Definition of Theft?

Hi, Yumi I'm confused on your connecting role play or performing with antisocial as I see those as social activities.

But that aside...just because one aspect of SL is socializing, doesn't make it the only one; or if one chooses not to spend time in SL socializing (which can have a LOT of different meanings to different people) doesn't mean that person is somehow "not doing it right." lol

For example, many of the successful designers/merchants who post have stated they spend very little, if any time, "socializing." Their focus is their store. I've met other people who spend their time on SL scripting, building, creating because that is their passion. I've met several people who wear one outfit all the time because for what they enjoy in SL, fashion is not important to them.

In my case, I may be seen when out in (SL) public as very social - I'm talkative, outgoing, participate in wherever I am - be it taking a class, etc. HOWEVER, my preferred method of interacting with people is on a one-to-one basis or at most a small group of say 4 people. My interaction of choice is spending time with my Partner. I am also most content sitting in my home for hours weeding out inventory, planning a class, etc. Some would see that as "anti-social" - I see it as being comfortable in my own skin (no SL pun intended) and content without having to be with people all the time.

So I don't think you have an "antisocial desire" at all - based on my perspective of socialization. Others' mileage may vary

Ah, but you are so mistaken about that. Nobody even suggested that the silent majprity is favour of anything. What was said is that they are silent, and haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other. However, the indications are that the silent majority couldn't care less about traffic bots. They are neither in favour of them nor against them. If you haven't learned that by now, it's because you don't follow the forums much.

Excellent advice Phil and I truly appreciate your help

In RL I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body. A friend of mine who knew how to promote anything kept telling me what wonderful ideas I had (I have a small gift in non-fiction writing, public speaking and teaching) and I should get "out there" and do more of those things. But I didn't have the knowledge or confidence to promote myself. (Sidenote: This friend taught adult ed. computer classes at a local Jr. College and kept trying to get me to do so for a solid YEAR! I didn't think I knew enough about computers. I tend to be a perfectionist and think I have to know EVERYTHING about something before attempting it. Finally, when my former husband heard how much per hour the job paid, he said "You WILL go interview there TOMORROW! lol. I ended up not only teaching as an adjunct professor for 12 years, but was used as the model teacher to secure the Disney University account with WDW and then taught there for a time.)

What I have learned from rethinking the above RL example plus what I have experienced in SL thus far, is to lead with my strengths and not try to butt my head against a wall with my weaker areas.

I've come to grips with the fact that I'm not going to make money to cash out and will consider myself successful to make tier. But most of all, I'm going to do what brings me personal satisfaction.

As far as making the same item in more colors/textures, etc. - I'm really bad at that. Point taken and will definitely do so.

Makes as much sense as the undead thread, imo.

Czari.

That story of how you wanted to know everything about something before you'd consider teaching it reminded me of a teacher I had years ago. I was doing a nightschool course on the technical side of computers. The teacher who started with us was very good, but he was seconded to the middle east and we got another one - who was crap. All he ever did each session was dictate text from a book, and we had to write it down. When he'd done dictating for the evening, he'd answer questions. But he didn't know the answers - he thumbed through the book to see what it said. I think I suffered him for 3 sessions, and on the 3rd session someone asked a question about the internal workings of a memory chip. The book didn't give an answer, so he couldn't give one. I answered the question for the student, and I never went back.

Maybe you don't have a business-type RL bone in your body, but that's why SL can be so enjoyable for you. You can play at business in SL without needing it to be a great success and, over time, you might even grow a few business-type RL bones

*smiles*

You've made my day

There you go again.
The argument and the thread is about morality and ethics.
It is not about those rules that LL have the time and resources to enforce in order to prevent abuse of the platform.
It does not matter that others, be they LL or competitors, cheat in some way.

"You are using a software platform for Pete's sake!"
What on earth has a software platform got to do with it? Are you saying that a lower standard of ethics is acceptable simply because this is a virtual world? It's not "real", so it's ok to cheat?

Cheating it is.
Even Phil agreed that traffic bots worked against LL's intentions.
He also agreed that traffic bots were a subversion of the system, but then rowed back on that as he found a dictionary in which one of the meanings of "subvert" was "destroy". That does mean however that he accepts other definitions of "subvert" as applicable to traffic bots.


Your arguments are "a la carte"
On the one hand you say that the chances of getting LL to move on bots are slim to zero because the issue is not complained of by enough people.
So LL are not pressured on traffic bots. They were pressured long and long on ad-farms but it took an age and a false start for them to move with any effect.
So yes, on that basis it would be very difficult to get them to move on traffic bots and other abuses of the search system. Their least-effort response to the abuse is to reduce or eliminate the effect of traffic on search ranking.

Then you argue that traffic bots are ok because LL have not banned them.
Come along!



"But hey, that is the way you discuss, isn't it?"

LOL. Okay I was generalizing.

The 2 biggest proponents are Phil and Marcel.

Yes some other people are supportive of the idea of bots, Or at least supportive of them being allowed. Such as Ciaran.

I didn't say the number of people who don't care are bigger than the number of detractions. I used very general words.

Nothing I said was dishonest. There was no need to throw that accusation in.

This is exactly it .. that entire argument is logically stupid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statements are inconsistent with each other!

Traffic Bots are allowed because Not a whole lot of people complain about them!

People should not complain about Traffic Bots because they are allowed!

No it's not. *You* argue about what *you* perceive to be morality and ethics. The topic of the thread was settled ages and the general opinion is that traffic bots are nothing to do with theft. There was no argument - not even in Penny's case - everyone agreed that it might be theft in her case.

There you go again - inventing things - spreading falsehoods. But what's new? Specifically...

There are no rules concerning traffic bots that LL doesn't have the time and/or resources to enforce. Don't you think it's time you learned the facts, and stopped trying to spread falsehoods? It's immoral, you know.

For a change you are correct - in part. Traffic bots (and camping) do work against what LL originally intended the traffic measurement for, but so what? They chose the wrong metric for that use anyway. And they do subvert the listings, in the sense of altering them - but but they don't destroy them. But, again, so what? I can't speak for other bot users, but I can say, without fear of realistic contradiction, that my bots actually improve the listings. Where you are wrong, yet again <sigh>, is that any of it is cheating - except in your own narrow mind, of course, but you are a person who doesn't want other people to use SL in their own ways, unless you approve. Why should anyone take notice of you..

LOL now Trafficbots "improve" the listings

Bwahahaha.


Phil should get a job writing spin for Politicians.

Okies!!!

This extract just in on the Traffic Futures group, from Kalpana Linden

"From that interaction, we also identified that the key areas to focus on in improving search (and traffic) is in having an effective policy to deal with disruptive bots (keeping in mind that some bots could be valid and useful), and in revamping how we deal with events in search. "


Now the world and his wife know that traffic bots are being described here as "disruptive" (of search) by a Linden speaking as representing LL policy direction (and not some Linden somewhere, sometime).
No P and M - no way are traffic bots included in the "valid and useful". They are "disprutive".


Paid Picks will have to go the same way.

It's nice to know that LL are moving to slap down the cheaters who abuse and devalue search ranking.

I got that notecard too, and I participated in the group chat that came about from it. It may well be that LL is thinking that traffic bots are disruptive, but she could have meant actual disruptive bots - such are those that cause problems for other sim users. She wasn't clear about it. What they are going to do in the future remains to be seen. What is right now is what we deal with - no rules/ToS against trarffic bots. The end.

I thought the notecard showed us what they thought of our input at those meetings - f all! After all these months, they've done nothing, and they are doing nothing. The notecard makes it clear that they have no plans to do anything in the forseeable future. It is on their list of things to do, but that's as far as it goes. The whole Future of Traffic thing was a waste of everyone's time - a complete sham.

I'm sorry to disillusion you, Sling, but LL is *not* doing anything about traffic bots. They may be doing something about "cheaters" though - I don't know about that, as it's nothing to do with traffic bots. Do you mean people who spread falsehoods, like you do? If you do, I didn't know they could do anything about that.

Very unsurprisingly, you miss the point.

The point is NOT whether or not LL will move on the abuse.
The point is that they see it as an abuse - a disruption.



Do they perceive traffic bots as disruptive?
Read it:
"we also identified that the key areas to focus on in improving search (and traffic) is in having an effective policy to deal with disruptive bots"

Are you saying that there are bots that disrupt search, but are not traffic bots??

You are running out of wriggle room.

Nonsense. Your argument may be about morality and ethics, but that does not make mine or even the thread about morality and ethics. And with time and resources it has nothing to do either.


It has everything to do with it Sling. It has nothing to do with ethics. Linden Labs provide us with a platform and set the rules. We obey those rules. It is not the real world you know, t is only a piece of computer software.


Working against what LL's intentions were, does not equal cheating.



Again, this has nothing to do with ad-farms. Ad-farms were a pest to many people, and caused a lot of grief. More and more people were evacuating mainland. The amount of people really griefed by traffic bots is hardly worth mentioning. In those caes where they really are griefed, they can AR the bot farm and action can be undertaken.


No, they are not just okay because Linden Lab have banned them, they are okay because in several cases Linden Employees explicitly told that they are allowed. As soon as LL changes the rules, they are not okay anymore. And I still hope they are going to remove traffic as a metric so we do not see bot farms anymore. But as long as they are allowed, they are okay.

That is indeed the way I discuss. With arguments, instead of throwing words like unethical and immoral around someones ears.

The reason I said you should be honest, is because you made it seem as if 2 people are supportive, and the rest either does not care or is against. You say it yourself, you were generalizing. Since it was not a fair display of the facts, so that is why I used the words I used. Not meant as an accusation, just my version of the facts.

Funny is that when a Linden tells bots are okay, it is only the opinion of one Linden. As soon as one Linden says something that fits you, it is "they".

When a Linden, *today* communicating by notecard to a forum created by LL to discuss the issues of search, traffic etc. comes out and refers to action needed on bots that disrupt Search, then most people would accept that just a tad more official than something some Linden said in an exchange with someone some time ago.

Pointy stick - Poke, poke, pokieeeeeee!!!

Then why bring them up? If you don't mean to imply that the folks who come by your store somehow approve of the bots, then you're not advancing the discussion by bringing that up.

OK, it was someone else who brought up the visitors to your store. Point is the same... I was objecting to the idea that they were relevant to the question of how many people approved or disapproved of traffic bots.
Goodness, now you're restating one of my points. There's hope yet.

I think Nixon ruined the silent majority bit for all time.

Just makes me laugh when Phil uses it.

how can you know that the majority of people not talking about this are not talking just cuse they don't know enough about the subject?

Still is one Linden stating an opinion.

By the way, if it is not your purpose to look immature, I would stop the pointy stick crap. If it is, forget I ever mentioned it

I totally agree. Satellites can be a fantastic form of advertising. I had a great satellite location for quite a while and lots of people took landmarks from that spot and then TPed to my main store and bought furniture from me there. While I rarely sold anything at the satellite...it definitely functioned as advertising for me.

Satellites are where I think *true* traffic can definitely come into play...where that foot traffic of people passing by and happening to see your satellite and wanting to see more.

~ Desi

If you actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't need to ask the question. I'll remind you what I wrote:- "It may well be that LL is thinking that traffic bots are disruptive". See now?

But there you go with your spreading of falsehoods again. You added the word "abuse" which of course, isn't even implied, let alone stated. You know, Sling, the SL world does *not* revolve around you. I'm sorry to disillusion you yet again. Oh, and in case you don't get it, distruptive != abuse. It actually means disruptive.

I'll tell you what, Sling. You go to sleep and I'll wake you up when LL does something about traffic bots. Alright? But be prepared to sleep for a *very* long time