Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

I'm sure you understand what "cheating on a test" means.

Noone else is "cheated out of" anything, but it's still cheating all the same.

Not that you haven't been told just who is cheated out of what with search gaming, but even with your absolute refusal to acknowledge you can't use reverse logic because "someone needs to be cheated out of something" isn't a requirement for something to be cheating.

People have offered opinions on who is being cheated in SL, but none of them have held up to scrutiny. What can I say?

Cheating on a test is similar to cheating in a race by taking a shortcut. In a race, the others are moved down because the cheater didn't complete the course, and so the others were cheated out of their rightful places. It's the same in a test. The cheater gets a higher grade because s/he didn't do the complete test - s/he looked at someone else's answers, or something similar. If the test is part of a job application, for instance, then the cheater might get the job by not doing the test, and another applicant would have been cheated - along with the company.

Picks are used for the rankings regardless of how they became picks. LL hasn't made any stipulations as to how picks should become picks. So all pick complete the course, or complete the test.

You have a way with words.
You render them meaningless in a bid to avoid losing an argument.

It's irrelevant whether or not you agree on who is being cheated - if anyone -, it's not a requirement for something to be called "cheating" so you can't proclaim it's "not cheating" on everyone else's behalf.

For something to be cheating, someone must be cheated. I'm sorry if you can't see that.

It's irrelevant to you whether or not I agree, but not to me. The suggestions so far have not stood up to scrutiny.

Only to those who are incapable of understanding them

Hmm you're comparing something that is clearly against the rules with something that isn't and then you're trying to equate them. This doesn't really work.

Bluffing is allowed in Poker is it not?

So Phil ...

If someone directly hacked the search database to get the #1 ranking, would they have cheated?

How about Bribing a Linden to place them #1 on the list?

You seem terribly fond of debating semantics lately instead of doing any actual discussion

There are plenty of tests where the outcome doesn't affect anyone but yourself (ie theoretical driver license test) and the absence of that doesn't mean you can't cheat.

And again, that doesn't mean search manipulation doesn't cheat someone, just that it's not a requirement that there even be one for something to be "cheating".

It completely works if it is possible to do something wrong without breaking a law or rule.


Is not such a thing possible?

I think that it's a requirement.

Cheating a theoretical driver test does cheat people - very badly, imo. If someone gets through the test by cheating, and gets on the road because of it, the general public is more in serious danger than they were before. The public have been cheated out of a degree of safety on the road.

That assertion does not stand up to scrutiny.

It's possible to cheat yourself, of course, and then you are the someone who has been cheated out of something. It's pointless doing it, because you know you cheated, but it's possible.

lol. yes it does.

But we all know that people are being cheated of course.

The business's Competitors are being cheated.

And the potential buyers in that segment are being cheated.

It doesn't work at all. You might as well compare eating ice cream with hiding cards up your sleeve. It's absolute complete and utter balderdash.

Oh behave.

Owners picks.
Friends picks.
Swapped picks.
Paid picks.
Friend shout outs.
Naming items.
Writing better adverts.
Knowing better search terms.

Cheat Cheat Cheat Cheat.

Ciaran it seems like what you are doing is ---

Well it cant possibly be cheating .. and thus this cant happen, that cant happen, that cant work, this cant work.

You aren't considering - well if cheating were possible, I could see a comparison, but its still not cheating.

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


Who would be cheated if Someone hacked the database to get a #1 ranking?

Colette you're comparing apples and oranges, you're taking no account of custom and practice and you're yet, as are the others, to show me this strict criteria that exists regarding how picks can be used, which is making me suspect there's no such thing.

If someone hacked the database, that's not only cheating, it's likely illegal. See the difference, it's staring you in the face.

You say I'm comparing apples to oranges

I say you aren't thinking abstractly.

------
We both agree that Hacking the database to get to the #1 spot is cheating

The people cheated would be the SAME people cheated if cheating on picks upped your ranking.

I think we all agree that it's possible to cheat in the search system, and Colette mentioned one method - hacking the database. In that case, those who are cheated would be the ones who were pushed down in the rankings. Hacking the database to do it fulfills all that is needed - people were cheated out of the previous positions by someone cheating.

But it doesn't follow that, when people move down in the rankings, it is because someone cheated. There are other reasons why people move down in the rankings that don't involve anybody cheating.

But where's the cheating on picks?

When there was the classified bug, someone who managed to get their advert higher due to the bug was cheating the person who actually paid the higher price, that's a clear example of cheating.

There are many ways to improve search ranking, just because someone does something different doesn't make it cheating.

What next, offering freebies is cheating?

you are intentionally missing the obvious conclusion for the circular logic game, right?

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

The actual logical path is more like this:
-----------

If hacking the database is cheating .. and people who are ranked lower are cheated.

Then if something else affecting the search is cheating .. then people who are ranked lower are cheated.



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

thus eliminating your whole "No one is cheated!" Tangent, and puts us back to the

"Well is it cheating?" question.

The gist of the anti-pay argument seems to be - I think that paying for picks is wrong, and the places that are moved down because of it have been cheated. Therefore, paying for picks is cheating. It's a view that they are entitled to, but it's based on what they think is wrong. It isn't based on anything official - it's just their own personal view.

Others see it differently, and the twain will not agree until LL expresses an opinion. For some, paying for picks is cheating, and for others, it isn't. After that, all that can be said is that LL knows about it and has not declared it to be wrong. They haven't even expressed a preference in the matter. For it to be wrong in the LL/system sense, LL would need to express a view.

Well thats a different question.

I was disproving the "No one can be cheated by someone cheating to improve their rankings" idea

I think I have done so.