Jump to content

Sassy Romano

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sassy Romano

  1. 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?

  2. 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.


  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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*

  6. 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:-


    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

  7. 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:-


    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,


    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


    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,


    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,


    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

  8. I did a poll in the SLCM inworld group, on the notion of a review system that worked like that.  Not really much traction for it but it made sense to me.  Way back, you may remember that there was a suggestion of an inworld vendor system coupled to Direct Delivery, before that was then replaced with inventory based delivery.

    The only factor would be that LL wanted a %age of revenue from that system and the amount suggested seemed too high to me, higher than the 5% if I recall.  It made sense but the argument of 5% commission on MP can be balanced against the tier paid for an inworld premise.  However paying for tier upon which to host a store and then pay again to use LL's vending system inworld didn't seem to have traction.


    • Like 1

  9. Again, I know although their implementation of the review system is flawed because it doesn't work properly when gifting. Regardless, it's a trivial piece of work to permit a recipient to self redeliver, LL just won't do it for a reason that entirely baffles me.

    There is nothing new that needs creating to make this work, it's the simple process that I outlined above, an afternoons work for a new starter even.  This isn't difficult stuff, it's really really basic.

    • Like 1

  10. I know, just as a vendor system copes with copy vs no copy, i'm referring to a general, customer instigated redelivery capability (that's really nothing more than a button on the product listing page, followed by a database lookup to see if they've purchased before and then an API call to the same delivery mechanism that delivered the item in the first place.  It's less than an afternoons work.)

    Honouring the permissions is trivial and would of course only offer redelivery for items with copy permission that expectation is implicit.

    • Like 1

  11. Exactly why I keep asking for the merchant last logged in date to be shown against each listing.

    Completely agree with there being a redelivery feature, there's no excuse for not implementing this either.

    You won't gain any traction though, many of us have tried for years, it's just pointless wasted effort so I don't bother anymore.

    • Like 5

  12. 42 minutes ago, cykarushb said:

    Im not sure i agree with that kind of thing even if LL says so, i dont think a child avatar should be anywhere other than G rated spaces.

    Child avatars are allowed in adult regions too.

    You may want to read the Terms of Service that you agreed to abide by, they describe all this, there's no ambiguity about who and what is allowed where.

    There are some bits open to interpretation but it's mostly pretty clear.

    If you don't agree, there's always the option of not logging in, but since you already did and checked the box that says you agree to the terms, your disapproval is somewhat moot!

  13. 1 hour ago, ChinRey said:

    I suppose that would be a case where the reviewer would have to offer some proof. :P

    Well not really, it's not an objective review of the product.  Proof or not, MP reviews are for the product, not for the discussion of the mental capacity of the merchant ;)

    • Like 3
    • Haha 1

  14. 4 hours ago, Dakota Linden said:

    Greetings all!

    Issues of this type are considered resident to resident issues and Linden Lab is unable to assist you with resolving the trouble.  Users are solely responsible for the content that they create or sell in Second Life, including through the Marketplace.  

    Yes but only because LL chooses to wash it's hands yet still profits from sales regardless of issues.

    Take a look at eBay with PayPal buyer protection. Take a look at the case resolution provided by Amazon too.

    I think we can all agree that those platforms are successful.

    Imagine how many more premium accounts would be sold if they included some form of insurance against issues.

    It's time that LL matured it's outlook and looked behind the sink and hand sanitizer!


    • Like 1

  15. Let's see, what else could they have introduced in return for the increased fees and "investment" that would have really helped merchants and customers?

    How about something like buyer protection against rogue sellers and merchant protection against rogue customers.

    Pamela, like you, I will not go premium on this account for the same reason of account cancellation. That's another "benefit" they *could* have introduced, "non account cancellation guarantee"!

    For anyone not familiar with this, if you have a premium account which goes into arrears which aren't cleared, LL have in the past, deleted accounts and inventory. They can restore the account but not inventory.

    Now, consider how that affects a merchant who may have a sudden medical situation for example, who then goes into arrears and loses their inventory. 

    Doesn't happen to a free account.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  16. On 03/11/2017 at 12:05 PM, Richardus Raymaker said:

    The could lower the tier mabye when the move things into the cloud and only start regions that have visitors and keep all others in hibernate. But i think that tier is never going to drop far enough to around 10$ / sim. If the go change the tier, not hold my breath on that.

    Technical, there's replacement for secondlife. It's called opensim.

    The problem with this idea is the flawed architecture that runs scripts in a region regardless of whether there are avatars in it or not.

    Vending server scripts, remote logging scripts, update server scripts etc. all need to be running on the sim they were rezzed in.

    If there were a method that allowed a script to run off sim in a dedicated script server then this would have merit.

  17. 6 hours ago, VelvetCush said:

    Belleza have a application to get the device kit

    Yes and it's a pain in the ass, time takes weeks, only goes to accounts with a .gmail address.  Usual details on the page about "we may not contact you if you're not successful" etc.

    This is the issue that i'm describing and it's perpetuated across all the mesh bodies.  If YOU want the clothes, as I have pointed out, YOU the customers need to pester the mesh body creator kits to make their dev kits FREELY available and not maintain restrictive practices.

    Stop assuming that creators "Just ask for a kit and poof there it is".  It's not like that and any time that a dev kit is a pain to get, there's your interest in that body gone as a creator.

    What you should be offering is a survey that asks how many creators are asking for dev kits and being ignored or how long it takes from application to get a dev kit, that might open your eyes a bit more about the process.  Again, it's the mesh body creators that need pressure, not the creators who may wish to create.

    • Like 3

  18. On 10/24/2017 at 11:48 PM, Monica Querrien said:

     She wants to see how people feel about the amount of choices they have for Belleza, and to eventually advocate to designers to create more sizes for Belleza bodies.

    You have this the wrong way around.

    A creator asking for the dev kit... frequently gets ignored.  So will just create for whichever kits they can get without jumping through hoops.

    YOU... the mesh body customers need to pressure the people YOU bought the closed system mesh body from to persuade them to make the kits more freely available.

    • Like 2

  19. I see, yes that does become a bit odd!

    As far as the creator kits though, I wish every mesh body purchaser would nag to utter hell and back, the mesh body vendors to tell them that by not being more open with their dev kits, there's no support other than from the run of the mill main clothing creators.  If that's their intent, that's fine.  They should just state that so that potential customers of their mesh body, know in advance what their options for clothing and accessories is likely to be.

    The pressure needs to come from the customers of the mesh bodies, a single voice from someone asking for a dev kit just goes unheard.

    Have a good week yourself.

    • Like 1

  20. Hi

    Your request probably hasn't received any attention because it doesn't make much sense, plus has other dependencies.

    I have applied for dev kits from Signature (not because of your request though) and as is often the case, been ignored, no reply - no refusal - nothing.  How can creators even hope to make things against requests when the simplest of pre-requisites, the dev kit, is not given out?  It's a situation which is frustratingly bonkers.

    However, it doesn't matter which mesh body, the way that it would be made is by using the dev kit as a mannequin and creating a new shirt around that, nobody can use just buy a shirt off marketplace and modify that, not unless that item was already available as a separate .dae file download which would be a full permission item.

    That's still not the reason though!  When using the mannequin around which to model, the vertex weights of the shirt would be matched to the underlying body, such that changes in the body shape would influence the shirt shape.  There's be little point in using a mannequin with a six pack flat stomach and creating an artificially bloated belly shirt which when rigged, would distort even further when the shape sliders in SL were used.

    The right way to achieve the result you're seeking really is to just use the shape sliders in SL and you can already obtain a shirt and you have the body so there's nothing to create (even if Signature were to grace creators with their dev kit)!

  21. 58 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

    I think she means "do products for adult sized avs need to be listed as adult", IE a dress or T-shirt sized for adult avs, Maitreya, Slink, Adam or what not. In that case the answer is a resounding NO. Unless your items contain R or X rated things then they do not have to be listed as "Adult."

    Oh ok in that case yes. I agree that the list of keywords would be classed as keyword stuffing spam though.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...