Anaiya Arnold

Toysoldier Thor wrote: I think Nalates was kidding since I am sure she knows LL's response so far to the disaster they created on the Valentines Disaster is an utter SHAMEFUL JOKE. Well that makes a lot more sense then.

Ah, the infamous fish-faced, wide-load, midget-people. You just got to giggle.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: But... I am sure most of us Merchants would also like it it LL Management or anyone at LL add to this thread and explain exactly what happened and provide us Merchants somce confidence that they will be taking action to prevent this from happening again. I'd rather have the explanation than the commission holiday to be honest, although I appreciate that merchants with a higher turnover might find this a valuable concession. I just hate all the uncertainty and the feeling that you not only cannot trust anything around here, but that also, you'll never really know what or why it all went wrong. I expect the value of the commission holiday depends on whether you were more concerned with a loss of income or a loss of enjoyment. I'm pleased that LL have decided on this gesture though as it will hopefully rebalance things a bit for people who lost a significant chunk of income, and it's nice to know that LL seem to sense that the whole debacle was a mess too far.

A belated one paragraph description of what we already know on the forums, even if posted twice, and someone's messages directed at individual users on some third party site many of do not belong to is not an adequate explanation to a problem of this scale. It's just not.

Jo Yardley wrote: That is why I would like to see a rule that makes vendors have a copy of every item for sale on marketplace also somewhere inworld. That way they have to have a shop but buyers also get a chance to check the item out before buying. That's one way to make me cancel my subscription and sell or (more likely) abandon my land...

Good morning to you too Mr Marcus. There's still no action on payments (just checked) and like you, I think this is an inconvenience that will see us out of pocket. I'm sure LL can come up with many creative reasons why billing our customers and sending out our goods while knowingly retaining the proceeds is not fraud, although I doubt anyone with sense or a court of law would agree that "it's too inconvenient to us to bother to fix it given the complete inadequacy and poor design of our systems" constitutes a legal or moral defence against charges of dubious conduct. Oh well, another day, and I will not challenge them to top that stuff up because I have a feeling they could somehow pull it off.

It's completely unacceptable that after such a monumental stuff up and causing such a headache for everyone, they post on the grid status that all issues are resolved and then complete silence, while we have not been paid, some customers have paid and recived their products and some have paid and received nothing. Commerce Team, this is beyond unacceptable.

Actually most lindens come into creation in response to a pay-in. My stipend is a creation of lindens in response to a pay in of subscription fees. But the point that is often overlooked when trying to figure out how LL is extracting its income from everyone's activities is that people who buy lindens for cash are supplying the US dollar balances used by many paying members to pay their tier and fees. My entire year of premium subscription this year was paid for from US dollars that I got from selling lindens. The people who bought those lindens are the indirect source of LL's income derived from my subscription.

I love how they describe the loss of income as an inconvenience. I think they'd pick another word if they went to draw their salary and found a big chunk missing from it. In fact probably a word that would not make it past their own filters for a G rating.

I've had a lot of the delivery messages from my box. No lindens though.

You're so vain, you probably think this thread is about you.

Caren Jewell wrote: What a bad day and be so sorry for all the Customer who wait for their Gifts ..... well ... thank you Linden! Yes, it's not fair to ruin peoples' celebration days and plans this way. At least at X-Mas I could hand-deliver everything, but I cannot even access the information to help my customers now.

Marcus Hancroft wrote: Brooke and her team do NOT communicate with the Merchants. They don't care to, and furthermore...don't WANT to. They'd have a lot of explaining to do if they did and nobody on the commerce team wants to DO any explaining. There are a lot of competent and keen people out there in this economy who actually do not have jobs at the moment. Life sure isn't fair.

I'd also like to know what they mean by "soon". Are they using the word here in the same sense they've been using it to describe the arrival and deployment of DD, because at that rate, we might as well all go do something else and meet back here next Valentine's Day.....

Second Life Marketplace is down for maintenance. Sorry for any inconvenience. It'll be back online soon! I do not believe either claim. They're not sorry and soon is relative after all.

Samara Sharkfin wrote: OK... they are reading this thread, they know the MP website is down: Second Life Marketplace Offline [postED 9:15AM PST, 14 February 2012] We are aware that the Second Life Marketplace is currently offline and we are working to resolve the issue. Please watch this blog for further updates. http://status.secondlifegrid.net/2012/02/14/post1564/ EDIT: it's up again for now Lol, thank goodness for the forums, the Commerce Team's reliable source of information. So unfortunate the reliable information is a one-way street deal.

This is really inconvenient. I took heaps of stuff off my land and rezzed nearly my entire Valentine's stock and then went through every relevant listing on the marketplace to put the URL in thinking if people cannot get stuff from the marketplace at least they could come in-world and get it, and now they cannot even see the listings anyway. There is just no way to win with these folks! So now I've done all that for nothing, and once Valentine's Day is over, I'll just have to tidy it all up, derezz everything, put my little plot of stuff back out like it was and re-edit the listings. Ok I chose to do the extra work, but that was on the presumption that my listings were at least still viewable...

Samara Sharkfin wrote: Maaan! are they lucky! Now the Europeans are getting home from work, right in time to sell Valentine's stuff. They'll need more than luck to sell anything unless the marketplace comes back online. It's down again. I guess technically they are correct about fixing the problem of placed orders hanging. If no one can access the marketplace, it stands to reason no one will place any orders that end up delayed.

Madeliefste Oh wrote: When you look in orders -> transaction history... the items show up as 'queued' When you look in reports -> orders... the items show up as 'undelivered' Yes, you are entirely correct. The whole thing is absurd. Delivering slower than normal? Is this an attempt to make us feel good about the witching hour slow-down? On the bright side, this probably will not negatively impact peoples' confidence in the Commerce Team's ability to deploy DD without major catastrophe because that boat has long since sailed, sunk and been turned into an under-water diving attraction.

I don't know about queued; all my deliveries are "undelivered" and "unpaid". Some customers tried multiple times to buy. I've hand delivered now to all effected customers but all but one were already offline.

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: I keep hearing this "basics contribute as much as premiums" to SL. I've never bought into that. Sure some do but not very many at all. I used to upload tons of textures at $L10 per item............I never uploaded enough to spend my entire stipend for a month (about $L2000). Basics pay rent to a landowner if they want a place to live or have a shop....buy buy lindens if they don't "earn" enough to pay that rent. Linden Lab doesn't get any return on those lindens purchased until those lindens are "cashed out".........and that's only the fee for handling the sale (what's that now? 3%?). Tell me how a basic contributes as much as a premium. The buy stuff from people and maybe they create and sell stuff.........how much of that goes back to LL? Not very much. It's almost always less than the premium membership fee that premiums pay on a regular basis. I have not problem with basics. But that argument is hogwash. Every dollar cashed out comes from linden sales, but so does every dollar of tier and premium subscription that is paid for through linden sales. I paid last year's renewel for my premium account entirely from this source. Many sim owners pay for or subsidize tier this way. Clearly a lot more lindens are being sold than is likely to be accounted for by the linden buying of sim owners (who as a group are probably a net seller rather than buyer) and premium account holders (who probably are marginal in either direction at group level). Your speculation fails to take any account of the direct fees paid to LL in US dollars that are funded by linden sales. I suspect that the US-dollar revenue this represents for LL is not inconsiderable and that basic accounts buying lindens probably fund a substantial proportion of this revenue source. Only LL knows what basic accounts contribute to their bottom line, and with all the trouble it purportedly causes they still steadfastly refuse to close the door to basic, unverified, free-access accounts. I find that highly suggestive.

I don't think he's that flexible.

Petulia is innocent! It's because of her store name, "Petualias House". Everything in her store and every other store that puts "house" in its store name will be returned if you search for actual houses. That Gothic Chick avatar, if it's the set I'm thinking of, it does indeed include a hat. I think unless your search term is so obscure that there is low or no competition over first page placement, or the result is returning way back on page 299 or something, someone would report it and it would have had a once over. It's difficult to believe the commerce team are not well aware that by design, their search system routinely returns utterly irrelevant results that cannot be filtered out, no matter how well merchants use the key words and put things in proper categories, and refrain from obnoxious or "cheating" practices. If merchants behave perfectly in these respects, we still get to see Petulia's shoes when we just want to buy a house.

WADE1 Jya wrote: I'm not even trying to argue with anybody or anything, and thanks for lots of assumptions and insults, but I just think original content by artist or musicians should be protected against some non-creative theves. I am an artist. I paint, I draw, I create lots and lots of things, I'm not lazy, nor greedy. FYI. Apply this logic to any other industry that it is okay to theive them and you will see the argument doesn't make any sense. Actually if we apply this argument to shoplifters, we will soon see that shop owners do not have rights to summarily take punitive actions that could ruin entire businesses, all on the mere suspicion or someone's say-so of shoplifting and in a manner that removes any accountability for the accuser and basically hands them a "ruin a competitor instantly" card. No other business has "protections" in place that essentially revoke the rights of all other interested parties. We already make big concessions for this particular type of business. You want to compare businesses? If I buy a table, do I have to pay a licensing fee if I use it to seat patrons in my restaurant? Does this apply to the media industry's products? Just how many special concessions must we give the big-wigs of this one industry (because frankly the chances of ordinary creators like most of us getting a website shut down and essentially out of business on our say-so, without the backing of big-wig "contacts" is somewhere around nill) while it still wants to roll out the tired old "apply this logic to any other business". Apply the logic of paying for the physical material and a right to listen to (but not broadcast) media content with the fact that if I ruin the physical medium my media is on, I cannot get a reduced price replacement that only charges me for the physical medium since I already own a license to play the media itself. I have to buy the media divorced from the physical medium if it is available to buy in such a format, or repay for the media in order to re-obtain the medium. The media big-wigs just want to have their cake, eat it, sell it, license it out, and then revoke everyone else's right to so much as look in the direction of a recipe book.

Toysoldier Thor wrote: It was also said that if people would read the details of SOPA they would see that its fair and sites cannot be shut down without a fair hearing.... COUGH COUGH... yeah right! WAKE UP! The second this law comes into place, HOLLYWOOD Billion $ movie and music companies will use this huge hammer they bamboozled US Politicians to create for them and start swinging it. Courts in the US will start blocking sites... illegal and legal but not favored by these companies... and if because many of these targeted sites are not American.... how do you think these small site owners will have any $ or means to travel to the US to fight their blockage. It simply will not be feasible and Hollywood will also stand by the ready with truckloads of their $ to challenge anyone through the courts into submission. To dismiss the abuse and misuse of SOPA & PIPA & even ACTA as "ohh sure there will be some abuse of the law but generally these laws will be used fairly and Hollywood $ wont have any influence" is utterly naive. Very true. They (the mega-media, mega-corps) already abuse the limited scope of the DMCA process, including in at least one instance to shut down a(n internet) news broadcast that did not include any of the DMCA claimant's copyright whatsoever, but which just happened to be about that Mega-Upload promo video which was also illegally removed from U-Tube, repeatedly, by a mega-media mega-corp abusing the DMCA arrangements they have with U-Tube. If they cannot be trusted to not removed content under DMCA that they hold no copyright in (much less trusted to not get content used under "fair use" removed), there is no way they are fit to be trusted with the level of discretion, power, and complete lack of accountability they are now pushing for. They've become a rogue industry and are about as fit to be trusted with power as a common patent troll.