Definition of Theft?
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 09:39
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Silly, heh? Such a discount. Perhaps more people should be as silly. ??? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry True BS indeed. Whatever suits you From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Not your real traffic. Your stores aren't as popular as they seem to be. Your ranking in search is a lie. You cheat your competition out of their rightful place in the sort. Man, you are so dumb. (1) I don't have stores - you're playing a guessing game. (2) My rankings in search are genuine. (3) Nobody has a rightful place in search. You need to learn a few things about what you're trying to talk about, because you don't make any sense. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry It makes me wonder if your products are any way near that good. So wonder. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Heck if they were, they'd affect the rankings in search based on their own merits. Right? You wouldn't have to inflate your ranking this way. They would? LMAO. I repeat, learn a few things about it before puttinging your foot in your mouth again From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry I challenge you to let your products speak for themselves. But you're afraid to do that, aren't you? me/ shakes his head in wonder. You know, the last person who made such a challenge withdrew it immediately I took him up on it because he knew that it would cost him. I accept your challenge if we can work out the details. So let's hear what the challenge is. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Hmmm. "Merely a means of sorting a dataset"? Now there's an interesting spin. You don't think so? Look. Learn the subject, and then you'll be able to post with some semblance of sense on it. Ok? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Ah, another "it's just business" person, heh? Hmm. I guess I do need another cup of coffee. You don't like the way businesses work? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Have you been following the stock market recently? Should I? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Business is just business. Right. The cheaters in business, the greedy in business have brought us to where we are now. Have they? What's it got to do with me? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry So are you one of them? One of who?
|
Jojogirl Bailey
jojo's Folly owner
Join date: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 1,094
|
10-15-2008 09:44
A question for those who are against inflating traffic numbers to increase position in search....if bots do this and are bad, then is it correct to assume that all other things that increase position in search are bad, immoral, unethical etc? I am referring to camping, lucky chairs, camping chairs, paying for picks etc.
All of those items also function primarily to encourage avs to stay on land for a period of time in order to increase the traffic counts. And if they are also in the same category, should they be banned as well as bots?
_____________________
Director of Marketing - Etopia Island Corporation Marketing and Business Consultant Jojo's Folly - Owner
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-15-2008 09:47
From: Phil Deakins What you don't seem to understand is that SL is a private system, and what the owners say goes. Yes, I know, I'm in a balloon. See, there's this joke, about these guys in a balloon, and they're flying over Seattle, and they get lost. And so they call down to this guy on this big building "where am I"? And he says "You're in a balloon". And the pilot goes "OK, I know where we are." His passenger asks "How do you know?" And he says "That's the Microsoft campus, because what that guy told me was 100% correct, and completely irrelevant". All you're saying is "what Linden Labs says is the law". I've already explained why "it's legal" and "it's right" isn't the same thing. That's just "might makes right" using a proxy. It's an argument associated with people who have no principles, like adfarmers and spammers. If you use that argument, you're telling people (whether it's true or not) that the only difference between you and anyone else who uses it is, at most, a matter of degree. I really hope that's not what you believe, and you're just making a rhetorical point without thinking through everything that point carries with it. From: someone It's no good arguing with me about it - you need to persuade the owners. I've been doing that *as well*.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 09:51
From: Jojogirl Bailey A question for those who are against inflating traffic numbers to increase position in search....if bots do this and are bad, then is it correct to assume that all other things that increase position in search are bad, immoral, unethical etc? I am referring to camping, lucky chairs, camping chairs, paying for picks etc.
All of those items also function primarily to encourage avs to stay on land for a period of time in order to increase the traffic counts. And if they are also in the same category, should they be banned as well as bots? Imo, anything that encourages people to stay on a parcel for the purpose of traffic figures must be included.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-15-2008 09:53
From: Jojogirl Bailey A question for those who are against inflating traffic numbers to increase position in search....if bots do this and are bad Bots aren't bad merely because they distort the search results. Bots are bad because they decrease the ability of the grid to support as many real users. That is, bots cause damage. There are other techniques that people use that have the same effect, though to a lesser degree... for example, they may cost the business more and so can't be as widely used. Camping chairs, for example drew the same kind of criticism back before bots became the dominant tool of that kind. There are other mechanisms intended to distort the search results, like paying for picks, but they don't draw the same kind of criticism because they don't cause as much damage.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 09:54
From: Argent Stonecutter I've already explained why "it's legal" and "it's right" isn't the same thing. That's just "might makes right" using a proxy. It's an argument associated with people who have no principles, like adfarmers and spammers. If you use that argument, you're telling people (whether it's true or not) that the only difference between you and anyone else who uses it is, at most, a matter of degree. I really hope that's not what you believe, and you're just making a rhetorical point without thinking through everything that point carries with it. Yes, I am saying that SL is a private environment, and what they say goes. From: Argent Stonecutter I've been doing that *as well*. So have I.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 09:55
From: Argent Stonecutter Bots aren't bad merely because they distort the search results. Bots are bad because they decrease the ability of the grid to support as many real users. That is, bots cause damage. They don't do that to any noticeable degree. Well used traffic bots cause minimal impact on the sim, and virtually none on the grid as a whole.
|
RemacuTetigisti Quandry
Diogenes Group
Join date: 3 Jun 2008
Posts: 99
|
10-15-2008 11:55
From: Jojogirl Bailey A question for those who are against inflating traffic numbers to increase position in search....if bots do this and are bad, then is it correct to assume that all other things that increase position in search are bad, immoral, unethical etc? I am referring to camping, lucky chairs, camping chairs, paying for picks etc. All of those items also function primarily to encourage avs to stay on land for a period of time in order to increase the traffic counts. And if they are also in the same category, should they be banned as well as bots? Interesting questions. I see camping setups as, for the most part, unethical. The avies aren't there to investigate or buy product; they're there specifically to inflate rankings . . . and as such aren't "real" customers spending time looking at interesting product or buying it. They're a cheat, as far as I'm concerned. The only upside to them, aside to increasing rankings, is that they are places for newbees to earn L$ and get a start in SL. Perhaps that redeems them a bit. At least something is given back to SL at large. Paying for picks, I don't see as unethical. I see them more as moving billboards who've been paid for the ad service they provide. In fact, I'd rather see the campers turned into paying-for-picks people. Picks aren't fudges to any rankings; they're just there.They work or they don't. They don't increase lag. They don't inflate anything. And, often they're sandwhiched in between picks of "here's my true love" and "here's my best friend" picks, so they don't usurp anybody else's rightful position in some ranking system. Besides, it's entirely possible for a person to elect to be a pay-for-picks person only for businesses he or she truly thinks are wonderful. Lucky chairs I haven't decided about yet. On the one hand they seem to be rank inflators . . . on the other hand, they get people staying longer and coming back which may actually lead to getting people to actually look at your products and get them interested in buying. So they're not quite like "bots in space" inflation. As far as banning the avies for hanging about such places, I don't think that needs to be done. I do, however, tend to avoid places where there are lots of them due to such factors as the lag that sometimes results and the tackiness they contribute to the overall environment. And I do associate chairs in the "neighborhood" with inferior products, although that's not always the case. The advertising strategies I use in my own commercial efforts, however, include no pay-for-picks, no "bots in space", and no variations on camping. Why not? Because I'm really interested in seeing how my products sell themselves with only a minimal, reasonable, intelligent, and appropriate amount of advertising and exposure. If my products don't sell, then I try to find out why. When I do, improvements are made and I try again. Result: I'm constantly learning to create and sell better items . . . and my customers are satisfied.
_____________________
--- Rema 
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-15-2008 11:57
From: Phil Deakins Yes, I am saying that SL is a private environment, and what they say goes. Yes, I know, I'm still in a balloon. From: Phil Deakins They don't do that to any noticeable degree. Well used traffic bots cause minimal impact on the sim, and virtually none on the grid as a whole. They have less impact than a whole avatar, I assume you mean. Bots used in modest amounts are, in fact, efficient. Just like one individual spam mail has less effect on teh recipient than junk mail or a phone call. The problem is that the nature of the tool means that they aren't used in "modest amounts". To have an effect on traffic, for more than just a few sites, especially after the bot race started, you need lots of bots. And they're cheap to run (for the bot user, anyway). So they aren't *used* in modest amounts.
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
10-15-2008 12:01
From: Jojogirl Bailey A question for those who are against inflating traffic numbers to increase position in search....if bots do this and are bad, then is it correct to assume that all other things that increase position in search are bad, immoral, unethical etc? I am referring to camping, lucky chairs, camping chairs, paying for picks etc. I personally don't see any difference between campers and bots (which include models) in terms of allowing one but not the other. Paying for picks is the equivalent for the new search so once again, no difference. As far as lucky chairs are concerned I'd think that as soon as all the Lucky Chair groups (and HUDs even I think?) started any traffic advantage largely went away since noone had to actually wait anymore and everything was just conveniently announced. It's been ages since anyone bugged me with a tp for a lucky chair - or a mobvend for that matter - so I wonder if the novelty hasn't just significantly worn off by now? From: someone And if they are also in the same category, should they be banned as well as bots? They're in the same category, but not nearly the same caliber. I'd very surprised if a lucky chair brings in substantially more traffic than just having a general freebie out. They just don't compare to bots in my opinion: if someone coming for the lucky chair stays 5 minutes on average (seems like a rather long time merely to sit, stand and tp away) then you need 288 avies to come over for it every day just to contribute as much traffic as 1 single bot does. I do have issues with them, but then mostly because they're noisy and tended to attract the kind of people that makes shopping there rather unpleasant (loudmouths, beggars, bling infested avies, etc) but that's an entirely different issue and not search related.
|
RemacuTetigisti Quandry
Diogenes Group
Join date: 3 Jun 2008
Posts: 99
|
10-15-2008 12:26
From: Phil Deakins Man, you are so dumb. (1) I don't have stores - you're playing a guessing game. (2) My rankings in search are genuine. (3) Nobody has a rightful place in search. You need to learn a few things about what you're trying to talk about, because you don't make any sense.
Ad-hominems--the tactic of the desperate. It doesn't matter whether you have a store or not; that has little to do with the discussion here. You have some sort of business or service--or you're just spouting your philosophy because you like to stir up the pot on fora like this. I don't much care. Your arguments, your statements, your "logic" are what I'm going after with a sharp blade. From: Phil Deakins me/ shakes his head in wonder. You know, the last person who made such a challenge withdrew it immediately I took him up on it because he knew that it would cost him. I accept your challenge if we can work out the details. So let's hear what the challenge is. Hmm. Now you want to show me how much bigger your appendage is than mine by getting into a macho competition? Heck, you win . . . I don't stand a chance. My challenge to you was to let your product do its own selling instead of tromping on your competition the way you do. You answer seems to be to challenge me to a duel to "prove" you're a "winner". As if that will settle this argument/discussion once and for all. How sad. From: Phil Deakins You don't think so? Look. Learn the subject, and then you'll be able to post with some semblance of sense on it. Ok? Who's shooting in the dark here? Hmmm. Insult piled on insult just to evoke a rise out of me, heh? Tactics, tactics, tactics. For all you know, I've taught econ or business strategy at the university level, or I'm a RL businesswomen who has several successful businesses, or I am or have been a CEO of a large company, or I'm Bill Gates' wife (don't I wish). Methinks, you should think some about this before digging yourself in any deeper. I don't intend to "game" with you; but I do intend to stand against what I see as wrong whether you actually use bots or not, whether you have a business or not. And, I do make sense, that's what's got your knickers in a twist. Quit the ad-hominems; they just make you look even worse.
_____________________
--- Rema 
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
10-15-2008 12:31
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry For all you know, I've taught econ or business strategy at the university level, or I'm a RL businesswomen who has several successful businesses, or I am or have been a CEO of a large company, or I'm Bill Gates' wife (don't I wish).
CEO's of big companies usually aren't so aghast at bending of the rules, the same goes for people with business strategy backgrounds. They may frown upon the practices done here because to most people the rewards are small fry. One of the biggest beneficiaries of bloated traffic and concurrency figures are Linden Lab themself, now to them it's not small fry. They are probably at the stage now where they could take a stance, but I can understand why they aren't when they're happily reporting record concurrency levels.
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
Brief summary
10-15-2008 13:11
General flavour of just about all of the traffic-gaming threads: From: Phil Deakins (Traffic-gaming) is not against the TOS.
From: Sling Trbuchet Traffic-gaming is unethical.
From: Phil Deakins Don't be so silly.
_____________________
Maggie: We give our residents a lot of tools, to build, create, and manage their lands and objects. That flexibility also requires people to exercise judgment about when things should be used. http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-15-2008 13:41
From: Argent Stonecutter If you're talking about rights, you're talking about law and philosophy. If you're just talking about what you can get away with, you're not talking about rights. Me, I'm just talking about what the right thing to do is. Nonsense once more. You keep forgetting you are just inside a software platform where the owners set the rules. Furthermore, you cannot determine in anyway what is the right thing to do. The best you can try, is determine what is the right thing to do for you. And what law has to do with running bots, beats me. From: Argent Stonecutter You're taking a pro-bot position, then. Of course I have no idea what you're really thinking, all I can do is grant you the courtesy of taking your words seriously. Have it your way, at some point I admit I am unable to put things in a way anyone can grasp. For the other readers: No I am not pro-bot. I am pro the right to use them until decided otherwise. From: Argent Stonecutter Then Evelyn Beatrice Hall is spinning in his grave. Her grave I guess. From: Argent Stonecutter If one believes bots should be eliminated, and yet still uses them, then one's actions and principles are not in agreement. This does not necessarily make one a bad person, after all Jefferson kept slaves, but it does color ones words, and how they are perceived. And if that perception seems to weaken one's words, that does not mean that perception is wrong. You should know I am not running bots if you read this thread. But running bots is not against my principles. Again, this is a software platform and I have a set of tools that the owner allows me to use. But I think that the owner of the system should make the use of bots obsolete, by removing traffic as a metric for search. The fact that I do believe in the right to use a tool, does not imply that I like the tool itself.
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-15-2008 13:58
One more thing about the use of traffic bots.
Phil has been challenged a few times already, to let his products speak for themselves and remove the bots.
Now Phil is established enough to still have his customer base, plus he is listed well in Search All. But in Places Search he will suddenly drop very fast. Now we have to ask ourselves: why is that? Because his products and visitors do not qualify for a top 10 ranking maybe?
That is where the actual reason to run bots kicks in: It has become the only way to get a top 10 ranking in Places Search. Because a lot of competitors already were running bots when Phil came into SL, and most certainly when I came into SL, search ranking in Places Search was already bot-based.
This left a business with only a two options a while ago: - Run enough bots to get a decent ranking - Loose a lot of business to your competition
After Search All was introduced, a third option was born: - Concentrate on your Search All ranking, and take the loss from Places Search for granted.
Now you can throw ethics into the discussion as much as you want, but this is the virtual world we are living out virtual life in. And as far as business goes, you try to get the best revenue while staying withing the boundaries the "law" sets. And in this case, LL makes the law.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-15-2008 14:10
From: someone This left a business with only a two options a while ago: - Run enough bots to get a decent ranking - Loose a lot of business to your competition On Earth, we call this a test of character. From: Marcel Flatley Furthermore, you cannot determine in anyway what is the right thing to do. (and other comments about this just being a 'virtual world') I'm sorry you feel that somehow, because there's a computer program between people, that somehow changes what appropriate and inappropriate behavior is. As more and more human intercourse becomes mediated by software that's likely to cause you problems one way or another.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 14:16
From: Argent Stonecutter Yes, I know, I'm still in a balloon. They have less impact than a whole avatar, I assume you mean. Bots used in modest amounts are, in fact, efficient. Just like one individual spam mail has less effect on teh recipient than junk mail or a phone call. The problem is that the nature of the tool means that they aren't used in "modest amounts". To have an effect on traffic, for more than just a few sites, especially after the bot race started, you need lots of bots. And they're cheap to run (for the bot user, anyway). So they aren't *used* in modest amounts. It depends what you call modest amounts. I've offered to prove that my 20 bots don't negatively impact a sim's performance several times, but nobody took up the offer.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-15-2008 14:35
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Ad-hominems--the tactic of the desperate. It doesn't matter whether you have a store or not; that has little to do with the discussion here. You have some sort of business or service--or you're just spouting your philosophy because you like to stir up the pot on fora like this. I don't much care. Your arguments, your statements, your "logic" are what I'm going after with a sharp blade. It's a sharp blade? lol You haven't even approached medium dull yet. Btw, what are the tactics of the desperate? That I suggested you learn what you're talking about? Your posts show you don;t know what you're talking about. I tried to help you. Or was that I said you're so dumb? Don't *you* think it's dumb to argue things that you don't know about? I do. Or is it that I found fault with you? You aren't a patch on some people who sometimes argue your side, and they haven't made any impression either. What's to be desperate about? Or do you really think you're having an impact? lol From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Hmm. Now you want to show me how much bigger your appendage is than mine by getting into a macho competition? Heck, you win . . . I don't stand a chance. Good grief. You offered me a challenge and I accepted. Didn't you mean it? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry My challenge to you was to let your product do its own selling instead of tromping on your competition the way you do. There's no challenge about that. Anyone can do it. Why don't you put something up for the challenge - or aren't you up backing up your words? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry You answer seems to be to challenge me to a duel to "prove" you're a "winner". As if that will settle this argument/discussion once and for all. How sad. No, not at all. It's sad that you are backing out now, but that's all that's sad. The last person who came up with it said that I wouldn't sell 46,000L of stuff in a month. But he backed off when he realised that he'd have to pay 46,000L if I did sell the 46,000L in a month. He said he couldn't afford it. You see, I don;t need to prove anything to you, but if you want a real challenge, let's hear it. Or is it just hot air? Aren't you up to putting anything where your mouth is. Aren't you up to a real challenge? Are you just mouth and hot air? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Who's shooting in the dark here? Hmmm. Insult piled on insult just to evoke a rise out of me, heh? Tactics, tactics, tactics. For all you know, I've taught econ or business strategy at the university level, or I'm a RL businesswomen who has several successful businesses, or I am or have been a CEO of a large company, or I'm Bill Gates' wife (don't I wish). Methinks, you should think some about this before digging yourself in any deeper. I don't intend to "game" with you; but I do intend to stand against what I see as wrong whether you actually use bots or not, whether you have a business or not. And, I do make sense, that's what's got your knickers in a twist. Quit the ad-hominems; they just make you look even worse. I don't know you (I'm pleased to say), but it's clear from your posts that you don't know what you're talking about. What can I say? You should at least understand something about a topic before you start discussing it. Other people do. What's so different about you?
|
Marcel Flatley
Sampireun Design
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 2,032
|
10-15-2008 14:43
From: Argent Stonecutter On Earth, we call this a test of character. You must somehow confuse earth with your imagination. From: Argent Stonecutter I'm sorry you feel that somehow, because there's a computer program between people, that somehow changes what appropriate and inappropriate behavior is. As more and more human intercourse becomes mediated by software that's likely to cause you problems one way or another. So why would it cause me problems? So far it did not do that, the person having problems with bot use is not me  But again you seem to think that your view on what is appropriate or not, is the only correct one. Whether it is arrogance or lack of understanding, I don't know, but wake up. You are not the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. Don't get me wrong, you have any right to think that what others do is inappropriate. But there is a huge gap between you finding it is inappropriate, and it actually being inappropriate. No one in this virtual world made you the judge.
|
Mickey Vandeverre
See you Inworld
Join date: 7 Dec 2006
Posts: 2,542
|
10-15-2008 17:00
From: Marcel Flatley Hey Mickey,
Apparently the fact that I disagree with you on some parts made you decide I do not fit in your notecard group? Or do you have another reason? In-world as well as on the forum I tried to explain why I said certain things and how they were meant (again, I have most certainly not attacked anyone), so I am really curious why you decided not to include me and my business.
. Way off base, Marcel. Yes, I have other reasons. Not necessary to address it here, and as I told you privately, in a nutshell....we simply are not on the same page......let it go.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-16-2008 04:02
From: Phil Deakins It depends what you call modest amounts. I've offered to prove that my 20 bots don't negatively impact a sim's performance several times, but nobody took up the offer. You have 20 bots, and 500 other stores all have 20 bots, and pretty soon we're talkin' real numbers. 20 bots on one sim are not a problem. 10,000 bots across the grid is a different matter.
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
10-16-2008 04:05
From: Marcel Flatley You are not the one to decide who is right and who is wrong. Every one of us has to decide what is right and what is wrong. That's the human condition. Now will you tell me that I'm confusing humanity with my imagination? From: someone Don't get me wrong, you have any right to think that what others do is inappropriate. And I have the right to speak up about it. Which is all I'm doing.
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
10-16-2008 05:07
From: Marcel Flatley One more thing about the use of traffic bots.
Phil has been challenged a few times already, to let his products speak for themselves and remove the bots.
Now Phil is established enough to still have his customer base, plus he is listed well in Search All. But in Places Search he will suddenly drop very fast. Now we have to ask ourselves: why is that? Because his products and visitors do not qualify for a top 10 ranking maybe?
That is where the actual reason to run bots kicks in: It has become the only way to get a top 10 ranking in Places Search. Because a lot of competitors already were running bots when Phil came into SL, and most certainly when I came into SL, search ranking in Places Search was already bot-based.
This left a business with only a two options a while ago: - Run enough bots to get a decent ranking - Loose a lot of business to your competition
After Search All was introduced, a third option was born: - Concentrate on your Search All ranking, and take the loss from Places Search for granted.
Now you can throw ethics into the discussion as much as you want, but this is the virtual world we are living out virtual life in. And as far as business goes, you try to get the best revenue while staying withing the boundaries the "law" sets. And in this case, LL makes the law. There you go again with the implication that ethics are not applicable to - "business" - a virtual world. You are either an ethical person or you are not. If you think that ethics do not apply in a virtual world and/or in business, then you are not an ethical person in anything you do - even in RL or in personal interactions.
_____________________
Maggie: We give our residents a lot of tools, to build, create, and manage their lands and objects. That flexibility also requires people to exercise judgment about when things should be used. http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-16-2008 06:10
From: Sling Trebuchet You are either an ethical person or you are not. If you think that ethics do not apply in a virtual world and/or in business, then you are not an ethical person in anything you do - even in RL or in personal interactions. You're not very quick on the uptake are you Sling? Nobody said, or claimed, that there are no ethics in business, and the post that you quoted doesn't say it either. Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? Not even just a teensy-weensy little bit of an idea? Let me try to alleviate your ignorance, though I don't think it will help you... Doing something that another person (you) doesn't like or want isn't unethical. Doing something that another person (you) is dead against isn't unethical. Doing something to improve search rankings isn't unethical. Doing something to improve search rankings, and thereby causing the previous rankings to move down, isn't unethical. I imagine that's too difficult for you to understand, but I tried. Oh. One more... Doing something that you think is unethical, doesn't make it unethical. Only an arrogant person would think that it does.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-16-2008 06:34
From: Argent Stonecutter You have 20 bots, and 500 other stores all have 20 bots, and pretty soon we're talkin' real numbers. 20 bots on one sim are not a problem. 10,000 bots across the grid is a different matter. At first glance, that sounds right, but I don't think it is. I have 20 bots in the sim my store is in, and all the sim effect of them is contained within that sim's server and isn't a problem. If 500 other stores each have 20 bots, then 500 other individual sim servers each contain the sim effects of 20 bots. So, for sim impact, there is no difference between one sim with 20 bots, and 500 individual sims, each with 20 bots. If one sim is ok, then 500 sims are ok. It isn't cumulative. That only leaves the central systems, which 10,000 bots could affect a lot more than 20 bots. If the bots are well used, they don't trouble the central system. Bots that are where people are, such a my 6 models, trouble the central systems whenever anyone comes within range - they are fed the persons textures, for instance. 20 of those would have an effect on the central systems, and 10,000 of them would have a significant effect on the central systems. So I agree with you about the cumulative grid-wide effect of 'visible' bots, but not about the cumulative effect of well-used bots - those that just log in to a particular spot that is a long way out of range of where anyone would be, and do nothing else. Camping bots (and people) are usually 'visible', and have an appreciable grid-wide effect. That's the reason why it would be foolish for LL to ban bots without removing the traffic-based listings. It would bring many or most of the invisible bots down to where people are, and cause an appreciable extra load for the central systems - not to mention lag for people.
|