Ishara

[thaily.livejournal.com]

This is a bit of an odd situation, a suspected attempt at swindling me and when I refused them, he (female character, male player) became abusive and publicly committed libel against me. I hope this qualifies, I just wanna warn people to watch their step around this person.

I'm afraid I have limited proof for this one because almost all of the discussion happened on Tapestries; it's an adult muck (sort of like a chat client, but with rooms and player descriptions etc.) and has a policy against reposting content from the muck to protect people's privacy. But if Ishara sees this and agrees that I can post my literal logs, it'd be allowed and I'd happily do so.

September 2011 I advertised some Iron Artist commissions on a bulletin board in a popular public gathering place. One of the people who responded was "Ishara". He wanted several commissions. I spent 2 hours answering his questions and he decided to get 4 commissions; two forms of the same character, two outfits each. We agreed young form would be in her late teens, since I don't draw naked kiddies.
He sent me an e-mail. He noted that payment might be delayed, via the muck I said it was fine. Later he prompted me for preliminaries, I told him I'd start as soon I got payment, since my TOS (which I showed him) states that I want full payment in advance for commissions under €50,- and the Iron Artist commissions are €30,-

He said he'd pay and I didn't hear from him again.
I was a little annoyed that I wasted so much of my time on him and I suspected he was hoping he could have made off with some sketches without paying, but since I hadn't started sketching I figured there was no harm, no foul and I just forgot about him.
Plus, given the chance he just changed his mind and was too embarrassed to just tell me I didn't bother him, even though I saw him around the muck.

Fast forward to a few days ago; I recently opened for some small, cheap commissions and advertised this on the same bulletin board. No prizes for guessing who contacted me.

Seemingly having forgotten the incident a year before he contacted me with the exact same questions as before. I verified that it was the same person by providing some info from their e-mail and told them that, in light of their non-payment I would not take on their commissions.
They replied the next day and told me "Oh well I must have forgot that then." and told me it must have been before he was kicked out of his home which he later cited was for financial reasons; I emphasize, he was negotiating 4x€30,- commissions in a period he became homeless for financial reasons.
He told me that if I couldn't understand his situation that I could take my attitude and find other paying customers and that I was rude for not accepting him as one. But if I wanted to give him a second chance he'd pay me extra this time.

As a note, his initial note asked me for an "estimate" on the commissions despite the fact their price was clearly stated at €5,- But he didn't have a lot of money and had to "budget it in" because he only gets paid once a month.
So does everyone in the Netherlands, not sure what frequency has to do with it but I digress.
I told him it was not up for discussion and blocked him. Thinking that was the last I'd hear of it.

Wrong.

I come into the public area the next day and a friend tells me to look at the bulletin board on which Ishara had posted a lengthy and one-sided diatribe, preceded by the weaksauce disclaimer that he didn't want to make it public, but I didn't "man up". Not sure what I was supposed to "man up" for, but what followed was a sob story about how he lost his job and his home and had no money to live off and how I was a big meanie poopoohead for not accepting his commission. I was short sighted and blah blah good riddance and I'll never contact you again.

I didn't respond in any way and just hung around with friends when Ishara came in and loudly stated on OOC that "she is ignoring Thaily now from this point on".

Wah.

I filed a report with the muck's moderators, since the BB is not supposed to be used to attack people. But like I said before, just want to warn you guys; I'm really glad I didn't start without payment and glad I declined his request for a commission the second time around. His attitude is pretty entitled and generally rotten, plus his stories don't add up.

Edit: Adding proof. The stockades are the place bad muck players go for punishment. Creamwizard is the moderator who handled my report and gave me express permission to publish the stockade record of Ishara's misbehavior and punishment.

Comments

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

It's unfortunate that you can't post a screencap (if you got it) of the bulletin board post he made about you. Perhaps you could see about getting permission from a site admin to post the bulletin board 'cap, at least, considering it was defamation and posted in a more-or-less 'public' place?

Do you have any other correspondence that took place outside of Tapestries? Stuff like this is one reason we encourage folks to keep all business correspondence to email. But then, you know that. ;)

[thaily.livejournal.com]

I would love to provide more evidence, and I can ask a moderator for permission, but I very much doubt they'd give it. They've been operating for over a decade with very strict privacy policies. Next time I'll definitely take it to mail right away.

Otherwise I'll just have to depend on my reputation, in past posts I have provided -the entire conversation- where possible, even translating them if needed. I'm a big fan of full disclosure.

If people don't believe me, well, that's their right. Hopefully this person won't think to looking for artists outside of the muck, and the ones on the muck will be able to see the bulletin board or hopefully a stockade message if the wizcore stockades her a few days for the offense.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Added some proof.

[rtydmartel.livejournal.com]

You sure dodged a bullet there.

[jakejynx.livejournal.com]

While his attitude sure seems to leave a lot to be desired, with no evidence, all anyone can really say is "okay."

Also, no money exchanged hands, and you have zero way of knowing if he had intended to try to scam you. I don't think an AB post was necessary or warranted in this case. It all seems very grudge-y: they posted meanie-pants things about you, so you do the exact same thing, with no evidence, to get back at him. Only in your case it's a more public sphere, which sort of makes it worse. You want to warn about a possible scam attempt, but there's no evidence or even indication, really, that he was attempting to do so.

In short, this seems a bit petty to me.

[linksage.livejournal.com]

While I agree that more evidence would be nice, I don't think money should have to change hands in order for a beware to be 'valid.'

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Even if they didn't intend to scam me the first time, they forgot about the transaction entirely. And I was perfectly willing to let that go, I just didn't want to do the same song and dance again.

But when you tell someone "No" and they shit where you eat, I'd consider that worth a beware. But your mileage may vary.

[sigilgoat.livejournal.com]

Please watch your tone with wording, Thaily. That level of vulgarity is not necessary.

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I figured it was just an expression and not an insult.

[kaputotter.livejournal.com]

Respecfully disagree. I think public defamation (in the context of a commission) iis reason enough to post to AB.

The lack of proof is somewhat suspect, albeit -- but given Thaily's reputation I'm willing to believe this, personally speaking.

[jakejynx.livejournal.com]

Defamation sort of implies that there were lies told about Thaily. Without seeing the post, we can't know if there were. Saying "this person refused to accept my commission because I forgot about another one I'd tried to have them do" is not defamation (not saying that's what was said, just that it could have been something that simple--we have no way of knowing). Granted, the new edit shows that they were not supposed to publicly call people out like that, and were subsequently banned, but from what I can see the issue worked itself out, and the beware probably wasn't necessary. I still think it was done to 'get back' at this person.

[kaputotter.livejournal.com]

Proof is proof, so fair enough.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

Frankly he may have decided to back out, and just not bothered to tell you. Annoying as that is, it's common. Move on to the next person and blacklist. I'm not sure it warrants an AB about them, and without any sort of proof outside of your word on the matter, it's just kinda....there. I will admit this has the scent of grudge, and maybe was better left un-posted.

You're assuming he was trying to scam you and posting his name based on just that: An assumption. You're also posting an awful lot of personal drama-info that I don't care to read about. Such as him playing a female character, and his financial trouble. That stuff is pointless and petty, and does little to make you come out in a good light.

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

Thaily did leave it alone after they failed to pay for the first proposed commission a year ago. This post is mainly about the person's reaction to being denied a new commission slot ...

[radiocatastrophe (from livejournal.com)]

I'm sure many commissioners have reacted badly for not receiving a spot when trying to commission someone they'd like art from, that shouldn't warrant a post about them on a Beware site. If there is no art involved and no funds in the mix then it's just a rant post if anything. All they had to do was block and ignore, if they continued to deface, harass, and taunt Thaily then that's something you take up with the sites admin and possibly post about but this doesn't seem to have happened for very long and doesn't seem all that threatening.

[xenafox.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I find this helpful myself. No money changed hands but it really does sort of feel like they were angling to get something for nothing, and no one wants to encounter these kind of commissioners if they can help it(I assume anyway).

[shiftergoddess.livejournal.com]

I was actually thinking the same thing.

[radiocatastrophe (from livejournal.com)]

I suppose, but like others have said there's little to no proof aside from word of mouth to really show that they were. I mean I'd be all for what you're saying if any sort of art was given to the commissioner before payment was given for what they had wanted, but there isn't. Just seems like harassment to me personally.

[werewolfofwater.livejournal.com]

I agree about needing more evidence, but harassment seems like a valid reason to post a beware about them, to warn others to, well, beware of them.

[xenafox.livejournal.com]

I do agree on the issue of proof, but it looks like it would be violating the other site's rules since that's where discussion happened :/

[radiocatastrophe (from livejournal.com)]

Yeah it's an iffy situation :S

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Just added a screenshot.

[tunavoice.livejournal.com]

In response to the male-player/female-character thing: It could be because it was for clarification and wanted people to refer to them correctly in terms of gender; not necessarily because of a grudge or outing information.

There are females who play males and vice-versa on games, and have screen names that could confuse acquaintances into thinking they're the incorrect gender, when they don't really mind people referring to them as their real gender! :) Confusion has happened once or twice. I think Thaily was trying to make this point.

I'm sorry if my tone sounded a little harsh or correcting in a condescending way! (English is hard.) I just wanted to throw that out there, you know, food for thought. <:C

[thaily.livejournal.com]

I'm referring to him as such because it is a guy; I don't have a problem with the character, but the player is a dude. Not a transsexual or otherwise, just a dude.

[tunavoice.livejournal.com]

That's what I thought, and was trying to refer to. :D

[ocelotish]

Umm... how is what he posted libel?

You don't have to like it, you may even claim it's harmful to your business, but it sounds like what he posted was true. He's allowed to recount his experience with you from his point of view.

His side of things add up. His rant about losing his job, home, etc. seems to be from the first commission. He's just hurt because you "using" that against him.

To be frank, I'd be miffed at you too if I were him and this whole thing does feel like a bit of grudge especially with your "helpful" comments like "Wah." It seems more like you just want a place to complain about him rather than this being a legit beware.

Had he gotten a free sketch out of you, then yes, beware on him. However, being upset at being blacklisted isn't something that I would consider unreasonable. While I can understand blacklisting him after one dropped commission, I'd still call that a little extreme. This isn't criticizing your right to decline any commission you want (and you should go with your gut if you think he was scamming), only that it's a relatively minor offense, so you'll get some negative feedback on it. In my opinion, it seems like you were more annoyed that he took up your time rather than thinking he'd scam you out of a sketch.

Also, the customer's last name is still pretty obvious in your screenshots; you might want to change that.

Edit: I still can't spell.

[taasla.livejournal.com]

Going to have to agree with you on this one.

(frozen)

[kwolf13.livejournal.com]

A lot of people are saying this is a "grudge post", but frankly I do think that this Beware is necessary. This person seems very irresponsible.

I mean, okay you lost your job, your house, you have no money to live off of...

So why are art Commissions even on your mind? If you have to "budget" to get an art Commission, you should just forget it and use that money to buy yourself food.

I think this kind of Beware is a good way to take a person who could easily become the next Allan, and nip it in the bud before it gets to that point. Because I can easily see how it could.

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

"I mean, okay you lost your job, your house, you have no money to live off of...

So why are art Commissions even on your mind? If you have to "budget" to get an art Commission, you should just forget it and use that money to buy yourself food."

This! Art is a luxury, not a necessity, so if you can come up with a sob-story as for why you should get a discount on a commission, then don't get a commission and pay for your damn food and rent.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

It wasn't clear to me that it was: lost job, lost home, want to buy art in that order. It seemed like it could have been: buying art (plans), then lost job, and then lost home. However, if there's something I misread, please let me know!

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

From what I read, they were trying to negotiate a discount on a 5 euro-commission because they didn't have enough money. Maybe the first time around they may have simply backed out due to losing interest, but the second time around they definitely did not have the budget to even begin thinking of commissioning someone.

Unless I read the OP wrong, but I don't think I did?

(frozen)

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Even with the e-mail for the first transaction, their first line is that payment will be delayed due to financial problems. Which was within minutes of a 2 hour conversation and him deciding on 120 euro worth of artwork.

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I missed that.
But in that case they definitely shouldn't have been e-mailing about commissions.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

I guess I thought that could have been a confirmation estimate. I'm sure that if he had had some crazy complicated character and just said "So that's €5 right?" it would have rubbed me the wrong way. (Also initially I thought it was €50! That's my own fault though.)

I can see what you mean about having to budget it in being taken as a chance to haggle, but I guess I just put that under "It's not my job to control my commissioner's budget." If he only has €20 a month to spend on entertainment, it's not our job to police how they spend it. That crosses the professional line on the part of the artist, the same way you'd want to smack the grocery store clerk if they said "You know, you shouldn't buy these bottles of water, you can just use tap water. I won't sell them to you."

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't tell them not to commission me and to buy food instead, but I would turn them down if I have any reason to doubt I will be paid for my effort. Just like a store has the right to deny goods to those who can't pay to take the goods with them.

I see it as avoiding aggravation and having to hassle someone for payment.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

Yeah, we're in agreement there, but that's solved with a simple "payment first" policy, not a blacklisting.

Edit: Also, I was objecting to "Art is a luxury, not a necessity, so if you can come up with a sob-story as for why you should get a discount on a commission, then don't get a commission and pay for your damn food and rent." That sort of thing: "You shouldn't be buying art if you can't buy ___." That's not really our decision to make and I'm not comfortable declaring the commissioner to be buying art while jobless and homeless when I'm not sure that's what happened.

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

I think we may have a misunderstanding here?
What I meant by the sentence you quoted is that if you can come up with excuses as for why you should get a discount or free art, then maybe you shouldn't be getting a commission at all.

It goes without saying that this is not something you say to a customer's face, but either way you have the right to deny them the commission. Because to me, it coming up with excuses for discounts indicates that they don't have the budget for it and are trying to find a way to have the artist ply to whatever bit of money they may have instead of the commissioner agreeing to the prices of the artist

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

That may be what you meant, but combined with that quote of "If you have to "budget" to get an art Commission, you should just forget it and use that money to buy yourself food," that's not how it read.

Certainly we can agree that while maybe it would be better if they put the money to other uses, it's not our place to regulate what they do with their funds.

coming up with excuses for discounts indicates that they don't have the budget for it and are trying to find a way to have the artist ply to whatever bit of money they may have instead of the commissioner agreeing to the prices of the artist

Haggling isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'd say it's pretty regular particularly for an independent contractor of a "luxury good." There's nothing wrong with saying "This is going on, so I'm not sure I can spend $xx on this, could I get is for $x?" as long as they're willing to take no for an answer. Also, I'd rather hear "I'm a little short on cash because of ___, so can I get it for $x" rather than the person just being a cheapskate. Explaining something can be a reason, not just an excuse. Same way I'd rather hear that something came up in an artist's life and that's why they're running late rather than just "Art block!/Lazy!" That doesn't mean guilt-tripping you with it, but you can briefly state why.

Besides, whether they have the budget for it or not is not really the artist's concern so long as they pay for it. If it results in them eating nothing but ramen for a week because of a commission, they probably didn't have the budget for art, but that doesn't mean I need to refuse to sell it to them. The art may be more important to them than better food, and that's their decision. We don't have to deny them for not budgeting the way we would.

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

"Besides, whether they have the budget for it or not is not really the artist's concern so long as they pay for it. If it results in them eating nothing but ramen for a week because of a commission, they probably didn't have the budget for art, but that doesn't mean I need to refuse to sell it to them. The art may be more important to them than better food, and that's their decision. We don't have to deny them for not budgeting the way we would."

This is what I've been trying to say the entire time.
If they have the budget for the art, be it badly budgeted, then I don't mind as long as I know I'm going to be paid for my effort.

To put it in an extreme: if they're homeless, can't pay for food and have scraped together say,$2 and *then* think of commissioning someone, then yes I would turn them down because they don't have the budget to commission something.

If they say they don't have the money because of several reasons like rent, like paying the bills, like paying for food, then they've obviously not budgetted in art and as such I would decline the commission-request.

I really feel like we're going in circles here about the same thing. o.O

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

If they're buying a $2 item with that $2, it's not really our business. That is my point.

You are advocating policing what people do with their money and that crosses a professional line.

You do not have to lower your prices for them, but when you say that you the artist have deemed the commissioner to not have enough, I find that unprofessional. You are policing what they do with their money, and I don't see how that's appropriate.

If you're worried about getting payment, yes valid reason, otherwise it's none of our business.

(frozen)

[ansitru.livejournal.com]

"If you're worried about getting payment, yes valid reason, otherwise it's none of our business."

That was my point all along, but anyway.

(frozen)

[ocelotish]

So then why all this discussion about how you would never take a commission from someone who hasn't budgeted it?! You have a "payment before work begins" policy (which is a good thing), so that person's financial situation is none of your concern. You will never be out work without payment.

To put it in an extreme: if they're homeless, can't pay for food and have scraped together say,$2 and *then* think of commissioning someone, then yes I would turn them down because they don't have the budget to commission something.

This situation still makes no sense if you're not policing other people's spending. If he asks for a €5 commission for €3 you can turn him down. If he then agrees to the regular €3 commission, he'll either pay it and you'll do the commission, or he won't and you won't have started. Either way you're out nothing.

(frozen)

[shukivengeance.livejournal.com]

Since this has become a discussion of personal policy and is unrelated to the post I am freezing the thread.

(frozen)

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've been dirt poor and it really, really sucked not to have any money to spend on myself for a long, long time. But I didn't buy luxuries, and art is definitely that.

If he was negotiating 120 euro worth of artwork in the same or month before he became homeless due to financial issues?

He was on-line regularly, I'd see him pass by. Plenty of opportunity to go "My financial situation took a turn for the worse, I'll have to hold off on commissions." and I would have wished him well and taken the work the second time around.

But as things stood, I didn't want to deal with him a second time around, especially not for 6 dollars, and preferred to spend my time on customers who had already paid.

So I told him "no" and he flipped out, so I thought I'd warn other people he responds badly to being told "no" at least.

(frozen)

[kwolf13.livejournal.com]

And it's a good thing to know.

It is strange that he wanted to spend that much money on a commission, shortly before financial shit hit the fan. It's not like going so broke you become homeless happens overnight.

My guess is he probably went on a string of unnecessary spending, and wound up unable to pay for anything important.

Some people just overestimate how much money they have, or underestimate the cost of their bills. Or are just plain irresponsible with it altogether.

(frozen)

[thaily.livejournal.com]

The first e-mail he sent he already said payment would be delayed because of financial problems, so it was more a case of going broke over the course of the minutes between saying he wanted 120 euro worth of art and sending the e-mail with the descriptions.

[tunavoice.livejournal.com]

I agree with kwolf13, to be honest. Commissions should not be on your mind if you are short on money, ESPECIALLY if you are jobless and HOMELESS. That just screams a ton of red flags for me. Why do you want to buy intangible things when you have bigger fish to fry? Shouldn't you be concerned about your own well-being first?

The beware seems valid to me for this reason- they could easily cop out on payment and take the free sketch and run. Thaily wanted to avoid this, from what I'm reading, and took the "better safe than sorry" route. I know I would do this if I were in their situation.

(Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes because English isn't my first language.)