Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

That's what I said. People do buy land for business use, with the full intention of showing in search.

Mort. Stop with the nonsense. Nobody agrees with you - not even the other anti-bots. You are just being silly by arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even have any firm views on the technical side. You just throw in whatever comes into your head at the time. You switch your view when you are shown to be wrong. The other day the servers polled every avatar for various reasons - now it's the login servers, and you think that there is a limited space for avs that gets full sometimes. You really don't have a clue, Mort so stop being silly.

The silliest thing is that you probably believe some of it LOL

The other thing i find amusing is that Mort hides behind LL T.O.S like if it was the bible.
If you research all the info relating Bragg vs Linden Labs case, you'll see that LL's T.O.S was deemed unreasonable.

You can read it here

http://www.secondlifeinsider.com/tag/BraggVsLindenLab

Yet if I hide behind the ToS like if it is the bible, I am declared unethical. Double standards?

Definitely.

You might want to do some more research on that.

LL filed a motion to compel arbitration and it was the arbitration clause that was in the TOS at the time that led to the "contract of adhesion" ruling and a dismissal of the motion LL filed.

LL changed the arbitration clause later on as a direct result of that ruling (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/09/18/a-change-to-the-terms-of-service/). The rest of the TOS was never affected, just that specific provision.

Where does it say in the ToS that it's okay to manipulate searches?

where does it say that it isnt?

I'll ask the same question that eku asked. Where does it say that it isn't?

4.1 You agree to abide by certain rules of conduct, including the Community Standards and other rules prohibiting illegal and other practices that Linden Lab deems harmful.

subsections of note:
(v) take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data or personal information;
(viii) interfere with or disrupt the Service or servers or networks connected to the Service, or disobey any requirements, procedures, policies or regulations of networks connected to the Service;

and from the CS:

Global Attacks
Objects, scripts, or actions which broadly interfere with or disrupt the Second Life community, the Second Life servers or other systems related to Second Life will not be tolerated in any form.


Since search manipulation would require actions or objects that interfere with the standard operation of the search systems in a grid wide manner it is covered in there.

Yes, Mort, but where does it say that it isn't?

read carefully Phil:actions taken to manipulate search are interfering with the function of search. Such actions are listed in the ToS as verboten.

Just because enforcement of the clauses is a bit lacking does not mean they are not there.

Only your interpretation, Mort.

Many if not most people agree with Mort's reading of the TOS.

nope.

Then how about we change it's name to "The Book of Mort " and close the case? All in favor....?

poor Elex

How about "The Colour of Tragic" instead ?

/me has a vision of Phil approaching the Pearly Gates, with a copy of the Ten Commandments tucked under his arm.

"Where does it say that that I couldn't ........"
"No. That's not killing. *I* didn't do any actual killing."
"No that wasn't stealing. Stealing means taking something, like a donkey for instance."
"Anyway, you didn't stop me. That means that it was acceptable to you."


Or:
A very good and saintly person is turned away at the Pearly Gates.
Person: "Stealing??"
St. Peter explains. "Thou shalt not steal. One of the definition of stealing in Chambers dictionary is 'to obtain something by cleverness or trickery'".
Person: "But I never tricked anyone."
St. Peter explains. "No, but you are a clever person. You obtained lots of stuff through your cleverness. Therefore you were stealing. Go to Hell."
Person: But I gave it all to the poor. My own life was one of poverty and prayer. The dictionary says 'cleverness or trickery'. That means the tricky sort of cleverness.
St Peter: It says 'cleverness'

I would phrase it as simply "a few", and I'd be right.

"Many" implies a significant number, and there isn't a significant number in this case, unless you are only counting people who post in these threads.

By the fact that the only people that see good in traffic whore bots are those that have them, and atleast 2/3rds of the businesses in SL have them, I'm sure that "a few" would imply more to those that feel it isn't against the ToS, far less than the "many" that feel it is.

Your level of arrogance and ignorance are actually quite up to par with most other bot owners. You imply that "many" requires a significant number, and yet you turn around and spout off "a few" in the same regards and then claim yourself to be correct? What was just shown to you by Mort is yet another thing to add to the laundry list of the WRITTEN reasons why Bot Farmers should be dealt with. But, if you'd rather say "no, you're wrong, and I'm right" without offering any further statements to back that up, you're about as mindless as the bots that sit on your land.

The problem with that is that Mort hasn't shown anything from the ToS to indicate that traffic bots are against them. All he has shown is something that he chooses to interpret as such, and few people share that interpretation. How many people's opinions have you seen, who think that it's against the ToS? Who did you say is ignorant?

I believe I called you ignorant. Scroll back up and read it again if you missed it. You see, the ToS is open to interpretation. Does it ever say specifically how it works, or is it left open? You think that's not for a reason? Show me where the section of the ToS pointed out states any definites, and that anything outside those limits does not fall underneath it. Many terms of service agreements have some leeway for certain "loopholes" that come about. If Linden Labs came down and said "what you're doing is against the ToS" and cited what Mort did, that means LL interpreted the ToS in that way.

Oh, by the fact that the voice of those against is far louder than those for, I truly think the few that share any interpretation are those that feel they need to rely on bots because their businesses are so lacking they cannot legitimately receive traffic on their own. But then again, maybe you just can't come up with a good enough business model, or a unique product, due to wasting all your time here defending your usage of bots to "cheat the system". Or maybe you misunderstood that just because it's not directly mentioned in the ToS, doesn't mean that what you're doing isn't against it.

Just your prefered interpetation, Mort - nothing more. Personally, I'd rather accept LL's own interpetation, which is that traffic bots are not currently against the ToS.

Neither were ad farms at first. See what happened there? Wow, and strangely enough, almost the same exact thing happened when people first started fighting against those too. Ad Farmers were stating it didn't violate the ToS, put themself as untouchable in their own minds, and now they have 3 weeks to clear it out before they are banned permanently. I say this with full confidence: It's just a matter of time.