Anatomy of a Fail

Maybe you consider "common sense" (whatever you think that is) as "trendy". Who knows?

I don't care for your perceptions of "common sense", either. What you apparently consider "common sense" might be "common", but I don't find it very "sensible".



You mean the one from May of last year? If so, I remember it, but couldn't attend due to conflicting adfarmer issues.

Found the chat log for it. I don't see you really even mentioning traffic bots until near the very end, and only in a about 4 chat messages during discussions on the subject. This particular one I found rather telling, though:



If you consider "trafficbots/campers" as a problem (you don't distinguish one as a problem and the other not, so I presume you mean that both are problems, esp since you use the plural in the last clause), that would mean your use of them is part of the problem, right?

Otherwise, how are we supposed to read that?



If hypotheticals insult you, life must be pretty hard.

But of course.



But, you HAVE said that their use was problematic. See the quote of your chat from the LL Traffic Future meeting in previous. That quote looks to be at odds with what you are saying now. Which Phil is the Real Phil? Then? Or Now?



I'll let you know when I make one.

Why was/is Phil "against traffic bots"?
He answered that. He made a fuss about saying that he has answered it a number of times.

His "only" (i.e. sole) reason was that he didn't want to run the extra PCs necessary to run bots. He has no ethical issues with running traffic bots. he's made that abundantly clear. His only issue is the cost of running the extra PCs.
Is this fact, or is it not?

Now, if he is unwilling to run the PCs, then he can't compete for gamed traffic against people who are prepared to run the bots. 'Compete' here means being up in the top rankings- as opposed to 'competing/entering_the_competition' and being somewhere back on page 200. Can you say "competitive" ?


Phil, as usual, goes into the famous semantic dance.
He says that he *can* compete, but he doesn't wish to. He holds to say that that he *can't* compete is A LIE!!!!
Come along now, if you don't put fuel in the car, you can't compete/win in the race.


Due to his unwillingness to bear the costs and admin load of the extra PCs, Phil can not compete for traffic-bot scores.
Is this a lie? - Don't be silly.
Slander? - Come along.


More facts:
A mainland business can not compete against a PI for botted traffic.
Right now, there are PIs running 80 bots 24/7
A mainland sim is limited to 40 avatars.
If someone owns an entire mainland sim, they don't have any neighbours to complain about being shut out. They can run maybe 35 bots and get away with it. All they lock out are their own potential customers and people that just happen to be flying through the sim on their way to another sim.
If someone shares a mainland sim with others - as does Phil - they can't compete with a full mainland sim or a PI. They can maximise the number of bots by writing a system to swap out their bots in and out as other avatars leave and arrive into the sim.
But, no matter what they do, they are screwed when it comes to trying to beat the botted traffic of the top rankers.

Phil can't compete against the heavy hitters. To do so would entail running extra PCs. To do so more effectively would require buying a PI.
So he wants traffic bot abolished.

He disputes that running traffic bots is unfair. He says it's legitimate. So he presses LL to stop other people from doing something that he considers to be legitimate.
Hello??




The logic of this is outlined in one of my "Dear Mr. Linden" posts.
As far as traffic bots are concerned, Phil is in the same sort of boat as someone who would want Classifieds abolished because he does not want to bear the costs of paying for Classifieds.

Someone did that in the Isle sandbox a while back. Went nuts and filled the sandbox with bouncing balls. Fortunately, it was easy to get rid of them.

Well I don't set them to keep replicating, I'd use a rez script in the base prim of the unit... set up some phantom walls or the like to catch them and keep the balls contained.

Maybe grab a bored buddy and make a true skill game out of it... scred by click to de-rez the balls... something to work in now on my free time.

Sling, I think you are engaging in a bit of tinfoil-hat-ism and extrapolation.

I realize that you're not making anything other than a claim based on your opinion on the matter, but I think it is becoming a little far-fetched.

Even so, I did find this in that same LL Traffic Future chat log, which I find somewhat interesting:



Arguing against the Showcase "because it's too biased and favours the few at the expense of the many", but it's OK to bias the traffic numbers with bots to "favour" him at the expense of the many.

Yes, very interesting, indeed.

Heh. I remember one time in Sables dAlliez Cheetah Kitty set up a 'sploder that really exploded... shot gold rings all over the place and you got L$1 for each ring you ran into...

Oh yeah, it was clearly an accident due to a bug in his scripting. This was back before the grey-goo fence, too, so it didn't get throttled, either. Was pretty funny, actually. He was in a severe panic over it because he couldn't delete them fast enough.

Perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.
I'm not sure that anyone has or ever will ask LL to abolish Classifieds on the basis that they don't want to pay for Classifieds.
I am certainly not suggesting that Phil or anyone else has done so or even will do so.
It was simply an illustration of the logic.

Phil did not want the bear the costs of running PCs for traffic bots, so he wanted LL to abolish traffic ranking. Again, this is Phil's own statement. It is *not* simply my opinion.

He wanted LL to prevent his competitors from taking advantage of something that he himself did not consider unfair or unethical in any way. If he wasn't going to run traffic bots, then by golly nobody else was going to either, even if he considered that the practice was totally legitimate.


There is absolutely no tinfoil or extrapolation in this,
Phil has made a point of telling us the reason that he was against traffic bots.



Your Showcase example is an illustration of the same self-interested logic.

GET OUT OF MAH HOARD, YOU VARMINT! >

and

http://www.truveo.com/very-funny-pingpong/id/36028835996290007

He actually said that, right?

A) He didn't want to run more PCs for more bots
B) The reason for A) was expense, and
C) As a result, he wanted LL to abolish traffic ranking.

A+B+C = what you said, and he said/did all of those things in (roughly) that order, right?

Got quotes? I mean, I know that A) is true; he has said as much in this thread, but do you have sources for B) and, most especially, C)? The critical part is the "As a result" part. You can imply causation without a quote, but that's just your opinion. If he actually said or indicated that, then post the quote.

Otherwise, that's known as a non-sequitur, and relegates your comment to the "extrapolation" category.

I saw that one some time ago. Initially I was underwhelmed, but when they started orchestrating the 3D effects and "ball time", I thought it was rather cool.

Please tell me you're not actually, you know, EATING my gold, thinking it is ferret food? :-/

He preferred not to run the extra PCs
That is "the only reason there has ever been why (he) wanted to see the end of traffic bots."

That's a pretty clear 'therefore' - the reason.

You couldn't make any of them? They ran for about a week. I imagine you probably weren't interested.

Nope. If you read the whole thing, you'll see there were perceived problems.

So you were being hypothetical when you insulted me in your first post in thread? Don't try following Sling's method - look what happened to him.

Do you have a point? If so, perhaps you would care to explain it instead of just trolling the night away.

Yeah, I saw that one. That's A).

What I wanted to see was B) and, more importantly, C).

Nope, that was when we were having almost daily meetings and evidence-gathering excursions for the adfarming problem. Was also in the middle of a RL programming project as well.



I did read all of the part talking about bots. The "perceived problems" are the same ones we have been talking about here, which are the same ones which have been talked about forever (well, what little mention of them there is in that chat, anyway). That still doesn't answer the question as to why you considered bots problematic then, but not now.



No, I was being general; there's a difference.

I think the question is clear; how do you reconcile the two contrasting points of view? Do you think you can do that?

If you can, great, maybe some of that "common sense" you speak so highly of will rub off on me.

If you can't, well, let's not think about that right now.

For goodness sakes, Sling, don't you ever give up. You're a liar and everyone sees it. You can't get away from it.

It is *not* a fact. It is your imagination/wishful thinking/lies. Because you are pretending to be incredibly dumb, I'll enlighten you. Where did I ever even suggest that the *cost* of running an extra computer was a factor? It wasn't and it still isn't. On the contrary, I told you more than once that I could buy and pay tier for a PI from my SL earnings, without even noticing the extra cost. Clutching at straws won't help you now. Your battle over this was lost ages ago, and you should have bailed out like you usually do.

"was unwilling"? - another invention of yours. You never learn. I ran 2 extra computers 24/7 most willingly. I would have preferred not to run them, but I chose to. In fact, I still run one extra computer now - very willingly.

There's nothing semantic about it. There was a reason why I was against traffic bots, which I posted in this thread, and in another thread quite some time ago, and it wasn't anything to do with what you wrote. What you wrote, and what you are defending, were lies. It's incredible that you're still defrending it, when it's plain to all that you've no way of knowing. You're a barefaced lair, Sling, and you can't escape from it - it's all here in this thread - and you're still lying.

There you go again - "unwillingness". You're are liar.

True.

Probably true.

True.

It depends on what sort of bot system the botrunner has

True.

Often true, but it depends which rankings the person is aiming for and, as I told more than once, I could beat everyone who is competing with me.

Lies.

True, except I wasn't pressing LL to stop "other people". I was pressing them to stop *all* people. I know that you claim you can't understand how a person can possibly prefer that something isn't used, and yet still use it, but that's just you Sling. It's because you don't want to understand. You'd rather believe your own lies than understand.

You should have dropped this topic when you were shown to have lied about it. The more you continue with it, the more you are seen for the liar you are.

Alright. You keep on about how I didn't want the cost of running an extra computer or two. I know you're a liar about that because I never wrote anything remotely similar to that, but since you think I did, quote it please. Quote where I mentioned, or even hinted at, anything to do with the cost.

Sling. I'll ask you for the third time:-

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.

And if you keep on with your lies, or in this thread, I'll keep on asking you that question until you answer it. You won't be able to bail out this time and hope it will go unnoticed - not and stay in the thread.

It relegates it to lies.

Actually "A" isn't true but I can see how it could be misunderstood that way. The extra computer I referred to was the one that I was running the bots on. It was extra to the one I do most things on. I wasn't talking about an extra one on top of that so that I could run more bots.