Anatomy of a Fail

It doesn't matter what the "game owners" say, it's unethical and immoral.

There's been plenty of spammers with "pink contracts" they can wave to show their ISP said it was OK. The law doesn't say they can't. It's still unethical and immoral.

It was meant for you, but not as a comment about you. It was a comment on the implication that you can be a "big dog" in SL.

You can't.

There's nothing you can do inside SL, no matter how far you want to stretch the boundaries of ethical behavior, that will make your SL career count as something better than "mom and pop" level... there's lots of "Mom and Pop" sole proprietorships with a single RL location that make significant amounts of money, much more than anyone's been reported to make in SL.

So arguing that you need to bend the rules to be a "big dog" is just plain silly.

Very true! (well in my opinion! )

ohhhhhhh, so the stores who sell the most of whichever particular product they specialize in must be a figment of my imagination. for instance (sorry Phil, you got enough going on here) like low prim furniture, Phils store must of been that third life dream I have in my second life nappy time about being at the top fo the lowprim furniture market. and i was talking in a RL sense as far as "big dog" but sort of, meshin it into SL in a sort of odd way now that i look at it. I'm sure most of the builders and creators out there know they wont make money to live off of, but yes, it is sweet holding that #1 spot for the market you specialize in. yes, if you expect to make SL moneey to live off of in RL, I wish you luck but doubt it will happen, and if it does it wont last long at all. But shooting for the top of your market is considered "big dog" in my opinion. i should of been more clear on it though...but thats me...full of smots and let them loose with piss and vinegar and no detailed thought


Edit: holy bunch of edits batman!

It's happening.



I wasn't aware that I was "spewing venom". I'm not the "venom" type of Dragon. Fire is more my gig.

LL doesn't give "blessings" to do anything. They merely say that, for the moment, they won't consider something "against the rules". They are quite capable of changing that stance at any moment, if they feel justified in doing so.

Not only that, you won't find agreement from LL that any one thing said by a Live Chat Linden constitues anything remotely resembling a "blessing", as they have been known to say "I don't see any problem with it" 5 MINUTES before a G-Team member services an AR taking it down (c.f. gambling device threads).

Now, you can argue that they SHOULD be held to it, and I wouldn't disagree, in a "Utopian 2nd life world", but the plain fact of the matter is that is and has never been the case with LL.

Even in many MMOGs, if you ask if it is OK to cheat/exploit an obvious hole in the game, and get a tacit "I don't see anything wrong with it" from a GM, it does NOT insulate you from responsibility for doing so when the equivalent of the G-team comes calling and bans you from the game over it. In fact, several MMOs have anti-exploitation provisions in their ToS specifically to counter such instances (I know, I wrote one ). In addition, it most certainly doesn't shield you from player fallout if it gets out that you cheated/exploited. In the last MMOG I played in, this happened to several large guilds, and it cost them dearly when the entire shard ostracized them over it, and rightfully so.



Outdoor sex orgies don't generally bother me, so not a good example.

I suppose if someone was doing it to harass me or someone else, I would probably have a problem with it, but if they were "doing it" on their own Mature land, with any attempt to "contain(ed) (it) within private land" (as the ToS says), it doesn't bother me in the least.

No, I am only interested where there is actual harm involved. Traffic bots represent actual harm, both to SL businesses, and to the grid itself.

No, you're still missing the point. It doesn't matter if they're the biggest Foo stores in SL, they're still not "big dogs", they're still making less than a good "Mom and Pop" Foo store would make in RL.

Lol .....are you sure?

Linden Lab VP Robin Harper offered some extraordinary financial numbers from Second Life's internal economy: based on a quarterly annualization the company conducted, they discovered that several Resident business owners were cashing out Linden Dollars in excess of a million US dollars a year, with the top earner grossing an estimated $1.7 million. An initial blog report suggested this top ranking was based on the sale of virtual shoes, which seemed fairly incredible, so I double-checked that point with Robin. The $1.7 million figure is accurate, she told me by e-mail and in a correction on her blog today, but it's not based on shoes:


Ok that 1.7m is gross amount doesn't take into account Tier costs....but you can bet the cashing out figure is a 6-digit figure......that's income. Lets take a view at the Fantasyland owner with 850 sims....lets be conservative here and assume 75% occupancy and an average SIM profit of 100 USD per mth (with all his class 4's that profit might be nearer 200). Do the maths, his yearly income is considerable!


Ahnse Chung's million came from valuing her assets at the time ....which were 600-700 sims when it made the headlines......it wasn't monthly income that was being assessed.
As sim values have considerably dropped, she'd be lucky to come away with 300-400k USD.

ouch, I think I've decided I'm going to make shoes now. I thought a while ago I saw a site with some figures showing the top income makers in SL. I believe it was some clothing stores, weapons stores and a few others. I know the names of some of them being I shop at them but wont give them. And I wish I had gotten into the land business when I first came to SL. I had a hunch back then but just shrugged it off as a "eh I doubt it" type of thing *kicks herself in the ass a few times* should of listened to myself. I could of beena bigdog, arf arf

Which is completely irrelevant to the point. Nice try, though. As for taking a finance course, I know my way around business finances very well, thanks; 22 years of running a business tends to teach one more about the subject than any "course" on it.



Except it really isn't that large. Take a look at any particular job classification on something like http://www.salary.com. You'll find that the range is pretty tight on many job classifications. Now, that isn't necessarily the source that the government will use, but the issue is, you don't want it to get to that point, because it will likely become a LOT tighter. Once scrutiny has land eyes upon your books, they better be immaculate, or it will get very messy, very fast. The IRS often plays hardball when it comes to improperly-run 501(c) NPOs.



That's the point I made earlier to another poster (Jojogirl, I think). Corruption is a separate issue. It still doesn't speak to the fact that the principle is that NPOs don't have "profits" (and why it is silly to argue that something called "non-profit" should be considered to actually make a "profit"; they don't), and thus, their focus is not on making money, but on fulfilling their mission, of which making money to do so IS an important component, but it is not the sole or most important one, contrary to what Phil said.



I have not, personally, no, but there have been some rather high-profile cases (such as with American University, Adelphi University, the NAACP and the United Way) which have caused serious issues related to improper compensation accounting to be uncovered and scrutinized.

Yes, I am aware of the proper application of the tax-exemption status.

Is your question or this avenue relevant to a point, or is it another tangent?



Yeah, I said that, in general.



You're putting preconditions to justify an irrelevant point. As I said, one is OPTIONAL, the other is NOT. It doesn't matter if there are "special cases", since there are just as likely special circumstances which can cover them. For example, Bill Gates does not NEED a "bank loan" to start even a multi-billion-dollar-entry-cost business, if he wants. Thus, it is still optional.

EVERYONE, regardless of ANY criteria, MUST go through the 501(c) approval process to achieve the tax-exempt non-profit status afforded by that code. EVERYONE. Let me say that once again for clarity: EVERYONE.



There is no realistic situation where the costs to LL are not an issue. LL has to obey the laws of physics just like everyone else. Thus, it is not just about LL's bottom line.



What does that have to do with the price of CPUs in Turkey?

This is turning into the evil "ignore and let this one die" thread.

Just as an example, though it is one I am most familiar with: Daryth Kennedy and the Isle of Wyrms. 10+ private regions, pretty much as "mom and pop" as it can get. Hardly ever even advertised, except during hatching events. MOST DEFINITELY never ever gamed traffic or otherwise misrepresented herself, her land, or her business.

EVERYONE in SL started out as a small "mom and pop" business. I know quite a few who are quite big and successful now that started out from very humble beginnings, and never have gone the traffic gaming route. Surprisingly enough, I only know 3 that have cheated their way to the top, but that's more of a "who you know" thing than a real, representative sample of such places. I simply don't "hang" with the people who believe it is a good/necessary thing.

It's really dead simple!

say Sept 2008 in this instance!

Q. Can I use a number of bots to game traffic so I can appear higher in Places Search?

A. Yes, you can use your Bots as long as you don't break TOS conditions like using a Bot to copy objects or harrass other residents or drain a Mainland SIM's resources thus preventing access to said SIM

Concl. Gaming traffic through the use of Bots is Legal providing you don't break
TOS conditions. It cannot be regarded as cheating if the practice is blessed
by the Game owners/creators.

Whether the above practice is agreeable, ethical, against your principles, morally incorrect.....is neither here nor there....it was not cheating! Whatever your personal beliefs it has zero impact on the decision process for those that choose to go down this road.

Same situation in May 2009....it's a different story. It's now an TOS offence, if you choose to use Bots now to game traffic....you are cheating. The rules have changed.

Like in any professional sport...its the official rules that count. There are grey areas you might not like or feel are unethical....but if doesn't break the official rules it cannot be deemed cheating. If you know anything about Formula 1 racing, you'd know that!!!

Example :Many questioned the new swimsuits used in the last Olympics, with a number of world records broken and some noticeable outstanding performances, none less than Michael Phelp's.

As it stood, many swimming nations did not have the advantage of using these new aerodynamic swimwear...but regardless, the ones that did use them, were not "Cheating" as they were sanctioned by FINA

Second Life is not a regulated competition, the Terms of Service are not the rules of a gaming association. All you can say is that kind of cheating wasn't against the ToS. That doesn't mean it wasn't cheating, abuse, destructive, whatever terms that will get through your conceit that the ToS has any relationship to the kind of gaming rules you're trying to tie it to.

There ARE games where the ToS is like that.

Consider Eve Online. Certain kinds of cheating are explicitly legal under the Eve Online Terms of Service. In Eve Online that kind of cheating and outright theft are part of the game, it's explicitly designed for people who want to play the role of absolute amoral assholes.

Second Life is not that kind of a game. Most people don't play the role of absolute amoral assholes. And since the goal of Second Life isn't to be the best amoral asshole it's perfectly reasonable to call people who are cheats, abusers, malicious, and whatever other terms correctly describe that kind of behavior.

The conclusion is incorrect for the simple reason that the person you spoke with isn't "the Game owners/creators", nor is considered (by LL itself, no less!) an authority capable to give said "blessings".

Even still, what Argent said is 100% correct. Linden Lab employees are not arbiters of morals or ethics.



As I said in another post, cutting in queue is cheating; it is reprehensible, and people usually get pissed off enough to start fights over it. There's no rule or law which forbids it, simply common courtesy and respect for other people. That people fail to demonstrate that respect in a situation with no posted "don't cut in queue" rules doesn't make it any less immoral or unethical.

You're right that I can't make LL retroactively punish people for being cheats (though I *CAN* do and *HAVE* done that in other MMOGs, simply by reporting the behavior). However, that doesn't change the fact that the behavior is morally or ethically wrong, reprehensible, and should be heavily curtailed. Thankfully, LL is at least putting an end to it. It is not the best or timeliest solution, either, but I don't have to countenance people who still go out of their way trying to justify it in light of that fact.



Again, if you exploit in a number of other online games, even where it doesn't break the existing rules, you CAN be deemed cheating and banned over it, so there is precedent for such to occur.

It still doesn't matter; my purpose of calling it a "cheat" was to get awareness of it out there to get it stopped. That's happening now. I still can feel free to consider it a cheat and call it what it is, regardless of whether it was ever made "official" or not.

The same way I can yell at that pack of idiots who just cut in queue ahead of me, to get the attention of the venue staff and have their cheating butts escorted off the premises if they didn't get to the back of the queue.



This is incorrect. All FINA-sanctioned swimwear is available to all swim team members. That's part of the sanctioning process, and what keeps the event fair for all.

You can spin it anyway you want .......and then some...in fact you can write a book on it, if you so desire ...but if it isn't breaking any official rules it cannot be deemed cheating!

Unethical? most likely
A question of morals? Well obviously won't be at the same level as yours.
Principles? That's personal
Cheating? Definitely not

Depends what country you come from, queuing is not a common practice in all countries.
If queuing is not part of the sub-culture it doesn't make it immoral or unethical....and not by their standards.

Here's one, for example:



Now, the difference is, with that game company, if you asked that question of a support staffer, it would get passed up the chain to the governance staff, and you would get an answer back from said governance staff as a whole, not just and only the first staff member you contacted. At that point, you COULD bank on the answer, because it would have been a bona fide "blessing" to do what was asked.

I don't know of many places where queueing isn't used to sequentially service people through a limited interface. It's kind of a natural ordering principle. Food lines, banks, medical services. If people all attempt to be serviced at the same time, chaos inevitably ensues, and the service generally fails.

Thus, I would have to estimate that the majority of human beings on the planet understand the concept and necessity of queueing up, and why someone cutting ahead is being a jerk that needs his brains bashed out.

No, i'm correct...the new swimsuits were sanctioned by FINA....some nations chose not to wear them and then moaned about their results and lack of competitiveness thereafter.....well they can moan all they like as you said "they were available to all"

Its the same in formula 1 racing and the "double diffuser" row and the interpretation of the new FIA rules for 2009....the upshot some teams due to lack of car performance protested, but it was not upheld......now the same teams are having to re-design their backend diffusers. It might sound trivual....but when it gives you a 1 sec per lap advantage, clarifcation is needed.

Have you ever hopped on a tube in Tokio? Queuing? what queue -rofl
How about the Middle East? Don't even get me started on the Swedes.

You can't generalise.........your cutting the "Lawn" analogy would be worn out in several countries!

David Callahan did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cheating_Culture

Excerpts (from the Wikipedia article on the book):

"Cheating, of both illegal and legal forms, is pervasive in an American society where incentive-driven structures (e.g. stock options, production-based pay, fast-track career options) have gone haywire: Instead of promoting productivity and "fair play", they reward deception and chicanery."

"Not restricted to professions, cheating now appears in all facets of American life. According to Callahan, cheating breeds upon a dynamic between a winner class, an upper-class so influential they effectively are exempt from most rules and standards, and an anxious class, often compelled to cheat during a period of downward social mobility, downsizing, and within a cultural climate that values money and power above personal integrity."

"Callahan shows, however, that large-scale cheating is most prevalent among the "Winner" upper class. Despite their high salaries and opulent lifestyles, they live in constant comparison with those who have more than them, and therefore exhibit lives characterized by high spending, severe anxiety, and countless opportunities and temptations to cheat."



Wrong!

The presence/absence of hard / "official" rules is not a necessary precondition for a determination of cheating. It definitely makes things more cut and dried for the instances the rule covers, but it most definitely can cover instances where the rules are more general, societal-based, or even defined via things like etiquette (where there are some hard / "official" rules, but are generally or subjectively applied).



Just so you understand, the use of the term "ethic" often implies a rule, written or no. Thus, if you consider it "most likely" unethical, then it "most likely" is in violation of some rule which comprises the ethic and would be considered cheating.

That's not quite what you said.

You said "As it stood, many swimming nations did not have the advantage of using these new aerodynamic swimwear". They DID have the advantage, as everyone else did. They simply chose not to use them. It's a semantic difference, but it is an important one for clarity of your point.

For example, the Japanese government forbade their team to use Speedo-brand swimwear in competition, because of nationalistic concerns, since Speedo is made in Australia, and they wanted the team to wear Japanese-made swimwear. It angered their teams to no end, but whatever "advantage" provided by the swimwear was there for them to take advantage of, and they chose not to. Maybe sticker shock might have been a problem for some of the smaller 3rd-world country teams. US$800 a pair is a tad steep for a pair of swimming trunks.

You're flying off at tangents again. Why do i need to read your quote regarding the cheating culture of America? Am I even interested?...no.....in that case it makes it even all the more bizzarre with the amount of your folk running around these forums waving their "Ethical" flags

To be honest i find you tedious and a big YAWN

Here's 3 parting questions i have for you?


1) Do you always need to have the last word?

2) Are you ever wrong?

3) If you are wrong.....do you ever admit to it?

Just because one service may not have need for queueing doesn't necessarily imply that it is the norm. There are plenty of services in Tokyo that you might encounter where queueing IS the norm.



For some things, I think it is quite possible to generalize. Even still, you can feel free to insert whatever common societal protocol encounter with other people would end up badly if a person violated even the unwritten rules of said encounter. It still doesn't change the fact that you're likely to get anywhere from yelled at, to beat up, to tossed out on your ear if you "cheat" it.

Ever heard of the expression "tarred and feathered, and rode out of town on a rail"? It was a common punishment for people who tended to "cheat", violating what the townspeople considered important rules of etiquette and protocol in their community.

Where would the US be if Japan (80's & 90's) and China did not effectively buy up your Debt via Govt bonds?