Jump to content

flucket

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Excellent

About flucket

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

257 profile views
  1. Re: the edits, I second everything Celestina said, but I wanted to add some further advice in general because of what you said about your TOS gave me pause. In the future, simply having it posted freely available should not be enough. Linking it on your YCH posts going forward is also a good step, but I would also, before accepting money, specifically link your TOS to your clients and have them respond with clear, written agreement to it. Assuming your clients read and agreed to your TOS just because it's freely available isn't good business practice, and unless this client specifically expressed that they had read and agreed to your terms before going in to the transaction, holding them to a TOS they clearly weren't aware even existed... I kiiiind of feel that fumble is on you, sorry. ? You, and others, are free to disagree with me on that, but situations like this is exactly why you should always have this in writing.
  2. Not to harp on you, because you're right, right to refuse service is NOT a red flag at all and every artist has that right, whether or not they put it in writing. I can only speak for myself, but I think others here may agree with me: Goldenwolfen's "Asshole Clause" is just NOT a "right to refuse service" clause. Not just because it has a rude name, but because the clause is "if I don't like how you treat me I will just block you and keep your money", and that has nothing to do with right to refuse service, that's just blocking someone and keeping money you haven't fully earned because you feel it's... I don't know, compensation? Or something? Right to refuse service would be (to me at least) refunding the client, THEN blocking and blacklisting them if you so wish. Wash your hands of the business, and maybe flip what work you have on the commission as a YCH to make some money back. But saying "your money is just mine now and you get nothing because you were rude" is a hell of a red flag. It's a problem because what could be counted as, in GW's own words, "belligerent, rude, overly demanding [...] disrespectful, threatening [...] or otherwise mean and nasty" is entirely up to the discretion of the artist, and just listing synonyms of "rude" doesn't really give much framework of what falls into "asshole" territory. If a client who has paid in full and has been waiting, I don't know, three years including the 17 months to just have the commission started, finally says enough is enough and asks GW if they can have their commission done by X date or a refund, and when GW responds that they need to "chill and be patient" or whatever, the fed up client tells them they want the art or a refund in a firmer tone or they'll make an AB, does that count as "threatening" or "overly demanding"? Are they being belligerent or nasty because GW perceives their firm demand for their work or a refund as overstepping a boundary, or them ignoring the TOS ("I can offer NO time frame on commissions. Period.")? Is a client who sends monthly requests for updates on their commission going to be seen as overly demanding, or belligerent, because GW might personally find being chased up on the reg kind of overwhelming - especially if even only half of their waiting clients are sending monthly emails, that's still what, a couple dozen emails a month? They might not, of course! GW may be perfectly patient and understanding with their worried clients! But they might also not be, and there's really no way to tell because the wording is vague and the terms are completely beholden to how the artist feels and the stakes are a little too high to risk. Every artist has a right to refuse service. And even if they want to call it an "Asshole Clause" I don't care myself, I can read that as kind of tongue-in-cheek. But when that clause is extremely vague as to what constitutes as bad behaviour and includes getting to keep all the money while the client gets blocked, with no way to try to negotiate a refund, that's... I dunno, to me that just feels kind of threatening, ironically. TL;DR: Every artist certainly has a right to refuse service but I feel it's a moot point to even bring up because GW's "Asshole Clause" doesn't remotely resemble a right to refuse service clause. It just feels like a clause to coerce clients into not kicking up a fuss or risk losing their money and the commission.
  3. Okay, well, I don't see how it was "dumbed down" to that when those are literally the only two options here? You can either wait for the commission or ask for a refund. Or I guess give up on seeing your money and your art altogether, but that doesn't sound like a fun result. Forgive me if there's another option I'm not seeing here. ? And looking at that list of other people waiting for work is... exactly why I'd ask for a refund myself. You posed the hypothetical question "would other people would take a refund after four years", the answer for me would be a resounding yes because at that point even if I got the art, looking at it leave a bitter taste in my mouth. If you're absolutely set on the art, though, I'd recommend being a little less chill and a little more firm. You shouldn't have to be the one chasing the artist around, but as you said, it reads a lot like an artist taking advantage of a very laid back personality to put off giving results, maybe prioritising some of those many other waiting clients who are less chill (This isn't me putting the blame on you in any way, just agreeing that they are probably taking advantage of your attitude).
  4. This is some backwards logic in my opinion. First of all, a commission shouldn't be a competition with a victory state and a defeat state, and if you're at a point where you're viewing it that way, I think it's time to give up the commission personally. Second, asking for your money back and deciding against doing business with someone is exactly how you tell an artist that it's not okay to treat clients like that. Allowing the artist to keep the money indefinitely in some kind of endurance battle to see who gives out first doesn't really translate to "I don't approve of how you treat me as a customer." Refusing to continue to be their customer, by asking for a refund, seems far more effective. This isn't a fight, this isn't a game of chicken, there's no "defeat", there's just $25 you need to decide if you'd like back or not. But whatever, that's just me onion.
  5. If this were a business transaction, I'd agree. But having someone message you out of nowhere when you don't publicly post your email anywhere (already creepy) asking you to hand over your character, and then when you refuse telling you to "kill yourself fa***t" does not, in my books, warrant any kind of civility from you. Would simply blocking them the first moment they got hostile been a better way of handling it? Yes, I agree actually! Does it in any way undermine the OP for calling someone a fairly tame insult after being told to go kill himself followed up by an actual slur? Man, I dunno, to each their own I guess, and if that's your feelings that's your feelings. But I certainly wouldn't feel uncomfortable dealing with OP over that. I'd have said a lot worse than "asswipe" if someone called me by a slur and told me to kill myself (over a pony OC). Also, just a general thing, opening with "I don't care what people think of you" is already pretty dang loaded, looked kinda like he was softballing a threat about using your reputation against you right from the get go, OP. Sucks you had to deal with this!
  6. Uuuh. UUUUUUH. They certainly own the man hours of work they paid for, surely? When you commission an artist or fursuit maker for custom work, you're paying them not just for the product but for their time and skill, which is why a fursuit costs more than just the cost of materials. But on the flip side, they literally paid you for your time, they are owed that time. From people who paid you money in the four digits and have been patiently waiting two years for any kind of proof of work done? The goddamn gall of this ingrate and their wild demands, right, lmao. Right, this isn't a business, that's why you charged someone ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS, because it's not about the money, you aren't running a business, this is ART. I hope they're not lying through they're teeth that they're quitting fursuit making because literally nothing about their business model implies they're really cut out for it. I understand "I thought I could monetise doing this thing I love but the stress ended up getting too much for me", I've reached a point where I don't want to do commissions as a job and only do them occasionally for spending money to buy dumb internet t-shirts, but like. I will either crunch to finish the work and close up comms, or refund my customers in full when I find out my mental illness is getting the better of me. Because when you charge people money for art, that art becomes on demand business. ? I'm so sorry for OP, it doesn't look like you're going to get your money back but at the very least you deserved to be treated way, way better than this. Two years? Jesus. You have the patience of a saint.
×
×
  • Create New...