Get the story straight

I don't like or want to do it, but I've just refused a refund or replacements for non-delivery of two items - the only two items that the person bought. I believe that it's the first time I've refused. It went like this...

Yesterday, the person bought two items from my store, after which I received an IM (by email, as I was in bed at the time) saying that the items hadn't arrived. I checked my transactions and other people were buying at the time, including a the 3 minutes between her buying the two items, and I thought it was a bit odd since nobody else has said that they didn't receive something. So I've just been in SL and I IMed the person, saying that the items will be in her inventory, in the Objects folder. I got a reply, saying, no it isn't, and that she'd accidentally deleted it which is why she's asking for it to be sent again. "it" - it's only 1 item now, not 2), and it's been deleted instead of it not arriving. I emailed back saying that deleted items are in the Trash folder.

The only person who I have access to what's going on in their head is me, so I don't know what's in her head, but it does sound a bit like I'm not the only one who is being asked for replacement or refund. Anyway, whether that's true or not, everything sounded wrong, and deliveries failed for nobody else, even though other people were buying at the time, so I declined.

I think it is possible that one person out of a bunch could have delivery problems, due to the distributed and decentralized nature of how LL deploys SL.

Check out all the different components listed here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Service_Disruptions#Agent_.28.22Inventory.22.29_Database_Cluster

And then consider that each one is really clusters of machines. The whole thing is designed (or moving towards) a model where localized failures affect as few people as possible, while the rest of the population keeps right on going without a problem.

Put a script in all your stuff that emails you as soon as it is rezzed with the name of the owner. Then the script deletes itself.

Yes, I'm sure it's possible, having read some of that page. But the story changed from 2 items to one, and from non-delivery to accidental deletion.

That's a good idea. It wouldn't cover things that aren't rezzed quite soon, without some programming and data storage behind it, but it's still a good idea

Oh yes, I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's just that you ended with, "and deliveries failed for nobody else, even though other people were buying at the time," and that seems an unreliable indicator, is all. But the rest of it - sure!

I may start a thread about this in the near future. Well, not this in particular, but the "ethics" of having copies of a product sending messages to the creator without the expressed consent of the user. I've seen it before (or rather, inferred that it's happening), and I do wonder about how above board it is, regardless of the benefits to both the user and creator.

And you have to consider that someone could rez their item in a no-scripts area, and you'd never have proof that they actually rezzed it. But that is definitely minor compared to having the ability to prove that someone *did* rez it.

That would make an interesting discussion. I hope you start the thread, as I'm looking forward to it already.

Yes, it wouldn't cover everything, but it could cover a lot.

so she did get the items but deleted them and wants you to replace them because she can't find them in her trash?


i have had friends that have not gotten something and always will IM me with some elaborate plan to get something they had never received..
i just tell them..listen just say what happened and more times than not you will end up getting the item you didn't get..

if you go trying to make something up because you think people are nt gonna give you something then you are gonna end up with nothing at all..just be nice tell the truth and say what actually happened lol

I agree with that, Ceka. I do help people who have accidents, even though I don't *have* to.

I'd thought about the possibility of her rezzing them and deleting them by mistake, although deleting 2 items by mistake would be excessively clumsy. However, one is an indoor item and the other is outdoor item, so such clumsiness would be.... well I don't know lol

Of course they could have been accidentally deleted from her inventory, but they'd be in her Trash, and when I said they'd be in her Trash, she just replied with stuff like "please just resend them. it really isn't that difficult."

There's nothing about the story that has any ring of truth to it for me.

even if i never receive an item i am always as nice as possible with the designer or creator because yes they do not have to send anything back even with it showing in transaction history..

that whole short relationship is based on how i am to them..

myself i don't take kindly to someone demanding me around or being insulting so i know they wouldn't like it very much..

more times than not,Creators have given me more than i have bought because i am very nice to them..
it's a great time to actually tell them how much you love their work..
not to get free stuff or to get your thing you bought back but just to show why you shop there..
they can tell by how much i have spent there if i am kissing butt or really expressing how i feel about their work..
they know i love their work..i've never had a creator ever say no..

i have heard friends not get things back because of attitude though and i couldn't blame the creator one bit for not giving it to them after seeing the chat log from my friends..

hmmm, my partner gets a few of these (I hardly ever sell anything so I don't lol) - she ALWAYS asks for the transaction details as there's been a number of avs saying "I didn't get" .. and guess what? No transaction history. She's even gotten on to Concierge chat just to check.

So.... looks like a scam attempt

Inc

Sounds like a scam attempt to me, Phil, and like you it would be a very rare exception that I wouldn't give a refund.

What truly amazes me is that someone would attempt to pull a stunt on you when you consider how inexpensive your items are.

I do have the transactions for the 2 items, so she did buy them. But it's easy to say they didn't arrive and get an extra one of each. If she hadn't changed her story, she would have got them, but saying *it* was deleted by accidents (used the word "it" 3 times), and later saying that she doesn't know if they arrived or if she deleted them, and resting her case on saying that they aren't in her inventory just doesn't add up.

Actually the script will stay in the object until it gets to script enabled land, sends it's message and then deletes itself.

Hmmm...
If the items were copy/no transfer I would just give away new ones - easiest!
But if it was transfer/no copy I would have done exactly what you did.

A little story around the topic:
I bought 5 pair of (expensive) shoes in different colours from a very, VERY famous SL designer.

The vendor said nothing about permissions and too late I discovered that these shoes were all 'no copy'.
Why make shoes 'no copy'? Most ppl want to wear shoes with many different outfits! (Well I can understand its for gifts. But really! Most shoes are bought to be used by the buyer... ) I never buy 'no copy' shoes but I made a mistake.

Then I managed to delete all the shoebases but one... (It was a really crappy SL day - don't know what I did but they were all of a sudden gone. For good, never came back...) And realised that the one left was 'no copy' too, of course...

I KNOW that I made several mistakes here, I was VERY clumsy, ok. But when contacting the creator (Several IM's and Notecards) in a very polite way begging for one 'copy' shoebase or new 'no copy' ones (including my transfer history admitting my clumsyness). No reply. Halloooo! Sorry I made a mistake! No reply.

I'm not saying that he should have done this or that, thats his choice. I understand if he doesn't give that much for clumsy customers.

But! I would have sent new ones ASAP - it was just shoebases! and I spent lots of lindens in that shop.

Since I'm so clumsy and he was ignoring me I now have 5 really expensive 'no copy' stupid shoes and ONE 'no copy' stupid shoebase and will never take my business to that shop again.

Yes, but it's only really good if it's activated quickly, because that's when anyone trying to scam extras does it.

mmmm perhaps... personally I think I would provide no transfer replacements and have done with it, which is what I normally do

Inc

They are transfer/no copy, Olila.

Then you did the right thing. If you start to give away copys when its so vague others will come along claiming the same thing...

Sometimes I think what can happen is if you're dealing with a newer resident they may get confused as to how everything works. I've also thought I've bought something at a store and then realized later while checking my transactions, that I hadn't.

Well Phil you have always been very kind and helpful to me. You even made special color couches when I asked if you could and you answer all my silly questions so I know you will/have done the right thing.

I disagree. If that happened every five minutes you might have a point.

I don't suppose I'd be happy if I were a storeowner and people were *constantly* asking for replacements on flimsy grounds, but sometimes you do all sound a bit paranoid about it.

If the person only asks the once and you can verify the transaction, what have you really lost by sending a replacement? It's a virtual copy, it doesn't incur financial loss like a RL replacement of goods. Also, you may have actually gained a repeat customer who'll come back for other stuff, plus recommend your store to their acquaintances. You gain a reputation for being fair and accommodating, rather than stingy and mean.

We all know SL acts up and how easy it is to lose inventory one way or another. Surely if and when someone tries -repeat- and obvious scamming is the time to get tough and refuse, rather than treat everyone as a liar right off.

--
Aes