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

(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.