Is Paying for Links in Profile Picks Cheating?

If the practice is cheating then ...

Anyone's whose ranking is less than it would have been without the practice is cheated.

And of course Phil never uses these threads as an advertisement at all.

Now we have testimonials ...

That's right - you/we don't what LL's intentions are. I've already given one possible reason why picks buying could be a positive from LL's point of view, and there are more. You are mistaken to imagine that you know what LL's intentions are. All you know is what your own preferences are.

Traffic bots and camping are against what LL's intentions for traffic were, imo. That's all. We do know that, after that, LL was very happy with camping because it allows people to earn money. They pointed to camping as a positive thing in SL (that was before traffic bots grew). We don't know what their thinking is now, or what their intentions are concering camping and traffic bots. We do know they don't move against them, which could be an indication of their current intentions. So the key word in your statement is "were".

I agree and more than this --

A common word like cheating has a use by large number of people without checking the dictionary for exact "fits" Language is dynamic its not law school.

Among people where I live, using Midwest-American-English there is definitely no requirement that the term Cheating have a law or rule attached.

As you described the mere dishonest/unethical gain is the only real requirement.

To be frank - who the hell are people to tell us we can't use this word that way? That's the way it is used here.

You can use the word any way you want Colette, but you should have a basis for the use of such a strong word.

I feel the same sort of feeling when people are telling people how they can use their own picks, who the hell are people to tell someone else how they can use their own picks?

You are contradicting yourself.

I just explained the use of the word here and you say I need further Basis.



If its wrong, its wrong. I am not telling them they shouldn't do it. I am telling them its wrong. It should be up to Linden Labs to control Traffic Gaming.

Any argument needs a base, if you haven't got one your argument is on thin ice.



In your opinion, Im sorry but the tag line is not "Colette's world, Colette's imagination" Everyone has differnet opinions on right and wrong, you're trying to force your view on people, you're telling people they should not be allowed a choice.

Ciaran we use the word differently - Its been made painfully obvious that has occured.

To me its wrong and there is gain, a good word for it is cheating .. end.

I don't need further basis - that is how the word is used here.



When did I say it was not my opinion?

Just because I didn't use the qualifier every post?

99% of All of the stuff on these threads is just opinion. By you, me, anyone.

I don't believe Colette when she tries to make that the word means something different in the U.S. than it does in the UK. I noticed her start down that road when she pointed out that Ciaran, Rene and myself are in the UK, but there are plenty of other people who have posted in this thread who are not in the UK, and who posted that paying for picks is not cheating, so I do think that Colette is trying to pull a fast one.

Colette it basically comes down to you believing people should not have a choice on how they use their picks. I beg to differ.

I had a tenant once for three weeks, she then told me she had to leave because her boss had told her she had to live on his land or she'd lose her job. Personally I found that wrong on many levels, but it boiled down to her choice and she decided that living on her boss' land would improve her SL experience overall.

Paid picks are a choice, if a user decides their overall SL experience is improved by them, then that's their choice. The choice is in the users hands, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Phil, you are wrong .. again.

I have no idea whether they are used differently .... But they sure seem to be.

What I said is the people with the strong objection to the use of the WORD "cheating" are from the UK.

While in the US, at least where I am, the word cheating gets thrown around a lot to describe a great deal of things.

Those in this thread from the US who said it was cheating also said it wasn't wrong.

Of course its also possible that Phil and Ciaran are exaggerating the how "Strong" a word cheating supposedly is.

I am giving Ciaran the benefit of the doubt though.

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

2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice

Which paid picks don't do. Deceit is false keywords. Deceit is lying.

What paid picks are, are a user deciding that it improves their second life experience.

Swapped picks, friend picks and owner picks are more deceitful.

However owner picks come into custom and practice, users expect owners to have their own picks. It's technically like being able to vote for yourself but people acknowledge that it's sensible from a customer service point of view.

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

b: false or insincere behavior <social artifice>

Being paid for an endorsement is not sincere behavior, it's behavior done for a bit of cheese.

After all a rat doesn't run a maze because he wants to, he just wants the cheese at the end.

I am not big on "proof by dictionary" because I have some idea how dictionary entries are edited and its a lot less impressive and immaculate than people think it is.

But that definition said deceit, trick OR artifice.

Not just deceit. If you were to look into the definitions of trick and artifice from the same dictionary some could apply.

since there is splitting hairs on definitions, I feel Websters would be considered a very hard to argue with reference unlike say Wikipedia

Exactly. Other people are being cheated out of something. Nobody is saying that cheating doesn't exist in the world - it does.

In the case of paying for picks, nobody is being influenced or led by deceit, trick, or artifice.

Like their fair place in the search rankings

Indeed, so it is cheating Phil.

After all you stated a drop in position in rankings cost you sales, so those cheating the system are costing others sales they would have gotten by the system not being cheated.

Influence

Influence on the system's ranking of parcels, which as you know does translate into lost sales through manipulation/cheating of the system

"artifice" isn't in question here. You posted "2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice", so it's only influencing or laeading by artifice that you are on about. I think it is obvious that it is people who are being influenced or led, which doesn't apply here.

Being paid for an endorsement is most definitely sincere behaviour. It happens in every sporting event and with a myriad of producs in shops. There's nothing insincere about it.

No matter which way anyone tries to cut and twist it, paying for picks isn't cheating. Those who claim it is are in a minority in this thread.

The user chooses to place that pick. Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? Why do you want to interfere with freedom of choice?

And the same to you, why does freedom of choice pain you so much?

You claim it's the minority, my count was different.

It's paid endorsements, and noted as such. Paid picks are not noted as such in the search system, therefore it's flooding the system with artificial pick choices to influence and skew the results.

Person A wouldn't normally put Place B in their picks, till they were offered an incitement or bribe for them to do so in order to influence the search results.

And Ciarian : Free choice is there, but the catch is you are free to take a bribe to put a pick in your list. But there is no choice given to allow someone to differentiate the paid for from the picks that were chosen for something other than greed.