Definition of Theft?

If I'm "not quick" then you are "dead slow".

Did I claim that somebody said that there were no ethics in business?
Nope!
Did I claim that the post said such a thing?
Nope!


Read what he said:


Without in any way defining what behaviour might or might not constitute unethical behaviour, Marcel implies in that quote that ethics are not relevant in a virtual world.

I responded to that.
Your reading/comprehension skills appear to be severely limited.
Perhaps you always read through a red mist of rage.


And out of that red mist, comes your usual red fog of ad-hominem, badly-constructed straw men, and incredibly confused thinking



Ignoring your ridiculous straw man points.....

"Doing something to improve search rankings isn't unethical."
Doing "something"??
Your statement is ridiculous.
You are saying there that there is no possibility that any action taken to improve ranking could be unethical.


You are not in control of yourself.
In your attempts to talk down to others you simply make yourself look ridiculous.

Geez, could we all just agree to disagree on this? All this chest-thumping back and forth is obviously accomplishing nothing.

All the effect of a logged in account isn't on the sim. That's 10,000 extra accounts for the presence server and all the other special purpose servers on SL to keep track of.
Not true. There is a significant per-agent impact from having being logged on. And it doesn't matter whether you see them or not. LL moved almost all the responsibility for serving details of visible avatars (like the baked clothing textures you mention) to the sims long ago - that's how come they can handle 60,000 agents in-grid now when a couple of years ago they had to close the login servers when there were 1/4 that many in-world

So the grid-wide impact of avatars is pretty much the same whether they are n00bs in Ahern, alts on camping chairs, bots on pedestals, bots off in a skybox, or anything else.

Good morning, Thread! Good morning, Maureen and Honeybear and Claire and anyone else around the breakfast table!

I FINALLY got my pictures for the Sci Fi calendar done. Oryx is the coordinator, right? Darn, I wish I wasn't at work...I'd post one of them here, just to show Ann that Other People Can Take Sexy Pics of Themselves , Too.

GM Lin! I bet they're gorgeous too, but be sure you post in the right thread, we wouldn't want to piss anyone off *rolls eyes*

Nah!
Post them here please. The REAL never-ending thread has plenty to spare.

Okies. For every Never-Ending-Thread post put into this thread, we'll give you two of Phil's

I'd much rather read what you wrote, Sling:-

See it now? Try to keep up with yourself - there's a good girl.


At least I remember what I wrote

What red mist of rage? I've never seen anything you've written that has a negative effect. I know that you like to think you're having an effect, because it makes you feel good, and you're not the only who is so self-delusional. But whatever floats your boat



Read what you wrote I learned it all from you Sadly, you're not very good at it. Is there anything you're good at? Oh yes there is - wishful thinking LOL


Sling, you are so obtuse. You make it so easy for me. I really wish you could see my face and hear me laughing at you - honestly I do. I'll tell you what Sling. You go to Google, type in the word "something", click "definition" and read what it says. Then do the same with the word "anything" (in this case it's the equivalent of your "any action". Notice the difference in meanings, Sling. Do you see it? If you can grasp the difference in their meanings, you'll kick youself for making the glaring mistake that I quoted - and publically too. How embarrassing for you. That pointy stick of yours must have turned the other way round LMAO.


Read above - about the ad-hominem arguments, red mist, and wishful thinking But... you make yourself a prime candidate for me to talk down to, Sling.

Oh, dingleberries.

It's bad enough when I DELIBERATELY post in the wrong place. I don't know HOW I managed to post here, I was aiming at the Undead Thread.

Sorry. Please continue your endless debate about the ethics of those debased bot runners. Ahem.

I've never heard of a "presence server". What does it do? I've looked at the architecture in the wiki, and it's not mentioned at all. And what are the other "special servers" that keep track of every logged-in av?

You need to explain what the per-agent impacts are. Without explanation, that statement is meaningless, and can't be accepted.

Then it's even better. If such things as av textures are handled by sims, then they are not cumulative on a grid-wide central server, as I'd thought. They are part of the in-sim operations. It doesn't make any difference to well-used bots though, as they are a long way out of range of the need for av textures, wherever the textures are served from.

Your previous statement belies that.

"Doing something to improve search rankings isn't unethical."

Something = a thing not known or not stated


You are saying that doing a thing not known or stated to improve search rankings isn't unethical.

That's a nonsense.


You're not in control of yourself.
You are just generating text that is a mixture of abuse and something that has some of the trappings of logical argument.



I find you fascinating and irresistible


but not in a good way


If I could see your face I do believe that I would see it laughing. I'd see the maniacal laughing face of some guy sitting at a keyboard, seething with rage at the world and desperately trying to channel his inner Napoleon.

It simply proves that people not writing what you like, are written off. Now I can live with that but at least be honest about it.

It's not a debate.
It's performance art.

And there we get to the point: You can decide for yourself what is right and wrong, but you cannot decide it for everyone else. I can perfectly live with you saying that for you something is wrong. But when you write it as if it is the one and only truth, I will jump in.

Sling why do you think you have to keep on twisting what I say? is it so hard to use arguments to debate, that you have to twist someone's words?

You have your set of ethics and I have mine, that is something quite clear by now. Nothing wrong with that, but you seem to be dedicated to try and show your values are the only correct ones.

What I say, is that in this virtual world, using the tools that the virtual world owner provides, has got nothing to do with ethics. So I do not say that ethics do not apply to a virtual world, I say ethics do not apply to this certain topic. using copybot to steal something another person created, is in my opinion unethical. Throwing up ugly add-farm parcels to blackmail other users with, is unethical. using tools to increase your search ranking, when live help told you it is alright to do so, is not unethical. Get the picture?

LOL. I was smiling all the way through your post, until that bit - that made me laugh out loud

What I'm saying is that it is not unethical to do things to improve rankings. I.e. taking steps to improve rankings is not unethical. Is that any easier for you to understand?

You know, it would help you if you'd try to understand what is actually written, rather than twist it to mean what you'd like it to say. Good grief. We can't even get past a simple basic point because you try to derail it all the time. There you see? I've given you some credit. I've assumed that your nonsensical replies are not because you don't understand what's being said, but because you twist it intentionally into what you wish it had said.

But if you were actually being genuine - wake up, Sling. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

"doing things to eat cake"

well, you could be baking a cake, buying one, cutting an old lady's grass in exchange for a bit of cake OR you could be raping the little girl carrying the cake then slashing her from bellybutton to nose in order to steal the cake from her...

Explain that to Sling. She has difficulty in understanding it.

the way you said it, you didn't exclude any possibility, so it sounds like you say you think raping and murdering little girls to improve your search rankings would be ethical, since that is a "thing" someone could do...

I'm not implying you're a rapist pedophile murderer, just pointing out a flaw in how you worded your opinion

The way I said it was interpreted as something that I didn't actually say. There was no flaw in the way it was written. The flaw was in how Sling chose to interpret it. The sentence was perfectly clear.

[added]
If I'd written something like...

Let's start at the bottom and work up to see where our views diverge. So let's agree that there is nothing unethical about doing something (taking steps) to improve the rankings. All agreed so far?

... she might have grasped it a bit better. As it was, the sentence I wrote said exactly that, but without the trimmings, and she chose to put her own interpretation on it. If she thinks that it is unethical to do anything at all to improve the rankings, then she could have said so, but she didn't. She chose to misread what I wrote so that, to her, it said, "There is nothing unethical about doing absolutely anything to improve the rankings", which I didn't say, of course.

Name-calling. Ad-hominem attacks. Re-directing of argumentation to matters that aren't germane to the discussion at hand. Just the sort of thing you've been doing.

Learn to stick to issues and debate them and you wouldn't draw the kind of responses you've been getting from people.

So. Hmmm. You are a walking measure of intelligence? Everyone's intelligence is measured relative to yours . . . or are you an expert in Stanford-Binet, Kuhlmann-Anderson analyses?

Heaven forbid that I should become so intelligent.

Oh I'm having an impact all right. You've degenerated into name-calling, instead of logical argumentation. You can't keep focus on the issues. You must attack and denigrate your "opposition" in hopes that such behavior will "win" your point(s) for you.

You've lost your cool (despite all the emoticons and lol's you use to reassure yourself)

Interesting take on my comment. You have a real need to "game" don't you?

So what would that prove, Phil? What are you trying to make happen? Why is this so important to you?

You mean the same as you? I understand now. Thank you for the explanation. But for the information, I don't name-call anyone unless they do it first

But I enjoy these conversations -even to the extent of starting my bot thread for the purpose. If you were in the forum more often, you'd know that.

By comparison to some of the lesser mortals here, yes.

You just don't understand. Actually, you are having an impact on me. You are providing something for me to do that I find enjoyable. The impact is all positive, I promise you. You'd know that if you came here more often.

Lost my cool? Have you loost your senses? There have been 2 times when I lost my cool in this forum, and it's quite possible that forum regulars remember them. I'm sorry to say that you aren't having any negative effect on me whatsoever. You're just not good enough for that, but please feel free to fool yourself if it makes you feel good

No. But I do like when people show themselves up - in this case by offering a challenge and then backing down when it's accepted. Do you want a real challenge? Are you up to one? I am if you are? So what's it to be?

I want to show you up. Scared?

Macho? You're rambling.

You challenged me. back it up.

Of course.

Man, you're so dumb. Learn about what you're talking about - you'll find it helps.

aaw. Do I affect you like that? I'm so sorry. Perhaps if you tried minding your own business it might help

Not in the slightest. I do do what's right.

Don't be so silly. Have you any idea about search? Even a little bit of an idea? You don't even know what the bots do, do you?

What hassle? And what cost?

What lag? Learn learn learn. And then you might make some sense.

Hey, if I'm concerned about that, I wouldn't use the forum. I *enjoy* these threads - I told you that.

Hey, if I'm concerned about that, I wouldn't use the forum. I *enjoy* these threads - I told you that.

Hey, if I'm concerned about that, I wouldn't use the forum. I *enjoy* these threads - I told you that.

LMAO! I feel wonderfully good, I assure you. You see, I'm not an idiot who goes round trying to make other people do things to fit my personal preferences. I'm content for other people to do their own things, because it's none of my business. I'm not the one getting hot under the collar about what other people do

Oh, my advertising is just fine and productive as it is, thank you.

Both of those are already excellent.

I told you - I enjoy these discussions.

That's no challenge at all. I've already done that. Is that the best you can do?

Self-justifying, yes. Insensitive to whom? You? You should have thought of that before you started with the insults.


For your education:-
If you want a normal discussion of facts and views with someone, don't start out by calling them a cheat and a liar. As an example, have a look at the discussion between Argent and myself, and notice the difference between that one and this one.

Way off base, again, Marcel....but your attitude speaks volumes about why I'm not interested in working with you. I could give you a list of a dozen reasons, and if you're asking for "honesty"....you've got it.

1) Everyone I'm working with, understands that Reciprocation is one of the keys to the process. You just wanted to be "on the list"....with no offer as to how you can help, in return. It's a lot of extra work for me, and also keep in mind that I am sending people to "other" furniture stores, while promoting my own....the best you could offer up was to come back in here, and report whether or not it brought you a ton of business, so it would prove Phil wrong or to prove me wrong. Well, that was not the mission, and I don't want to be used that way.

Now....if that is not honest enough....I will list the other 11 reasons for you.

Let It Go.

And there was me thinking you were doing it for the benefit of your group members and the stores concerned. I thought that's what you made it out to be. My mistake.

Nice shot Phil. Wrong. But nice shot.

If everyone were prohibited from running bots, businesses would still rise to the top ten. So . . . bots can't be the only way.
There was a third, more difficult option: fight to get bots banned. If enough people got together and did so, perhaps change would occur. Of course, it is easier not to do this.

There's also a fourth option: discount your products and watch how business increases. The trick here is to find the right price-point.

There's also a fifth option: damn the top ten rating and just do what's ethical. Good products speak for themselves.

However, if you have a gamer's "frame" on this you'll treat this as a "win at all costs" situation and stoop to any behavior that ensures the win. You'll also justify that behavior on such "principles" as

--"winning is the only thing",
--"if you don't get caught it's okay",
--"if it's "legal" it's fair and okay to do"
--"everybody's doing it"



Virtual world, real world . . . this is still people dealing with people
This virtual world has a real world money link. This virtual world has real impact on people. Ethics are applicable in both realms.

Behaving unethically here--especially in the financial realm--is no different that behaving unethically in RL. Business here is business in the real world. Ignoring the impact of SL on RL therefore is, from my perspective, self-serving at best.

"Business within the boundaries of the law" has very little to do with ethics. In fact, it all too often runs counter to ethical behavior.

When you behave unethically, you impact others negatively and at their expense to further your own agenda, while ignoring their needs and desires. You won't be loved for doing so.