Return to Vendor!

I think that asking for more demo items would be the easiest compromise solution. Demos already exist in world and are effective in giving a preview. They also don't allow residents to use an item and then just return it even if they are more than happy with it. Ie. Buy a wedding dress, get hitched, return dress. Demos require no further client or server changes. You can't rely on LL to give us returnability. Demos are a resident-based solution.

Returning to vendor sounds great if properly implemented. I think there's a feature request section here in the forums or in the jira website. But seriously, do you think LL would do it even if we all agreed in the forums.

I'm glad to see that someone thinks it's a good idea besides myself. And yes, I think it might be worth opening a JIRA on the issue. It seems like a good idea to get other residents' views first though - however positive or negative they might be - in order to sharpen my thoughts on the matter.


They might if it were a feasible method of encouraging residents to spend more.

Impossible to implement. Especially for me; a sizable portion of my business is full perms sculpts. People could buy a set, save all the stuff to HD, then return it.

*throws Puppet a biscuit.

My opinions are freely given to all who ask. Answers to questions, however, will cost you. My fee for that question is one million L$.

I'm still waiting to hear whether you think these consumer protections are worth the major problems with grid stability that would surely follow.

/me gobbles down the biscuit from Brenda and burps in appreciation.

Make full perms items exempt?

It is something of a risk for content creators to offer items at full perms. If I were unhappy with your product, I could always knock it into shape and sell it as my own brilliant work. Would you complain to me or about me doing that?

I only ask because I think that creative 'give and take' is certainly a more appropriate and realistic ethos for SL.

My point is, you cannot use it to gauge the response because you cannot choose one of those and still choose the option you agree with. I sell but that doesn't mean i dont buy- and i think it is a terrible idea for all the reason stated. I cannot tell you i sell becausse having chosen i disagree no other option is available.

Doesn't even need full perms.

copy/transfer even if no-mod, you'd have to track possible multiple instances passed to other people, and take them back.

copy, mod or not, you'd have to track multiple instances stored in boxes in-world and in notecards. For objects, you have to track rezzed objects as well, and they get new UUIDs.

no-copy/transfer, mod or not, it can be sent through multiple cut-outs... you can still put it in-world, the sim it's in can be down when the revert happens, ...

Etc...

Etc...

Here's what you'd have to do: when you get a product, it's no copy, no transfer, until you "accept" it. If you accept it, you can't return it to the vendor. If you rez it in-world, you have to take it back into inventory before you return it. After 24 hours, it's automatically "accepted".

This would only work from sale boxes. If you buy something from a scripted vendor, it can't be returned.

If it's a scripted object that rezzes things, you can't even test it, because you can't rez no-copy objects. If it's a texture, you can't apply it to an object. If it's an animation, it can't be used in a gesture. It's very restricted.

Under those limitations, would you still consider it useful?

Ooops, I forgot to add that part. I am strictly a buyer, as puppet has so eloquently illustrated.

Actually it is completely possible to implement such a thing right now for most things; no poll needed. Clothes are a bit of an issue, but add a few essential prims and this too can be dealt with.

Each object can be 'no copy' with a refund script. After X hours, the script won't offer the option of press-delete-for-refund. There's a wee bit of trust insofar as the selling avatar still has a pocket to refund from, but hey, it's a pain to constantly transfer $L and the seller would be exposed for it quick.

* * * * *

Overall I don't like the idea. It seems that it's a prevention mechanism for foolishness - and one simply can't legislate away stupidity. Consider the financial scams that have gone on in both first and second life.

In fact, if the stupid purchase stung the purchaser *twice as hard* the educational benefits would increase dramatically. Spend $L 50, lose $L 100 - and gain a lifetime of wisdom for thirty cents! Can't beat that deal anywhere. And yes, I'm almost serious.

My apologies, I knew I screwed up posting the poll when the first respondent bawled me out for posting three times. I was having trouble with the interface and didn't realise the thread was going up repeatedly.

However, I didn't realise until I read your post that I had screwed things up even more: there was a box to tick allowing voters to choose more than one option, which I intended to do but I overlooked it in the general confusion.

Shame.

Still, it's good to read other residents' opinions of the option at least.

I think this could be far too hard to do securely, though. Scripts are way too easy to move between objects and although you can do a fair bit of validation to prevent this happening, having it on any large number of objects would cause horrible lag.

I enjoyed reading this thread.

It seems most of the "no" responses have centered around the belief that it's impossible to implement.

As it turns out, I've already implemented such a system. I'm not using it for returns, but I pride myself on providing excellent customer service.

So I'm announcing the new Procyon Games Satisfaction Guarantee: If you purchase a Premier Line game and are dissatisfied for any reason, you can return your game for a full refund, at any time.

Learn more about Procyon Games and the Procyon Asset Protection plan here: http://playprocyon.com

For items for which the scripts are essential - like your games - it's much easier to implement because all that's necessary is for the script to refuse to run.

But for "an outfit with a few critical prims", it wouldn't be - the scripts can be deleted or removed, and then the protection is gone.

I will be after you to develop that idea if I ever get around to marketing my own products.

Although I'm perfectly capable of putting quite a range of items from skins and clothing through to sculpted items and HUDs up for sale, I have no confidence in the current mechanism for honest exchange. I would dearly like to leave it up to the customers to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to keep my products and give me their lindens. At the same time, having more than a faint trace of irascibility, I think it would be best if the system provided some form of automated interface between the general public and my very poor temper.

It's my weak point, you see.

And yes, I'm almost serious.

It's unreasonably difficult for Linden Labs to implement it. It's not difficult for a trusted vendor to implement it for scripted prim objects, but since the original idea seemed to be for a kind of SL "lemon law" implemented by Linden Labs in the face of recalcitrant vendors...

Would they? Isn't it just a question of good programming skills?

Nonetheless, a Satisfaction Guarantee is not something I've seen in SL before, and I'd like to thank the OP for bringing the idea to my attention.

My games are complex, scripted objects, and they're on the expensive side of things you can buy in SL. I have demo units out, of course, but having a Satisfaction Guarantee could provide a customer with additional confidence that their purchase is not a decision they'll regret.

while i understand the sentiment behind the idea.. I would have to vote a resounding no.

Besides the fact that I know many creators who will fix or refund products that the buyer is not happy with.. there are too many ways to game this for it to be viable.

scenario.. each and everyday get a new outfit.. top to toe.. wear 24 hours and return.
no more need to buy hair, clothes shoes or skins.. or anything else... really

have a hot date.. no problem
buy a car, a house, the bestest sex bed.. all the nicest slow dances.. furniture to die for .. hell buy a media stream while youre at it.. and stream your own music..
once the fun is over.. just return the whole kaboodle to the vendor.
It would improve SL life in that ppls inventories would be smaller.. but it would see the death of many businesses in SL.. especially the more popular ones.

wouldnt it be much, much easier to impliment a rating system for creators to opt into
ppl who have purchased can rate the after service.. rate the goods..
still gamable.. sure.. but then what isnt?

another thing everyone is forgetting.. buy the product.. take it to a nice private skybox.. copybot it.. return the original..
I see SL economy taking a massive dive with a system like this.

I've been in business here for a little bit, and overall I see a sort of trend: about 95% of the population is inherently trustworthy and the other 5% would sell their own grandmother.

This comes from both digital content and the land business; the stats are essentially identical. No proof offered for this, but you can choose for yourself if my opinion has merit.

Note that both sides of the equation hold true: about 95% of content creators are decent and 95% of consumers are same.

Most of the time, if someone is truly dissatisfied with an item they simply tell the creator. Often, even in the face of a 'no refund' policy, there are the unwritten cases where you simply take care of someone who is genuinely not satisfied. Same with consumers - say you obviously set something out with all permissions set - a decent person will tell you, and actually delete the erroneous things from their inventory. Happens every single day.

It's the other 5% or so on both sides that are the problem. And I doubt any additional amount of inworld security for either creators or consumers will improve matters much. There's just no protecting the foolish.

We have a fair amount of security now; beyond that it would be nice to have, say, a closed-source viewer and some % of encryption on transferred data. Without that... quite a bit is up for grabs regardless.

Out here in RL, there are all sorts of things I can't return, big and small, even if I don't like them or I thought I was getting something else. I can't return food to the supermarket saying I don't like how it tastes. If I buy a car and drive it off the lot, I can't return it saying that I don't like how it drives after all. After I sign the papers on a mortgage, I can't get my money back from the owner a month later, even if I find that the stairs are creaky. Yes, if the product is seriously defective I can resort to legal action, which is expensive and may or may not work. But no court would force a business to return my money for a house, car, etc., just because I changed my mind within a month.

Demanding that *all* SL products be accepted for returns within a month is a gigantic step too far. Returns may be appropriate for some products, but to legislate such a policy for all products is as unreasonable in SL as it would be in RL.

If the system proved practical to implement in terms of adapting the software, it should also be possible to apply some controls to prevent this form of abuse: perhaps a small number of customers could get away with chancing it a few times but that would be no big deal if it improved business in general.


I take your point although I think the percentages are a little generous.

My argument in favour of this option is not governed by a lack of faith in the honesty of folks but how the system actually promotes poor business practice at the expense of consumer satisfaction.

Everybody suffers. I started to think seriously about this issue after contributing extensively to a poll about impulse buying in SL because I used to be quite a big spender in that sense. SL is essentially about entertainment for me and part of the entertainment is buying a product and being impressed by its quality and the way it improves my interaction with others in-world.

Unfortunately, far too much of my expenditure to date has been wasted on shoddy goods and, since my experience tells me this will more than likely be the case, I have become progressively less inclined to spend lindens on impulse or otherwise.

This is a qualitative judgement in that you might think the jacket you sell is the best thing in SL whereas I might think it's fit only for a right-click and choosing to delete it from my inventory, which is the only reliable choice I have at this point. Nevertheless, the maxim that the customer is always right - the entire basis for customer satisfaction in any successful business - gets short shrift in SL.


Of course we are not discussing the sale or return of comestibles but I should correct you there: I can think of several occasions in the past year alone where I have returned foodstuffs and obtained a refund because the items had either gone off or were clearly contaminated. I suggest you revise your choice of places to shop if this is not the case at the markets you frequent.

Personally, I think that a month would be far too long for a period of approval and I don't see where I or any other respondent above suggested such a lengthy period. In theory a few hours should be sufficient but I suggested a period of between a day and a week because the Grid is sometimes inaccessible for hours at a time and that may preclude a resident logging in for several days after.

Quite a number of posts so far have referred to legislation, control and the law either directly or by implication as if the concept is similar to abuse reporting but I thought my outline of the idea was quite clear: I see Return to vendor as another option on the wheel menu, like 'Return' or 'Take' or 'Appearance'. It would be a no-nonsense option that would not involve bothering the creator if I absolutely did not wish to keep the item.

The creator is not even out of pocket with this option because the customer will not have soiled the item with temporary use or made it unsaleable to another customer, for heaven's sake. Conversely, the lindens spent on this otherwise useless item have a very real value whether they have been earned through services provided in-world by the customer's time and effort or bought on the Lindex in exchange for that individual's real USD.

maybe you should take your own advice but apply it to SL
maybe it is where you shop... or maybe you are too fussy and nothing will meet your expectations...





how is the creator not out of pocket.... items sells. then the buyer takes the money back, all buyers start doing that and the seller is very much out of pocket for the tier, for the upload fees and any other fees associated with their business



for the record I am both a merchant and a consumer and I voted no

With all due respect, perhaps you should read the proposal carefully?

An integral feature of the option would be that the item and all copies of it should be effectively deleted from the customer's inventory. All other expenses incurred by the vendor are his or her responsibility: it is not the consumer's concern just as the status quo implies that consumer dissatisfaction is not the vendor's concern in principle.

The question of whether or not the option is practicable in terms of software configuration is another consideration, which I would prefer to discuss in a JIRA I intend to open on the issue. At this point, I am simply attempting to ascertain what residents think of the idea in general.

Unfortunately it would seem that a good many of the reactions so far have been reflexive: it is patently clear that the proposal has not been read and fully understood by a considerable number of respondents before they voted/posted their responses.

Or perhaps we just don't think it's a good idea?