Traffic Bots Against the TOS of LL?

Pie why are some of them Dancing? LOL

Zombie dancingbots

Why?, because a trafficbot is a happy bot! It knows that it is fulfilling a vital function not only for its human operator, but for the entire SL platform as well as for Linden Research Inc. What more could any bot want from its second life?

I imagine these scenes are much more surrealistically pretty now that Missing Image Ruth has gone the way of the early adopter and been replaced with the leaner, more efficient Casper the Glowing Sprite.

Anyone got a pic like that???

Not quite full circle. You stated something about people like me, and I followed it by stating something about you. You tried to show that I started something, when in fact it was you who started it. Your example failed. Getting back to that would be full circle.

Whatever two or three people here say about how forums should be doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the way forums actually are, and in forums the world over, making statements without any indication that they are just opinions, are taken as statements of facts. For that reason, you don't see lots of statements with something like " - fact" stuck on it, but you do see lots of statements with things like "imo" stuck on them.

It would have been better to accept the way things are and say, "well I intended what I said to be taken as just my opinions", rather than make out that forums are different to what they actually are.

I think you're an artist, so take a step back from this thread and imagine what you would think if someone posted and meant, "All artists are scumbag leeches on society" and ask yourself if you would take exception to it. If it was written in another forum, so these threads don't get in the way of your thinking, I am sure that you would take exception, especially if you were a full time artist. I certainly would if I were a full time artist. I wouldn't object to it being written as an opinion, but I would object to someone writing is as a fact, because they would be stating as fact that I am a scumbag leech on society. Similarly, if someone wrote that artists add enormously to the joy and pleasure in the world, I would feel pleased because they were talking about me.

One very good reason why it's become normal to make it clear that something is meant as an opinion rather than as a fact, is the libel law. People are free to state opinions even if they are not true, as long as they say that it's an opinion. but they are not free to state untruths as though they are facts, without risking a heavy cost (if the stated fact is a slur on the person). Saying that it was only meant as an opinion wouldn't go down very well in a court of law.

Forums do face the legal side, but the main reason why it's normal to make it clear when something is just opinion is because many forums, such as this one, are places where people learn things, and no forum wants people to go away believing something to be an actual fact when it isn't necessarily a known fact, but just someone's opinion.

Anyway, we've now truly come full circle because we're back at your attempt to show that I was the first, when in fact you were the first - plus you didn't show it as opinion, and I did.

Clearly, traffic bots are not against the ToS

Phil...the saddest thing about this case was that the 'system' was used to promote a SINGLE store/manufacturer and trapped anyone tping in to wander around their wares until realising they had to tp out. As in rl the payers with the cash and know how can abuse that position gaining an unfair advantage over the 'little people' and the reward? Popular Places then Showcase. Wouldn't it be great if we could 'name and shame' these operators and display a rogues wall of snapshots of robot hives, even then that puts cash in the security radar guys pockets throwing researchers off sim....hey ho.

Unless search etc starts its listings with least traffic first theres propably no solution to camping/traffic bots/add to picks/group dirty deeds.

"You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree however and here's why: ...".

As far as feeling that general statements that aren't aimed at you *must* be addressed at you personally because you're the most notorious bot runner on the forums: whose fault is that? *You* put yourself in that position, *you* are the one that decides to take things personally even when they're just not. All of that are choices you made/make.

If you weren't on the forums these threads would still get started, people would still be making the same general statements they are now. Thinking these threads are somehow all about/against you is just too surreal, and even if that were somehow true it's not obvious to anyone until you start to make them personal.

The "paid picks" thread doesn't even apply to you in any conceivable way since it's not something you've ever done but for the last few dozen pages you've successfully made that thread revolve around you. If you don't want threads to be about you, don't make them turn out that way on purpose.

Here's my contribution.

I ran a couple of bots for a while. Not to increase traffic, but to act as group joiners. I used the JVA system which allowed users to click a sign and be automatically invited to the group by my bot. If LL could update the clumsy group joining process, then these group join bots could be eliminated.

The real issue for me is the way that traffic is counted. It's all a bit bizarre. The system they use is to take into account how much of a precentage of an avatars time online is spent in a single place. That's just encouraing bots and loitering.

If they simply counted the number of unique visitors to a parcel, that would be pretty helpful and seemingly more difficult (but not impossible by any means) to manipulate.

This "pick" system which takes into account how many people include your business as a pick in their profile is also flawed. I refuse to have any pick incentives in my stores as I find the whole thing really messy. B-places.com vote counters produce a much more useful result, and a pretty helpful browsing output. So maybe we should go back to the old voting system?

Of course, we are ssuming that LL is interested in reducing the number of bots, which they aren't of course.

I agree that the Showcase is a bad thing - I think most people do. But stores without doors are quite common (mine is in the sky, for instance). People TP into them from search, and the only way out is to TP. With many stores, there is nothing outside that's of any interest anyway.

The computer crashing thing is different. I haven't come across a script that can crash a computer - I doubt that it's possible, but my doubts don't mean anything.

You are mistaken, Kitty. I didn't say that they must be addressed at me personally. I said that, when someone makes a statement about bot-runners, for instance, they make it about me, because I am one of the people they are talking about. Big difference.

If someone makes a statement about english people, for instance, they are talking about me because I'm english. They don't need to know me, but I am one of the people they are talking about. If they say something bad about the english, they say it about me.

If someone makes a statement about women, they are talking about you. It doesn't matter where the statement is made - in a pub, in a forum, in a newspaper, on tv - it doesn't matter - they are talking about you because you are a woman. Depending on what was said, you may even be personally offended.

If I make a statement that a woman's place is in the home, and they should stay out of the business world, many women would be personally offended because I said it about them. And they would be dead right to be offended. The idea that I didn't mention you by name so it doesn't count, would not be a valid defense.

When I once made a statement about many, perhaps most women is SL, they came down on me like a ton of bricks - Gabriele was one of them. I didn't mention any of them by name, but that didn't matter to them - and I didn't even make the statement about *all* women in SL. Gabriele can't have it where I am in the wrong when I don't name names, but she is in the right *because* she didn't name names. It doesn't work that way.

The paid picks thread applies to everyone, and not just to those who pay for picks. The last few dozen pages contains many posts from a few people - Ciaran, Rene, Colette, MortVent and me, none of whom pay for picks and so the thread doesn't apply to any of them according to you. If you count the posts by each, you'll find that I'm not the most prolific poster in those last few dozen pages. Do you think that only the OP and people who pay for picks should be involved in that thread?

If some posts there have revolved around me, it isn't of my making. If you're honest with yourself you'll know that the last few dozen pages haven't revolved around me at all.

What does these type of threads shows us? Phil is the most notorious bot runner on these threads? What negative impact does that on him?

Well, by all accounts its business as usual, and Phil makes a hell of alot of Sales despite these threads. From that i can only conclude the effect of these threads and the opinions of the anti-bot posters have neglible impact on what really happens in-game on a day to day basis. In other words Phil posting on these threads hasn't hurt his business an iota.

My conclusion therefore, either most people don't read any of these type of threads or most people don't have any strong feelings on this subject as long as they can find the products they are searching for. The proof is is in the pudding!

It's hard to say in the general case but I doubt I'd take any generalization personally enough to be offended by them. I might be provoked enough to jump on a specific opinion because I think the opinion/notion is absurd/ridiculous, but that's not about me or the person who proposed the notion/opinion but rather about what they said specifically.

I can say "Guys on SL are the worst dressers of all, if they even bother to change out of their newbie/freebie clothes in the first place" and it's just a generalization. On an individual level it's untrue, generalizations always are when applied to individuals.

If you want to take personal offense at something like that that is once again solely your choice and if you're looking to lay blame for how it turns out, don't look for anyone but the face you see in the mirror.

It really helps if you keep track of your own statements.

"People say "A is B" and I do "A" so I take "B" as a personal insult and respond in kind". That doesn't apply to that particular thread does it? You don't pay for picks so there is nothing you can take personally about that thread yet you just attacked people all the same. Posting in a thread and disagreeing seems to be reason enough for you to take personal offense.

Who came up with their solitary definition of "cheating" and enforced it on everyone in that thread for a dozen pages? You even jump all over a post that wasn't an answer to your singularly imposed definition/topic.

I don't disagree with any of that, except the generalisation bit about guys in SL. Your example statement was about all guys in SL. Whatever you intended it to mean, it was about all of them. There are some common ways to say that and yet not mean all; e.g. "generally speaking ....", "most guys in SL ...", etc.

Some women would definitely be incensed if I made the statement, and some would actually agree with it. The point is, of course, that the statement would be about all women - each individual one of them - whether they agreed or not, and each individual woman would take it as they wish. What I couldn't claim afterwards is that it doesn't count as a slur on a particular woman because I didn't name her personally, but that's what was being claimed in this thread. Specifically: 'doing business in SL and gaming search = greedy' applies to each and every person who does business in SL and games the search, and it doesn't leave any room for exceptions.

Go and count the number of posts by the main contributors in the last few dozen pages. You'll probably find that I made the least number of them. Or go and find where I turned it to revolve around me. It's not there. If you've seen me as the topic in any posts (they do exist there), you'll find that it was others talking about me, and not me bringing me into it. If you think I shouldn't be involved in that discussion, just say so, but don't make things up.

`

The big difference that you are missing out on is that when people have criticised search-gamers in these threads, they have given the reasons for the description used.

You seem inclined to see that as an insult and "respond in kind".
BUT, most of your "respond in kind" has been ad hominem abuse and off topic.
You might refer to someone here as "a bag of shit", but there are at least two things wrong with that.
1) You don't explain the reasoning behind this considered opinion.
2) It's off topic.

I refer to search-gamers as unethical, cheats, dishonest, greedy, low-life, etc. and I state the logical reasons for describing them as such.
There are limited options for describing the actions of an unethical person. The word "unethical" comes to mind.

In the case that we are discussing right now, I was called greedy because I am one of the people refered to. I then said that I have no doubt that the writer is just as greedy as anyone else. It wasn't a categorical statement that the person is greedy. It was qualified as being my own thinking. That's what we are discussing now, Sling.

You can refer to people in any way you choose, but if you use words that are inflamatory or insulting, you deserve to have it returned. Since you do use such words, take note of they way forums are and qualify them with something like "imo", because that's all it is. Otherwise they will be taken as you stating facts about people, and it will be you who starts it. If the other person writes that you're a bucket of shit for insulting them, you only have yourself to blame.

If you refer to me as "a bucket of shit", it does not insult me in the least. I feel no childish urge to "respond in kind".
If there is any blame related to you saying that about me, then the blame is entirely yours.

Search gaming is unethical. People who game SL search with things like traffic bots and pick buying are unethical people.

If I just up and said it, yes, but I don't. I only react to people insulting me, and not always.

LOL

If respond in kind was say the old testament "eye for an eye"

Phil's typical forum's response would be more like "Both your eyes, the eyes of your dog, cat and gold fish .. for an eye"

are you guys still tossing this back and forth?

WOW

just....

WOW

Mass Botting is a blatant abuse of resources...................

No!

.
.
.
.

Eh ..........

..

..

Um .....

.
.

Yes.



I find these search-gaming threads to be addictive - like a stand-in for a serious drug habit.

I'm like a small furry creature (this would be in RL, you understand) hypnotised by the dancing head of a snake.
The manipulation of language, meaning and ethics by the gamers just has me totally fascinated.

Despite my RL taking me away from significant time in SL for a while, I check on these threads from time to time.
There are plenty of other things to discuss in and about SL it is true, but then there are plenty of people to discuss them.


For me, any Net meeting place (e.g. SL) is an interesting insight into the human condition.
We tend to see exaggerated form of it as people see themselves as invincible/unaccountable/untraceable behind a keyboard.

I've met some wonderful people on the Net and in SL. I've also come across some deeply unpleasant people.

I've had some experience in dealing with spammers either by proxy via their ISPs or in message boards. Those that attempt to justify their activity are fascinating in a sick sort of way. It's my little vice. I love to poke at them.

I feel the same way about search gamers as I do about spammers.
Where's that term again...?
Somewhere under that dust pile over there......
..
..
Ah! "Morally bankrupt".

You mean like the self-styled whitehats whose pleasure is to lie, twist, and deceive people to get their points across? Or do you mean like the morally bankrupt self-styled whitehats whose mission is to force their will onto everyone else?

I don't recall granting you permission to get off your knees.

NADU!!

Possibly more like the self-styled blackhats whose pleasure is to lie, twist, and deceive people to get their points across though the morally bankrupt self-styled blackhats whose mission is to force their will onto everyone else are also just as bad.