Jump to content

Cabbage Acanthus

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cabbage Acanthus

  1. Clarissa Lowell wrote: Cabbage Acanthus wrote: It seems that most people never even see one in the grid either. Are any stil around? I said it pre-merger and I still say that LL made far too much of an effort for a group that is barely significant as far as numbers or income went (at least as far as SL is concerned). I still wonder why they went through all the trouble. Oh they are still in world. If you don't go to G land it's no wonder you don't run into many who will admit to being a teen. I never ask but some will come out and tell you their age for reasons unknown. Course there is no way to know if that's a teen or someone older, trying to sniff out who else might be one. I always found it a lot easier to leave RL out of SL and not worry about what other people's RL deal is. Just go by how they act, and if that is good with you or not. If I had to guess to answer your last paragraph I'd say brand loyalty. Same reason any other product wants early life customers. Lots more years ahead to work with. Why try to appeal to older people who have 20 years activity left when you can appeal to the 20 year old with 60 years activity left? That's a rough way to say it but that's marketing. I think that SL thinking decades into the future is a tad overconfident, even for them. I think it is more them blindly aping some other platform that is much much more successful myself but everyone has their theories there. I was asking the question about the level of involvement of teens in SL because I would of course not run into them myself. I just saw a lot of people on this thread saying that they regularly visit the PG areas and never knowingly encounter them. I no longer see teens on the forum. I was just curious. How many teens do you encounter on a regular basis? I'm just wondering if LL is trying to market to their longer lifespans, how well of a job they are doing.
  2. I made the adjustment of avoiding PG rated land, as much as a way to "vote with my lindens" as anything else. There are plenty of mature and adult rated parcels so it has not been inconvenient. In fact, I must say that my SL experience has been improved since I made those adjustments. I have found that there are fewer problems as far as annoyance and grief in the adult rated areas (I suspect it has to do with the added hassle of age verification making disposable alts much more trouble to create) I would have never made a point of spending as much time in adult rated parcels before the merger (unless I was looking for some adult rated activity ). As far as the teens go, I obviously have not encountered one (unless they were doing a good job of "blending into" the adult population). I have noticed that their participation here on the forum has pretty much tapered off. It seems that most people never even see one in the grid either. Are any stil around? I said it pre-merger and I still say that LL made far too much of an effort for a group that is barely significant as far as numbers or income went (at least as far as SL is concerned). I still wonder why they went through all the trouble.
  3. Hey there Anthony. There are all sorts in SL. Some people are more relaxed than others. Some groups like to have dress codes and make "exclusive" places and eject anyone that does not "fit in" to whatever they hold as their standard. The owner of the parcel, or their representatives, can pretty much eject anyone they want from their parcel or sim for any reason or even no reason at all. There are other places that welcome all sorts and even value the more unusual avatars. I've played nonhuman avatars for a long time. For the most part, I don't run into any problems at all. If I come across a place where my avie is not welcome, I move on to the next spot and never look back. Just don't worry about the more "uptight" places. They are living out their fantasy and I suspect part of that fantasy is being part of the "in crowd" and "exclusive" and all that nonsense. Whatever floats their boats. Let them live out their SL as they see fit. There are plenty of places where you can do the same no matter what you want your avatar to be. You said elsewhere in this thread that you are new and that you were accused of pushing people around. Movement in SL can be tricky, especially in crowded venues. It can be difficult, even for an experienced resident, to navigage a crowded event without bumping into someone. Add a little lag and it is quite possible that you bumped into a few people without even realizing it. Some follks are really touchy about this. I recommend practicing moving around. Also, keep an eye on the mini-map. It can take a few seconds for everyone to "appear" on your viewer. If you TP into a venue and immediately start moving, it is quite possible to ram into as many as a dozen people before you even realize that they are there. (I've done this) It is not always possible to know beforehand whether or not a "non-standard" avatar will be welcome as you explore. You will soon find some nice spots where you can find some like-minded folks to hang out with. Just relax and have fun. Some people will be jerks, but they are the minority here. Leave them to their intolerance. You probably don't want to be around "their kind" anyway.
  4. Report you for what? There is nothing in the TOS about how many alts you can have. Have a thousand of them if you want. If they persist, report them for harassment (which is against the TOS) or abusive language (which is also against the TOS).
  5. I'm just tickled because I had a lovely meal and a nice glass of hibiscus tea. (with orange zest and lavender) Life is pretty good right about now. I think I will go watch some you tube or maybe see if my lazy cat can be persuaded to play. Speaking of teasing felines.... Storm, I suspect that your reckless confession might be you happily angling for some disclipline? Hmm? As usual: Edited for typos.
  6. As others have said, Abuse Report (AR). AR them each and every time they break the TOS. Be sure to be as complete as possible when you fill out the report. Attach logs of IM or local chat. Try to get good screenshots as you report. And keep it up. Also appeal to any land/estate/group owners or managers where you are being griefed. They are often more responsive than LL.
  7. Sadly, you don't have a lot of options. If the manager is not the group owner/founder you may be able to appeal "over the manager's head". If you have contacts with other group members perhaps you could try to rally some support. But odds are you will just have to move on. I recommend contacting the groups that you paid money to explaining your situation and if you are still paying dues for areas that you no longer have acces, stop. SL is a big place. You might just have to find other places to go. There's always RL civil proceedings if you really lost a lot of money but that is most likely not practical.
  8. There is absolutely no way to get "pregnant" in SL unless you attach the "pregnancy" yourself. Don't worry about it.
  9. Any chance we can get an official statement from a Linden on this? If anyone should know what is exactly going on here it should be them.
  10. It seems you just did! Welcome! These forums don't really need membership. You will need to sign in to post something using your SL username and password. Then start posting! We certainly welcome your participation
  11. Is it a prepaid Visa? Most if not all of those aren't accepted because it is very hard to verify identity with them. Not the biggest fan of that policy myself but that's what they are doing now.
  12. Just further proof of the inherent incompatibility between the platforms... A square peg won't go in a round hole no matter how much lube you use.
  13. Maybe it's a very odd highway "beautification" project? It would make as much sense as a lot of what happens around here.
  14. It is his job to deal with the customer. If your auto mechanic did not adjust your brakes properly because he had been dealing with tough maintenance tasks all day long, would that be ok? If your doctor failed to read your test results because he was "tired" would you be as understanding? Heck, if the cashier at the grocery store did not put one of your purchases that you paid for in the bag because their hand was a little sore, or refused to scan one of your cupons because the last person he dealt with tried to hand him a bogus one, would you dismiss it so easily? I know I would not. If the scout cannot bear up to the realities of his job choice I have absolutely no sympathy. I have no sympathy not because I am incapable of putting myself in his position. I judge him the way that I do because I am holding him to the same standard of performance and conduct that myself or any other of billions of people who are paid to do a task are held. I think he came up short. He failed miserably. If we review the original transcript, I think that is far more unfair to characterize the OP as an overly emotional hack job. That is far more offensive than anything I have said about that sorry excuse for a scout so far. If he is a drooling drone, then perhaps his actions are excusable the same way a cud chewing bovine can't be faulted for their unceasing production of excrement. if we view him as a person, a living breathing thinking individual who knew exactly what he was doing and saying as he handled this situation, then his actions become far far less acceptable.
  15. Kolby Nissondorf wrote: I hope you guys understand you are'defending' the same thing. Cabbage thinks the guy should have been more caring, Charolotte thinks the guy stuck to the script at the wrong time. You guys are both saying the CSR was wrong, (which he was , because when he terminated the session before i could say something back just proved a point of immaturity that i still hold on to..), but if he were to contact me, I would forgive him. In my words, since im the OP, the question I asked was, "Was he right to do this.." To answer the OP, in a word, no. He was not right to do what he did. His actions were completely unprofessional and unacceptable. If he was dealing with my customers, I would be most displeased.
  16. Charolotte Caxton wrote: That is s very good answer, Cabbage. I think your handling of the situation would have been far better. Perhaps had the poor Scout had your tact, hindsight and all around care and compassion for others as you do, all of this could have been averted and no one would have gotten their raw, open and justifiably already damaged feelings hurt. For the record, I am in no way affiliated with Linden Labs other than being a resident just like you. I do appreciate the compliment, but this has little to do with care or compassion. It is basic professional conduct. You don't have to "establish a rapport" or even like someone to treat them professionally. I am sure many of us have to deal with people that we would love to be as short and nasty as the Scout in question was to the OP. We don't do so because of professional pride and a love if not for mankind, at least for our paychecks. I am gratified that you believe that my handling of the sitation was better. But what do you think of the failings of the actual person that is taking money from all of us here in SL with the nominal purpose of providing at least the illusion of customer support? Whether or not our little scout could do better is not the real concern here. One can always improve. Was the level of service and his demeanor acceptable? Do you think that he met the minimum standard of conduct and professionalism for someone that you would want representing your company to your customers. Would you feel secure with this scout dealing with the source of your livelihood?
  17. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Cabbage, we already discussed all this. Remember where I said it was more appropriate at the time to stick to the script instead of getting into a discussion as to who why where and why? See how that just ties into just saying the account holder is the one who had to cancel the account? Also remember where I said the rep couldn't have known whether the person was actually brutally murdered or not? You maintain the rep was deliberately snide, I say there is no possible way you can know that. As far as cutting the conversation short, what do you propose should have been done? Well, sticking to policy was certainly appropriate but are you maintaining that Linden Lab was correct in "sticking to the script" when they told the Customer that their deceased friend should contact support when they were in fact informed both prior to and following that statement that the person in question was deceased? As far as their statement being deliberately snide, They made it and then when it was pointed out that the person in question was deceased, they simply terminated the conversation rather than clarify exactly what they meant. Was that appropriate? I already do far too much of LL's grunt work pitching in on the answers forum. Apparently now we need to advise them on training of their representatives as well... Ok... fine... It is obvious that nobody else is doing it. What I would propose that they do (again, I am truly surprised that I have to say this) is first and foremost not nastily tell someone that their recently murdered friend would have to somehow contact customer support and then essentially "hang up" on them. LL is a bit of an insular environment and it is well known that they take their customer base for granted but this should be obvious even to them. Instead, it would have taken little time and effort for the person who is being paid to represent LL to perhaps politely but firmly state that it was completely against policy for them to disable or amend the account, state why it was impossible, and then offer recommendations as to what course of action the OP could take. If you (or LL) want an exact transcript of the exact wording suitable for inclusion in a script sheet that their drooling automatons can use when dealing with a customer I will be happy to provide one free of charge.
  18. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Good morning, Cabbage. I'm not into animal abuse, but the horse is already dead, why not. You are correct, you have maintained from the start that you were not against not deleting accounts based on heresay, agreed. The post I refer to and I understood the others were refering to was the one posted by the OP, not any hidden LL one. My stance was and is that I don't believe we can call the rep unforgivable. Interesting... It is nice that you finally have stopped trying to impy that the thrust of my arguement was not the far more easy to dismiss belief that LL should have disabled the account in question. Perhaps now we can finally turn to the actual behavoir of the Linden Lab representative in question. You maintain that he should not be called unforgivable or reprehensible. Prove it. Or don't. All you have done to this point is throw up some statements about how he was right to not disable the account. Of course he was. You have said little to nothing concerning the individuals remark that the deceased should contact support themselves and then them terminating the conversation without further clarification of that undoubetly snide remark and without advising the OP further. I would love to forgive the LL representative in question. How can I? What could possibly justify their behavoir? Please give me a hand with this. Or perhaps you see nothing absolutely nothing wrong with what they did and how the OP was treated?
  19. Griffin Ceawlin wrote: I'm pretty sure live chats are all logged, and if his/her supervisor(s) have a problem with his responses, he'll be sat down and talked to. Your insistence that "he meant exactly what he said" simply isn't supported by that log. But, you go ahead and rage on. *clicks unsubscribe* I do not have access to that log. Only an employee of LL would. Perhaps you know something that I do not, but based on the excerpt that I saw here, I feel justified in saying what I have said. I take exception to the implication that I am "raging". Quite the contrary. I am simply calling it like i see it. I find it interesting that one would find the insisitance that someone adhere to the basic tennants of common courtesy and perform the job that they are paid to do in a professional manner "rage".
  20. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Cabbage Acanthus wrote: Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that? Well, what else would you call it? The LL rep, knowing that he was talking about a deceased person, told the OP that they would have to contact support themselves. It was obviously a very poorly timed "smart remark". Cabbage, with all due respect, that is the point. The LL rep did not know he was talking about a deceased person. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone would deliver a snide remark about someone being dead, especially when they are a CSR. If it was a snide remark then I would agree with you, it would have been reprehensible and callous. I can more easily believe that giving a text book reply was the more appropriate and professional route to take than trying to get into a discussion such as ' Who died, how, why and you are whom in relation to this account holder and you want me to disable her account because she told you to or you think she would want it that way or she never really mentioned it but she had been playing a whole two months and these would have been her dying wish...' no. No, Cabbage. No. When not knowing the situation and being only given a URL of a news story that does not even mention any victims names and even states that the police have not released any names, not that the CSR would have had time to read the article during the live help chat, I don't believe we can jump to the conclusion that the CSR was a reprehensible person that delights in the misery of others. If on the other hand he is, we don't have even the slightest bit of evidence to support that. I respect your opinion and I am certain that there are jerks out there, but once again, I hope you can realize why everyone isn't all in a fuss about this and why once the drama and horror of the situation is removed from the scenario, persons who are calmly just reading a transaction log will only say to themselves, Im glad they don't just go around disabling accounts. Which, I read in your reply to me, you do not have an issue with. Agree to disagree? Ah...San Diego... I do respectfully disagree. The person, was told several times that the deceased had died. While I do see your point that it would not have been productive to get into a detailed conversatoin about it since there, by policy (and a sound one) there was nothing that the CSR could do. I get it. And you do have a good point that the representative of Linden Lab had no way of knowing for sure if the person was dead or not. Granted. In fact they probably did not believe the OP. Thus, their whole snide backhanded remark where they said that the deceased had to contact support themselves. They had ample opportunity to explain, or clarify that statement when they were reminded that the person that they just said had to contact support was deceased. They could have perhaps done their job and advised the OP... instead they terminated the sesson leaving that questionable statement unammended, uncorrected. No, they knew exactly what they were saying. We can agree to disagree. I stand by every single word that I have written. There is no way this can be absolved., justified, or minimized.
  21. With customer service reps like this guy, nobody wins. Except for Scout in question, of course. He got to make his employer look bad, mess with a resident, and still have time for coffee.. Pretty sweet deal.... Yep, he is the only one winning here. His job is to make responses. Omitting eight words from a response, giving him the benefit of the doubt and simply assuming that he is incompetent, is a pretty glaring error considering everything. Again, this is his job. He is representing Linden Lab. He had ample opportunity to correct it as well. When he was reminded that the person in question was in fact deceased, rather than make the correction, ammend his stance, he basically "hung up" on the OP by concluding the session. He didn't "forget" or "omit". He meant exactly what he said.
  22. Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Cabbage Acanthus wrote: Well, what else would you call it? Probably none of those things, but if I had to pick one... unprofessional. For neglecting to add "... or the executor/executrix of the resident's estate." The rest? I just don't see it. You can feel free to let them off the hook if you like. I stand by what I said. I think they were baiting him in that snide backhanded way that a customer service rep does when they think they can get away with it.. They probably got kicked around by the last dozen calls and saw someone who was nice and vulnerable and went for it. We can agree on unprofessional though. Fine. They represented themselves and Linden Lab in a completely unprofessional manner. That's totally acceptable, right? Well, it is LL customer service we are talking about. This guy is probably the employee of the month.
  23. Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Snide, intentionally callous, unbelievably rude, heartless, unprofessional, mean spirited, spiteful, baiting, troll jerk? You got all that from that? Well, what else would you call it? The LL rep, knowing that he was talking about a deceased person, told the OP that the deceased would have to contact support themselves. It was obvously a very poorly timed "smart remark".
  24. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Dear Cabbage, before we go any further, let me just say that I am not arguing with you but I am definitely disagreeing. The reason I am disagreeing is because based on the short conversation between the OP and the customer support person, there was very little opportunity for the CS person to develop a person to person rapport with the OP. For all the CS knew, the OP could have been a griefer trying to disable the girls account out of spite anger or revenge. I understand that when you take into consideration that the OP had just suffered a tremendous trauma and that he was just trying to do something he thought would be decent and honorable that the customer support persons response to him seems callous and out right rude. My point is, really? Can you even begin to imagine the sorts of call that person gets from abusers of the system? Surely you have seen the amount of grief inworld and on these forums. I'm just saying unforgivable is rather harsh. Let's separate the issues here. I have absolutely no problem with LL not accessing the deceased account based on hearsay. That is a sound policy and the customer support person was right not to access the deceased's account based on their interaction with the OP, no matter how good and pure his motives were. Saying that they could not do so was proper, even if they were curt. Let's just stop obscuring the real issue here. What I consider completely unforgivable, completely unacceptable, was the snide remark that the LL representative made when he told the OP, grieving for their friend, that their dead friend would have to contact support themselves. Once again, the LL representative knew full well what they were talking about when that made that intentionally callous, unbelievably rude heartless quip. it was intentional and there was no other reason to make it than to mess with someone who only wanted to do right by their friend. The LL representative's job is to deal with the customer. No ammount of abuse they might catch from a justifiably annoyed customer base absolves them of not only their professional responsibilities as a represeantative of Linden Lab but also what would pass as the barest shread of human compassion and the barest scruple of common decency. You don't have to "establish a rapport" in order to not be a complete and total jerk. They trolled the OP when he was only trying to do well by his friend. They did so while representitng LL in a professional capacity. I can't stand when people complain about having to do their jobs. It's their job. Either do it, do it professionally and courteously, or don't do it at all. I don't give a rat's cheese about how much crap this guy or gal took before they decided to act in such a completely unprofessional, mean spirited manner. It doesn't matter. All that matters is that they reperesented LL in this completely disgraceful way. Being a CSR is their job. If they can't handle it... Well... The fact that they are working for an outfit like LL is probably the only reason they have lasted this long. I am surprised that anyone would defend their spiteful, hurtful, mean-spirited snide remark.
  25. Charolotte Caxton wrote: Hi Cabbage. I read every word you wrote and I stand by what I said. The customer support person was just stating a fact. While we all feel for the OP, I don't believe it is fair to say that the customer support person may never be forgiven for not behaving like a crisis response operator. The customer support person clearly knew that he was talking to someone about their friend being deceased. They were stating a fact when they said that they could not alter the deceased's account. When they added the quip that the deceased should contact support themselves, they were just being a jerk. They knew darn well what the situation was and when they said that They were almost definitely baiting the OP and the worst possible time. I am not holding them to the standard of a crisis response operator, I am holding them to the standard of a customer service rep. Scratch that, I'm just holding to the standard of a decent human being. They fail.. big time.
  • Create New...