Anatomy of a Fail

You're lying again. Is there no depth to which you will not stoop? My preference not to run an extra computer is no indication that I am unable to run 80 bots. I am *very* able to do that on my machines. Only a liar like yourself could add ficticious reasons to someone's preferences, which you did twice in this thread alone. In fact, you didn't even incluide my preference - you just posted the ficticious additions as facts.

No. They weren't mistakes on your part. You wrote lies with the intention of people believing them. You wrote things that you knew weren't true, (a) because you knew you were inventing them and (b) because you know very well that my SL earnings are such that I could have afforded a private island if I wanted one, without even noticing the extra cost, and yet you lied about it.

You're *still* doing it! You're an incorrigible liar, Sling. I'll say it plainly:-

I could and can compete against the bots of a PI if I want to.

I could and can compete against the bots of a full mainland sim if I want to. On that one, I already told you that I can beat everyone I was competing with.

The only way you could escape the embarrassment of being shown to be a liar is if people don't actually read it. So let's get down to the basics...

Which part of "I prefer not not to run an extra computer for bots" means I can't compete against the bots of a PI or against the bots of a full mainland sim? Come on Sling - I want to know. Which part of it means that am unable to compete? Don't bail out - answer the question please.

My definition of "lie" is spot on accurate. A lie saying something, either knowing it to be false, or not knowing it to be true, with the intention that it is believed. You are a liar through and through.

@Talarus:
If you seriously thing that posting #106 is a serious answer to posting #104, we are done talking. Your view on a serious answer in discussion differs way too much from mine.

Strange though as you seem to have put thought in your answer to me, it seems. That is why I will reply to your post nevertheless.

Even though the same stuff happens again and again, I have no joy in insulting Sling, nor is it my aim. As far as I know I only posted in an insulting way only 1 time in history, probably in the direction of Sling though I am not sure. It's a few weeks ago. In general I hate posting in insulting ways, but this time I got tickled just a bit too much.

You are right in saying 'never' is an unfair word, though I can't remember using it. What history does learn though, is that after let's say 2 postings forward and back, she leaves me with a 3 line posting (matter of speech, might as well be 5 lines) instead of answering my part. And believe me or not, if I put my thoughts in a posting of half a screen, thinking over my argumentation as well as possible, I see it as an insult when my discussion partner thinks it's enough to put 3 (or 5) lines on the screen, without going into the actual argumentation. It is an insult to my efforts, an insult to my intelligence.

That is is the reason I reply to you: it would be an insult to your effort to read back and formulate your reply, to simply dismiss it with a one liner.

Discussing as I learned it, is handing each other the argumentation behind your opinion, to get closer to each other. Not to prove the other wrong, simply to get to understand each other better. Discussing is not a matter of winning.
Now I am big enough a man to admit or the other party is right. My 'fair enough' to Sling proves that, my admitting to you that "never" was an unfair word proves it as well. That is a part of discussing in an adult way. I still does not say I am wrong in my thinking, it simply admits that I made a mistake.

It is *not* an answer to the question. It is a response to it, but it doesn't answer it. The question did *not* ask for a "contrast", as you put it. It asked where the Sling draws the line between the two, and no answer was given.

or, as excellently summarised in post # 333










Phil's bonkers!!

Bailing out again, Sling? Can't stand being caught in your lies, Sling? Aaaw...poor Sling.

"There you go again" -- Ronald Reagan



Perhaps, until you get pressed on a point, then you resort to name-calling, calling people "liars", calling their arguments "lies", and generally being a troll. At that point, there's no discussing anything rational with you, because you turtle-down and just swipe out blindly at whoever is there. Fortunately, you "come out of your shell" often enough where there is a chance at rational discourse.

Even though I believe you to be a cheat and a troll, I won't ignore you, because you've yet to prove to me that you're COMPLETELY incapable of rational thought, and there's a chance you'll see and agree to reason. Someday. Some might consider that a tad overly optimistic of me, but I afford everyone the courtesy of redemption, unless they cross a line they should never cross. Fortunately, that line is nowhere nearby where the vast majority of people here can find it.

As such, I would not say the same about you that you say about Sling. You're fair game to me because you like to dish it out, but have a hard time taking it, is all.

Here you get to the point I have mentioned a few times before.

It isn't about that first bot runner/traffic gamer. As soon as camping got invented, there were the first people using that to rank higher in places search. Genuine traffic (if it ever existed...) was not longer the way to rank high.

Now imagine me getting into the furniture business a year or so back. Looking at places search, I see that the top 20 are all running bots. So the only way to rank, IS running my own bots. There is no longer a choice, either use the bots/camping pads, or don't rank.

That is why I say we are not living in an idealistic world: The market we operate in is already using the techniques we are talking about. As a business, I have to compete against people running bots (search places) and paying for picks (search all). When Phil started there was no search all, so he had to compete with the bot runners. And, since there was nothing that disallowed it, it was a pretty simple choice, and even though I chose not to do it, I can perfectly well understand Phil's choice. And yes, we are competitors.

Draft letter from Phil to LL


Dear Mr Linden,

I wish to object most strongly to the iniquitous system of Classified as run in SL.
I now choose not to spend money on Classifieds. I have spend it in the past, but now I wish to cease Classified spending.
I am therefore against Classifieds
Please suspend them forthwith.


Yours etc,.......




PS:
Please suspend Sling Trebuchet's account.
She has written that I am against Classifieds because I can't compete in Classifieds with the people who spend BIG money on Classifieds.
THIS IS A LIE!!!! AN AWFUL SHOCKING TERRIBLE LIE!!!!! A PORKIE OF IMMENSE DIMENSIONS!!!
I could spend big bucks on Classified if I wanted to. However, I choose not to, and therefore want you to remove the Classifieds system. That is all.

I know. That's where I got it from


Actually, that's not true. Even in this thread it's shown not to be true. Apart from Sling, who I recently decided to make an exception of, I always discuss rationally and sensibly, right up until the other person throws something in, such as tacking a personal insult to the end of the post. That's when I give it back, often with interest.


Oddly enough, it's people like you who refuse to see reason. Most of us (we sensible people, that is) are prepared to agree to differ, and to accept that different people have different genuinely held views, both of which are perfectly reasonable. You, and those like you, can't live with that. You must have it your way - it's the only way of reason - and anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong by definition. It's not a sensible attitude, is it?

That's your problem. There is no reason to see me as fair game. I've never come down on anyone unless they came down me first. It's when you do that, that you get it back, and it's your doing - not mine.

Nice try at bailing out, Sling, but it failed. Well actually, it's not even a nice try - it's a pathetic bail out because answering the question would embarrass you too much. I'll repeat the question for you, in case your short-term memory is lacking...

Which part of "I am against bots because I prefer not not to run an extra computer for bots" means that I am against bots because I can't compete against the bots of a PI or against the bots of a full mainland sim? Come on Sling - I want to know. Which part of it means that? Don't bail out - answer the question please.

ETA:
Talarus. Please note that this is the second time I've asked the question. The first time, Sling attempted a bail out, as you probably saw. It's a simple question and, if there's a reasonable answer, it could show that Sling wasn't lying about it after all, so I'm doing him a favour by insisting on an answer. After all, if he can't give a satisfactory answer, it shows that what I've been saying is true - that Sling is a barefaced liar.

It doesn't seem to matter, I think everyone has me on ignore. My contributions to my own thread are only interrupting this fine argument.

Draft letter from Phil to LL


Dear Mr Linden,

Than you for very kind invitation to the party.
Unfortunately I will not be able to attend as I do not wish to spend the money on travel and expenses.


Yours etc,.....



PS: Please suspend Sling Trebuchet's account. She has written that I am unable to attend the party.
THIS IS A VICIOUS LIE!! SHE'S A HABITUAL LIAR. SHE NEVER ANSWERS QUESTION. SHE JUST LIES ALL THE TIME.

I think you've lost it, Sling. I must admit, I would never have expected you to be as affected as this. I'll take it as an admission of lying and leave it at that - unless you get stuck back in again, of course.

If we're "done talking", why are you still talking to me? You seem to like to use absolutisms a lot, without intending them.

I don't know what you expected from Sling; all I know is what you asked, and what she answered. I wasn't a party to that exchange, so I couldn't probe your thoughts or her thoughts to explore your question or her answer further. All I have is your question and her answer.

Sling most certainly thought it was a serious answer to your question. I have no reason to doubt her veracity, as demonstrated.

I mean, I could understand your angst if she answered something completely irrelevant, or in a flippant way. I don't see either of those conditions in her answer.

Maybe, instead of criticising her answer as a non-answer, you could explore it by asking some more questions. I mean, if communication and understanding is your real goal, that would seem to be the wisest course of action, at least to me, anyway. Going the route you are isn't going to be very conducive to her elucidating in a reasonable way; just responding to being trolled, is all.



*shrug* it happens. Sometimes it needs to happen; I'm certainly worthy of getting them at times, and am not above using them when I think it appropriate. Sometimes they are even useful, as they can have a "shakeup" effect to break people out of an irrationality rut, when all other attempts at reason fail.



Dude, your post is RIGHT THERE *points*. You posted it. I quoted it. If you're going to go to this much effort to discuss it, don't you think taking a few moments to review what you recently said would be prudent?

So, you were expecting a more elaborate response, is that it?

Maybe she didn't feel it needed one. Maybe she was in a hurry in RL and didn't have the time to post one (or even to explain that fact; in fact, that may explain why the answer is worded strangely, but I have no clue, just idle speculation here). There are a number of reasons why her answer was so terse, and potentially below your standards. Yet, you're willing to jump on the "taking offense" wagon over it and ride it over the bumpy road to the field of irrationality.

If you wanted more, why didn't you just ASK for more? "But she does this a lot!" OK. Maybe she is being obtuse. Maybe she is trolling you. Lots of maybes here. The way you get to a point (besides getting to the point) is via explorative posts. "Can you elaborate?", "I think I am missing something, what the heck does that mean?", whatever. Drill down. If you get back gobbledygook, then throw up your hands, go "\/\/hatever", and focus on other arguments until the line noise clears.



Yet, if you did, I wouldn't take umbrage to it. I might take umbrage to the content of said one-liner, but I don't care if you post a line, a paragraph, or a novel. If it's interesting enough, I'll read it and respond to it.



Depends on the point of the discussion; some discussions are started with the intent to be competitive. Hell, that's pretty much what "debate" is all about, at least in form and intent. The important part is not winning, though, but how the battle plays out, and what points and information come out of it. Usually, the most value is gotten out of the debate by later examination of its content, not necessarily by participating. Reflection is best done outside the heat of combat. No time to stop and reflect when you're trying to systematically and thoroughly destroy your opponent's argument(s).



That's cool, but I am not the one to whom you should be addressing that insight.

So, you're making the argument that, since the world is full of cheats, we have to become cheats ourselves in order to survive? "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" Is that it?

Because, if you are, it is nothing more than justifying doing wrong "because everyone else does it!". Now, I don't know about your experiences, but my folks explained it to me at a pretty young age with "you're not everyone else".

Are you also saying that there are no more legitimate traffic places in search? That they are ALL traffic-gamed places? That there is no one left who plays an honest game? That one simply cannot be successful without resorting to cheating?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it. :-/

I didn't read it like that. You added your personal bias. In your subjective judgement, the use of traffic bots is cheating, and you are not alone in the view, but in the subjective judgements of others, it is not cheating. All of those subjective judgements are right - for each person. If you can accept that, then this type of discussion will be much improved.

Yes, it is.



WTF do you think the word "contrast" means? O.o

"draws the line between the two", indeed!

I meant talking about that subject. My first language is not English, so probably I make a lot of these mistakes. It is already hard to put thoughts on paper, let alone in a foreign language


Asking more questions is not useful. Just see the responses to the questions Phil asked, and the reactions with the Dear M. letters. Probably being trolled is the best description.
About it being a response to my question, I already concluded we think different. I see no effort whatsoever in reacting to my argumentation, in responding to what I asked. If you do, you probably are a better reader then I am.


I disagree about the 'needs to happen' part, as I think insults always weaken your position. But one post... well it happened.


My mistake, I checked the post you quoted in the posting I responded too, but the 'never' was in my posting earlier (from the iphone, full of typo's . In that particular case, the word never was the right word. Based on the past, and the way discussion was heading, I indeed never expected a real answer. And it seems I was not too far of in my expectations. Disappointed yes, as I keep hoping things change. Always an optimist.


There could be hundreds of reasons if this was happening once in a while, but this is something happening in every discussion where traffic or picks are involved. That is why I jump on this wagon, and the latest postings only prove I am right in my thoughts.

This happened before, and will happen again. As long as people 'publish' things I see as not right, I will throw in my views. That way the readers have a choice in what they believe. And in general, I am having fun participating

Between you and me about this topic (Sling), I think all has been said. We will probably discuss some more about the traffic stuff, or in other topics, but whether Slings posting #106 is an answer or not, we simply do not agree. Nothing wrong with that.

No it's not. Here is Marcel's question:-

and here is Sling's reply:-

Which part of the reply answers the question, "where does optimizing end and gaming start?"

The reply makes no attempt to answer the question.

I entered this thread, challenging you, but I offered no insult to you in my initial post. Yet, in your response to me, I'm put in a derided class, told I am lying, patronized, isolated, accused of duplicity, called stupid, and told I don't matter and my views don't count. Thus begins the slide of the discussion into inanity for the next few pages.



I think I have adequately demonstrated many a time in these forums that I am more than capable and prepared to "see reason". I don't seem to have a problem "seeing reason" with other people; why do you have such a hard time with me do you think?

"Agreeing to disagree" isn't a validation mechanism, it's a truce mechanism. Just because we may agree to disagree over a particular point doesn't validate either or both of our opinions on that point. It simply means the debate between the parties ends, for now.

I'm not going to "give up" my position lightly, and I don't expect anyone else to, either. In fact, I don't have much in terms of expectations when it comes to arguments and debates. I've had enough of them at this point that it doesn't matter to me. As I said before, "winning"/"losing" is irrelevant. What matters is how the battle plays out, and what we take away from it through later reflection. Hardly anyone is going to concede on the battlefield. Peace treaties are negotiated in locations far away from the fighting. My goal is the challenge. I want to know only three things in a debate: 1) What they believe, 2) Why they believe it, and 3) How much they believe in it. Everything else is posturing and tactics.



No, Phil, you are very often the instigator. In fact, your tact is what generally brings me around. I smell fresh blood on and around you and come calling.

Well as I said before, I do not see traffic bots, picks paying, luvcky chairs, sploders, camping or whatever way to generate more traffic as cheating, I merely explain why more and more people go that path.

Though your argumentation is probably right. If everyone else is using cheating to sell their goods, and we are on a point where it is impossible to be successful in selling your goods, and IF my goal is selling my goods, I can only join them. At that moment, t becomes a choice between cheating with the rest, or not selling your goods.

When I came into the market, I had another way to succeed: Search All. And I made that choice, because I did not want to run bots. Without Search All, I might have chosen to run bots after all, as my intention is to sell my goods. Apart from the bots, I tried almost every way of marketing, and chose the ones that fit me best.

Can one be successful without using a form of cheating? Depends.

The only way a newcomer can earn money, is if customers find them. In order to be found there are a few ways, of which search works best (as said, I tried a lot).

Real traffic to an amount that matters, is impossible for any newcomer. Bits and Bobs, Bare Rose, those kind of established shops manage lots of real traffic, but no newcomer can do that. So if they choose the 'places search', they have to generate traffic, which some people see as cheating.

Search All is easier, it is a matter of optimizing ones results. Picks help too, but those are already seen as cheating by some.

My earlier question to Sling was not out of the blue. When does cheating begin? In my dictionary not at the same things as in yours, for example.

Traffic:
Are lucky chairs cheating?
Are sploders cheating?
Is using Zyngo cheating?
Is running a club to get traffic for your mall cheating?
Is camping cheating?
Are bots cheating?

Picks:
Is paying for picks chating?
Is asking your friends to get your pick cheating?
Is having your own store in your picks (and your alts picks) cheating?

All those things are very close, yet some are regarded as cheating and some are not. Why would camping be no problem, and traffic bots are? Because with camping you pay avatars, and bots are simply on your puter?

Back to your question, can one be successful without cheating? Yes, in my beliefs you can. But if all things metioned are cheating? I do not give you much chance. Maybe in 2005-2006, not today.

That's not the question that was answered, dude. READ what Marcel asked. ALL of it, not your selected bits of it that you're using to make your weak arguments:



Sling answered:



What I get from that is that she is saying the difference is related to how your stall (parcel? that's one of the weird words) is presented makes the difference. One is someone actually putting effort into increasing their rankings through normal, honest means; the other is someone cheating using a shortcut.

That is exemplified in her followup analogy, and it answers the original question. Optimizing ends where people use correct and proper terms and qualified references to attain their ranking, and gaming begins when people use INcorrect, IMproper terms and/or UNqualified references to attain their ranking.

Now, I might not be understanding EXACTLY what Sling meant, but that's what I get out of it, and it IS an answer to the question, in my mind.



It attempted and succeeded in being AN answer to the question(s).

Maybe the question needed to be more concise and specific to get a better answer, especially since there are two questions with interspersed verbiage. Maybe Sling should have used better terms. Marcel's native tongue is not English, by admission; that could have caused problems for both understanding the question, and providing a good answer (I am not sure Sling was aware that Marcel was a non-native speaker; maybe, if she did, she'd have taken a bit more care in responding).

Yes you did. From your first post in this thread:-

And there was more of that nature in it. Perhaps you don't think that calling me a cheat and dishonest is insulting, but I most certainly do. So get off that high-horse - you don't belong on it.

Because you stoop to insults too often. You've already said that I am fair game to you and no doubt that's why you charge in with the insults. What do you expect in return?

Yes it is a truce mechansim. I should have said that understanding that different people often have different views that we disagree with completely, doesn't mean that the other person's view is wrong. It just means that it disagrees with mine. *That* ought to be accepted, but it isn't - not from the people on your side if this type of debate.

Then you wear blinkers concerning me - not to mention rose coloured glasses concerning yourself. Even in the post I'm replying to you were wrong about yourself. I *do* know better than anyone here about how I think and post. If ever you see me coming down on someone, look back and see if there's a reason for it. With the exception of Sling, you'll find the reason. E.g. look at my first reply to you in this thread and then look back and see if there was a reason why it might not have been particularly friendly. You'll see the reason - it was the insults in your first post.

Then it's as I said - Sling did not answer the question. What followed the question was some explanatory stuff, but *that* was the question, and Sling didn't answer it.

If Marcel says different, I'll accept it. After all, he asked the question, but that's how a reader (me) read it. I was interested in Sling's answer too, which is why I came straight in and suggested that he should try to answer the question.

Ahh, well then; you're forgiven for errors in nuance. I most certainly can't fault a non-native speaker for any of that, especially since my "second languages" don't extend much beyond grade-school level.



To be honest, Phil brings those responses on himself. There's little point to arguing with anyone who resorts to "lies! you're lying!! Liar!!" as an argument tactic.



I postulated that in my last response to Phil. I think it is likely that Sling was a bit too terse and poor in her word selection in her answer, and you may have had difficulty in translating the answer to make sense out of it.

However, I think that you are already well aware of the perils and pitfalls of debating in a second language; it's doubly-hard because of the same reasons it is hard in your own language when people don't communicate their arguments or points well.

That said, I have to give you a lot of credit for your command of English and being able to hold your own in debates in it. It is definitely the best way to learn the advanced usage of the language (and how badly it can be butchered by its native speakers).



A good warrior never throws away a weapon, except to pick up a better one.



Well, the context in which it was used normally would come off as being rather condescending and indicative of a permanent disability, like retardation. Just so you understand, that's why I responded to it.



Nahh.. you have to look past the posturing and tactics, and see what people are really on about before you can make that determination. At this point, Phil and Sling are just throwing sand and the occasional cat turd on each other in the sandbox. It's pointless, devoid of meaning, and they both know it. Once they get it out of their systems, they will be back to their old, debate warrior selves again.