum risk and at that point, i'll shush up because I didn't want to hijack the thread.

Question: by "payout" do you mean transfer of USD funds from SL to your bank OR do you mean exchange of L$ to USD in the first place? (Doesn't take twice as long to sell L$ though, just sell at the best rate, same as always)

ChinRey wrote: Sassy Romano wrote: I still want to know why I had L$27,000,000 taken from me without full explanation. Were the buyers refunded or did LL keep the money themselves? No idea but the issue is that it's impossible for a merchant to know if the purchases were with fraudulently obtained funds or not. There's no follow up and that's an issue. As far as I was concerned, someone felt like buying 27 x L$1,000,000 poseballs. Of course i'm not that naive to believe that there isn't some benevolent person who has nothing better to do than splash the cash but at what point does LL intervene or not and when they do, they should be able to substantiate the reason in full to those affected.

Tamara, inflated listing price is explicitly defined already on the post that you made. "Inflated listing price, compared to inworld or other e-commerce sites" I would take that as per merchant, for their own same product. You can't say a dress by merchant x using template A is L$100 and merchant y using template A is L$10,000 is inflated, different merchant plus this is too specific and assumes that it's the same template item. For items which are unique there would be no such comparison, thus it has to relate to only that merchants products and where they are sold. Inworld, other e-commerce sites and MP should be the same price, regardless of the actual price. Simple being deemed expensive in the opinion of someone looking at it, is absolutely NOT a factor in the question of "is this inflated?", it is merely... expensive at a price that they don't feel like paying.

Yes Perrie but as far as MP is concerned, there's no wiggle room. The flagging option clearly specifies that it relates to an inflated price in comparison to inworld or other e-commerce sites. Where this went wrong was when some creators asked Pink Linden (if my memory serves me correctly) about the 5% commission and Pink responded that they could raise the MP price to compensate. Personally, I hold the view that's a cost of sale, there's no requirement to use MP and the same merchant wouldn't increase their price due to having inworld tier to pay for, that's already factored in! Prices should be the same regardless. Still doesn't detract from the fact that my poseball got flagged for inflated listing price while being wholly compliant but then removed by LL staff incorrectly. When the staff can't even get it right, even when it's as clearly laid out in the MP rules, it doesn't offer much hope. Plus as others have pointed out, LL sits back and doesn't involve itself yet does become complicit in fraud, unless that fraud is of a high enough value that it would cause them to lose money. THEN it gets involved. I still want to know why I had L$27,000,000 taken from me without full explanation. Sassy {Dog with bone}

Tamara, the problem is that so many from merchants to customers and even LL staff have absolutely no clue what "inflated listing price" means. Evidence, read my full listing here:- https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/RLV-strip-poseball/3451504 Also, this is one of the transactions that Dakota mentioned where LL DID intercede and that was a story in itself but having involved themselves in the transaction, never reported back to me the outcome in detail which should really have happened (in my opinion).