DO NOT use SL to buy anything using your bank account, mine got cleared out

If you worked in a company that dealt with credit card/debit transactions, you would know that it's actually fairly common. If this is the only time it's happened for you, consider yourself lucky. At times, transactions will go through twice (taken out of the customer's account 2 times), but only one payment will go to the store or company. Sometimes its the bank's 'fault'. The thing is, it happens often, and it's easy to fix. It's more of a technical 'burp', than incompetency. Sl isn't a perfect place (company), but it's not the worse either.

Ya compared to the Bizarres in Egypt, theres no scams at all.

I deal with all those things. Its never happened except with SL. They are a special breed.

Tunnel vision makes you miss things. Like, for instance, someone who logs into SL in an internet cafe and wonders why his security could be compromised.

i've never seen one single positive post about LL or SL from you. you are not objective in any form. totally biased against SL and LL.

You display a woeful ignorance of how credit cards work.By "the bank", you mean some dumb phone monkey you spoke to who also doesn't know how credit cards work and didn't give a shit either way.

I worked in the credit card industry for several years, so I will spell it out for you simply and bluntly; I am right, you are wrong and the person you spoke to at your bank is the incompetent one for not knowing how credit cards work. It was not incompetence on LL's part it was HOW FUCKING CREDIT CARDS WORK!!!!!

The $74 never left her account and never reached LL - it was a temp auth that simply expired naturally. Rebecca, unfortunately, is too dumb to comprehend that that's how credit cards work, despite having it explained to her in terms that even a retarded child can understand.

Oh no... I apologize to everyone, I am going to sound like I agree with rebecca on this one, but it is only a disagreement to this statement, not an agreement with her.

Temp auths don't double. The charge would overwrite the temp auth. Temp auths are only visible and scary to people that don't know about them when there is not a corresponding charge (the billing was deferred or cancelled after the auth was put through, or someone authed the card just to verify funds are available - like at a hotel on checkin)

No worries. Even a broken clock is right twice a day............

I was giving her as much as I could and still showing that she was wrong.

That just encourages her; she's a social worker. You understand.

When they have different authorisation codes, they double. I've seen it often enough to know. Hotels generally complete on the original auth with the same auth code. In this instance we have surmised that the first auth showed to LL as a decline, and so they re-auth'd. This would generate a different authorisation code and be a new transaction.

Please don't feed the troll.

Which one?

Finally, a voice of reason.

Oh yeah. This thread, a glass of wine, and thou. What a great way to wind down from work.

This is ridiculous.

No, I didn't think wrong. If you scroll back through the thread you can see where you as well as many others provided answers FOR Chaos.

You , on the other hand are the one who is wrong for thinking that this is a thread to demand answers from Chaos.

This is not a thread about Chaos's behavior, it is a thread about unauthorized deductions from a bank account, no matter what you personally would like to turn it into.

As for me, I have seen LL make egregious mistakes with MY RL US $, so I don't put it past them one bit. I was promised *in writing* by LL that I could send back an island for a full refund because I bought shortly before the price decrease. To make a long story short, they took back the island and initially refused the promised refund. It took me a lot of time and energy to get my RL US Dollars back from Linden Lab, after they took back the product I had bought. They *HAVE* been hacked in the past, and they *HAVE* made mistakes with residents' rl money in the past. I know this from experience.

Perhaps the majority of people on this thread are fortunate enough not to have experienced this or shortsighted enough to bury their heads in the sand about previous account compromises, but give it time, you might find out.

My bank also considers any transactions from LL to be fraudulent. I don't keep a credit card on file with them any more.

It was a thread about that. It is now a thread about Chaos' faggotry and his failure to answer for it.

I for one would still very much like to hear an "in conclusion" post from OP as to exactly what happened and exactly how it was resolved. I "don't put it past them" either. I've said at leats a few times it wasn't my intention to defend LL. But from what scarce info there is, it still seems to me OP was *more* incompetent than LL is. If there exists factual evidence to the contrary I would love to see it. Such that I might take well informed steps to protect myself. The unrelated schenanigans (which yes I too took part in) will get this thread pulled and let the OP off the hook. I would really like to not see it go down that way.

/me is not feeding the Troll(s?)
/me is waiting on OP for an update.

Since our forum grammarian (Lindal) hasn't seen this yet, I'll step in as her assistant.

I think you are referring to "bazaars" in Egypt where goods are purchased/sold/bartered. Of course some of them may be "bizarre" - but not having been in Egypt I wouldn't know.

Carry on

Thank you, Czari. You are quite correct. Also, the idiomatic affirmative is generally spelled "yeah" or sometimes "yah" or "yeh". It is never "ya", because that could be confused with the idiomatic form of "you", as in "I'll see ya later".

And she left out an apostrophe to denote a contraction of "there is"...and in fact it should have been "there are" or "there're" in order to agree with the subject's case. "Scams" is plural.

/me sniffs and shoves her glasses back up her nose.

In Conan's original post, he talked about how if a charge doesn't seem to "take" when the merchant submits it, it may be submitted again. In that case, there are two temporary authorizations on that account. The original may show up shortly afterwards. It's kind of a glitch that can happen not due to anyone's incompetence, but due to technology that doesn't always work the way we would like it to. When the merchant completes the authorization, it releases one and replaces it with an actual charge. The other authorization will time out in about five business days, usually. If the customer calls, normally it can be just released as the bank or financial institution will see that it was obviously a mistake.

So, Conan was correct in his assessment, and so were you. I think you just missed his original post on that scenario.

I know this, because there are times that I take that call and have to release the second authorization. There are times when a temporary authorization will not automatically lift, usually at gas stations, where a customer calls with a temp auth for say $75 and an actual charge for the gas they actually purchased. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen.