Anatomy of a Fail

My feeling is that the particular sub-issue is nearing an end. We're very close
Phil is getting pinned down to a few very simple facts. After all the humbug, and semantic dancing in the Twilight Zone, we're nearly there.




There are threads that I don't follow. Some I might have lost interest in after a few posts, some I might not even have looked at beyond the title.
I imagine that to be true for most people.

My post was directed at Sling not you....but you love sticking your nose in where it's not wanted! If you think i'm going to entertain you for the rest of today, you have another thing coming.

You're the type of person i would avoid going to the Pub with.....listening to your boorish diatribe would send me to sleep! YAWN!!!

Newsflash!!! You have already won Sling. LL have made gaming taffic with Bots a TOS offence....now all they have to do is enforce their own policy. End of story....no need to drag this topic on any further.

Open a thread about Picks Camping or something else to complain about. That one will still have legs.

Having followed this Bots debate for over a year now...what you missed out and I remember Phil saying on several occassions wasn't the "Banning of Bots" as such.....he was advocating removing the "traffic counting" element from Places Search and replacing with another format.

By advocating the removal of "traffic units" more could have been achieved.
it would discourage the following :

- Bots traffic camping
- conversion of traffic bots into good Bots
- Paid mass camping (paying real Av's like 2006/7)
- Lucky Chairs
- XSploder
...........and any other traffic generating gimmicks
-

You are mistaken.
*I* have not won. Anyone who was sickened by systematic institutionalised gaming of Search has won.
I don't kid myself that I had any major part in bringing about the change.



Strangely enough, it's always been other people who opened the threads about Search gaming. If I were on some sort of crusade, I would be opening threads.

This Forum is a SL backwater.
Most people involved in Search gaming just get on with it. You don't see them posting here to justify behaviour.
If they do, and I see it, I'll post to call them out on their humbug.




I'm well aware that Phil has been calling for abolition of traffic as a ranking factor. In this thread I have gone along with "against traffic bots" because that's the way Phil expressed it here. We have enough to be going on with without having a couple of pages of "against traffic ranking" v. "against traffic bots" v LIES!
For the purposes of what we are currently talking about, the difference is moot. Up to now (and even yet) the primary driver of gamed traffic ranking has been traffic bots.

Talarus. I'm still watching The fact that I'm still watching gives you the answer to your question - he doesn't have quotes and it wasn't extrapolation. It was lies. It couldn't have been extrapolation even if I stated the reason before Sling came up with the lies. It simply isn't possible to extrapolate that amount of exact detail from the simple "I prefer not to run an extra computer for bots" statement.


Yes there's a problem. The fact that you're a liar is the problem. The reason that I'm against traffic bots is because I prefer not to use them, and no other reason. It's not because they are wrong in any way, it's not because they use too much resources, it's not because they cause lag, it's not because it's unfair, it's because I prefer not to use them and no other reason. When you asked me why I prefer not to use them, I told you. Your silly game is stupid, but I accept that you are too stupid to understand it, so I won't push it.


Correct, but what's your point?


You've completely lost me with this "what's the connection between" stuff, so explain. Anyone else lost with that bit?


And now to your reply to my question - the one that I've asked 5 times - so far...

Which part of that is an answer to the question? You wrote it as a reply to the question but it doesn't make any attempt to answer it, so I'll ask you for the *6th* 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.

Are you afraid to answer it, Sling? Are you too embarrassed by your lies to asnwer it? Is there anything I can say that will induce you to answer it? So far, you've been brave enough to quote it and reply to it twice (the first 3 times you ignored it, hoping that it would fade away), but not brave enough to actually answer it. Come on, Sling. Be grown up about it. You were bold enough to state that my reason for being against bots was because I couldn't afford to compete with the big bot users on PIs or full mainland sims, so now be bold enough to tell us how you arrived at that conclusion from my stated reason for being against them. Save some face, Sling, and answer the question.

I'll tell you what. I'll even offer you some possible answers, and, if one is correct, just tell its number:-

1. No part of it suggest what I said - I was mistaken.
2. No part of it suggest what I said - I lied.

I'd like to offer your more possibilities, but there doesn't seem to be any.

Yes. You've stated that very clearly.

There is something odd about the logic there though. For example:
Some people prefer not to use bicycles. This does not mean that they are against bicycles.
However, it is true that some people would prefer not to use bicycles if they were against them for some reason.



What you haven't made clear is the reason that you wanted *everybody else* to stop using traffic bots.


I've asked you to explain that a number of times, but you don't.


If you think it so important that any question asked has to be answered immediately, then why don't you try leading by example?

The logic makes sense to me, and it doesn't matter if you find it a bit odd.


I'm not aware of not answering any questions. Perhaps you didn't phrase it as clearly as this time. Was it that "what's the connection between" stuff? Anyway...

The answer is easy. If I'd stopped using them, then I would have lost sales because others were using them. You said that yourself, and I agreed.


So for the 7th time of asking...

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.

This question won't go away, Sling. Why are you afraid to answer it? You made the statements about me, so surely you can qualify them, or at least be big enough to admit that you got it wrong. I even offered you the face-saving option of having made a mistake but you didn't take it. So let's have an answer to the simple question please.

Let's see how far we've got towards the end of this.
This is my understanding of your stated position

1. You are against bots because you prefer not to use them.
You say that the logic of that makes sense to you.
It is not logical however. It is a non sequitur. It does not follow that you would be against bots simply because you preferred not to use them.

There are people who preferred not to use traffic bots because they were against them. Now that is logical.

2. You wanted everybody to be prevented from using traffic bots even though you regard the use of traffic bots to be perfectly legitimate.
The reason you appear to be giving for this is "If I'd stopped using them, then I would have lost sales because others were using them."

Another way of putting this is that you would not be able to compete with them in Places if they continued to use bots.


Apart from the issue of a non sequitur making sense to you, do you have any disagreement with the above?

We'll be nowhere near the end until you answer my question. What are you afraid of?

Yes it does. I told you why I prefer not to use them. It's not my fault if you can't understand it.

True. Does that mean that everyone who is against traffic bots has to have same reason?

Correct.

Appear to be giving? I stated it - it's not the appearance of something.

Correct.


Now, for the 8th 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.

Sling - if you want to make yourself useful to the community.....why not attend Jack's office hours in-world....and ask him why he isn't actively enforcing his Bot ban policy.

With the same vigour that you're harassing Phil to provide you god knows what type of explaination....why not get definitive answers from Jack and his team. Find out time scales, why have they been delaying their process?....and umpteen other valid questions.

no offense Phil...

But I think sling has been trying to point out that your anti-bot stance is mostly about you not wanting to do something ... therefore you want it removed.

The thing is, you always had the option not to do it. You lost sales, I see the number 25% tossed around... that means 75% of your sales were not due to bots.

So the appearance of your anti-bot stance isn't over anything but grabbing every ounce of profit for the least amount of work. Many of them know others that would have not used bots, accepting the loss of a small amount of their sales... and found other ways to make it up. (Sales, events, using the online stores, commission vendors, etc..)

You wanted everyone else to be prevented from running traffic bots because you wouldn't be able to compete with them in Places if you didn't continue to run your own bots. You wanted to prevent everybody else from using a 'business tool' that you considered to be totally legitimate.
Remember that attitude should anyone try to prevent *you* from using something that you consider to be totally legitimate.

You wanted yourself to stop running bots because you had two issues with that
1. You were concerned about a possible fire hazard if you left a PC running 24/7
2. Your operation entailed having to log in each of your bots individually if they had to relog for any reason.

The fire hazard concern could be dealt with in at least two ways
a) Enclose the PC in a fire-proof cabinet incorporating a smoke alarm and/or an automated fire extinguishing system
b) Rent a box in a data centre and control it remotely.
Hosting is cheap (outside of SL). Remote control of hosts is everyday tech.

The relog issue could be dealt with via software development.


Your issues with running a PC 24/7 and relogging could be solved for small money. You say that you could well afford, for instance to buy PI, no probs. So spend a little money to resolve your 24/7 bot issues.
With those issues resolved, by your own statements you would no longer be "against bots".

You opt not to spend some money.
That's your right.
However, the outcome for you of your deciding not to invest is that everybody else has to be prevented from running bots.

If you don't spend the money, by your own admission you can't compete in Places

Why not spend the money? You say you you make stacks of it.
Where would that spend get you?
It would have got you back to running 20 to 25+ bots 24/7. Your bot-optimisation system would help you to keep the numbers up, but that system would have issues. Quite apart from any lag induced by moving the bots in and out of the sim as other avatars depart and arrive, you could have issues with the TPs or logins.

My analysis of the situation is entirely logical. it's not just some wild theory dreamed up.It stems from waht you say and from plain common sense.
You can't compete because you are unwilling to invest in order to overcome the issues of running 24/7 and the occasional bot logins.
Even if you do invest, you can't compete on bots effectively where you are now in a partial mainland sim.

Because you are unwilling to spend a little money, everyone else has to suffer.



The hoop that you want me to jump through can just sit there.
You just want me to get involved in the sort of la-la argumentation that you relish in.

Your situation v. traffic bots is transparently clear to anyone who looks at the situation and what you say. My analysis is spot on.
Your position is based on your failure to invest.



If you were to adopt a practice of preceding every of your opinions with "in my opinion", then perhaps I might give some credit to your spoutings about "saying it as a fact". However I know well that this opinion/fact thing is a standard performance you bring on here. It is something to be used as a weapon. You do not apply it to yourself.

Yes, I understand that, but Sling made statements which were barefaced lies about why I was/am against traffic bots. That's what we're discussing now, and that's what Sling is squirming to avoid owning up to. You may not have followed it all - it goes a long way back in this thread - but if you read the question that I keep asking Sling, you can get the idea of the lies that he's been writing here.

I don't mind at all if it's understood that my reason for being against traffic bots is to suit me personally. I wrote the same reason almost a year ago in this forum. What I do mind is Sling lying about me with the intention of having the lies believed. That's why he's stuck in a hole of his own making.

That's just squirming, but it won't get off the hook. You wrote barefaced lies about me twice in this thread, with the intention of having people believe your lies. It's not your concern whether or not I choose to spend money. That isn't the issue here. The issue is you lying about me, saying that I could not afford to compete with PIs and full sims and, because of that, I decided to be against traffic bots. That's why I ask that particular question, or hadn't you noticed


I don't want you to jump through any hoops. You made statements - all I want is for you to back them up.


How does that equate with you stating that I could not afford to compete? You don't have any analysis - just barefaced lies.


LMAO! You know, Sling, if you'd done that with your statements, instead of stating them as facts, which made them barefaced lies, you wouldn't be in the hole you're in now.


For the 9th 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.

Put up or shut up, Sling. I say that you're a barefaced liar. Show us that you're not by answering the question.

If you only wanted Sling to respond, that's what PMs are for. By posting it in public, ANYONE is allowed to read and respond to it. Don't like it? Wah. Poor beebee. QQ moar.



Dearie, such is more a benefit to me than you'll ever know.

Well, the part I was wanting you to watch is that, as far as my line of questions was concerned, it ended, while you and Sling are still going round and round.

If Sling can't come up with the quotes, then that resolves it. All that is left is speculation and extrapolation. There is no factual basis to back it up. That Sling believes something beyond the facts is irrelevant. Sling can believe whatever she wants. Sling can post her beliefs all she wants. It doesn't make them facts. Once we're to that point, the argument is over.

The only thing you are succeeding in doing by calling her beliefs "lies" is perpetuating her repeating them, or variations of them, until the cows come home.

Get out of the argument rut, get to the finish line, and it will be over. If it continues, simply ask for the factual basis to be posted, or simply dismiss it for what it is; mistaken belief (from your point of view).

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

That's all very well, but this is Sling His statements were not mistaken beliefs or speculation and, since there was nothing to extrapolate from, they couldn't possibly have been that. They were barefeaced lies, for the purpose of having people believe things about me that were untrue. He's dug himself into a hole from which there is no way out. He is seen for what he is, by all who come this way - a proven liar, whose word can never be trusted - and it's all right here on record.

I must not be too boring; after all, you spend effort to respond to demonstrate how much you care.

I love you, too, Rene!

XOXOX

Well, enjoy another day of merry-go-round with her, then.

"Dearies"..."love you's"...hugs and kisses.....smiley faces.....

Nice to see you all worked it out so well. all warm and fuzzy in the end.

psssst....there's a new thread on bots.....

Sorry, i'm not gay.......but you might find affection here

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Mission%20Beach/54/115/22

I'm not gay, either, but I still love you anyway. How can I not love someone who gives me so much attention?

@Sling

This thread is still open and you are free to post in it. I do think it's better if you post what you have to say here instead posting it in an unrelated thread and risking derailing that one. If you reply to this, please don't even suggest that you don't know what I'm talking about, or that I've misunderstood something in the other thread. Either get over it and let it be, or bring it here, but don't try to screw up the other thread.

Dear reader.

I refer you to the "other" thread - "What are your top 3 most-despised SOPT (Same Old Putrid Tactics)? "
/327/23/321587/1.html

Look at post #2
Look at Post #34


On the way, you might see my first post in that thread - #32


Don't even *think* of "discuss". Please!!!!