What about Bots?

This is all about whether using the whole of what we pay for is a right, an entitlement, or a privilege. In my view it's a right and an entitlement, and not a privilege. It would be a privilege if we didn't pay for it.

They did, as I mentioned earlier where someone was complaining about this happening to their openspace, they were using it as a French Orientation Island. Linden Lab said they couldn't. This was well before the announcement of the pricing increase.

Yeha thats how it works LL can only loose... if they had restricted those areas people would have claimed them being to strict and crap, now they didnt restrict those regions only said they are for light use, people abused it and now its again LLs fault lmao, thats funny

Would they really? As we'll find out later in the year they are going to restrict a lot more than Openspace usage with the new script limits.



People were angry with LL for raising prices, all prices, they weren't angry with LL for imposing limits, many would have preferred and accepted limits with no price increase.

Ok. Then they gave the person the choice of stop paying or reduce the useage. I don't know what that sim was doing but, if it was just using too many prims but within the 3750 limit, or having too many avs in the sim but within the limit, LL wouldn't get away with it court.

I have already said that LL can change the numbers, and that they are not permanent, which is what they did with the OpenSpace sims. It was a huge rip-off but it's what they did. It doesn't make any difference to my view though, which is:-

This is all about whether using the whole of what we pay for is a right, an entitlement, or a privilege. In my view it's a right and an entitlement, and not a privilege. It would be a privilege if we didn't pay for it.

Only 2% of OpenSims remained as OpenSims after the deadline.
That's quite a stunning measure of the scale at which some people pushed their "entitlements".
Whether or not people jumped or were pushed, the effect was the same. LL effectively closed them down.

Your line through all these threads that touch on use of facilities and resources. You feel an entitlement/right to use them right up to a max that is explicitly forbidden. You don't appear to have any regard for those who share the resource pool. Mummy and Daddy have to come and tell you to stop doing whatever it is you are doing, because what you are doing does not scale.

My line in this thread is, if I pay for something, I have a right and entitlement to have/use that something. I don't see anything to argue about there.

LL has the right per the TOS to change any and all terms at will, either on an individual basis or grid wide.

Check the wording of your agreement with them.

You are entitled to use up the prim limit on a sim because you pay for the privilege of using that amount of land. You have no entitlement/right/privilege to use up all the avatar slots just because the sim can support them.

If I pay for a whole sim, I have a right and an entitlement to use the whole sim and everything that comes with it. It's not a privilege.

If I pay for a 2048 plot, I have a right and an entitlement to use the 2048 plot and everything that comes with it. If I can't get into the sim because it's full of avs, I'm sure you'd be among the first to argue how wrong it is, because I have a right to reach my own land. If I can't rez any prims because someone else in the sim has filled the sim up with temp objects, you'd be among the first to argue how it is, etc.

Oh come on Sling, there was a loss of 3,000 prims for a start. The product never ever had such a low limit. That's not what people purchased, hence the huge number of people deciding it wasn't a suitable product. If you nerf a product like that then people will stop using it.

You pay for the prims and land m2 usage

You are told how many avatars the hardware and software can support at maximum load. No where does it say you are entitled to use them.

Only 2% appear to have had owners happy with the explicitly stated OpenSpace limits. The owners of the other 98% could have stayed with the cheapest option, but obviously wanted more resources than the level that had been suggested for OpenSpace sims going back years.

But if everyone exercised their "right" and started filling up their sims with the maximum number of avatar/bots, what will happen to the Grid?

That is the fallacy of this arguement.

Regardless if you own the whole sim or not, if every single person who owned land filled that land to capacity with avatar/bots, SL would crash and burn. All in the name of gaming a pitifully misused popularity metrics for profit.

Perhaps those who push at these sorts of limitations of the system are doing everyone a favor by helping to define the restrictions LL needs to impose because people can't be trusted to act neighborly or play fairly with one another.

With "rights" come responsiblitiies. The "rights" you have through land ownership are also the responsibility you have to your neighbors. Especially when you excersising your "rights" impacts your neighbors "rights".

It is your right to fill up your whole sim with bots. But the more people you convince that it's ok to do that, the less usable this grid will become.

If you sell a product that supports 3750 prims it should be honoured. If you sell someone a product that supports 100 avatars it should be honoured, I agree with you to a degree but Linden Lab also have a fair usage type clause on hogging resources. This is largely intended for mainland sims where a parcel can attract 40 av's preventing everyone else from being able to use the rest of the sim.

And nowhere does it even suggest that I am not entitled to use them. So all this is just opinions, and my opinion has been stated enought times. Yours is different, and you are free to have it. I don't see what there is to argue about.

I'm not getting into a big argument about this. Nobody purchased an openspace that supported 750 prims, nobody. They used to support 1875. You're simply wrong to try and suggest that people who used more than 750 prims were operating outside of suggested usage level and you're also wrong due to the fact that going back years to when they were first annoucned Jack Linden himself said they could be used in a fashion that the majority of people used them.

The catch is with avatars, you are using far more than the sim's resources.

Yes your sim can hold 100 avatars on it, but you are not entitled to fill it with 100 alts. Because that is a a misuse of the grid resources

You can use up every prim allowed in your parcel limits. But you are not entitled to any avatars on that parcel or sim.

Ask around, when a sim owner can not get into a sim... they don't boot anyone off it. They simply allow them to order a restart so they can try to get in.... because your entitlement is the use of the land and prim limits... not even 1 avatar slot is yours to control.

OpenSims had been used sensibly for some time.
Then LL made it easier for people to get OpenSims.
It appears that a lot of people jumped on that and loaded up the sims to the max. That didn't scale. That got LL to lok at the whle thing.

What happened was that people using available resources to the max completely screwed the OpenSim option for people who were not doing that.
Greedy people consuming resources with no thought for others or the environment scew the world for everyonr else.

The OS thing was a total screw up by LL, and they would have lost in court over the example you gave - imo.

And that's where we came into this part of the thread. The ability to prevent other people from entering your land is a part of what you pay for with the land - it's part of the package. It's usually done with ban lines, of course. Nobody has any complaint if they can't enter someone else's single-owner sim because it is full, or for any other reason.

Indeed, but shouldn't the people selling the product be prepared for such an eventuality when selling their service?



Yet if SL was super popular with people wanting to use the resources they sold them it wouldn't be able to cope. I think people would be a bit miffed in that scenario if Linden Lab turned around and blamed users, even at 40 agents per sim the grid would meltdown, yet that's what Linden Lab sell people. I think that's Phil's point.

If I sell tenants the right to use 937 prims on a 4096M parcel, they should be able to use them, if say I have 10 such parcels on an island and they all do that, if I then restricted their usage and those people complained here I'm pretty damn sure a lot of people would say I was ripping them off as I wasn't providing them with the promised deal.



Hopefully, wouldn't it be great if more sims were super busy? Surely that would be good for the economy and the world as a whole. Identifying problems is important.



Yet people should be able to in theory fill up their sim with live users, which would cause more load on the grid than bots. So in reality we should be asking what is a sensible limit on usage based on all sims being busy.

They used to cost more, they also had to be purchased in packs of four. They were less popular. Popularity was what caused the problems, added to that LL's silly billing procedure that allowed someone other than the true owner to be billed for the sim. That's what put a strain on LL's resources.



They should never have supported more than 25 avatars, 10 should have been the default. A quarter of a full sim's resources but people using all of the available prims were using what they'd paid for. If you sell someone a prim limit they will often use it. People often ask me to rent them extra prims, people use what you sell them and why shouldn't they? Using temp rezzers and means to get around limits is a different matter.

I agree with Pie's post - except the fallacy bit In my view, I have a right to what I pay for. I don't see that as a fallacy. I also don't see sim owners filling their sims with avs just because they can, so it's only an academic discussion anyway.

"If I pay for a 2048 plot, I have a right and an entitlement to use the 2048 plot and everything that comes with it. "
You don't have the right. You can complain to LL that you can't get into your plot because the sim is full, but it won't do you any good.
I've posted about how Concierge in live chat could do nothing to get me into a full sim in which I had a 4096.
I don't have time to find the reference, but there's a Jack Linden office hours extract where he said that LL have *sometimes* taken action where landowners were unable to access their land for *long* periods due to sims being full. (The *'s for emphasis are mine.)

It seems that you have neither right or entitlement to access your land.

more times than not a sim with 100 avatars is gonna crash soon anyways..
with most servers and software you have minimum and maximum limits
if someone is gonna be wanting to push the maximum all the time they are going to be crashing all the time..
at GOL we would crash an easy 9 times a day just getting close to 100
if it wasn't crashes it was needing sim restarts because things just go wrong in the 80's and 90 traffic ranges a lot faster..we probably had as many restarts as we did crashes lol

you are allowed that much traffic but it sure is not what it's all cracked up to be..
i'm not sure if it's different with bots or not ..still who likes lag anyways??

All of the arguments about the technical merits of bots, based on avatar load, are not really vital arguments in this case because live avatars would have the same problem, as would campers. Certainly there used to be some very vocal complaints about people who had their club on the same mainland sim as another and complained that they were forced into competition for avatar slots while an area of two sims surrounding them lay empty of people most of the time.

The real issue are politicals. Bot runners themselves are caught in the "payola trap" - if they stop running bots, it just makes running bots more attractive for everyone else, because that's one spot higher in the ranking that they can get. And the Lindens are unlikely to act because a) Phil is quite right that if bots are banned, camping comes straight back, and unlike bots the Lindens can't just kick campers offline ("they told me I could earn some money by leaving my av here and then some admin kicks me off for it!" and b) the Lindens' whole strategy with Search is to abrogate responsibility because anything they do will be wrong. (Why use a GSA in the first place? So that they can say, "It's Google's algorithm, we didn't choose it."