When are Pure Traffic Bots allowedl?

Apparently, pure traffic bots, such as dozens of them in boxes high in the sky, are NOT against the ToS, provided that they are all registered as scripted agents.

Until a few minutes ago, I would have said that that's 100% wrong, and that they are gaming traffic so they are against the ToS, regardless of whether or not they are registered as scripted agents. But a post has just appeared on the 'Scripted Agent' blog (https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/land/blog/2009/10/21/setting-a-scripted-agent-status#cf) that says different. The person, Mackenzie Ariel, was asked by a Linden to stop sending ARs about obvious traffic bots that are high in the sky in boxes, because they cannot cite "registered" bots.

So what's all that about? I still say that pure traffic bots are against the ToS, regardless of whether or not they are registered, but have LL made a decision not to deal with registered ones and just wait until the next part of that projects comes in, or could it be that some Lindens don't know the rules concerning traffic and traffic bots.

Clearly it's against the rules. I'm not sure how anyone at the lab can come to any other conclusion.

That's how I see it. Maybe they have decided to do nothing about registered ones, and just leave it to the next part of that project. Which means that we can use loads of pure traffic bots again.

Bring all your bots back - just be sure to register every one of them.

"I is a traffic bot, created for the sole purpose of gaming the traffic system, but since I am telling you that, that makes me okay"

i have bots for sale. lots of bots. old ones, new ones. all for sale.

Oh sure. If I put all my bots back, I'll soon learn that the Linden who said that s/he can't cite registered ones, simply didn't know the rules

I'd say once they integrate that planned thing where registered bots do no longer count in traffic, they'll be useless anyway, that's why they don't bother with them now. Now it just needs to happen.

Bots for sale, tuppence a bag?

It's true that they'll be useless when that happens, Novis, but they are still against the ToS right now, and ought to be dealt with, instead of turning a blind eye.

Taking action against bots now would have a negative impact on concurrency.

If I were cynical I'd say Linden Lab is going to wait for most bot runners to register their bots as scripted agents, then stop counting them in traffic scores, but not tell anyone when they do it. If they ever get around to doing it.

But the way LL usually implements things that they hint at usually means they will turn it on somewhere down the road many moons from now.

You may be right. I'd add one thing though. Not dealing with them now allows time for people to come up with ways of using 'legal' bots for the purpose of traffic, which will alleviate the effect on concurency when the second part kicks in.

I'm sure that concurrency will take significant hit at that time, because bot users will quickly realise that their traffic has plummeted, but maybe not as big a hit as it would be if people hadn't had the time to be creative with bots.

What gets me about it is the Linden telling that guy that s/he "can't" cite them because they are registered. They are against the ToS but s/he can't (isn't permitted to) deal with them. If LL have made a concious decision not to deal with registered traffic bot, then it's bloody cynical of them.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

LittleMe - will probably happen around the same time BM is a serious competitor.

this is what happens when LL does things half assed..they put out a program that the residents can use that doesn't break the rules...but then they never finished making the rest of it..such as the part that pulls them from counting as traffic..

*bump* That one seems extremely likely .

I'd also go with the "half way" suggestion:
- someone decided that bots shouldn't count towards traffic and as soon as there's a way people can mark their bots they can make it an AR'able offense
- Developer Linden added in the scripted agent bit
- Policy Linden made an official statement
- Developer Linden got sidetracked and never did get around to exempting scripted agents from traffic

So Governance Lindens would end up having to enforce a policy where using regular avies for "traffic gaming" is against the rules but where using scripted agents for traffic is perfectly alright because their traffic isn't supposed to be counted; except it does count.

They can't change policy, they can't do development so they just tell people to stop interrupting their naptime with ARs about it.

Good post, Kitty

I'm not even going to comment on this except to say, it seems people who deserve to be banned get to stay online and those who don't, get banned. Good job, LL, kudos to you.

Ah but camping to raise traffic, with avatars that are not registered as scripted agents, is clear and straight forward. If the campers had been bots that were registered as scripted agents, the traffic would have been raised and, apparently, LL wouldn't have acted against it But just to make sure, put the registered bots in a box at around 4000m

You were right in the first half of what you said, but the second part, about people who deserve to stay online, was ok, but at least a warning was deserved. That sim owner broke the rules, and it's not as though the rules aren't widely known - they've been around almost a year.

Yes, a warning was deserved, but my comment had more than my previous thread in mind. The fact that I and a few others were continuously stalked for 2 months, by different avatars all obviously alts. All these avatars were reported with logged chats included, personal information was given out about those (including myself) to others by these stalkers because somehow we had items in our inventory that record chat apparently or they had chat bugs elsewhere on the Sims we were on, who knows. Tickets submitted when reports went unacknowledged only to be told file a report. Oh yes the whole system sucks (excuse my language). Fortunately, I endured and somehow seem to have become pointless to them. But just when I think that, they pop up again.

Anyway that should be for another thread, just suffice it to say, my previous comment stands. LL is doing a bang up job with abuse and reporting it. (Said with every bit of sarcasm she can muster).

Don't analyze Linden Lab's rules and enforcement by the rules of logic. Analyze them by the rules of Kafka.

The police itself is vague enough in the first place that it can't be meaninfully enforced. That means enforcement is left to the individual discretion of the the particular Linden on a particular case, and each one is probably has their own unique ideas on the letter vs. the spirit of the rule.

Further, since the policy is so vague, it's likely that the Linden staff who must enforce it have a lot of conflicting memos interpreting the policy (assuming they are trying to enforce the policy; maybe they just don't really care so they haven't tried to develop internal guidance.)

That many Lindens don't understand the policy, or that someone was supposed to code exclusion of scripted agents but forgot, sound like plausible and likely theories. I would also guess that Linden Lab management doesn't really care very much. They implemented a policy, and are operating as if the policy is self-enforcing, and just don't prioritize enforcing or clarifying the policy. Enforcing the policy just costs money (staff time) and doesn't add any profits for Linden Lab.

I would rather see campers than "authorized" bots in a huddle in the sky. At least a legitimate camper will stop by every now and then, if someone pays them correctly. You can check on them a few times a day, to see if they are "real."

The whole bot thing is a mess. It did not get corrected....and they are multiplying. Then they had to toss campers into the works, and destroy a legitimate tool for people.

Not even worth the mental energy (although I Do spend a fair amount of time trying to get them out of my sight) .....to keep stressing over it. It did not get "fixed"....and it's not going to get "fixed."

A couple things I'm fairly certain of...

1) LL had no idea how many bots there were. Though they are the ones best able to put an accurate number to it, I doubt they ever tried. They were probably shocked they could knock 10,000 off the concurrency and not make a dent in the number of bots seen in-world.

2) The policy is intentionally long-term because they are hoping people will make less ridiculous bots. LL wants bots to be difficult enough to find that they don't have to enforce the policy. They don't *want* people to mark bots "scripted agents". They want bots to add to concurrency, but they don't want people to notice.

Here's something that just popped into my head...

3) Perhaps the bot ban will work like the gambling "ban". Someone's bot client will be deemed not a bot and a new monopoly will be formed. IMO gambling wasn't so much banned as GOM'd, and I wouldn't be shocked to see the same thing happen with bots.

They claimed to have a good idea how many bots there were but you may be right that they were "shocked" that concurrency dropped by about 10k due to bots being taken down, and they hadn't made much of a dent in the overall number of bots. Because of that, they may have decided to hold fire on the second part untill the concurrency is high enough to again, but I haven't noticed it climbing back up at all. Has anyone else?

All Your Bots Are Belong To Us.

How many ways are there for a Lindenless, skill-less new person to SL to get L$?

Security won't take you until you have been a month in. Ummm... camping is out ... so there is .... contest boards! ... and ... umm ...

If you don't have L$ to spend to look decent or come across some like me that gives you top quality free things;
How inclined are you to stick around and be a second class citizen?