Bots?

Which does not in any way answer my question, from which you made your quote.


True, but again I do not see anyone rendering a system useless for personal gains.

@All people against bots:
You are against botfarms, your good right. Your argument is that you assume they keep others from enjoying SL in one way or the other. Botrunners are using botfarms. Their argument is that those bots do not keep others from enjoying SL one way or another.
Neither can be proved.

Why is your opinion more valid then theirs?

I disagree with that. Their idea that bots cause negative effects are their inventions/imaginations, or blind following of other people's inventions/imaginations. The real reason that the inventors/imaginers are against bots is that they want SL to be a certain type of world that suits their own personal desires, so they invent pseudo-sensible objections to things that don't fit the way they want SL to be.

Just be cause you can do something , doesn't mean you must. *Some guy said that in a Star Trek movie)

My uneducated opinion. When The Grid is full up it's fine for LL to decide on a pecking order for logins, be it starting with Premium on down, but I think one Real login per customer should be the way before alts and bots. Just my opinion.

I may be biased. When I was a little girl an Army of maurauding Bots came to my Village, killed my Parents and Kidnapped my Sister. I vowed on that day I would seek my revenge.

Even if that would be true, my question still stands. Why is that opinion more valid then mine.

Premium members are *reducing*, so your idea of: "basic will convert to premium" is not right at all, since if the premium members aren't renewing their subscription, how you may imagine that the current basic members will decides to pay?
Second Life cannot exists without the contribution of the 95% of the current users.
So your proposal is nowhere near to an affective proposal.

It isn't.

Your opinion is not very different from mine, and probably from anyone. It's just not a thing they can enforce with the current system.

I am still holding your sister. She married me even. So be careful what you say.

I'll see you in Hell.

You should give that more thought Vittorio.
Because it is possible to do what one wants to do for free, of course many premiums are not renewing. That is not so strange, and has nothing to do with the question wether they would pay when free accounts are no longer an option.
Probably they are the group that will come back, because they did pay before. Truth is, that neither you not me can say how many users will atually stay.

And for the record: Lets say 50% drops (fill out another number to your liking). I would prefer a grid that is stable, with half of the people around, way above a grid that is near collapsing, with the current amount of users.

"Fine"?
No sorry I will accept nothing higher than an "ok" take it or leave it

/me lights a fire... TP over to get a taste

You said you were going to bed - I should have been able to get away with that

Ok - "ok" is fine

I'm sorry, that number is not even optmistic, it is unrealist, the correct number would be near 90% (that will being 100% a week after) drop and the entiere system cannot sustain a 90% drop. The entiere economy here is sunstained by the private estate land fees (considering the proportion of current private sims vs occupied mainland), most of them exists because of the "renting affair", the renting affair is linked to the "basic membership" (in fact they can only rent, not buy on mainland, someway they are "forced". You clearly see it is "all linked", eliminating the basic membership will result in a system failure.
I'm not discussion (yet) the argument "basic vs premium", i'm just saying that if you eliminate the basic membership *now*, there will be no premium members to talk about, because SL will die in a week after.

No offence, but your figure of 90% is as realistic as my 50%. We both do not know. There will be a drop for sure, but it might be less then you think. Might be more then I think too.

To be honest, saying today that since yesterday people are required premium (like they announce most changes) will be impossible. Slowly going towards premium only, could be done though. Start with new accounts for example.

Banning traffic as a metric for Search will do a better job to fight the use of bots though. On the other hand, the amount of people against bots is rather insignificant. By far most people do not care. Which shows in the fact that shops running bots, always have customers inside. That is, if they sell good stuff

I will approach this another way?

When you need to get in line for something do you go to the back of the line and take your proper turn?

Or do you see someone you know ahead in the line and get cuts?

This is where the bot fairness comes in - How can it be fair for some people to be logged on multiple times when other people can not get on?

Premium members do not at this time get preferential log on status - so you wouldn't just be keeping out basic but also basic memberships.


While "fair" might be relative in absolute terms, I think its a fairly simple concept that everyone should be allowed on with one account before they are allowed on with multiple accounts.

This isn't exactly stretching reality - People's mothers should have taught them to share before pre-school.

So potentially during those peak times when logons are throttled back, your cartoon self is sleeping with your pretend wife's cartoon self while neither of you are actually at the keyboard for hours.

I am sure that is cool with the people who cant log on. I mean, those cartoon digital representations might be cold logged out sleeping alone.

I'm too much a chicken not to go to the back of the line

As for your question, I can go along with it, but only IF the multiple logins are the cause of them not being able to log in. And I just do not believe that yet.
Taking Phil for example (as the only botrunner I know), when he would log off all 20 bots, do you think 1 more avatar can log in? Me neither, as logins are disabled at that time.
If he would not have used his 20 bots, would it have taken 1 avatar more before logins were disabled? No one knows.

On the other hand, lets say: I pay for the system, and login 20 accounts. Well, 21 as I wanna play too. This causes Mr. X, who does not pay for the system, not being able to log on. Could be considered fair enough.

Neither Phil (botrunner) nor me (no bots) believe that traffic bots are in any way related to the overloaded system. We both think overloaded systems are related to other things like for example huuuuge inventories. Now I do not have a special sympathy for either Phil or bots, neither a dislike. I just go with the facts, and there are no actual facts that tell me traffic bots are causing problems. They even cause my ranking in Search Places to be lower then without bots. The fact that I do not want to run 20 bots to get higher, does not mean that people who do, are suddenly bad.

If there are still concurrency problems after everyone is only logged in one account at a time .. that would be the time to look at individual account load per person.

Colette,
Fully agree with you here. If they can find such a system, I would vote for it. But for now, there is no such system. No matter what people's mothers taught them, there is no such option.

What I do not agree with, is that they keep out anyone. Where does that idea come from anyway?

In fact bot owners should form a union. Then for one week, they should not run a single bot. My guess is that the system will crash as often as with bots. But I would be happy to be proved wrong, because that would be an incentive to ban the bots and get a stable platform. On the other hand, I think that if it were so easy, LL would have tried that solution by long.

Are these 21 premium paid for accounts -

Or ONE paid for account and 20 basics?

The former is never going to happen, The latter is a pointless example since no where in your agreement you sign up for does it say you are entitled to run an additional 20 basic accounts.

In fact you might on to something here...

If somehow they can measure the load per avatar at LL, we would exactly know where the bottleneck is. And probably they are doing some research, not too long ago I saw a blog about avatar rendering costs. If they find out that 10 bots equals 1 avatar, we have a way to get the grid more stable.

That is a non-argument. Nowhere in the agreement I signed up for it does say I am not entitled to.

This thread was started in response to not being able to log on during one of the recent high concurrency login slowdowns.

The agreement is for that account you are signing up for.

Unless its substantially changed all the "I agree" to stuff is very much contextually referring to a single account.