Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

hey!


they fit my ego i have 99 viewers running
yesterday i was thinkin bout -> 99 bots with a followerscript and me running round on sim

hey!


a newbie has 1k items in his inventory no scripts running no group and arc 0 or 1
me as an example has 4k items, 7 groups(huge amount for me have to reduce i know), im lowscripted, simple bow, crossbow, uniform, primhairs, primshoes, arc < 2.5k in worst case - full attached incl. xCS
in idle (noncombat) mode = chatting, scripting, ... i use bandwidth 3 - 7 kbps
when im running round in combatmode bandwidth = 20 - 50 kbps
when i loggin my bandwidth is 500 - 700 kbps for ~ 10 - 60 secs to load my body inventory and sim

i have noticed people loggin in with > 600 scripts running, they will bog down the sim for maybe 5 seconds or more -> physics(movement) runs out of control
totalframetime 50 - 75 ms, simfps <10, physics fps <10
normal sim stats with one player on
totalframetime 0.6 - 1.2 ms, simfps 50, physics fps 50
serversoftware 1.24.4.xxxx

so we can see pepole have a different impact to serverload and overall performance

Do any of you actually sleep?!

I realize that the lack of bots would equal more camping. In my mind, bot-less camping would be a better alternative than bots, because it at least allows others to pick up some L$ to spend at other places. Not only that, but it's been proven in the past that if a place puts out too many pads, ARs are effective for resource hogging. So, in that respect, it's a bit more controllable too.

Note, I also pondered a concurrent connection limit via IP. This isn't a ban against bots, just a reduction in their number and allows for those who use bots for something other than traffic. Not sure how many would be fair or implemented, but it could be looked into as a way to bring it down to manageable levels.

This is clearly a poking fun in a non-serious way and should not even have to be mentioned, to take it in anyway serious is just silly. Colette knows about the name as do I. It does even need to be discussed. Again you are attempting to tell me what to do, stop it. Colette poked fun in a non-threatening way and I followed up with a slight fun poking and after what has been posted by Rene it is the least of the issues there.

Some of the issues now concern scalability should bots become the way of life for everyone (think minimal impact magnified by thousands) and some concern the fair share of traffic points and av slots in a sim.

Lol yes I have slept thank you. I am unclear why camping would have to come back, if abuses of the search system were banned then camping would be also as it too is an abuse of the traffic system, otherwise it would indeed be useless. However the assumption seems to be that LL would ban traffic bots but not traffic camping. I do not see that has to be the case really.

Lol yes I have slept thank you. I am unclear why camping would have to come back, if abuses of the search system were banned then camping would be also as it too is an abuse of the traffic system, otherwise it would indeed be useless. However the assumption seems to be that LL would ban traffic bots but not traffic camping. I do not see that has to be the case really.

Marcel, I don't know if you know what has transpired earlier today or if you care but my advice is not to get into the middle of something here. It is not a threat but an expectation of an outcome that I know will transpire - again I get to choose what I mean, not anyone else. My advice to you again is to stay out of it because it is you who are seeking to make this worse if you don't. This is between Phil and me, you placing yourself in the middle is only going to make things worse.

Gabriele:

I wrote about Colette - not about you. I wondered if you might be a bit touchy so I even changed the first sentence before you posted - have a look. What I said about Colette is true, and there's no need to be touchy on her behalf. If it interests you at all, as it seems to do, all you really need to do is examine what I said and check it out. And please don't suggest getting back into that "merry-go-round". We won't always agree with what we write (that was said), but there's no need to suggest going back to the flames the first time I write something that you don't agree with. Please don't be so touchy. I will post my views. If you are going to be touchy when you don't care for them, then the PMs were useless.

Colette doesn't always do things wrong, but she is a genuine troll, which is plain for all to see. For instance, her post about which post kicked it all off was so wrong that it had to be trolling and, surprise surprise, it just happened to be one of my posts. It couldn't possibly have been when someonce called me a complete asshole because that wouldn't have suited Colette's trolling. If you read her posts without bias, you can't miss it. One good post to you does not make her a nice person. Remember Bradley? He was a well liked, non-controversial person here, but Colette's trolling was instrumental in him leaving the forum. He said that in the forum.

Your posts do indeed stand as they stand, and you do indeed get to choose how you meant them, but you do not get to choose how they are understood. If you choose to write things as though are facts, don't be surprised if people read them as such, even though you meant them as opinions. I don't mind people having different opinions to me - I have different opinions to other people, so I couldn't mind. I don't mind that you abhor traffic bots. What I do mind is people posting things as facts when they are merely opinions, and I will post accordingly. Your early posts were posted as facts, regardless of whether you meant them as opinions or not. Rene's phrase "a bull in a china shop" was very true for the first of them, as there was no indication that you meant it to be just opinion.

I know that we are not going to change each other's opinions. We all know that from the start of every one of these threads, and yet we post in them. I have no intention of not posting my views, so you need to accept them as such and not ask me to drop it. There is nothing negatively personal in it now - except about Colette. She lied about the post that started it all and I responded. I really don't see any fault on my side for that.

I get the feeling that LL would only deal with one side of the issue at a time, kinda like baby steps. It doesn't help that given that the system is already being gamed, those same "gamers" are going to turn around and find loop holes through any system LL puts in place.

What I really think needs to happen is for LL to make it less cost effective to game the system, rather than ban anything. This is kinda why I like the idea of a concurrent connection limit via IP.

It actually read like a threat to me too, but in view of the PMs I prefered not to follow up on it, but it really did look like a threat.

What can I say? Are you saying unpleasantness would not ensue if escalation occurs again? How was I not making a forward looking projection?
I am coming to beleive we simply speak different languages though they look the same on the surface.
I think it best we leave it at that.

Just in case it is not clear to anyone from this point on, all my posts are expressed opinion unless I directly confirm upon clarification or say up front that they are facts. Likewise unless I say otherwise all my comments are general and speaking only to the issues unless answering a quoted person directly. If I say "You" and I am not quoting and have not mentioned a person by name then the "You" is a general "you"

This is kinda why I like the idea of a concurrent connection limit via IP.

What can I say? Are you saying unpleasantness would not ensue if escalation occurs again? How was I not making a forward looking projection?
I am coming to beleive we simply speak different languages though they look the same on the surface.
I think it best we leave it at that.

Then for clarity, and to avoid confusion, please use little things like "imo", otherwise they can only be seen as stating facts, which may or may not be true.

hey!

one connection per ip?
in this case a lot of builders cannot make stuff cos they use 2 loggins at the same time -> testing rights (copy/modify/transfer,grouprights,...) the alt can make simple mods and give back the build, ...
where to set the limit? maybe 5 would fit? but its also up to LL
its all based on fair use as av/sim is, 40 or 100 avs on sim grid width doesnt work as i know no matter if they are bots or "real people".

i agree with him

it read like a treath and how you ment it is not how you wrote it...

No I'm not saying that. I simply saying that, when I read it, it did read like a threat. I am not saying that no other interpretation could be put on it. I'm just saying how it read at the first time of reading.

concurrent just means a set amount of connections per ip (say 5 or 10), not 1

@All, solution: The conclusion has long been drawn: traffic should disappear. We seem to agree on that one (well, most of us). Banning bots equals return of camping. Traffic simply is a useless figure. Maybe it once was different, but at least for the last year it is useless (and probably long before that).

hey!

i know was stupid, ...
i have more than 1 machine and different ips so this wouldnt be a problem for me, but its more simple to build with my alt on the same machine.