Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

The only mean spirited people we see in this forum are those who troll and those who turn to brainless insults, which is why you are one of only 2 people who made onto my ignore list.

On this point we are in complete agreement.

I've always found Pie to be rather interesting to debate with, although she goes overboard at times, so do I, so I recognise at times that people say things that are a little out of place from time to time but I've generally found Pie's opinion to be worthwhile.

Just my opinion of course.

I will point out once again,

Phil has issued more direct insults than ANY current poster on these forums.

Everyone says good things much of the time, but some people turn to insults when the other side continues to disagree with them, and Pie is one of those. Unfortunately, my nature is to retaliate, which isn't a very good thing to do - and then they turn again and blame me for the insults. Still, it what's expected from some people - always someone else's fault - never theirs.

I don't even remember what Pie wrote to get her into my ignore list, but it must have been particularly bad because people like Chris and Chip haven't made it, and they are very good at initiating the insults too.

This often stated contention of yours is bullshit.

If someone throws a jab at you and you reply with a torrent of obscenities. Its not the person who threw the jab's fault that you are a jerk.

Don't play the victim, Phil. You're as bad as anyone about throwing in unnecessary insults whether or not anyone has done so to you first. I'm by no means innocent, but claiming you're some kind of victim and it's just retaliation is quite a stretch. We all tend to see behavior in others that we don't as easily recognize in ourselves. If you want to see more civil discussions, not denigrating the intelligence, reading skills, or experience of those you disagree with might be a good place to start.

It's simply not true, Chip. I retaliate to insults - I don't initiate them.

A long time ago there were 2 threads in which I initiated the insults (my insults in them were the result of another thread). I was going to start a thread to apologise pretty much straight away, but a very well respected person here suggested that I leave it and work it into other threads, and that's what I did - I apologised for them later, in another thread. Apart from those 2 ocassions, I only ever react to insults - I don't initiate them.

There is a possible way how some people could see me as starting them. For instance, if someone posts that I am a scam artist, low life, bottom feeder, liar, cheat - those kind of things - I will see them as insults. If I respond by telling the person that s/he is a bucket of shit, I'm responding to the insult. It is possible that some people choose to think that I hadn't been insulted at all because they think that I am a scammer (or whatever), and the truth is never an insult. If some people see it that way, then to their way of thinking, I am the one who started it, but those people are blind (stronger words are more accurate, but I won't use them).

The truth is that, apart from those 2 threads a long time ago, I never start the insults. I only ever respond to them in kind.

Btw, I did point out that it was your experience in life that was meant, and not what it was first taken to mean. But if you want to make out that you have more life experience than I have, please do

This is where you are deluded.

You have no understanding of the word "in kind"

Phil, I am reposting this because you need to see that there are times when you do start to make things personal before anyone else. Not all the time but more than a few times.

This is a classic example. The comment I wrote is a general comment about my opinion and what I beleive too. It is clearly not aimed at any individual or personal in any way. Yet your response is to aim a highly personal remark at me claiming that you have no doubts about the level of my greed. Even though the line is not necessairly highly insulting it is inflamatory and very personal.
This is the kind of thing that degenerates the conversation away from the points and on to the rocks.

If you think my post was personal in some way then you are reading way too much into the post than is written.

A non-personal response would have consisted of something like the following:

"I disagree, there are cases where shady practices are fine." or
"I agree but I just want to make it clear I do not think this applies to me or other bot runners"

Phil, I am not trying to start trouble or trying to attack you in any way. I am only posting this in the interests of showing you what we see from you on the other side of the perspective and explain how it seems to people on the receiving end.

You just cannot say with any truth that you never get personal first and realising that will hopefully allow us all move forward better on our debating.

You forgot to mention that your previous post to that (only a few posts earlier) had said:-

You can't divorce them, and I replied accordingly. We had a discussion about it, and I don't think I'm wrong if I say that we are all greedy, including you, but not in a bad way. That was the concensus in the discussion, I believe.

Also, when you posted the "greedy" couplet, you were specifically referring to people like me, and I took exception to it. There was no need for it at all. My "greedy" response wasn't any more an insult than yours was. You said that I'm greedy, and I said that you're greedy. Both were mild insults, and yours came first.

Phil, you make it sound like I omitted it to make my post seem better somehow. Not the case at all, the first comment was a simillar comment but I did not think I would have to go right back and repost from the start of my postings. It was a frame of reference to what I consider to be the salient parts, nothing more. People can read further back to see what happened before easily enough.

How can you even say that comments in either post are personal to you or insulting? You have repeated told me and others we are too sensitive in response to your own "strong words".
I challenge you to point to the actual text in either post where it names or refers to an individual.
It is clearly an opinion and clearly general. Just like the comment that followed after. It is not singling you out in any way. If it applies to you and you didn't like my opinion you can always refute my opinion - not make remarks about me personally which you chose to do.

Even if I wrote "Bot runners are greedy" it is not the same as saying "Phil Deakins is greedy"and it is sad if you cannot see the difference nor if I cannot express my way of thinking about bot runners without getting personal remarks made in return.

I am no innocent as it has been pointed out before and I am not claiming different. When I was wrong over certain comments I made, as you saw, I made a public apology. Something I have never seen you do in earnest Phil, ever.

I wrote my post to try and help you see what others on the receiving end of your personal remarks see yet you refuse to see it.
Whatever else I consider you to be an intelligent person and so the excuse cannot be stupidity or ignorance.
I cannot decide now whether you are deliberately digging yourself in so that you do not have to admit you are wrong or whether you are just being obtuse about it.

If you cannot even see the basic truth that sometimes you get personal first then there is never any hope of getting you to see anyone elses point of view at all on the actual topics of debate.

You said that "SL Business using search gaming to increase profits = Greedy", which means that I am greedy, as well other people, and you knew that. I said that "I've no doubt that you are just as greedy as everyone else". The following discussion showed that almost everyone is greedy to some extent, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing. What's the big deal? If you are using it to show that I initiated the insults, even though they were extemely mild, you are mistaken. You were the first.

No Phil, I am saying that there is no part of that post directly referred to you and only personally, but not so with yours. You responded in a personal fashion instead of generally. You could have responded generally. I cannot help that my opinions on such things happen to include the practices that you choose to do but I can avoid saying things about you personally and directly.

However it seems the distinction is lost on you. A real pity.

In this forum, and in the bot threads, when any regular forum user says that bot runners are greedy, they are knowingly inc,luding me - personally.

It's better to say that bot are runners are greedy in your opinion, rather than state is at fact, but we've been through all that before. E.g:-

SL Business using search gaming to increase profits = Greedy, imo.

I know I wasn't named, but it doesn't make any difference. Every regular RA user knows who the bot runner of the forum is, including you. But even that doesn't matter. If you state something about bot runners, you state it about me. The name isn't necessary, because I am one of the people you are talking about.

I'm sorry, but as far as the "greed" comments go, you were the first, and I responded.

And don't forget that I didn't say that you are greedy as a fact. I said that "I've no doubt that you are as greedy as everyone else" (similar to "in my opinion", whereas as you stated that people like me are greedy - as a fact..

See this is why you are considered to be disingenious in your postings Phil. Despite numerous statements from people, including me that anyone should consider all their posts as opinion unless saying otherwise you choose to pick one and consider that I was saying something as fact. You got that wrong and instead of asking my intention "Is that an opinion or are you saying it is fact?" you got personal. So you are still wrong to do it. You chose to apply it as a personal remark. There is nothing in that post that is even remotely personal to you.

Even without various people saying their comments should be regarded as opinions, it is widely considered reasonable practice in these forums to post comments that do not refer specifically to an individual, and expect them to be taken only as general comments. It is also widely considered to be reasonable practice to consider peoples posts on a forum to be opinion unless said otherwise. This is how all forums seem to want to run things, how we are guided to post.

To highlight my point - You have called me and others "stupid" before, I don't recall ever seeing a "imo" after it - are you saying that should be considered fact? If so you have a strange grasp of "facts".

Nobody can have a reasonable discussion when people are taking general comments as if they are personal because it applies to them as well as others. We could have no ability to critique anything if that was the case.

Look Phil, this is my last attempt to try to appeal to your reason and get you to see this from other peoples point of view. I shall not bother after this - there is simply not point. It is not just one person saying it, nobody saying it has any personal grudge against you afaik. I don't have any personal grduge against you.
There are some of us who don't like that you run bots and the way you post when you get personal but that is different to having a personal grudge and/or always wanting to see everything you do as wrong. I for one do not see you as wrong over everything but you are wrong over your claims that you never get personal first, ever.
Please try to see that your behaviour is not as you perceive it.

Then how can we ever critique bot runners if that is the case? Talking about anything is going to refer to somebody. You may take this personally but it is not supposed to be taken that way.

I'm sorry, Gabriele, but it's normal forum practise to include something like "imo" or "I think that" - things like that - when it's only an opinion being stated. This is normal throughout forums, and not just this one.

and yet you never do...

but he needs the victim card.

No it is only normal when you know there is a *reasonable* chance of an ambiguity. Hardly any of your posts until our escalation had any of those things either or do you deny that also? It is easy enough to prove. Are you saying until that point you never gave an opinion, only fact? If so then you have left any reality I am a part of - sorry.

Oh lookie, a bunch of forum regulars, all of whom I have seen insult others on multiple occasions, having the chicken-or-the-egg argument about insults.

You guys are never going to agree about bots or any other contentious issue.

Why do you keep on for 100s of pages?

This is why LL mostly pulled the plug on these forums, because it's the same pattern, dogs on a bone, over and over again.

It's almost always the same cast of characters who always end up not even arguing about the freaking topic, but rather who is more insulting and who thinks who is more responsible for starting it. If that isn't a sign that the argument is pointless, I don't know what is.

The question is more "Why do you read it if you are so adverse to it?"

As for what I am doing?
My recent posts are an attempt to try an improve things by seeing if we can get some of that abusive behaviour to stop. I am doing my part on my postings since the escalation and I am calling everyone to try a bit harder also. Including those who do not see they do any wrong.

If even one of the basic abilities to post general comments without having to fully qualify it every or suffer personal remarks then there is indeed no point in discussing anything further.

Totally untrue.