You think there are real people that sit in SL hitting search once a second? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Mmhmm. I fully believe some resellers never sleep.
</sarcasm>
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Prevent automated land buying! |
|
|
Stephen Zenith
Registered User
Join date: 15 May 2006
Posts: 1,029
|
01-31-2007 16:46
Mmhmm. I fully believe some resellers never sleep. </sarcasm> _____________________
|
|
Reverend Herzog
Registered User
Join date: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 111
|
01-31-2007 17:52
You can help by voting here: http://secondlife.com/vote/get_feature.php?get_id=2788 don't stand on the sidelines while he gets away with this. Sorry flagstaff I dont know how you justify a level playing field, don't give me that "well I could build a bot why can't you" line point being that although you may have the skills to make what you wish it's not supposed to affect the community it's supposed to contribute to its development. You have clearly gotten some SL'ers very upset. Actually that's the wrong link, Kepster. You linked to the ridiculous proposal Elanthius posted to SUPPORT automated land buying, a proposal that has netted votes from a whopping total of 6 voters ... which coincidentally is the number of accounts we know he has (his, his wife's, his rl mother's, and his three bots). The correct link is to proposal 2783 at http://secondlife.com/vote/vote.php?get_id=2783, which currently has a total of 1288 votes from 207 voters and is still rising quickly, and incidentally is currently number 7 out of the top 10 proposals of all time vote-wise. The people have spoken. And by the way, so has Linden Lab: "In addition, we’re looking at adding a step to the purchase process which should make it more difficult to use ‘ bots in purchasing land." |
|
TheresNo Hope
Registered User
Join date: 9 Dec 2004
Posts: 33
|
01-31-2007 20:41
The land bots are likely to be used by those with registration api access, some of who create huge numbers of accounts - dozens or hundreds of accounts. A high end pc can run a lot of avatars on one machine using just one instance of the bot program, at least 50 avatars at once on a high end machine. The land searching can be distributed among all those avatars and the information they collect pooled. This will greatly reduce the effectivenes of search throttling as a means to keep bots from buying all the land.
|
|
Draco18s Majestic
Registered User
Join date: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2,744
|
01-31-2007 23:55
Bots probably use much less cpu on the server side than actual players, the servers don't have to do expensive physics rendering etc... So actually, by your logic, the bot is doing us all a favor by insuring a higher cache hit ratio by the remaining players  Explain for me how a bot-client lowers the server's physics load. Would seem to me that physics is physics and is rendered regardless of whether an avatar is in the region or not. Thus, a bot having presence makes no effect on the server load except by being present (has location data). Even if what Flagstaff says is true about his bots in that they don't render anything they don't use up asset load--meaning that they don't REQUEST textures or prim data, which is a big difference than ignoring or not using it, then his bots merely use the "same amount of load" but in a different place. To which I respond: Second Life's servers were meant to have (per user) X load on server x, Y load on server y and Z load on server z, not X + Y + Z load on server z. |
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-01-2007 07:43
Explain for me how a bot-client lowers the server's physics load. Would seem to me that physics is physics and is rendered regardless of whether an avatar is in the region or not. Thus, a bot having presence makes no effect on the server load except by being present (has location data). Well, I can only make a guess since I have no real idea what is going on with the physics engine in the game, but I assume that since bots are not moving around other than teleporting that the physics engine does not have to calculate the effects of their movement etc... I would also assume that the server has less movement initiated by the client to deal with. The physics engine cannot calculate the effects of your movement until you actually move, so I would assume your statement that all physics are rendered regardless of an avatar is in the region or not is not entirely true. That is, unless LL has learned to peer into the future My point was more towards how ridiculous it is for people to be making fantastical claims here about how the bot is going to take down the grid. Nobody here has the slightest clue what the overall effect is, can't know, it is pure speculation. |
|
Jackson Rickenbacker
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2006
Posts: 601
|
02-01-2007 07:59
BadPenguin... Still havent heard one thing from you about bots being bad for the SL enviroment, no matter what concern is raised you slap it down with your own brand of reasoning, which already has not alot of confidence with myself, let others decide their own about your reasoning. Bots drag down the servers, no matter what the precise measurement of that load is, its irrelevant...
Second Life was created for the utilization of people, NOT BOTS. That fact cannot be reasoned away. Look at this way, are you spending your time talking to bots in SL or people? which would you rather spend your time with? Just your posting on this thread shows that you prefer interaction with people rather than bots. so I wil ask you point blank. Do you prefer to interact wih bots or people, your answer should dictate your stance on this matter. |
|
Stephen Zenith
Registered User
Join date: 15 May 2006
Posts: 1,029
|
02-01-2007 08:09
BadPenguin... Still havent heard one thing from you about bots being bad for the SL enviroment, no matter what concern is raised you slap it down with your own brand of reasoning, which already has not alot of confidence with myself, let others decide their own about your reasoning. Bots drag down the servers, no matter what the precise measurement of that load is, its irrelevant... Second Life was created for the utilization of people, NOT BOTS. That fact cannot be reasoned away. Look at this way, are you spending your time talking to bots in SL or people? which would you rather spend your time with? Just your posting on this thread shows that you prefer interaction with people rather than bots. so I wil ask you point blank. Do you prefer to interact wih bots or people, your answer should dictate your stance on this matter. On the other hand, of all the people complaining that it's bad for the grid, bad for the directory servers etc, they've all had a vested interest in making sure bots aren't allowed on the grid, and if they are, that they aren't allowed to buy land. Sure, SL might have been created for people, but given that the creators and operators have stated publicly on several occasions that they have no beef with the issue of bots being on the grid, the question of who it was intended for is rather irrelevant. _____________________
|
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-01-2007 09:25
BadPenguin... Still havent heard one thing from you about bots being bad for the SL enviroment, I suggest you calm down, take a deep breath, and go back and read what I have stated in this thread. I clearly stated my concerns about LL allowing untrusted modified clients to connect to the grid which override any arguments in favor of bot usage from me. no matter what concern is raised you slap it down with your own brand of reasoning Are you referring to my use of logic? Should I resort to blind hysteria and wild unsubstantiated accusations based on complete technical ignorance instead? Would you prefer I cling to personal insults instead of discussing purely technical matters instead? I prefer to leave these particular refuges to those who have no other. Bots drag down the servers, no matter what the precise measurement of that load is, its irrelevant... See above. Second Life was created for the utilization of people, NOT BOTS. That fact cannot be reasoned away. Look at this way, are you spending your time talking to bots in SL or people? which would you rather spend your time with? Just your posting on this thread shows that you prefer interaction with people rather than bots. so I wil ask you point blank. Do you prefer to interact wih bots or people, your answer should dictate your stance on this matter. So, LSL should be banned entirely as well? Camping chairs? Vending machines? Casinos? Video/Audio streams? Sattelites? Security orbs? Clubs? Avatar bling? Malls? Vehicles? Anything other than humans, eh. And to answer your question, I spend more time building and scripting than talking to people. When interacting with people, I prefer to interact with reasonable, mature, adult people. Not griefers, sex crazed adolescents, or land stalkers. Don't expect any further responses to any more of these hubris filled posts of yours from me... |
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-01-2007 09:33
On the other hand, of all the people complaining that it's bad for the grid, bad for the directory servers etc, they've all had a vested interest in making sure bots aren't allowed on the grid, and if they are, that they aren't allowed to buy land. Heh heh, I have $0 invested in land. It took me all of 10 minutes of research to realize that investing in land was a bit too risky when there was absolutely no way to mitigate losses when LL brings up new land. If I were a land speculator with significant undeveloped land holdings I would be in-world right now dealing with unloading all of my land while the bottom is falling out instead of bickering about the use of bots in a forum |
|
Pegasus Alva
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 30
|
02-01-2007 10:19
I am curious about how much price fixing has gone on between "land barons" and how much they have "cooperated" to keep prices up. Don't ask me how I know because I won't answer but I know for a fact that it (at least when I took part in land trading awhile back) was quite a bit when it came to "optimal" plots of land where optimal lands at the time were non snow plots in a sim surrounded by residential or small store plots with no casinos nearby and no ugly signs... Even when standard was 3/m on an optimal plot people were getting more than that and it was really a two tiered system. The first tier was really people who just wanted a piece of land and would buy whatever was available and in their price range but the second tier were those who many times had a specific goal in mind and researched lots of land for sale to find the perfect spot and while most spots of land went to the former there was still a fair amount of the latter and that's where the price fixing and collusion occurred. </rant> Disclaimer: if trying to ascertain if I have the experience don't go by my post count, this isn't my main account but I have to use it since I'm on a public machine where I don't want to use my real username/password for security reasons. ... and yes I know this is probably a TOS violation but as I am using it purely as a security safeguard (which is more than LL can say for data we entrust to them) I don't think it's really an actionable violation nor one that is that egregious. |
|
Kepster Cure
Paradigm Shifter
Join date: 7 Jan 2006
Posts: 198
|
02-01-2007 11:43
_____________________
Keeping the boundaries distant.
-Cure  |
|
Zaphod Kotobide
zOMGWTFPME!
Join date: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
02-01-2007 11:54
This thread is like... the engergizer bunny
|
|
Jackson Rickenbacker
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2006
Posts: 601
|
02-01-2007 12:29
I would hardly say camping chairs and security orbs fall along the same lines as the landbot. again, your warped reasoning and undergraduate mentality has has shown you to be totally out of touch with the issue. and i do hope that was your last and final addition to this thread
|
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-01-2007 12:56
Don't ask me how I know because I won't answer but I know for a fact that it (at least when I took part in land trading awhile back) was quite a bit when it came to "optimal" plots of land where optimal lands at the time were non snow plots in a sim surrounded by residential or small store plots with no casinos nearby and no ugly signs... Even when standard was 3/m on an optimal plot people were getting more than that and it was really a two tiered system. Thanks for the honest answer Pegasus. Frankly I would be more suprised if "cooperating" on prices was not happening amongst those who control the market. It's not like it is against the rules or anything is it? |
|
Jackson Rickenbacker
Registered User
Join date: 8 Oct 2006
Posts: 601
|
02-01-2007 14:40
BP, your nonstop bashing of land agents is uncalled for and not warranted at all, you make it sound like all land agents are getting together in a pow wow disscussing how we are going to screw the citizen today... let me remind you this is a thread started by a land agent, and besides from your interjections is mostly filled with talk by land agents, you have a problem with landagents, you said your peice, now kindly get off the string as your commenting has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic does it?
While we all realize a little outside imput is helpful once in a while, your commenting has nothing to do with the tthread topic. If you didnt catch it the first time let me say again, stay on topic or get out of the thread |
|
Kyrah Abattoir
cruelty delight
Join date: 4 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,786
|
02-01-2007 18:39
Not so long ago , cars used to be assembled by mens, by hand, later the repetitive and simple task of assembly got given to the machines.
I am not in favor of protecting artificially a sector that can be automated using a few simple logic rules, like land buy/sell. If technology grew to the point your work can be done by a program, maybe it's time for reconversion in a much more challenging and "human" job. _____________________
 tired of XStreetSL? try those! apez http://tinyurl.com/yfm9d5b metalife http://tinyurl.com/yzm3yvw metaverse exchange http://tinyurl.com/yzh7j4a slapt http://tinyurl.com/yfqah9u |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
02-02-2007 08:05
Well, the effect for me was cheaper land. What's making land cheaper is all the new sims. And if whoever buys Gorbash sim doesn't do something cool with it I'm going medieval on their asses.  |
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-02-2007 11:25
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
02-02-2007 15:25
Well, land prices are now back near historical levels, and we can work on the next hysteria.
|
|
Zaphod Kotobide
zOMGWTFPME!
Join date: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
02-02-2007 16:49
And there's an interesting change in the ToS today.
4.2 You agree to use Second Life as provided, without unauthorized software or other means of access or use. You will not make unauthorized works from or conduct unauthorized distribution of the Linden Software. Linden Lab has designed the Service to be experienced only as offered by Linden Lab at the Websites or partner websites. Linden Lab is not responsible for any aspect of the Service that is accessed or experienced using software or other means that are not provided by Linden Lab. You agree not to create or provide any server emulators or other software or other means that provide access to or use of the Servers without the express written authorization of Linden Lab. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may use and create software that provides access to the Servers for the same function (or subset thereof) as the Viewer; provided that such software is not used for and does not enable any violation of these Terms of Service. Linden Lab is not obligated to allow access to the Servers by any software that is not provided by Linden Lab, and you agree to cease using, creating, distributing or providing any such software at the request of Linden Lab. You acknowledge that you do not have the right to create, publish, distribute, create derivative works from or use any software programs, utilities, applications, emulators or tools derived from or created for the Service, except that you may use the Linden Software to the extent expressly permitted by this Agreement. You are prohibited from taking any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Linden Lab's infrastructure. You may not charge any third party for using the Linden Software to access and/or use the Service, and you may not modify, adapt, reverse engineer (except as otherwise permitted by applicable law), decompile or attempt to discover the source code of the Linden Software, or create any derivative works of the Linden Software or the Service, or otherwise use the Linden Software except as expressly provided in this Agreement. You may not copy or distribute any of the written materials associated with the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may copy the Viewer that Linden Lab provides to you, for backup purposes and may give copies of the Viewer to others free of charge. .. 4.2 You agree to use Second Life as provided, without unauthorized software or other means of access or use. You will not make unauthorized works from or conduct unauthorized distribution of the Linden Software. Linden Lab has designed the Service to be experienced only as offered by Linden Lab at the Websites or partner websites. Linden Lab is not responsible for any aspect of the Service that is accessed or experienced using software or other means that are not provided by Linden Lab. You agree not to create or provide any server emulators or other software or other means that provide access to or use of the Servers without the express written authorization of Linden Lab. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may use and create software that provides access to the Servers for substantially similar function (or subset thereof) as the Viewer; provided that such software is not used for and does not enable any violation of these Terms of Service. Linden Lab is not obligated to allow access to the Servers by any software that is not provided by Linden Lab, and you agree to cease using, creating, distributing or providing any such software at the request of Linden Lab. You are prohibited from taking any action that imposes an unreasonable or disproportionately large load on Linden Lab's infrastructure. You may not charge any third party for using the Linden Software to access and/or use the Service, and you may not modify, adapt, reverse engineer (except as otherwise permitted by applicable law), decompile or attempt to discover the source code of the Linden Software, or create any derivative works of the Linden Software or the Service, or otherwise use the Linden Software except as expressly provided in this Agreement. You may not copy or distribute any of the written materials associated with the Service. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may copy the Viewer that Linden Lab provides to you, for backup purposes and may give copies of the Viewer to others free of charge. Further, you may use and modify the source code for the Viewer as permitted by any open source license agreement under which Linden Lab distributes such Viewer source code. Maybe there are other subtle changes.. but the ones in bold I think speak to a large part of this conversation. And it supports my argument of the bot being against ToS.. maybe I shouldn't have used the word "clearly", as it wasn't so clear. It is however slightly more clear which side of the argument Linden Lab are on. zk |
|
Elanthius Flagstaff
Registered User
Join date: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,534
|
02-03-2007 03:29
Obviously I'm biased but I read this the exact opposite way. "substantially the same" means "almost exactly the same, but not quite." Which supports your argument but "subset thereof" clearly means you don't need to implement every feature of the viewer.
So to me, before the TOS said you must implement an /exact/ subset of the viewer's functions, but now you only have to implement a subset of functions that are /substantially/ the same. A less stringent requirement. |
|
Zaphod Kotobide
zOMGWTFPME!
Join date: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
02-03-2007 03:43
Whatever dude. Depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, doesn't it? Or something.
Obviously I'm biased but I read this the exact opposite way. "substantially the same" means "almost exactly the same, but not quite." Which supports your argument but "subset thereof" clearly means you don't need to implement every feature of the viewer. So to me, before the TOS said you must implement an /exact/ subset of the viewer's functions, but now you only have to implement a subset of functions that are /substantially/ the same. A less stringent requirement. |
|
BadPenguin Posthorn
Registered User
Join date: 17 Dec 2006
Posts: 39
|
02-03-2007 07:54
And there's an interesting change in the ToS today. Maybe there are other subtle changes.. but the ones in bold I think speak to a large part of this conversation. And it supports my argument of the bot being against ToS.. maybe I shouldn't have used the word "clearly", as it wasn't so clear. It is however slightly more clear which side of the argument Linden Lab are on. I wish the Lindens would just come out and say if they support this kind of activity or not. Changing the word "same" to "substantially" does not exactly clear things up. Is buying property a substantial subset of the viewer functionality? I was under the impression they were going to introduce something to technically prevent it, not a change in the TOS.... |
|
Zaphod Kotobide
zOMGWTFPME!
Join date: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 2,087
|
02-03-2007 09:13
Could be a functionized change at some point as well as ToS.. which upon another read I have to sorta back away from it necessarily being a hint about their position on this particular issue. I think it read that way to me at first mostly due to my bias against the bot. But you're right. I would like to see a real policy statement from LL on the issue. I suspect it would be complicated.. both to construct a contrary position and to enforce it, given the broad freedoms that OS confers. The best hint we have really is Robin's own statement on the blog. Even that could be regarded as LL having a neutral position - in that they simply support fairness in land trade, and by making it "more difficult" for the bots while not causing them to fail altogether, they're just sortof "leveling the playing field" as it were.
I wish the Lindens would just come out and say if they support this kind of activity or not. Changing the word "same" to "substantially" does not exactly clear things up. Is buying property a substantial subset of the viewer functionality? I was under the impression they were going to introduce something to technically prevent it, not a change in the TOS.... |
|
Draco18s Majestic
Registered User
Join date: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2,744
|
02-03-2007 13:19
So to me, before the TOS said you must implement an /exact/ subset of the viewer's functions, but now you only have to implement a subset of functions that are /substantially/ the same. A less stringent requirement. I've posed this question to a lawyer, as the TOS is written in Lawyer Speach, he should be able to untangle the web of confuscation. |
