Anatomy of a Fail

I don't see anything strange about that. Perhaps you imagine that the store owner opposes bots on some sort of pseudo-moral or pseudo-ethical grounds - the same sort of opposition that you have to their use - but that would be just your imagination.

I KNOW you don't, Phil. THAT's what is so funny and sad at the same time.

You_just_don't_get_it. You don't.

You are TIED to the TRACKS and that stupid train just keeps running over you, doesn't it?

Yep, just running over you.

There's no situation AT ALL that justifies doing bad while preaching that it is bad, not on any grounds whatsoever. To do otherwise is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Yes they are. Do you infer something by that? It seems to me that everyone else is being awwwfully quite

You can believe what you want, of course, but Jack quietly mentioned a couple of things that people had been complaining about and it's my opinion that, just like the final policy, they were said to appease some people. That's all.

I'm sorry about that. Most regulars here know very well that I've been against traffic bots for a long time - they even mention it occasionally without any reminders from me. You obviously missed all of that.

I'm likened to criminals now, eh? lol Oh well. I'd much rather be what I am than what you are - a liar and a cheat.

You're right - I don't consider it to be cheating - because it isn't, except in the opinions of a relatively few people. That's all it is - just opinions.

Naa... I enjoy these 'debates'. I thought everyone knew that. And the forum has been particularly dull lately. But I don't defend the indefensible - I defend the truth - something you ought to try once in a while.

LOL - very true

FAIL again. If you imagine that those organisation exist for some other reason than to make money (profits) so that they can use the money (profits) for some specific purpose, then you haven't woken up to reality yet. On the offchance that you might actually understand it now, I'll repeat that *all* businesses exist to make profits, otherwise they wouldn't exist. I notice that you still haven't come up with an example of a business that doesn't exist to make profits. Too hard for you?

They wouldn't be lies if they were truths, but so many things that you write are not true. I believe that you know they are not true, therefore they are lies. Easy, init? Even a retard like you should be able to understand that.

lol. You're funny.

"that justifies doing bad"? LOL. Like I said, "Perhaps you imagine that the store owner opposes bots on some sort of pseudo-moral or pseudo-ethical grounds - the same sort of opposition that you have to their use - but that would be just your imagination."

I'll educate you. There are many reasons why a person would actually be against doing something, but still does it just the same. You want it to be pseudo-moralistic or similar, but it's not. I'll give you an easy example. If the UK brings a law in that everyone must have an ID card, as is talked about from time to time, I'll be dead agianst it but I'll do it just the same. Here's another one. If the RL store next to my RL store, that sells the same sort of stuff that I sell, puts up a huge ad board up so that people are more likely to go there than into my store, I won't want to put a huge ad board up because of the cost, but I'll do it just the same, and I might even put a bigger one up. You see? There are many reasons why people do things that they'd rather not do, or are even dead against, that have nothing to do with psuedo-morals or any thing like that.

If they use the money for some other purpose than what PROFITS are used for, then they aren't PROFITS, are they?

Profits are not spent on things like salaries or operating expenses, supplies, or any other liability. THAT is what makes them PROFITS.

You DO know what PROFITS are, don't you? From everything you have said so far, it sure appears that you do not. Just for education's sake:

Profit = Revenue - Expenses

With a non-profit, Revenues MUST EQUAL Expenses, because they CANNOT do anything else with the money. They can't! If they do, it is AGAINST THE LAW, and they can lose their non-profit status. Period. End of story.

Example of a NON-PROFIT business that doesn't exist to make PROFITS? Are you SERIOUS? If you want to be that obtuse and inane, that's fine. Here's a few to start you off:

http://charity.lovetoknow.com/List_of_Nonprofit_Organizations

Result? Your claim that "*all* businesses exist to make profits" is STILL WRONG. Thanks for attempting to play, though.



Truths don't lie, and you've yet to show how ANYTHING I have written is a lie. You calling it a lie doesn't make it so. Even a retard like yourself should be able to understand that.

Wrong. They exist to make money (profits) from the business, so that the money can be used for some certain purpose - charities for instance.

Yes. With so-called non-profit businesses, the profits are used for the purposes that they were raised, and the business is there to make profits for that reason.

Yep. And what's left (the profit) is passed on to whatever purpose it was raised for.

Yes indeed. The remainder after the items you mentioned is the profit and is passed on to ..... etc. Example: there are charity shops that sell second-hand goods. They exist to make money over and above all expenses. The moneyy they make is given to whatever it is.

You're welcome. I perceive that it didn't do you any good, but then I don;t expect you to learn because you are so full of your own self-esteem.

That's a list of organisations, btw. There may be some businesses in it, I don't know. At a quick glance, many, perhaps all, of them aren't businesses at all. So let me refresh your memory. ALL businesses exist to make profits, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

Oh I can understand what you write. It's just that you knowingly write things that aren't true, which makes them lies. Just because you say they are true doesn't make them true. What a silly idea you have there.

Clowns often find serious things funny, but that's their nature; they can't help it. Neither can you, apparently.



It's not even the same kind of situation. The difference is in terms of proscription versus prescription.

It's not against the law to cut in queue, and you can be against cutting in queue. However, if you're against it, but do it anyway, you're a hypocrite, and your so-called "viewpoint" becomes questionable.

It is against the law to speed. If you are against the speeding law, but still follow it, it doesn't make you a hypocrite. However, if you are for the speeding law (or maybe even a lower speed than posted), but still regularly exceed it, you ARE a hypocrite, your opinion is meaningless, and the veracity of anything else you might say becomes suspect.



If your "bigger sign" got to the point where it was impacting other people negatively (such as obscuring your competition's sign) and, as such, would violate a sign ordinance, either in existence, or made because of the issue, then you'd be a hypocrite for knowingly violating it while decrying it at the same time.

Yeah, specific instances don't have to be tied to moral/ethical values, but when it comes to limits of extremes, they always do. Everything we do, day-in and day-out, speaks to our morals and ethics in some way.

I am not sure that rules should be written to protect society from their own ignorance.. I am not even sure that is practical, or how much protection is really needed.

Traffic rankings are a little different than conventional false advertizing, in that they make the site seem artificially more popular, which is not the same as making the product more popular.

Again, a dance hall selling things would get the same effect on its sales. They would be real people there, but the majority would be there for the dance hall, not for the products sold.

Actually, non-profits exist primarily to provide specific community services. They have to be able to convince the authorities that the cause is legitimate (albiet not to the same extent that they would to maintain charitable status, which is a different thing).

That said, they are allowed to pay their employees reasonable salaries, and to the extent those employees are owners/investors, there is still a return on captial that equates to profit.

In other words, even though their primary purpose may officially be to provide a service, they can and often do run essentialy the same as any for-profit operation.

Even to the extent they really are working soley to provide services, it is still within their mandate to provide those services efficiently and to maximize the levels of service they provide.

What any of that has to do with manipulating traffic figures, I have no clue. Unless the non-profit was advocating truth in advertizing, they would still have just as much incentive to manipulate traffic or otherwise advertize.

Most people tire of your bullshit fairly early on; I'm game for the long term.



Of course, especially if it is the truth that I choose to believe in.



Not with any believable level of veracity. I think this post of yours from 2008 sums it up pretty well, too:





"I know you are, but what am I?" is the argument of a kindergartner. How fitting.



It's OK, Phil. Really, we understand that you don't see yourself as a cheater. Fortunately, your view doesn't determine reality for the rest of us, and we're quite capable of seeing through your bullshit to the truth of the matter. But, please do carry on in your little world of pink skies and fluffy bunnies.



I always defend the truth. It's nothing new for me and I like calling out sheer idiocy for what it is. You've provided me with MORE than ample material to work with, and give me more every post!

Let's check your score so far:

Hypocrisy - check
Misunderstanding of simple words like "profits", "reports", "monitoring", etc - check
Lack of veracity - check
Being a cheat - check

I know I am missing plenty with such a short list, but I figured I would just hit the highlights.

Written from my iPhone so forgive my typos...

Once again a traffic bot thread results. Funny because the argument between Phil and the dragon is based on refusing to understand eachother. Simply said, they use the word profit differently. Let me help: every business intends to make money. Either for profit, or for some cause. Business is about making money.

Back on topic: traffic bots is not scamming. Falsely advertising is sxamming. Only if you sell traffic (think malls), using bots would be scamming. I really can't see why traffic bots would be scamming, and camping, sploders, zyngo, lucky chairs, etcetra would not be. As traffic is important to search places, people will tey to get traffic. Either you disapprove of all traffic promoting axtivities, or your so called ethics are elastic.

Search gaming still is not defined. Every form of optimizing a parcel and its content is influencing search, ergo gaming it? Where does optimizing end abd gaming stop?

Anyway, I run my business and my customers are happy. They tell me, and thats of value. Thinking that people that aim to get high search rankings are scamming their customers is simply ignorant. People shopping at Phil are not cheated either. Thinking so based on the fact Phil did use traffic bots is ignorant as well.

People trying to run a succesful business will use the tools available and used by their competition. Whether bots or paying picks or camping or whatever. Nothing wrong with ideals, but don't be surprised you do not sell a thing because you refuse to use the tools your competitors do. If you succeed somehow without concentrating on your search results, good for you, but don't think you're holier then the rest.

Oh and Sling... I never expected a serious answer from you. Hisrory shows your habit of failing as soon as it gets too difficult.

Talarus. Please excuse me for a few hours but it's time for the Eurovision Song Contest and then it'll be football. But please feel free to leave some rumours and lies while I'm gone. I'll deal with them when I get back.

Not throwing a wrench in the mix here (like i so often do) but. A old salesman once told me...Any exposure, is good exposure, being its exposure...Show me a multimillion dollar company that didnt resort to strong arming, false advertising or anything within that nature. ofcourse there are companies like that but just about every big hitter in the world, or 3/4 of them know the meaning behind "any exposure is good exposure, being exposure". You lose a handful of the "ethical and principal" types, but the rest get over it, and see the deal for what it is, or the product for what it is. if its a good deal, and a good product, who cares about the advertising that got you there. My view on it anyway.

Oh and I loveeeeee Botanical stuff, all I buy really

Gross revenue is not considered by any serious businessman as "profit". You FAIL at Business 101, again.



Money spent on expensible liabilities as part of the mission of the business is NOT considered "profit" by ANY credible businessperson. You FAIL at Business 101, again.



The thing that makes profit actually, you know, PROFIT is that it is money distributed amongst those with an equity stake in the business. If it is spent on more capital equipment, that's an expense, and goes against the profit, reducing it. You FAIL at Business 101, again.



"Whatever it is" is not specific enough to make your argument. If "whatever it is" is the people who own the store or their equity stakeholders, then they are a "for-profit" business, because then that money is ACTUALLY "profit". You fail at Business 101, again.

Here, this definition sums it up rather nicely:

"Whereas for-profit corporations exist to earn and distribute taxable business earnings to shareholders, the nonprofit corporation exists solely to provide programs and services that are of public benefit."

There's no dispute that non-profit businesses raise money. Raising money is called "revenue". Revenue is not the same thing as profit, because "profit" specifically means that some amount of revenue over expenses and liabilities is distributed to those who have and equity stake in the business. THAT is why they are called "non-profit". It is ALSO why "non-profit" businesses are NOT focused on "making profits", because they cannot in the first place. Instead they are focused on their mission. That they raise money for their mission as part of their business is a given, but they are not raising the money for THEMSELVES, which is the whole point of a "for-profit" business.

Did you know that there are even charities that ONLY use volunteers and material donations, and do not handle money at all? How in the world can anyone claim they are focused on making a profit, if there's no money involved? But I am sure you will argue around that fact some way.



I am "so full of (my) own self-esteem"? XD Did you really just type that? I suppose it is better than you being full of your own bullshit, but hey, that's just me. *chuckles*



Oh, so NOW they are organizations, not businesses, and that somehow validates your point via tangential exclusion? Better call CNN. I am sure there's a scoop somewhere in that.

You can keep redefining terms all day long to suit your argument; doesn't make you any less full of BS. It DOES prove that you're just being an obtuse twat, though.



Just because you say they are lies doesn't make them lies, either. What a silly idea you have there.

While the rest of what you say is correct, this part is not. At least in the US, no part of any revenue generated by a registered "non-profit" organization can be given to any equity stakeholder in the business. To put it simply, the business or the people who comprise it, cannot benefit financially from the generated revenue. This is automatically true of Restricted Income, and facially true of Unrestricted Income. Now, people can have their salary increased, or the money can be spent on administrative expenses, new hires, et cetera, but it can't be simply distributed to people directly. "Bonuses", dividends, etc are not allowed. In other words, the things that one normally does with bona fide "profits" you just cannot do with non-profit businesses, which is in stark contrast to Phil's belief. Hence, that is why they are called "non-profit".



It was one of Phil's many off-topic tangents claiming that *ALL* businesses care mostly about "profits", justifying his own selfish interests in doing whatever he thinks he can get away with to make money, regardless of its effects on the rest of SL.

Your question was answered.
You just didn't like the answer.

That isn't the situation here. In this case, Phil claims to be against the (previous) law, which allowed bots, but still used them. It's the exact opposite of what you're saying.


Again, you have this backwards.

But that is not what Phil said. He *specifically* said "profits". "Making money" is "generating revenue". That is NOT the same as "profits".



I don't have a problem classifying most forms of fake traffic inflation as "scamming". That's why I campaigned to get rid of traffic from Search as the solution to fix a whole mess of those forms of traffic gaming. It makes Search completely useless for anyone to find good products, services, and venues which are actually made by REAL popular creators, rather than someone who slaps together some crap in a box and loads his parcel down with 30 bots in a skybox far overhead.

As such, I DO classify traffic bots as "cheating". However, even more odious is the destructive nature of a bot "arms race", the effects of which have been keenly felt by many residents, whether they realized it or not. Peak concurrency loads, full regions, lag, it's been ridiculous at times, and traffic bots have been shown to be a major source of it.



Like everything, there is a line where using a resource to its fullest potential crosses over into abuse. For some things, like traffic bots, it is easy, because they have serious knock-on effects due to the barrier to entry and use of them. For other things, the line is clearly less-defined, but even still, in some cases, it becomes pretty clear. Gross false advertising, for one, is pretty easy to tell is way over the line.



Everyone WANTS high search rankings, but no one is entitled to get them, nor are they entitled to go to ANY means to get them. Some means are just wrong, and should be curtailed or regulated, and those using them should be publicly castigated for their poor ethical choices.

I've never claimed Phil is "scamming his customers", I said he's cheating the system, and the resident body as a whole. He no more deserves a fake high ranking than anyone else, and no one deserves it at all. To claim that there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with the decision to game traffic is disingenuous at best; it is certainly no worse than sticking your sign in front of your competition's sign on the street, since that is effectively what it is doing; it is forcibly obscuring the honest results in the Search using dishonest means.



I have no problem with people using all the tools available AS THEY WERE MEANT TO BE USED, but for those who exceed those uses, crossing the line into dishonesty and abuse, it should not be tolerated. I refuse to do a lot of things my "competition" does in RL, which is why I am still in business, and a lot of my competition are now dust in the wind, either from losing their customer base, or have been ganked by the authorities for cheating in one form or another. In SL, I get customers the good, old-fashioned way; I EARN them, and I KEEP them, because they know that, no matter what, they are going to be treated right; I give them NO reason to think otherwise. If I cheated in my advertising, then I deserve to lose them, and I would hope they would have the good sense to realize it and to leave me to rot over it, too.

Most consumers like to live in the blissful world of ignorance, where they don't care where something comes from, what's in it, how it got to them, who made it, et cetera, because they will often find out that they don't like what they would learn. That is, until it becomes an ugly fact on the news, or elsewhere in their lives. Then they piss and moan about it, while the company blithely says "hey, you wanted this! We were only giving you what you wanted!", which is absolutely true. People around me complain all day long about how much a piece of crap Microsoft software is, but guess who is first in line for the new versions when they come out?

Simply put, I refuse to be one of the "sheep". I want to know, and if the company I am doing business with turns out to not have the ethics that meet my standards, I simply don't do business with them anymore.

I'm not "holier then(sic) the rest", but I sure as hell have no desire or intent to give cheaters/scammers/etc any "gold stars" for effort, either. It's why I waged "war" on the adfarmers/extortionists, and was happy to see that Jack followed up with the bot policy finally, even though I would have seen it fixed a lot sooner.

There was no "previous law". There was no law at all, for or against. Kind of a different situation entirely.



I don't think I am the one who has it backwards.

This is why I'm not a big fan of traffic and have never seen it as a stat that alone tells the full story, add to that that how long an avatar remains in a place is counted as well as how many avatars visit and the scenario you cite about dance halls being popular but the associated mall not being popular becomes a very real issue.

Having said that, armed with a little information on how traffic works people should be able to draw their own conclusions, but traffic alone is not always a measure of worth.

Eurovision has been a pile of pants, admittedly it usually is but it's usually funny too.

I admit that my knowledge of US laws is limited, but my knowledge of Canadian laws is pretty solid. Even so, when you say 'given to an equity stakeholder', I don't think that means what you think it means. If the rules say those owning the shares cannot be paid wages, then all that would happen is those setting up not for profits would ensure someone else holds the shares (presumably someone friendly).

Of course there are no dividends in a not-for-profit, as there are no retained earnings or 'paid up captial' to pay dividends out of, and there would be no ability to pay arbitrary bonuses out, but performance based bonuses are almost certainly another matter as those are considered normal business expenses.

Also, if the non-profit is doing well, they can expand, meaning the responsibilities of management expand, and that increase in responsibilities can be used to justify larger wages.



You are arguing agaisnt the very existance of capitalism, which relies on those 'selfish interests' to generate efficiency. Moreover, noone is obligated to purchase anything, no matter what form advertizing takes. I am not sure how advertizing of any form, which constitutes additional costs incurred, can be considered more or less 'unfair' than any other cost.