Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

No, you did not answer it at all. You just asked a new question that had nothing to do with my posting.



So because doping in sports is forbidden, paying for picks is cheating. When you read that back, don't you see for yourself how stupid this sounds? Isn't this the definition of a fallacy?







Is that so? Did you ever answer a question? Or, did you answer the ones in my posting? No, you just post more questions. Running around in circles, without contributing actual statements of yourself.

The way you make it sound is as if the only way you can get to the top of All search are by ways that you deem as cheating....when's it been told (and you probably chose to conveniently ignore anyway) that in many cases its possible to acquire a top ranking through good optimisation without Picks. This is the way you're try to present to neutral observers by using more fallacies.

On many keywords, companies are at the top of the rankings due being the best at optimising that particular keyword. Yes, in some saturated markets, the most popular keywords might be assisted with Picks.

You deem Picks as cheating, i see it more as another form of advertising....like walking billboard carriers. No one is forced to advertised on a company's behalf.....its their choice at the end of the day. Lots of noobs come into the game looking to earn money as opposed to registering their Credit card details....most will end up on camping pads, others will be lucky to find a job which might be deemed menial -greeters, notecard givers
and some will choose to advertise companies. Most of this money will find its way back into economy anyway.

In order for someone to be cheating, someone has to be cheated. Right? Nobody in the forum has ever shown that anyone has been cheated. The closest that anyone has ever got to it is that competitors who don't try to compete are moved down in the rankings, but that's because they choose not to compete. So they aren't being cheated.

You can get top rankings without paying for picks, as I have shown. Marcel wouldn't drop from #2 if the paid picks were removed, but that hasn't been shown, so it's ok not to accept it at face value. People don't want to put the effort in, for reason known only to them, so they drop in the rankings when other people do put the effort in. That's their choice - it's nothing to do with anyone else.

Perhaps Colette would think it's cheating if an athlete chooses to train twice as much as the others do. Surely they should all be made to train the same amount of time, and allow the naturalness in their bodies to decide the results of races. Perhaps training for athletics should be banned, and everyone wins or loses according to their natural bodies.

In sport what is forbidden is defined, however there are ways of legally enhancing performance.

You're comparing a practice that is deemed illegal by the authorities with one that isn't, hence your analogy is flawed.

The *key* phrase is in your own post:- "... a few months back ...". We learn more. We advance our knowledge. We don't seek to have things stay the same because we can't be bothered to look for more. I know for a fact that Marcel has learned more since then, because I was instrumental in him learning it.

No need to spin, that was what I knew then, and what I know now is different. Hell, I admitted from the start I was doing this.
What I know now, is that there are people below me with more picks then I have, so either they got less weight, or they are less important then I thought back then. So exactly what are you trying to prove with this posting? I mean, good for you that you found my posting from May this year, but I fail to see what you want to prove with it.

The answer to the sports question is my answer.

If you don't like my answer, that is not my problem.



No Marcel. Because it was an unfair advantage it was made forbidden in sports. The reason it was made forbidden is what you are missing.

The argument is not fallacious.



I answered you. Your inability to interpret the answer and apply it to your question is not my problem.

Indeed what I was trying to say, but it is useless.

The only thing she can surprise me with, is a honest answer.

Your biased interpretations of the things I have said are not what I have said.

Here I will make it clear -------------

----------------------------------------------------

Using Picks is not cheating

-- BUYING Picks is.

-----------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------
It is not necessary to cheat to get to the top of the rankings

-----but those who are not cheating should not have to compete with those who are.

NO its not flawed at all Ciaran.

Why did they deem it illegal by Authorities?

Why?

---------------

Because it was Unfair.

-------------------

It some point there existed a time before it was deemed illegal. They decided they needed to make it illegal for a reason.

THATS THE ANALOGY.

Second Life is like sports before the use of such things were made illegal.

Your Bias is preventing you from seeing the answer

You are not conceptualizing the possibility that Buying picks are unfair and this you cant see the parallel.

Impossible as it was no answer, it was a question. The answer to the sports question I did give (as it was asked to me) so how an it be yours?


It is, because there is no connection whatsoever between sports and SL Search. Furthermore doping is forbidden, paying picks is not.


Nothing is your problem, I know. Well, not exactly nothing, though. Answering a question with a serious answer is.

Anyone up for this challenge?
------------------------------

Question
----------
So the question really is: If you optimize as well as you an for Search All, how would your ranking be for the keywords you are aiming for? And would the ones above you, be in that position through what you call cheating?

Answer
--------
Did you ever compete in any Athletic Sport Marcel?

Good luck to you all.

Driving a car above the speed limit is illegal, you get fined for it. Once, that was not true.

Second life is like driving a car before the speed limits were effective.

Gimme a break.

sorry I don't that one works.

No Colette it's horribly flawed and there are those who argue that performance enhancing drugs shouldn't be illegal anyway. The health risks lend weight to the ban but let's face facts, an athlete who has access to better facilities and better advice has an advantage over one who doesn't.

However where your analogy is horribly flawed is that you're comparing the illegal use of something as deemed by the authorities with something that you simply believe isn't fair by your criteria. Others disagree with you on the cheating angle, many see it as an extension of advertising.

I'm yet to see Linden Lab state that picks can only be set if they meet a strictly enforced criteria. They have rules on naming and shaming, hey you do that you're breaking the rules.

The others are right.....you're just a troll, i can see that very clearly now!

The reason you can't argue in detail about the All Search engine itself, is because you're clueless and don't undertsand how it works and what parameters it relies on....thats why you rather go around in circles spinning away chanting "it's cheating, it's cheating"

Here is a classic example how clueless you actually are....and shows you don't even know what the hell you're discussing about

Rofl, everytime mate, everytime!

From my perspective you and Marcel just don't "get it".

The Lindens choice not to do anything about Picks gaming or Traffic gaming do not make them inherently not cheating, they only make them "allowed" ---- there is a big difference.

"Officially" it hasn't been called cheating. However the Lindens do not set my principles. I doubt they set yours, arguing that they should is not really so admirable.

Even sadder is that you even think my car example works. Almost funny.

Let me give it one more try.

When you want to show people that picks paying is cheating, you take another form of cheating which is illegal. Because that is illegal, picks paying must be cheating.
Geez, even a 10 year old can see this does not even come close to making sense. Who are you trying to fool?

Why is that clueless?

As long as an Account "counts" it does not matter whether or not it is a trafficbot.

Of course not all accounts "count" for IBLs but many certainly do.

---------------

If you had 3 accounts that count for IBLS and you used them all as Trafficbots .. then you could also potentially use them as "Picks Bots"

----------------

Do you really lack that ability to think ahead?

I am not trying to fool anyone.

You didn't get my comparison.

Too fucking bad.

Lol- you really crack me up

Trafficbots= i.e externally logged in clients like the Sleek Bot. (not the ALTS she is trying to cover her tracks up with)

Can someone put her out of her misery and explain to her please?
Meanwhile i'll have an interesting conversation with that brick wall i was standing next to.

A Trafficbot is an ALT.

Theres no difference.

Its a full Second Life Account.

You are referring to the client they are logged in on.

Take a step back from your perspective and look at what you're saying from the outside.

There is very little to back up your assertion that paying for picks is cheating. You believe it's not right based on your view of how picks should be used. That's a moral rather than legal issue.

Now you can choose not to engage in such a practice but the idea that it's cheating is purely based on your own criteria. There's no example you've given so far that gives credence to that claim.

I don't believe people should be advertising in their signatures. I won't do it, however it's allowed apparently, I just believe that in a forum that is deemed "Not for advertising" that people shouldn't be advertising. However I don't call those who engage in such a practice cheats. Even if Linden Lab said it was allowed, I wouldn't do it because I don't feel it's right, but that's my opinion.

colette is not a troll for merely holding an unpopular view
where are we again?