Anatomy of a Fail

To be honest, I don't really see any difference between falsely describing a parcel to improve its likelihood of being found in search for common search terms, and putting bots on it to improve placement in search results. They seem equally "lies" to me, and always have.

But I really don't mean to rehash the old trafficbot debate yet again. Rather, I'm just trying to make it clear that none of us is satisfied with LL's word (in the TOS or otherwise) as the arbiter of all ethics in SL. Lying is still wrong and so is stealing, whatever any Linden may think about it. We may differ on what constitutes lying, stealing, or some other "cheating", and that's okay, but what LL has said on a subject is not the origin of those different views, nor should we expect it to resolve debate.

Sophistry. The ToS is not "rules of a game", which is the sense in which you are using the word. The term "cheating" is entirely appropriate in the context of any fraud or deception, even when it's a situation where LL considers it a matter between residents and thus not against the Terms of Service.

Unless picks create load on the grid, they won't be hit.

Yes, I know we haven't agreed on it in the past and we all are entitled to our views of it. I don't see traffic bots as lying, because (a) the traffic is genuinely generated by avatars, and (b) there is nothing in the Places tab that suggests actual popularity (even people-type avatars on a parcel is no indication of the parcel's positive popularity), so the traffic numbers don't falsely represent anything like that.

It's an old debate that has been hashed many times before and there's no need to go through it all again. It's sufficient to understand that different people have different genuinely held views of it.

It doesn't matter how you want to spin it.

I have my own views on activities that i consider as cheating in SL, you have yours. Nothing you write will sway my opinion nor anybody else for that matter.
We can go around in circles all night long.......but it won't change anything.

If you want the moral high ground....fine...take it! Makes no odds to me.

I saw reference to such a list when I looked but for some reason could not find the actual list (although to be fair to the IRS, the CRA does not publish the entire Canadian equivalent list on their site either... never understood that.. to get the list in Canada you need to go to the actual legislation).

Which one is Phil?

this one:

I am not in that line of business, and I do have an accountant to handle a lot of the "dirty work". However, since I am a software developer, and have designed and written accounting software in the past, I am a bit more familiar with it than your average non-financial businessman.



Well, in that case, YOU are talking management; I wasn't being specific. In fact, my example was an administrative intern, so we're not in sync there. As for the conversation mattering, I am not the one seeking to continue it.

Even still, the issue of executive compensation for non-profit businesses is a high-profile topic, especially with all the big scandals in the last few decades. As such, there does seem to be a lot of scrutiny placed on the ranges of compensation which has caused a lot of the larger non-profits (at least here in the US) to "rein in" their executive compensation packages, sometimes even to the point of making them very "lean", when compared to the "for-profit" industry averages.



Actually, it is QUITE different than a for-profit business. They can actually last a good long time churning through customers and moving around before it finally catches up with them. With a non-profit, taking much in the way of donations and not providing services will catch up with them VERY quickly, usually after a complaint or two and a couple of quarterly reports. The standards for scrutiny and oversight are quite different.



Oh, they most definitely exist for for-profit companies as well. I would also agree that the recent financial meltdown has brought a lot more of those excesses to light. However, as I said, the standards for scrutiny and oversight between for-profits and non-profits are still quite different. This is borne out in the fact that many of the excesses that for-profits experience tend to be at least an order of magnitude more gross, and tend to stay hidden for much longer periods of time. Hell, this entire financial mess started in the 90s (in some cases, the problems took root all the way back into the 80s), and laid mostly dormant like a ticking time bomb until last year. In many cases, impropriety in non-profits is uncovered in at most a year or two after it occurs, simply because of the stringent reporting and oversight requirements they are subject to.



Nope. Just one of Phil's many tangents to justify his stance on them. "All businesses focus mainly on profits" paraphrased. I disagreed, and gave NPOs as examples of businesses which are not focused mainly on profits, since they can't focus on profits (that's what "non-profit" means). Even many for-profits are not mainly focused on profits. For example, there are many who could charge a lot more for their products and services and make more money, but they choose not to because profits are not the main reason they are in business. Profits are an important reason, to be sure, but it is not their "main" reason. It most certainly is not their SOLE reason, which seems to be the extreme to which Phil is arguing towards.



There isn't, and I didn't say that. However, applicability is important; if the analogy doesn't apply because it is too broad or unrelated to the point, it is a BAD analogy.

Nothing I said would make my beliefs to appear as you say. That is solely your invention. The point in using the Bill Gates example was that you failed to illustrate your point because there were significant exceptions to your statement that would make getting a bank loan a REQUIREMENT to start a for-profit business, raising it to the same stringent level of a REQUIREMENT to file for 501(c) status for a NPO.

Again, one is OPTIONAL. The other is a REQUIREMENT. No matter how many conditions or special edge cases you come up with, it won't change that simple fact.



I've never claimed they were, nor was this segue about NPOs (which I point out you jumped in the "middle" of) meant to relate directly back to bots. In fact, you've just dutifully argued my case against Phil's point for me. Even LL has not been "mainly about the profits". That may be changing now, but LL's past behavior most certainly qualifies it for that distinction.

The whole point in bringing up the laws of physics is that there are real limits to available computing power to us, and bots aggravate the situation to the point where it would exhaust all available computing resources long before the playing field could be made level for all business owners to "game traffic" via their use and is one major reason that makes such use of them unfair.

Anyway, you tend to like to stretch arguments into segues yourself, though they tend to get absurd after a while (hence a "certain vampire's" incredibly astute observation about them). As such, I don't think you have a lot of room to complain about segues and where things are going in a thread.

Nono. That wasn't meant to be tied to the previous. It was more or less meant to be a slightly humourous tack-on. I probably should have started a new paragraph to make it separate. It was late, and letting the brain-suck that is Phil wear me down a little.



Because it prolonged the inevitable. Like throwing good money after bad, it delays the day of reckoning, where we would have had to rein in our excesses. In that situation, we would have had to do it a LOT sooner, and perhaps could have gotten a better handle on it when the numbers were much lower, and actually could have been dealt with.

Like any kind of disease, the earlier you detect it and treat it, the better the prognosis.

I would also point out that the recent problems were not endemic to the US; many European and Asian financial institutions were also very much in the thick of it with their own corruption. The US may have been at the top of the list of offenders, but that list was NOT short, nor were the other players comparatively small-time, by any stretch of the imagination.

Even still, I don't believe in the "too big to fail" mantra. Let 'em fail. There's nothing that justifies treating big business any different than small business in terms of the law and things like "bailouts". The fact that the government did so proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is too much incest between our government and big business, and it needs to be put to a stop.

The talking heads on TV keep playing the "hope" card all the time: "we'll be out of the recession later this year"; "things will be better next year, and we can carry on". Truly ignorant and oblivious to the scale and substance of the disaster. As usual, band-aids are applied to sucking chest wounds, and we tell the patient "everything is going to be fine".

It is OK, though; the longer we fail to deal with the problem, the worse it will get until it overwhelms us and resolves itself, usually to our greater detriment; this same scenario has played out time and time again throughout history. We're doomed to repeat it.

Dunno, I read through that entire article, and the gist of it is that queueing (or an analogue, like ticket systems) is pretty common around the world. There are some places which don't respect it, but it seems like a significant amount of places (didn't count up the references, but it isn't statistically significant or relevant, given the anecdotal nature of the information) do understand the process and nature of queueing.

I still think it is a fair generalization in light of that article.

Qie came up with a good point in reference to your issue with "falsely advertised products".

There's nothing in the ToS which proscribes false advertising. It's not a "rule". Thus, according to your usage, it isn't "cheating" (the specific instance is "lying", but that's just a special case of "cheating", according to dictionary definition), and thus, you shouldn't have any more issue with it than traffic gaming.

I mean, since it isn't specifically against the ToS, it is allowed. I wonder what Live Chat folks would say if I asked them whether I could advertise my vending systems on search using keywords like "sex" so I could get better placement. Probably would say something to the effect of "*sigh* it is against the ToS, so it shouldn't be a problem".

I guess it just proves that everything is subject to interpretation of ethics and morals by individuals in the end, right?

The problem is that you still fail to understand the meaning of the word "profits".

If the point you were making said "businesses exist to make REVENUE", then there wouldn't be an argument. Even still, that is not universally true.

There are businesses (yes, registered 501(c) businesses) who don't take money donations of ANY kind and only use volunteers in the performance their mission. One example is a "street improvement" company, who gets donations of tools and excess plants from nurseries and home-improvement companies, and they go out at night and "stealth-beautify" a neglected island in the middle of a street in their city. No money = no profits, so they CAN'T be about profits at all! They STILL are a business, though, because they still have to track the donations for the companies and individuals making them and file the normal quarterly and yearly reports to maintain their 501(c) status. Any cash in their corporate bank account is there because of the requirements, not because they accept donations or charge for any product or service.

Did you know that there is a trade body in the UK for businesses that exist SOLELY for a social purpose? Hence:



Yes, they do mention making "profits", but their point, like mine, is that they don't EXIST "to make profits", as they state it "to maximise shareholder value".

I'll repeat that last line for emphasis:

"You're in business solely for the benefit of that wider group of people."



No one has questioned the "legality" of using bots to game traffic. Cheating doesn't imply being "against the law". In that case, it would be considered fraud. However, that doesn't make the practice any less reprehensible as cheating than someone lying to falsely advertise categories for products they don't sell to drive traffic.

Is it a subjective judgment? Sure! But so is calling someone a liar. If they ARE lying, the judgment IS subjective, but with the evidence of proof that it was a lie, it becomes OBjective. Likewise, with cheating, accusations are subjective, but, with proof (it's not hard to prove when you have public confession), it becomes OBjective. That YOU don't consider it cheating is a contention, just the same as when a liar doesn't consider his words to be lies.



Well, don't let that stop you from arguing about it. Of course, at this point, you're just playing word games; I don't expect anything said here to be anything more than just flaming for the sake of flaming and having fun. That's fine, I've played the game enough before.

As for being warriors without a war, there's always plenty enough out there to fight. Not that I relish fighting wars; I have better things to do with my time but, for those that directly impact me in some way, I'm happy to jump into the fray and slug it out. I have to say I am fairly proud of the results so far.



Yup, they were "legal", which was what the war was all about; making something illegal that was morally and ethically wrong in order to put a stop to it. Much like traffic bots.

And your problem is that you imagine I'm gonna read all that - I'm not

Hey. All businesses exist to make a profit, otherwise they wouldn't exist. Take it or leave it.

Not likely, and here's why:

1) Picks are a resource provided by LL which has ZERO barrier to entry (the playing field is level)
2) Pick abuse doesn't add any significant resource load to cause it to be a detriment to other residents.

While it still is a form of "cheating", it is tolerable enough to leave be since it is self-mitigating. In other words, since anyone and everyone can "game" it equally, its detrimental effects will be minimal, at best.



It is possible, but I don't know anyone who thinks or feels that way who is running a business. Most people (that I know, anyway) are well aware of why their business is in the state it is in, and are willing to take the hit on themselves for their own failures. However, no one, including people who would blame others for their own failures, should have to put up with unmitigated cheating. It's an extra external problem that deserves to be addressed, despite their feelings on the matter.

As such, your point is a non-starter.



That's true, they will. That still doesn't in any way invalidate them or anyone else avoiding and/or decrying cheating the system.



Well, ya know, even the "King pins" have a life expectancy. I would call Starax one of them, and he left (only to come back in a different guise) a very profitable business and a huge following of customers and fans. It happens.

No one is immune to "bit rot", let alone "real rot".

Not my problem; I don't care if you do or not. Your problem is that you expect it to be just for you.



I'll leave it, thanks anyway. It's an inaccurate worldview that I don't share, because it is not based on reality.

Well, I have to agree with Isablan, even though I sell (OMG) photorealistic flowers. (does that make them adult?) anyhow, they aren't the same as the bot places with all the same plants, because 3/4 of them are photos we took of our own RL garden flowers....so if anyone else has them....they are stolen! So, for a small time flower shop like ours, bots do create an unfair advantage. Unlike places such as the Botanical Gardens, with so many wonderful trails and hidden off the path places to visit, explore and lounge around in, a small shop works entirely different. At my place, a customer TPs in, finds the Black Hollyhock or whatever, buys it, and TPs out. Total time in the sim....perhaps 2 minutes, if that. Compare that to someplace else with 40 bots parked 24/7 over the shop. I know Hodgie's Nature Stand isn't gonna be on the first page of flowers, because of the 300-800 traffic figure we usually have, but I feel good knowing it is the quality of the product and service that keeps people coming back. Using bots to game the traffic is cheating the people and the system. In general, those that would use bots, are those who would use shortcuts to make their products. So I avoid bot places when shopping.

Don't hold your breath, our friend Sling already used it in her crusades. Though don't try asking her, simple questions do cause her to post, but never to answer

I get the impression that, even if she does answer, you (et al) wouldn't recognize it as such anyway, so yeah.

That's called a "self-fulfilling prophecy", btw.

You're probably right that LL won't move on the gaming of Picks, even though gaming them is, well, gaming them (cheating).
They don't have the same high profile as packs of bots, even though the abuse of them is as bad as the abuse of bots.
Current policing of the traffic-bot ban is pure farce. It's an ultra-simple thing to detect at the the egregious level, but the 80+ bot farms are still screaming at us from Places search results.

I don't agree that there is a ZERO barrier to entry.
To do it on a high-volume systematic level, it needs software systems to track the rewards for picks.

That factor could allow LL to move on *systematic* Picks gaming.
Leading up to his traffic-bot-ban posting, Jack highlighted the bots-for-hire as being particularly unacceptable.
The logical thing is to whack any system designed to facilitate payment for Picks. Whack those systems. Whack the makers. Ban the sale of them.

Realistically, it will be impossible to stop all gaming.
However is is practicable and sensible to hit the Gaming-for hire / Buy-your-gaming-here approach.

LL should simply update the TOS to say that manipulation of Search is a TOS offence.
That takes away the blanket "not against the TOS" defence as was used to defend traffic bots.
It does leave people trying to argue that what they are doing is *not* search manipulation, and wow they will do so. BUT - they will be on shakier ground.

LL can whack the low-hanging fruit.
Gaming will continue, but will do so in a culture in which gaming is explicitly a TOS offence.

Got it in one!

I have already answered the questions.
As I said before, Marcel et al just don't like the answers.

Not my problem!

Much as I am opposed to cheating on the search, I think something a little more precise than this would be desirable. I don't want to be suspended because a "suspiciously high" number of members of my group have me in picks, even though I have at no time asked anyone to put me there. Given past application of overly broad terms in the ToS, I find the idea of giving AR griefers more ammo Broadly Offensive.

There you go again. You posted a replied to the question, but you didn't make any attempt to answer it, or people wouldn't keep on at you to answer it. So stop lying - people who have memories can also read. Have you no shame? Or are you training to be a polition. Giving a reply that either evades the question, or simply ignores it, as you did, is the stock in trade of politians, but you're not one of those. You're just a liar - although they are quite good at that too.

That's why a reasonable target would be *the automation* of rewarding picks Picks.
There were signs in advance that Jacks blog would simply have targeted Traffic-for-Hire operations. He went beyond that.
I think they could certainly target the systems that support pick-buying.

That would leave you in the clear.
It would also leave some gamers in the clear.
However, it would help to stop the spread of unimaginative buying of Search ranking.