Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

Many centuries ago that may have been bribery but it has been a long time since a child was a public official.

It is still bribery by the definition of the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribery

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bribe

Yeah now it's throw little johnny's gta into the cart so the brat will hush, and you'll have something to complain about to the news reporter when he throws bricks off and overpass instead of being in bed..

King Tut comes to mind

I think so too.




I tried to to no such thing.

I am merely establishing that cheating the search is possible.

Thus anyone contending that "There can be no cheating, because you can not prove who was cheated" is incorrect.

Your post is a classic illustration of the way you avoid the main issue.

The question is one of absolute ethics of search gaming.
You appear to be arguing that gaming is OK because someone posting against gaming has tried to game the system. That is not a valid argument.
At best it is unclear thought. At worst it is simply mud-slinging.

The only accuracy in your post is "the searcher doesn't have the option to rank by picks."
The search can only see the result of the ranking algorithm.
The searcher does not have to ability to separate Picks that are given on the basis of true appreciation from the Picks that only exist because the parcel owner is paying for them.
It's not out in the open. It's hidden in the workings of the search system.

The person selling their Picks is making a decision - knowingly or unknowingly - to participate in an unethical practice. Even if they are not aware of the ethics of the situation - and I would guess that most of them never consider the question - this does not make the practice ethical.

The main issue - the *only* issue - is whether or not paying for picks is cheating. See the title of this thread. So far nobody has shown anyone who is being cheated out of something by it, and therefore it can't be cheating.

Sorry if you don't understand what the thread is about, but I can't help that. You may have other issues that you like to discuss, but they are not the topic of this thread.

The funny thing in all of the countless posts is that at the end of the day LL allows it so it must be OK in their eyes What us lot think doesn't really matter, cos we can leave if we don't like anything LL does Or am i being to simplistic here

Love u all

No you're not. There's nothing too simplistic about that.

Good I love this crazy place for all its foibles but if ever it go to the stage i wasn't enjoying it i would just sell up and leave quietly lol The main thing i always keep in mind is that its LL game and they make the rules, so i try and always keep within them Just like you and many others do, its a competitive marketplace out there lol

When I say "the main issue", I mean the core of all of these search gaming threads.

On the specific gaming via paid picks, I and others have already shown who is being cheated.

To save you the trouble of going over all the posts that you appear not to have noticed, here's a summary again of the people being cheated.

1. All of the people who would have ranked higher than the cheater
2. All the people who depended on the search ranking to give them an honest listing by relevancy and the genuine appreciation of others
3. The designers of LL, who wish to have a decent search system. That they would wish to do so is a no-brainer. That they wish to do so is demonstrated by their removal or down-playing of factors that have been gamed in search.

Pick buying is cheating.

Basically the parties being cheated are just about everyone bar the cheater.

That one of the tiredest and oldest bogus arguments.
It implies that LL were completely ok with ad-farming, but in a decision and blog posting that took place in an instant, they suddenly were not ok with it.
IT implies that they were ok with the forms of ad-farming that survived after their first ban, but in a decision and blog posting that took place in an instant, they suddenly were not ok with it.

But this thread isn't "all of these search gaming thread". It is about one thing specifically. If you want to discuss other issues, start a thrad for them.

Nobody has yet shown who is being cheated out of anything. Those who would have ranked higher never had any ranking by right - not even by moral right - so they are not being cheated out of anything. Those who depend on search to give them an honest listing receive it. The designers of LL have a decent search system, so they aren't being cheated out of anything either.

Basically, nobody is being cheated out of anything, so picks buying isn't cheating.

LL *were* ok with ad-farms - for a very long time. Like anyone else, they are free to change their minds. Obviously they changed their minds before the blog post, but for most of the time that ad-farms existed, LL was ok with it.

The reality is that, today (right now - the only time we are discussing) LL is ok with picks buying. They may change their minds in the future, but right now they are ok with it.

Well they were obviously, until it got to the stage that they acted, then more i think because of the extortion that was going on. LL can do anything they want with SL and we will never know why LL acts as they do but as i said its their game and they can make and change the rules as and when they like

But like i said which is fact that if players don't like the rules then they can always leave and find somewhere that suits their needs better. Its no good complaining about it here lobby LL for changes imho

True appreciation? Show me this strict criteria that must be applied to picks, I'm yet to see anyone provide it? I've found documents that tell business owners that picks are important and I've found documentation that advises residents to check a creators picks to find their store. Now a creator having their own store in their own picks surely can't fit into your concept of "True appreciation".

The problem Sling is that you're applying what you think Picks should be used for to the world as a whole and the world as a whole doesn't agree with your criteria. Henceforth why friends put friends stores in their picks, people swap picks and people pay for picks.

People also put shout outs to friends in picks, which are nothing to do with the parcel and store policies and information are found in picks.

You've excused some of this before saying that it's unimportant, yet if your complaint truly is ehtical it shouldn't matter if they're insignificant or not.

Oh you can certainly cheat in search, I agree with you on that point.

So do I

Think of it as ads, when a person puts up an ad for say a politician it's got the rider "by such and such in support of" to show it's a person's support. This is the way picks have worked.

Now those multipage ads disguised to look like articles have it clearly stated they are ads, but in regards to picks they no longer have them... so you are tricked into thinking they are legit articles and not advertising.

There is no transparency in which picks are paid for, especially in the search system

It'd be like google suddenly putting paid adword links into the top of each search, and not marking them as paid.

Since when? Some people state in their picks "This is my friends store" but the search system doesn't quantify that.



There's no transpareny in the search system regarding which picks are friends stores, employees, shout outs or swapped either. If you want to say that picks aren't a good metric then go ahead, I don't disagree there because plenty of picks don't count anyway.

This thing still going?

I guess you guys just enjoy the craic, as the Irish would say, because this "debate" has become far too polarised and personal to ever reach resolution.

Phil et al particularly must only be here for the fun of it because, whichever way you want to slice it, they've won the argument (de facto) and everyone else is just talking because they like the sound of their own voices.

I've no axe to grind, I don't own a business and I've never indulged in any of the "unethical" practices discussed here, but I would say though that from an objective point of view Phil and his side of the argument comes across as the reasoned and intelligent side. While the contrary view as expressed here just sounds like unreasoned prejudice.

If the "anti" side of the argument really wants to make a difference in how SL works, then might I suggest an intelligent lobbying of LL, who after all designed and manage the systems discussed here.

I guarantee that by lobbying LL, you're far more likely to get the changes you apparently want so much, rather than by trying to impose your particular and personal view of morality and ethics on people who are only indulging you for sport.. which to be honest I can respect..

Oh we are talking to people here, elsewhere, and et all.

And reasonable wouldn't be the way to describe some of the drivel from pro pay for pick people.

Your logic is very faulty again.
The logic of your argument is that cheating never happens in a game or a race because the other people in the game or race never had any right -even moral right- to do better than the person who cheats.
You can't be serious. You're just taking the piss.

Try it when you are face to face with someone.
Go and play high-stakes poker.
And pull a few cards from your sleeve.
When the other players 'object', tell them that you are not cheating because they had no right to win.

Pick Buying is cheating.

You can equate it with poker and racing as much as you like, Sling. It doesn't get your argument anywhere.