Sassy Romano

Understandable. It's probably the latest international symbol for a hard on. Or if not, LL thinks it might become that and is just ahead of the curve and ready to protect us just in case.

What can you do? First of all, quit using such a stupid typeface, it doesn't bring anything to the question and just makes it difficult to read. Second, follow the instructions given in the Wiki about shopping on Marketplace, this assumes that you've bought the gifts via Marketplace? You didn't say. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Shopping-in-the-Second-Life-Marketplace/ta-p/700189#Section_.2.4 If not via the Marketplace then hmm... what you *could* do is contact the person who sells the item.

BornToTease wrote: Annie, I agree with you 100% it is pathetic. No it's not. I really like this tattoo, however I do not recommend buying it for the TMP avatar, until TMP fixes the issue with the tattoo layor because the tattoo keeps disappearing.... That text in a review is a fair comment even though the issue is beyond the creators control but what star rating did you give the actual product, I presume you were able to be objective about the actual item and not the problem caused by a 3rd party item? If the creator feels the review was uncalled for then have them take the proper steps of having it removed. This happened, so you've just contradicted your first comment that it's pathetic.

Wifi is nothing to do with what you described. SL is not a streamed solution and if anything, lack of bandwidth and things arriving slowly would most likely yield a faster fps simply because nothing had arrived yet that needed rendering. I've used wifi for years with no problem with SL, for that matter 3G data service too. What you haven't described though is any of your hardware such that people can offer other suggestions and the main issue with wifi is that it's an unknown as to the quality of your connection. There's a huge difference between using a wifi connection when sitting a few metres from the access point, versus sitting in a room that's 3 walls away when you're only getting a low bandwidth connection and suffering packet loss due to wifi interference from other devices on the same frequency (none of which we can comment upon because we don't have that information either). On the other hand, connect via a cable and it's a simpler story. Either way, fps is not a function of the network connection, if anything it's an inverse function. If you want evidence of this, go and watch my video of me moving around in SL on an Atom processor based tablet with 1GB ram and the onboard intel graphics and wifi. It's performing better than your (unknown) hardware in some instances. http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Second-Life-viewer-on-a-tablet-Oh-yeah/m-p/2895183#U2895183

Sure!

I'll ask again. What do you want to happen and why?

Gift him your most inner fantasies

The no copy permission was known prior to purchase, it was not subsequently discovered. Let's say you purchased a car that took diesel fuel and then 6 months later wished you could put petrol in it. It's just plain daft to them review that car as bad because you've changed your requirement for it. This is senseless.

No i'm not saying that a negative review is only valid if there's something misleading. What I am saying is that it's not valid to come back later because of a personal failure and then **bleep** that the price is now expensive (because they're buying a replacement). A review should be objective about the item or service however and yet people still leave 1 star reviews saying "I didn't receive the item" when that process is wholly outside the control of the merchant for example. I would not expect a negative review though where the information given PRIOR to purchase is known and correct. For example, an item is listed as no modify and someone buys it and leaves a negative review saying "I wanted to modify this but can't because the permissions are no good for me". If the item was listed as modify but turned out to contain no mod elements where they would be expected to be modify (not including scripts unless stated) then that's reasonable as the product is not as described and there's a flag category for "not as described". What I don't find is reasonable would be something like "picture looked great, item is as it looks in the picture, all functions as described work as described, it completely meets the offered statements but damn it's expensive but I bought it anyway but because of price 1 star!" Don't bloody well buy it if unsure! If price is considered an issue, then ask the merchant to show/demo or whatever first. Then make a considered purchase. If after making a considered purchase and there's no fault in the item or description, there's no merit in bitching about the price as it's only the fault of the purchaser who parted with their money.

Canoro Philipp wrote: i agree, i think that is legitimate to consider an object you need that is unique, overpriced. specially since the creator could have taken steps to prevent the problem that the customer had, due to the lack of that easy to apply protective feature, the customer thinks that the price is not justified, i think thats a valid negative view towards the product. Oh be carefull here. If you NEED it and can't get it from anywhere else then you may consider it expensive but it's not overpriced if you buy it. You're onto one of my favourite topics here and that's value. Any good pricing strategy is going to involve the vendor setting a price that compensates for effort and one where the customer is prepared to pay. If the item is unique then it's completely normal for the item to be positioned at a price that refelects this uniqueness. A potential customer need only consider their need for this item. If they don't need it then the item will not sell, it's as simple as that but if it's required, the choice is either to pay or find someone else to make something suitable and introduce competition in the marketplace. You cannot just state though, that something is overpriced, merely on the basis that it's too expensive for you. I have an item that is listed on MP for the sum of L$1,000,000. I won't go into the reason that it's there but it gets flagged regularly enough for "inflated listing price". The purpose of that flag is "compared to other ecommerce sites or inworld". NOT just because someone doesn't like the price or thinks it's expensive. I've added an apology from LL to the listing, an apology where LL admits their mistake in de-listing it for that incorrect reason. The amusing part is that it still gets flagged and de-listed for the same reason. I'm not sure who is more stupid, the people who don't understand the purpose of the flag or LL staff (or agents) for not knowing either? So to summarise, a comment that a price is not justified because it's LESS then the promised quality (a promise offered either by a deceptive advert text or picture) but I can't accept that a complaint about price because it's what they wanted, lost and then probably had to buy again is defendable.

But the issue in this instance was that they lost the item that they were happy to buy but then clearly aggrieved that they had to buy it again and decided to complain that it was too expensive for a no copy item. There a difference in obtaining something that looks great in the advert but turns out to be less so and hence the perceived value is diminished. Had they explained their loss to the creator, they may well have been offered a free replacement.

M0rdresh wrote: Of course it's my opinion, did I say it was anyone elses? You wrote a statement, I was just correcting it to make it clear that it was only opinion. Just as I uphold mine. There's no need to continue as clearly, we're both right in our opinion. However, there's nothing to gain from debate here as with arguing on the internet, there's nothing to win, no points to score and it's largely a waste of time. I've also summed up SL in one sentence there! What I will add is "Welcome to SL, many of us share the same frustrations, I hope you stick around long enough to share many of mine, both past and present!" :matte-motes-wink-tongue: (We'd all love a wonderful rendering engine but we haven't got one)

Great idea, please make a mobile app for Second Life Marketplace and send the invoice to "Slopeyshoulders Linden". LL would love to do it themselves but they don't have time, they're too busy implementing...um... *something* but we don't know what, it's probably not useful whatever it is anyway. Thanks for the heads up.

NO, in this case the customer came back to the marketplace store a long time later since buying the item and because they'd lost the item, complained that the price was too expensive for an item that was no copy and they complained in a quite specific way, it wasn't what I would call an objective review. They knew both of these constraints prior to purchase and it's not the merchants fault that they lost it. They're just unhappy that they spent L$ and either have to buy it again or go without. That said, a merchant is within their rights to choose not to serve someone for any reason whatsoever. If someone buys something for say L$50 and then asks a lot of questions, say requiring an hour or two of the merchants time, the merchant is perfectly within their right to refund that for example and ask the customer NOT to purchase anything else and ban them. It might not be the best way to gain business but they're not doing anything particularly wrong when they could use that time to make something else that they sell to 1000 people who need no support whatsoever. Merchants/Creators aren't slaves to the customer but neither should the customer be abused by the merchant. Both should exist in harmony WITHIN the framework and guidelines set out for the marketplace (by marketplace here, I mean both Marketplace and inworld) but yeah, just as a customer can choose not to purchase, so can a merchant choose not to sell.

Yes, that's fine but there's no revenge. Just as in RL, a vendor makes an "invitation to treat". They're not obliged to sell anything and that's what happened here. The merchant exercised their right to attempt to NOT sell to the invidividual, certainly inworld. Merchants have asked for a method to block potential purchasers who they may not wish to sell to on Marketplace but like many USEFUL features, it hasn't been implemented. Marketplace only gets the features that nobody needs. However, as I pointed out, the review system is intended to review products objectively and in this case that didn't happen and the review was flagged and subsequently removed as not being compliant with the process. Merchant then chooses to not accept further business from this individual, nothing wrong there. For what it's worth, i'm usually the one fighting for the customer and calling out bad merchant practices of which I agree, there is plenty of in SL but equally in this case, that's not what happened.

That looks neat Magnus, i'll that to my tour.

The review system is there for the purpose of commenting on the item itself, not for delivering hate speech about choice of permissions or price, especially when both are available and known PRIOR TO PURCHASE. If the prospective customer doesn't like the price or permission combination, don't buy. If having purchased the product, they feel that they can leave an objective review about the quality of the item in relation to the price, then that's valid. I suggest you and anyone else who is confused about this, refer to the guidelines here:- http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Writing-item-reviews-on-the-Marketplace/ta-p/954941 I saw the review on the item in question and the review was invalid.

Yes, hang around here http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Wengen/83/205/92 as one such location, the trains come along pretty regularly. I've travelled on quite a few trains or other vehicles, it's quite a fun way to pass the time while chatting with someone when you don't feel like doing anything else. The other thing you might enjoy is to pop to Bay City group of sims and find and ride the water trolleys

M0rdresh wrote: I can only react on what you write and that was, sorry for being direct, flawed. Bugger... I tried. In *your* opinion what I wrote was flawed. In my greater experience, I could explain why it's not but you wouldn't get it and even if you did, I don't believe that you would accept it since evidence in this thread is that you believe you have all the answers, thus i'll not attempt it. There's no point arguing on the internet where anyone can be a cardboard box... no wait, that's in SL right?

You don't know what I think, you don't know what I do, you don't know what my experience is... Nor in what field it is but no need to attempt to brief me on development life cycle. End of conversation. Rift as a standalone product is dead before release, in my opinion.

So back to my question, how does it affect you, why do you care and why do you want others to care? By the way, in order for the game to exist as an approved game, both the creator and operator will have submitted their application and had it approved. Thus there is NO violation of anything other than your opinion. My advice... Don't play them! I don't understand. I don't play them, they don't affect me, I don't care if others play them. I don't need to care, gambling is allowed and advertised on mainstream TV here. What's your point?

Flea, is the folder dragging behaviour like that which I've described here?http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Viewer-Managed-Marketplace-Inworld-Feedback-Session/m-p/2875617#M51874 I've got some pictures in there as I didn't quite follow what you were getting at.

Honestly Suki, it's not even worth my time trying to educate you on this because I can't determine if you're deliberately failing to read properly least of all understand what has been written or whether it's just the way that you read. You fail to identify the subject in several sentences and are performing some entertaining linguistic gymanstics to form an argument which isn't even an argument. It's amusing to watch but any attempt at correcting your mis-assumptions and derivations would just suck too much time. Mercedes clearly understood that nowhere did I say that mesh was crap and that clothing layers were superior, you introduced that erroenous deduction. Go back, slow down and read again, identify the actual subject of each sentence this time around...and think about the processes that are involved and how they're related to the timeline of the release of each item in question.

No I don't own a rift, I tried one, thought the resolution was far too low to even bother with and I wouldn't buy into a development unfinished single use product like that when there are better options coming along. I'd rather go with a Samsung Note 4 which is a hugely useful device and a Gear VR but that's just my personal opinion. But then i'm not really interested in just a stereo viewer *shrugs* You keep saying you haven't read any tangible reason why it can't be how you want it but it seems that you're trying to compare an optimised game with known content with something that is very different from what you're used to. (no offended mindset at all, you're just trying to treat SL like a game with optimised, known content. Every day the content changes and it's far from optimised!) The number of rift users is still less than a blip on the radar too so not much point putting in too much work, that's how i'd factor the business decision without even needing to know exactly how much work has been put in. The ROI just isn't there in the SL platform to warrant it.

M0rdresh wrote: I find it very strange they go through such lenghts to offer Oculus Rift support but their game is hardly using hardware. They haven't gone to great lengths, there are too few Oculus Rift users to warrant it being even a blip on a radar. Can you buy one retail yet? Nope, only dev versions and frankly, it's probably a technology dead before it even gets released. Other cheaper, methods which offer more will be along first I suspect. Plus as several others have pointed out, SL isn't a game. The dynamic world and user generated content means that LL doesn't have the ability to optimise like your other games. As you said about the Rift... "that's just how it works", well this is "just how SL works"