Bots?

Probably true (not going to check the exact agreement now). But nowhere it says you are not allowed more then one account.

Which is a problem I see more often in these discussions: It says nowhere you can. Well, it should not have to. It should say what you cannot. They provide us with a set of tools, and give us a few pages of things you cannot, called a TOS. Everything not forbidden in the TOS, is either allowed, or open for LL to decide as they are the responsibles in the end.


True Colette, but if at that moment all bots log off, it is not so that suddenly logins are enabled again.
Furthermore, there have been given a handfull of arguments about what causes the actuaql problems. And somehow no one even tries to answer those arguments.

All these discussions are purely academic, because none of us know what the cause of the problems is. I believe that it's down to LL's failure to have sufficient resources to cope with demand, and I also believe that the demand is from people and not from the vast majority of bots, but I don't *know* that.

I do think that LL knows what causes the failures though, and I also think that, if they know that bots are an issue, they would be totally out of order by not doing anything about it when paying customers are prevented from getting in for frequent periods of time. I don't think very highly of LL, but I doubt that they would so remiss as to not deal with bots if they were a real cause of daily failures. If I thought that my bots prevented anyone from loging in, or that removing them would allow one or more people to get in, I'd remove them during those periods, but I don't think that for a second, so they stay logged in.

Attacking bots when things go wrong is just fashionable in this forum, but, as far as any of us know, it has nothing to do with reality, so it's all a waste of time and effort.

This is in short what I am trying to say as well.
See, if you are not insulting people Phil, you can make pretty valid postings

So.....QFT

All of the account (basic OR premium) verbage is steered towards someone actually using the account, rather than someone running many accounts concurrently. If someone has 21 accounts, then they have made 21 separate account agreements with Linden Labs. Not one agreement entitling them to 21 concurrent log ons.

Before they removed the practical way to limit them (required payment info), households were limited to 5 accounts each, with only 2 accounts per credit card.

The account terms and conditions are still substantially the same as it was during those times.



What causes the problems is related to concurrency. It is probably right that a trafficbot doesn't contribue one average users load towards concurrency related problems.

But It also has to be that each trafficbot contributes MORE than zero towards concurrency related problems.

Since that trafficbot isn't actually using the service, that more than zero portion is unacceptable when there are actual people trying to use the grid.

So even if it takes logging out 1000 Traffic bots to allow one average participating user to log on, then that is the right thing to do.

Are you trying to claim, realistically, that bots make ZERO contribution to the problems associated with high concurrency?

So where do you put older users that paid the one time 9.95 fee to get their basic account. I can tell you right now when I ran an animations business I often ran 2-5 clients at once for photography purposes. That was BEFORE the advent of the FREE Basic account. Every one of those accounts paid the 9.95 fee to exist.

The real problem is in defining what a BOT is. I know ALOT on NPIOF folks who are single logins and ACTIVE doing things in SL. I also know some PIU (Payment info used) folks that never log out, they park on a camping chair overnight for a few extra L$. Some of those are even premium.

I have seen LL get involved when so many campers were filling a sim that other residents can't get in. But that was action against the camping chair owner NOT the bots.

You are not going to get a definitive policy statement from the Lindens on the issue. 1. Because they pretty much don't make definitive statements (witness the wishy washy guidelines on gambling for an example). 2. Because even now the Lindens cannot define what a BOT is.

I insult nobody unless they start it - and many of them do over time. I could have had a good go at Sling in this thread for making out that I'm a liar, but I chose not to. He started it, but people would have blamed me anyway. Too many people here are blinded by the fact that they don't like my bots, and it causes their brains to switch off.

This is true.

They are trying to assert that LL has some concrete policy on bots and since LL hasn't banned them they must not be contributing to the problem.

How can they know this?

Its entirely possible instead that LL knows they are some sort of drain on the system but LL would rather spend more effort on something else.

In the past LL's solution to concurrency bottenecks , has been to add capacity.

So its more likely to say that they are probably trying to add capacity than actively looking at who they could exclude (say Bots) and improve performance.

OK, as you are still smarting due not being able to tell the difference between somebody 'calling you a liar' and somebody doubting that what you are saying is accurate, here's something simple that you can get your teeth into.

Avatars on a parcel have had at least two effects
1) Dots on the map.
---- Where's the action at? Clusters of green dots.
2) Traffic score.
---- Where's the action at? High traffic locations.
"Where's the action at" is the question for which dots and traffic were intended to be an answer.
Some might argue that I don't *know for sure* that such was the intention of LL. They might argue that LL could have designed the Map and the traffic system with the intention that parcel owners could run bots in order to mislead others. Yeah!

When those dots and traffic boosters are actually brain-dead bots run by the parcel owners, then those parcel owners are wilfully misleading the people who are asking "Where's the action at"
People who run bot farms are dishonest. They are liars. Their bots are their lies.


I could be wrong about this, in which case I abjectly apologise.
So-
How is inflating traffic and boosting map visibility with bots not dishonest and not a lie?


"We have to do it"
"Others do it"
"Our sales would suffer if we didn't do it"
"Everybody knows about bots and traffic so it doesn't matter"
These are only reasons for doing it. They don't undo the dishonesty.



"I insult nobody unless they start it - and many of them do over time."
---- there's a pattern?
---- or is it that you take offence more quickly than others?

Given that
1. it's been well more than a few weeks since they blogged that they needed a few weeks to beef up the server farms
2. we still seemed to be borked on a daily basis
3. we've had no followup blogs on progress

I'd guess that they are running out of options in the short term.

They kind of have a history of deciding to increase capacity and not doing anything short term at all except let the problems happen.

The only exception was when they throttled back things on the search and profiles, etc.

This has been going on for a while now, more often than I can remember from past years.

Don't flatter yourself. I wasn't smarting. If I had been you would have known about it in no uncertain terms. You're too insignificant to cause anything like that. To refresh your memory... I say something happened (i.e. I experienced something), you say "it didn't happen". That's tantamount to calling me a liar. I hope that helps your education of real life.

As for the rest of your post, I suggest you get your teeth into something to eat, instead of writing such drivel. I treated you very politely, you made out that I am a liar, so forget asking questions of me - you won't get any answers. You're not worth it.

Colette! ahi ahi ahi you should know that the login throttling operates with the concurrent *logins* not with the avs that are *already* logged in.



ahi ahi ahi...



No, you are wrong. Ahi ahi ahi.

No .. Problems occur when the number logged on at the same time (concurrent) use up all the available resources,

Successful logins then slowly grind to a halt (or LL shut them off)

It is selfish to remain logged on when you are just going to be afk and not even use Second Life, when other people are hoping to get on.

Wrong again, the number of user logged in (concurrent) are not the cause of the problems, so me logging off while sleeping will not help to alleviate the problem.

How the heck do you know this?

Please point to the relevant Linden quote that concurrency is not related to any of the issues that occur during peak concurrent times.

anecdotal evidence would say it most certainly is related - since the problems occur at those times when the number of concurrent logons are very high.

Well we are not just specifically talking traffic bots, how about camping bots bouncing from sim to sim searching for camp chairs, landbots, searchbots and spambots Would taking 20 of them offline improve login ability for a person?

Nowhere does it say someone can't run 1000 campbots and landbots hammering the grid either. The tools are proviced by LL to do it so it must be ok to do.

It should prevent the handling failure from occuring quite as soon.

There is a limit of five accounts per person, isn't there?

So for one person to use more than 5 bots, wouldn't that person need to be violating the rule for maximum accounts for one person?

I think that Marcel may use the word "tools" wrongly, which would be due to him not being a native english speaker. LL doesn't provide tools, as we understand the word in this context. All LL does is provide a system that is left open for some unplanned-for things to be done.

The 5 accounts per person went out a long time ago.

Yeps it's 4 or 5 accounts per email, and you can have an infinite number of emails :/

Then please explain why LL won't let me create any more alts when I only have 4 accounts?

They won't even let me use a different email, so they're obviously tracking and correlating the other RL details associated with my existing accounts. I missed out on an alt with my RL name and with my best friend's RL name because of this.