Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

Phil has left the building......and i'm about to do to.
I'll leave you Rottweilers to scrap amongst yourselves for the bones that are left behind!

/me tosses the troll a candy

.....and that coming from a Furry . rofl


Man you have some serious issues......not sure if i should be even talking to you!


http://rh.greydawn.net/browse.php?c=Mortvent%20Charron


Well, you certianly live in a Rabbit hole....what is it? A 512 sqm...rofl
No wonder you wanted me to buy you a SIM

Traffic Bots have not Real effect anymore since of the new search engine, since its effect by Favorites made by making places in your picks and Traffic and Popular places are gone, using bots are a waste of time though there are a few people that look at the traffic and think if its a good place to goto or not.

therefore, trafficbots have no real use then collecting dust.

Wrong, there are times when people use places search because of the fact the new search gets filled up with page after page of people, prims, groups and then places.

Depending on the keywords, you are actually better off using places vs the new search.

So they are still very useful for manipulation of search, and traffic does appear to pay a smaller roll in the new search as well.

Well they are counted in the new Search .. though to a limited extent

An extent that gets consistently downplayed by those running Trafficbots .. which is interesting since they continue to insist on using them.

Oh but you are very much pro-bot despite your protestations.

You have to prove your assertions - not me. Try doing your own dirty work.
Again, you are bringing this to a personal level. You are nothing but a troll.

Hahaha just like a typical pro-botter - assumes the world revolves around them.

LMAO you calling another slimey - Pot meet Kettle.

What I want to know is exactly who started cloning bot herders and their fan-base side-kicks? Whoever it is, please it is not funny, please stop!

"You wont have Dick Nixon erm I mean Rene and Phil to kick around anymore!"

Tosses the poor troll some more candy so it can maybe grow up to at least be a little troll soon

Now back to the topic...

I would just like to note and remind those fond of saying that the TOS/CS do not have anything in them against traffic bots that there are lots of things that the TOS/CS do not cover that have already been banned. Banking without a RL license, Gambling and of course Networked Advertising is the latest.

LL did not even rewrite the TOS/CS to cover these extra rules and yet one day without any real warning they are just as banned, if not more so than the things expressly outlined in the TOS/CS.

So judging by LL's performance to date with these things, looking to the TOS/CS as the final word on legality is ludicrous.
Also as the first of the those I mentioned was not so very long ago really, so LL whilst seems to have moved slowly is in fact gathering momentum when it comes to these things. It seems that they did nothing for a number of years and then in the space of less than one year have banned 3 of the big bugbears.

Yes there were some other factors involved but if/when the ban hammer comes for traffic bots there may also be more factors at play than you might expect and no notice whatsoever. Life is like that, full of surprises.

Yeah LL could, at any time, decide to start enforcing a maximum Alt number on people - which would kill trafficbots.

Or remove traffic .. same result.

Neither of those would require a TOS change.

Nor would using some of the options available through community standards.

LL could simply blog post and then enforce. They don't seem to update the TOS/CS for anything else in recent times as far as I can see. Didn't Daniel Linden say that the TOS/CS were on their way out anyway? That might explain it.

community Standards yeah.

He wanted to cut it down to just the Intolerance clause.

So it is entirely possible they have abandoned maintenance of the CS, possibly TOS too. Maybe they figure that they are fine as a basis and the other rules can be gleaned from the blog, wiki, word of mouth or by enforcement.

Please tell LL that they can stop anything that they don't want. They appear to be having difficulty stopping a number of abuses.


I now understand you're "It's OK to spam a search engine" line. The reason I could not understand it was that I was under the impression that you were claiming to be an ethical or moral person.

I was under the impression that you would stop using traffic bots if LL banned them because of the principle on not breaching *explicit* TOS in general.
It is clear that the only reason you would cease is that SL is currently a monopoly.
Come the day that an extensive grid of virtual worlds exists, you will be in there abusing the systems as you see fit.

You come here arguing that your activities are above valid criticism. You want a reasoned discussion and a pint afterwards.


Someone who refrains from behaving badly because of fear of more punishment than they want to bear is not a good person.

You are an abuser of systems. Most reasonable people when informed of the facts and your true opinions would consider you to be a parasite, a person of low worth.
You are no different to a spammer in your sociopathic approach to others.

I think you'll find this is the point that Phil and I have made already. Traffic bots are accepted today, they may not be accepted tomorrow.

The point has just got lost in the way the thread has slid downhill, hell LL could stop L$ being taken out the game if they wanted to, LL can do anything they want and when they want, maybe they are just watching as things develop, who knows what they are planning next

LL has always had a rather naive belief that SL's residents will mostly sort out their own problems and the grid would be primarily self-regulating. I think as their goals for SL have changed that's kind of morphed into the idea that they're just an ISP and shouldn't have to be responsible for what goes on in world any more than an ISP is responsible for the contents of websites hosted on their servers. I don't think that analogy really works because there's so much more to SL than that, and what happens on any given parcel has far more power to affect everyone else than what happens on any given website. I think if LL ever wants to get big business really interested in their platform they're going to have to step up to the plate and set stricter rules that they agressively enforce. Otherwise corporations aren't going to want to deal with all the BS or they'll just want their own private walled gardens for internal company use.

But that isn't an answer to my question... it's just your opinion of why my question is irrelevant to your business practices.

If you're answer is supposed to mean in a round about way that it's ok for Phil simply because most people would never want to use the same underhanded business practices so the problem will never get that out of hand so just ignore it... that's a pretty lame answer and doesn't make sense.


The question is... again, since the above still isnt an answer...

... why Phil uses bots when he says that if everyone used bots it would "have a serious negative impact on the system". I'm asking why it's ok for him when it's not ok if everyone does it. When there is an answer to that that makes any kind of sense, I'll stop asking it.

It's not WHY DOES PHIL USE TRAFFICBOTS? I feel completely educated as to why he uses them.

It's WHAT MAKES HIM THINK HE'S BETTER THEN EVERYONE ELSE? What makes him think he should use a system that if everyone else used it - it would grind SL to a halt?

Ad Farms were perfectly acceptable under the TOS they were spawned under.

So then it could be argued that people who currently run trafficbots could be catagorized as very similar to people who ran Ad Farms prior to the TOS change that banned them.

Oh no. That honour belongs to Colette.