Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

I am sorry that asking LL a very clear and specific question, and getting their very clear reply to it, isn't good enough for you, Mort.

This thread is about whether or not traffic bots are against [Linden Lab's] ToS, but you don't accept Linden Lab's statements on it. You think you know better than Linden Lab about what is and isn't against their own ToS. Very strange.

Because the response I received in voice chat was off the record, and made it clear that they were one of those thing they can not enforce due to the fact it's spiraled so far out of control. Much like when they were not able to suddenly deal with the manipulation for votes and dwell, so they went the way of the dodo. And the insertion of a new search to try and get rid of the gamed systems.

Camping they can control to a point, bot farms are harder to police. It's too easy to create alts, though the though of making it only payment info on file count was bounced around at internal meetings...so they could if need be slam bot farmers with the alt limits.

Oh it's voice chat now, is it? Very conveninet

It's like this, Mort. LL has been asked specifically about traffic bots - twice to our knowledge - and they put it in writing that they are not against the current ToS. That's very clear. It doesn't mean that it won't change in the future, but it's very clear for the present.

*If* anyone told you that traffic bots are difficult to enforce, don't believe a word of it. It would only take one blog post, and traffic bots would be virtually gone at a stroke. Enforcing would be very simple because users would AR any that they found, and dealing with the owners would be very easy indeed - the penalty system has been up and running for a long time.

It's a ticket so can't link to it, or live chat... how very convenient?


It has been asked once to my knowledge, you claim two other instances.

The users don't always AR because they don't see the blog, they don't see the forums, and not all know what those blips under the sea or in the sky are...

Then you got some that have the belief it isn't their responsibility to report violations, makes me think of the woman that used to work at bed and bath... and wouldn't call 911

Why twist things?

i was very clear what bots i was going to use and why I wanted to use them in my conversation with a Linden , there is nothing grey or vague about it.

Me : I have a business active in SL..I'm thinking of improving my Places Search exposure by adding a number of bots

Me : .......no these are bots..that would act as traffic to simply boost Places search, as i noticed my rivals have these with their inflated search figures. So i am free to use them?

Me : what potential TOS could be violated by stationery bots in the sky on a Estate sim? Just so that i'm clear...they would not have any other functionality


Nowhere did i imply Modelling bots or Group Inviters......"stationery bots in the sky" tells you what i was asking.


** just to be clear, I don't use bots, I don't like bots and I don't intend using bots in the future....I asked the questions to see what LL's current position on Bots are "*****

I've kept saying that it couldn't be linked to, but you kept wanting to see it again.

Please yourself, anyway.

Thats just silly as any club or popular shop on Mainland would face a similar problem.
As 40 AV's is max on mainland, its quite easy for a club to take 3/4ths of the sim resources when holding regular events.....same with shops making a new product announcement or holding a sale, a treasure hunt or any other methods of generating sales. I doubt LL's intention to kill off these type of businesses on Mainland. LL want to increase land ownership not kill it!

Get them to post clearly and openly in a manner that can be verified, much like my ticket filed to add a KB document to clarify what is and isn't allowed in regards to optimizing and manipulation of search.

I already suggested that we ask Jack. You ignored the idea.

They punt campers when they use up resources. They do not punt avatars there for events or actively shopping. (Or as one person routinely complains simply sitting there chatting at a public place)

So why should traffic bots be considered any different than a camp pad?

They aren't.

I wasn't talking about Bots....i was talking about your idea of allocation of resources according to Land size on Mainland.

All your other theories are null and void on Estates anyway.....as EstateOwners perform most of the duties that LL would normally do. Since there are 25000 Estate sims vs 5000 on Mainland.......and since Avatar limits on a Class 5 sim is 100 vs 40 on Mainland. The main mainpulations of traffic search by far and away occur on Estate Sims.


When Phil places his 20 bots or whatever he is competing with similar companies that could possibly be using anywhere between 30-80 bots on Estate sims. In other words he has no chance for top spot of similar keywords in Places Search.....unless he moves to Estate.

And on mainland you are given a warning and told exactly how many camp pads you can have.

And LL can put limits on estate sims as well, and does based on grid wide concerns.

If bots are causing problems on a sim, then LL will I'm sure punt them.

Indeed because they are in volation of the ToS in the eyes of the person responding to the AR. Hence the cyoa in the response using should

Well i rent out one of my sims to a company that used bots & camping. Never were they warned in nearly 21 months as a tenant for using excess amount of campers/ bots ......i suggest you are now resorting to story telling!

......and as the Estate Owner of that particular SIM, i never received any complaints from LL either.

That would only happen on Mainland because LL are effectively the Landlord ...they collect the rents (tier).....and their tenants expect certain rights, which include rights of access.
On Estate sims, its a different ballgame.......its' the Estate Owner's Covenant that dictates what is and what isn't allowed including some relevant sections of LL's TOS.....like griefing, sexual harrassment, stalking...the usual stuff.

If you own your SIM (Estate) with a Main shop ..and you decide to have 80 bots ....you are not hurting or effecting anyone else on that SIM. One could argue by having so many Bots might prevent genuine customers from coming into your sim....but that would hurt only the SIM owner and their business.

Simply untrue. You have no doubt come across someone who that happened to (and I'm sure I know who you mean), but what you said is simply untrue.

He's not story telling. It did happen to one person who he knows in this forum because she decided to kick out against people using the mainland sim - she installed a stack of campers to prevent them all from getting in.

Where he makes an intentional error is when he tries to pass that occurence off as LL telling mainland owners how many camp pads they can have. Somehow in his head, it's become LL's rule to tell mainland owners how many campers they can have. Not really surprising, is it.

The "one of my sims" i was talking about was Estate sims. I set my own Covenants on those, i make the rules plus make sure certain parts of LL's TOS are adhered too.

Your story above relates to Mainland.....there LL can intervene, so the outcome in Mort's example does not surprise me.

Mort was under the illusion that LL would tell Estate Owners how many Bots or Campers they can or can't use......that's pure story telling imo

ROFL that was your infamous proof?

It doesn't say anything either.

I got the impression that he was talking about camping wherever it is.

This thread seems geared up toward the Bots usage on Mainland from the tone of the messages.....yet there are probably 10x, 15x or 20 times or more Bots parked on Estate Sims.....where LL are less likely to intervene.

In both those posted correspondences with the Lindens, the posters merely interpreted them in a way they wanted to.

They ignored the standard "Out" which the Lindens always use when describing things of any questionable nature.

It was present in both transcripts.