Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

This remark should be put as a sticky, because it exactly is what a discussion is meant for. Of course it is nice is someone can be convinced that someone else is right and they are not, but that is not the intention of a discussion in my opinion. Appreciating each others point of view, understanding each others way of thinking, and the reason behind ones opinion, is what matters.

Now we should put some effort in convincing LL removes the traffic based Search Places, and all gets quiet on this forum Phil removes his bots, Picks Camping seems less and less useless anyway, as soon as traffic gets removed we will have to find another topic to disagree about

I'd still like to know who the "corrupted people" are. Corrupt is rather a strong word.

It seems to me that, since LL includes traffic manipulators in their Showcase, that they are not so against the practise as some here possibly imagine. The only straight LL statements that I'm aware of are:-

(1) "yes, bots are a problem" - something like that. But nobody know why it's a problem to LL, so nothing can be deduced from it. E.g. it could have meant that LL wants to keep them for the numbers, but some users are against them. That could be the problem.

(2) "they are not against the current ToS". That was written to me personally, but anyone can get the same information simply by asking. Arguing that traffic bots are against the ToS is just hot air if the person arguing won't ask LL. It's easy enough to ask.

Probably the main problem is the fact that LL is not too happy about people having 20 or more accounts logged in without paying. Weird is that they do not enforce the policy that someone can only have 5 alts. It is mentioned somewhere, but then again it is easy to sign up as many as you want.
I would vote for an option that premium account holders are allowed a few alts, and basic members are allowed 1 avatar. Make payment info on file obligatory, or find some other way of verification, and the multiple account thing is solved. People wanting to run 20 alts (bots) then have to pay premium for a couple of accounts, and the use of their service is payed for that way. But that is a different topic of course.


That is the answer to the OP actually, and it is very clear that this is true at this moment. Even without seeing the answer from LL, it is clear they know bots are there, and they do not act against it. AR-ing them is useless if they do not keep others from entering a sim. So it is clear enough that they are not against the current ToS, I agree.

And indeed, corrupted people is a too strong word. Gabrielle made a good posting there (even though I do not agree with her point of view) but she could better have dropped the corrupted people bit. We should all be careful what we call other people.

Marcel's though provoking post was aimed at people who felt cheating was morally and ethically wrong and then went on to pose the question why those people who did not want to do business with such people in SL did business with LL. Marcel's reasoning was that surely LL was just as morally and ethically challenged. Corruption is a good word for actions and people you feel are morally and ethically challenged when it is not that they are doing the thing inadvertantly or by accident but deliberately. Hence my reply was in the same vein and instead of putting morally and ethically wrong I opted for the corrupt and corruption words instead. Nothing strong about it or personal.

So the "corrupted people" are LL themselves?

I agree with your idea that it can be good to fight something from the inside (my paraphrase), but "corrupt" is much too strong a word for LL's acceptance of traffic bots, and their use of the statistics they create. So much too strong that it just isn't the right word at all. When the word is used in this way, it implies the sort of corruption that people are taken to court, and often jailed, for. Corrupted also means modified/changed for the worse, like a file is no longer useable because it has been corrupted. You could have meant something like that, but since you equate it with ethics and morals, it is clear that you are saying that LL is corrupt in the first sense, which is waaaaay over the top. "Corrupt" is not only totally the wrong word, but it's a very inflamatory one to use against people, just because you consider them to have a lower ethical standard than yourself.

What is the right word, Phil?

No you misunderstood me, I equate corruption with *willful* moral and or ethical degeneration. It was in part referring to Marcel saying that LL are possibly as bad as any who are also unethical and/or morally challenged in world. I used to corruption to mean both sets of people.
I will be the judge of whether my words are too strong. There are plenty of your own words to be censoring first.
Your objection to my word has been duly noted and given its proper importance

"Commerce / Failure to Deliver" was/is part of the new abuse categories. You would assume that since LL added it it must mean a change in policy regarding resident-resident disputes.

Asking the GTeam it turns out they don't know about it and they reiterate that LL won't intervene in resident-resident disputes so it's likely that one Linden just added it without knowing what he/she was doing.

You can't ever make the leap from "one Linden did/does/says" and apply that the entity LL as a whole. Even getting two Lindens in the exact same team to answer a question without contradicting one another isn't that easy .

Likely it was just one Linden - who may or may not even have tp'ed over to have a look and even if he/she did may or may not have noticed traffic manipulation was going on or that such a thing even exists to being with - who added it and it in no way represents (or contradicts for that matter, it does work both ways) what the official position is. Office Lindens in particular are completely clueless as to what goes in-world since other than to attend an office hour or an internal meeting they don't ever spend any time in-world.

As far as controversial topics are concerned I can only think of one that they ever took a firm standpoint ("we don't involve ourselves in resident-resident disputes" in, everything else (ageplay, casinos, ad farms, etc) was all silence up until the point they do away with it.

There has been some - if minor - evolution in how they deal with campers (trafficbots are campers) in the sense that at first you could put 40 of them on a sim and LL wouldn't do anything even if it meant that people couldn't get to their land for days. Then after a while they would - silently - restart a sim as soon as someone complained that they couldn't get in a sim because it was full which eventually evolved - again silently - into a few actual bans for excessive use.

There's a big difference between something that isn't banned and something which is actually allowed whether you want to see that difference or not. And yes, by the same token you can't claim that something isn't allowed just because there's nothing that explicitly states that it's allowed.

For anything "controversial" there will always only be silence from LL until the day they choose to ban it (whole or partially).

They put it up in their showcase indeed, and on 2 different occasions they said bots are not against the ToS. One of them Phil mentioned, the other one was in a Live Chat. So that is 3 different persons/departments within the Company (showcase, ticket, live chat) that show bots are not against the ToS.

Kitty is right though in her last posting:



They can ban bots whenever they want. But as for now, they are not, and they do not seem to have too much problems with them. Let's just hope they say goodbye to traffic finally, if not I might even fire up some bots *grins*.

If your government is corrupt do you commit suicide as a solution?

But you won't be the judge on how others view whether or not they are too strong - and "corrupt" is just too strong a word for any of this stuff, imo.

I personally know of 2 statements by LL that traffic bots are not against the ToS. (The topic of this thread). The statements were months apart - one was during this thread, which I learned about today.

Anybody can ask LL if they really want to know, so there's no real reason for much discussion. Either LL view traffic bots as being within the ToS or they view them as being against the ToS. Our personal interpretations of the ToS don't matter. So far, all the testimony is that LL views them as not being against the ToS.

While you state this over and over

Unless you provide the documents;

The value of this argument is only as good as your word.

I for one do not beleive you.

There are, according to Linden Lab's official statistics, over 15 million residents here. Now here's a simple question:

Is that figure artificially inflated?

Of course

It includes all the people who have left. (As well as all Alt,bots, etc. )

Presumably because anyone could come back I suppose.

You asked a Linden and individual Lindens do not speak for LL which is something that you seem determined to ignore.

If you want an official statement from LL you can get one through their public relations contact at [email]secondlife@lewispr.com[/email] but until you get a reply you didn't actually ask LL you merely asked Random Linden.

Random Linden may or may not be right, but attribute your sources properly.

If I am a single human being and I make 100 "residents" in Second Life, am I really one resident who's been artificially inflated with my own sense of self-importance, or am I really 100 residents?

Individual Lindens *do* speak for LL. The ones who were asked weren't random Lindens. They were not asked for opinions, and they didn't give opinions. The sources are correct.

Then quote them or get them to post in public.

Till proven otherwise it's hearsay and worthless as saying "so and so told me there is a santa claus!"

How many times do you want them quoting, Mort? Once a day?

I told you already, everyone is free to believe what they want to believe about them. It doesn't make any difference. I also told you to find out for yourself from LL. It's very easy to do, and it would save a lot of posts in this kind of thread. Our interpretations of the ToS are irrelevant. Only LL's interpretation matters.

What I have or have not done is immaterial.

You are making claims that are pretty much the same as a school yard kid going "but mr rodgers said it, so I'm right"

You hold up two random linden posts to you as proof, but there is no proof but your word.


And to be blunt Phil there is nothing that says someone can not do like some networks have done for SOX or HIPPA compliance and try to put in the proper tricks used to put HR documents (employee handbook, saftey and security regs, etc.) at the top of every search request made using the google appliance (And yes there are ways to do it... using code built into the appliance so would be by your and others reasoning simply using the equipment as designed)

Go and ask for yourself, Mort, and stop whining about it. It's easy enough to do if you really want to know the answer. If you won't do it, you have no argument.

I and others have, and gotten different answers. Specifically that the gaming of traffic was one of the key reasons for moving into the new search system.

So we are saying put up the evidence or stop making baseless claims.

No. Go and ask for yourself, Mort. We're not interested in why LL decided to go for the new system. We're only interested in whether or not traffic bots are against the ToS. Go and ask.

I did, and my given reply is why I quoted that part of the ToS.

And I repeat a lack or inability to enforce it does not change it being a violation.