Definition of Theft?
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
10-17-2008 03:16
From: Marcel Flatley ............. Kalpana is as much an official representative as the Live help Lindens are. And I agree with you that LL sees bots as disruptive to their intention of traffic based search. .......... Kaplana is specifically tasked to address policy issues in Search. Live Help Lindens are generalists. They have a queue of activities to get through as quickly as possible. In the absence of a clear policy briefing from their masters they are most unlikely to do a solo run. In the absence of a blog posting, a notecard sent to the Traffic Group by the coordinating Linden is just as close to a policy statement as we can get. Ethics can be defined in terms of a single individual or a group. A serial killer could claim to be acting within their own ethics. A group of serial killers could claim to be acting within their group ethics. A greedy financier could behave in a way that is not explicitly unlawful - and does not conflict with their own personal sense of ethics. Such a persons behaviour could still be described as unethical by society at large. In the case of SL as a whole, and the disruptive effect of gaming on Search, it is the group ethic that matters and not the ethical standards of individuals. As well as setting the law in the TOS, LL also set the ethical standards in the community standards and in ongoiong formal communications. The notecard from Kaplana Linden clearly holds that traffic gaming is a problem that LL recognise are intending to address. In this context, the gaming of Search is unethical.
_____________________
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
|
10-17-2008 04:03
From: Sling Trebuchet Kaplana is specifically tasked to address policy issues in Search. Live Help Lindens are generalists. They have a queue of activities to get through as quickly as possible. In the absence of a clear policy briefing from their masters they are most unlikely to do a solo run. In the absence of a blog posting, a notecard sent to the Traffic Group by the coordinating Linden is just as close to a policy statement as we can get. Yet it is not a policy statement Sling, no matter how much you would like that. It is still a notecard sent to a small group of users by 1 Linden, whether he/she is tasked to address this or not. So there is no policy whatsoever. From: Sling Trebuchet Ethics can be defined in terms of a single individual or a group. A serial killer could claim to be acting within their own ethics. A group of serial killers could claim to be acting within their group ethics. A greedy financier could behave in a way that is not explicitly unlawful - and does not conflict with their own personal sense of ethics. Such a persons behaviour could still be described as unethical by society at large. In the case of SL as a whole, and the disruptive effect of gaming on Search, it is the group ethic that matters and not the ethical standards of individuals. As well as setting the law in the TOS, LL also set the ethical standards in the community standards and in ongoiong formal communications. The notecard from Kaplana Linden clearly holds that traffic gaming is a problem that LL recognise are intending to address. In this context, the gaming of Search is unethical. Here you mix up a few things. Group ethics in this case would be the ethics of the SL user-base as a group, I assume? Society at large, would most certainly be the SL user-base, so their group ethics would be the group ethics you are referring to. Now tell me where society at large thinks that running bots is unethical? Apart from the handful of users telling it in these threads, I see no one telling it is unethical. And in your example, that small group would, in numbers, fit better in the "group of serial killers" example, then in the "society as a whole". it is only a small group after all. They represent the group as much as I do. Which is not at all. Then you mention that LL sets the ethical standards in the community standards and in ongoing formal communication, which might be true (though I think LL does not do much to set ethical stadards, but that aside). But the notecard that one Kaplana Linden sent out can hardly be compared to formal communication or comminity standards, can it? So in that context, nothing has been said about the ethical aspect of gaming Search.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 04:12
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Quick, aren't you? Apparently not. I assumed that your interest stemmed from your knowledge, but I was wrong. Now it seems you're just a busybody. Have you been having lessons from Colette? Ask her to teach you the art of twisting and lying. She's extremely good at it. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry I find it interesting that you immediately discount a person's intelligence just because the avatar you're dealing with shows a birth date of a mere 4-5 months ago. You can find whatever you like to be interesting, but there isn't anywhere where I've discounted your intelligence because you're new. I think your intelligence is low because of what you write. New or old, it shows in your posts. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry New does not equal stupid or dumb. Ignorant maybe; but that all depends, doesn't it, on the person and how quickly they learn the ropes here in SL . . . or how well and quickly their RL experience can be applied? Ignorance will do as well. You are clearly ignorant in the subject we are discussing, and you have a low enough intelligence to think you can wing it. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Nor does "new" necessarily mean you're dealing with a primary avatar. I did consider that, but decided against it because most people who get involved in these discussions know about the subject - not everything, but they do know about it. You appear to know very little, so I decided that you most probably are new. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Such a view--as yours--of "new" does indicate a bias, however. One that I wouldn't be too proud of, if I were you. Not at all (you're showing your lack of intelligence again). It doesn't follow that, because someone doesn't know the topic and they are new, that the reason they don't know the topic is because they are new. You just don't know the topic. In the months that you've been in, you could have learned about it, but you didn't. Instead you just piled into it without much knowledge, to the extent of your blood boiling over it. How stupid is that? From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Now you spark my interest. What was the case you offered LL for getting bots banned and/or the traffic-based rankings changed? Care to share that? Or would it be too much to ask? Yes, it would be too much to ask. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry And, yes, if I'd been available at that time, I would indeed have been there and fighting, surprisingly for the same thing as you (apparently) . . . and I would have been as tough on 'em as I could have been. Are there other such meetings planned? Apparently? Would you like to ask you new friend, Colette, about it, or any other regulars here? It's staggering how little you know, and yet you think you can have a decent discussion on it. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Except for the bots, I might be convinced. And your point is? Do you imagine that I have any desire to convince you? I merely replied to your post. What you believe then is entirely up to you. You don't matter. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry You'd better go check on my view of campers (it's posted to someone else in this thread); you'll see I'm not that black and white about 'em. I am, however, black-and-white about traffic bots . . . and if you go back to previous messages, you can review the why. 'Course, you won't agree, because your basic premise is just the opposite of mine. So perhaps it's time to leave it at that. I'm not going back to read what you said about camping. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry BTW, I stand against land littering, land cutters, land extortionists, and ad farmers. I also stand against anyone who indulges in personal attacks and ad-hominems for the joy of it. I see. I see what you are now. It's a pity you don't also stand against insults and arguments from fallacy, because you started this dialogue with the first, and continued it ever since with the second. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry If you had avoided the latter with me and with others here, you wouldn't have drawn such flak from me. I react negatively to people I perceive as bullies. You still don't get it, do you. You have the strange notion that the flak you mentioned bothers me in some way. You said something similar earlier too. But it doesn't - not at all. Do a search for my posts and go through them. You'll see that most of them are in bots topics, and they are all pretty much like this. If it bothered me, do you really think I'd get involved every time? You're the one who was hopping mad, not me. Remember? You're not capable of causing anything negative at this end, and your "flak" isn't flak at all - it's stupidities which are enjoyable to show up - like this silly notion about flak. And, at the end of the day, guess who is the one doing all the laughing. I won't say why, but have a guess anyway. You can dislike bullies all you want. I dislike insults but that didn't stop you. Did you have a look at the discussion between Argent and myself, as I suggested? Did you see where you went wrong? Argent didn't stoop to insults like you did, so it's a good and interesting discussion, even though we are not in agreement. You were different. You took it to the insults level from the start. It's common knowledge in the forum that I don't insult people unless they insult me first, like you did. I don't know if you like this kind of dialogue or not but, if you don't, you only have yourself to blame for it. Colette didn't tell you the whole thing, but that's normal for her. I have probably thrown more insults than anyone else in the forum, but I have not thrown the most insults. If 6 people insult me and I insult each of them back, then I have thrown far more insults than any of the others. That's how it works here. There is a small number of anti-bots who like to throw insults, and they get them back. I insult back. I don't insult first. If you don't want to be insulted, or to have this kind of dialogue, keep any insults you might want to throw to yourself. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry You'll also find that I generally don't attack a person per se. I didn't you, although you did interpret my comments that way. Neither do I. You can check all my posts and that's what you'll find. I only do it when they insult me first - like you did. And then I'm more than happy to give back much more than I received. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry I do attack behaviors, however, when I don't agree with them . . . vigorously, when I believe they're wrong and/or abusive . . . and that's why you drew my fire. If you want to attack somebody's behaviour, don't be surprised if they attack you back. If you tell someone that what they are doing is cheating, and they don't agree, you are insulting them, and you'll deserve any reactions that you get. Don't forget that your opinion is just that - an opinion - as is mine. It is not necessarily a fact. You have your opinions, but you shouldn't be so arrogant as to assume that they are absolute facts, especially, as in your case, they not based on knowledge. There are ways of stating your opinions that are not insulting. For instance, you could say something like, "The way I see it, it is cheating" or "imo, it is cheating". You could have said something like that, but you didn't. You chose to insult instead, and you got what you deserved. It's interesting to note that you still haven't given any reason why you are so much against traffic bots - at least I haven't seen a reason. You seem to be against them for no apparent reason - just because they are there. Would you like to go into the reason(s) why you are against them? You give me the impression of being a person who likes to campaign against things, just for the sake of it. You're Rebecca, aren't you?
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 04:26
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Your "if-then" is flawed from a logic standpoint. Let me help you here: --one instance of lying does not mean you're a liar --one instance of cheating does not mean you're a cheater You are wrong on both counts. One instance of lying does mean that you are a liar, and the same with cheating. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Now if you lie a lot and consistently in your life, you are a liar, and if you cheat a lot and consistently in your life, you are a cheater. See above. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry However, if you lie in one arena of your life, you're still lying; but you may not be a liar. If you cheat in one arena of your life, you're still cheating, but not necessarily a cheater. See above. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry I think everyone here has probably lied about something and maybe even cheated at one time or another. According to your logic that makes us all liars and cheats. According to mine, it doesn't. Yes. If you knowingly state something that is untrue, then you are a liar. Same with cheating. It doesn't mean that you lie or cheat all the time, but it does mean that you do it. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry Since I don't know you, I can't say that you're either of these; however, I can say that I believe your behavior--when it comes to padding SL Search--is a form of lying and cheating . . . and that's what I did. But that's not what you did. If you'd said, "I believe your behavior.....", it would have been fine, but you didn't frame your statements as opinions in that way. You stated them as facts. They were insults. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry When you generalize beyond that, you do me a disservice, because that's not what I said. Wrong. It *is* what you said. Go back and look. If you didn't mean it quite that way, then you should take more care with what you write. From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry So the question I pose to you is this: because you take so much joy in abusing people in message threads here in SL, does that make you an abuser? Yet another argument from fallacy from you - or it could be just plain deceit. Can't you get anything right? Anything at all??? I didn't say that I enjoy abusing people - I don't - and I don't consider that me insulting someone who insulted me is abuse. I'm not going to to explain it to you - you don't seem to have the capacity up top to understand even the simplest of things.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 04:48
From: Sling Trebuchet Kaplana is specifically tasked to address policy issues in Search. Live Help Lindens are generalists. They have a queue of activities to get through as quickly as possible. In the absence of a clear policy briefing from their masters they are most unlikely to do a solo run.
In the absence of a blog posting, a notecard sent to the Traffic Group by the coordinating Linden is just as close to a policy statement as we can get. Wakey wakey, Sling. LL have said several times that it's ok to run traffic bots. They also say that they disrupt the search and, at the same as saying that, they say that they'll get round to doing something about it eventually. Cory wrote that traffic was being gamed years ago, so there's nothing new about it as far as LL is concerned. What do you conclude from all that? Something like, LL has decided that it's ok to run traffic bots for now? That's my conclusion. From: Sling Trebuchet The notecard from Kaplana Linden clearly holds that traffic gaming is a problem that LL recognise are intending to address. I agree. But they recognised it years ago, and also wrote about it back then. It's not exactly something that they feel is of major importance, is it? It's not like they haven't had time to do something, and they still say that running traffic bots is ok for now. It can't be too difficult for them to fix the All system scrolling and its other faults, and go ahead with their roadmap, which will remove traffic gaming at a stroke. But they don't see it as important enough to do yet and, according to that notecard, it will be a long time before anything is done. When you get right down to it, it's only important to the few anti-bots here.
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
10-17-2008 05:32
From: Phil Deakins Wakey wakey, Sling. LL have said several times that it's ok to run traffic bots. They also say that they disrupt the search and, at the same as saying that, they say that they'll get round to doing something about it eventually. Cory wrote that traffic was being gamed years ago, so there's nothing new about it as far as LL is concerned. What do you conclude from all that? Something like, LL has decided that it's ok to run traffic bots for now? That's my conclusion.
..... So you're pissing in the swimming pool while the lifeguards are busy at something else. The lifeguards know that you are pissing in the pool. They have known for some time. They will eventually get around to dealing with the situation when resources become available and a comprehensive plan is devised. You know that they don't really want you to piss in the pool, but you're going to do it anyway right up to to moment they take action. By your argument, the lifeguards say that it's ok to piss in the pool for now.
_____________________
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
|
10-17-2008 06:09
From: Sling Trebuchet So you're pissing in the swimming pool while the lifeguards are busy at something else. The lifeguards know that you are pissing in the pool. They have known for some time. They will eventually get around to dealing with the situation when resources become available and a comprehensive plan is devised. You know that they don't really want you to piss in the pool, but you're going to do it anyway right up to to moment they take action.
By your argument, the lifeguards say that it's ok to piss in the pool for now. The lifeguards *do* say it's ok to piss in the pool, and they've had a plan devised for a long time - it's stated in their roadmap for search and was stated there ages ago. It just isn't important enough for them to do it yet, and according to the notecard, it won't be done for a long time yet. If you want it done any quicker, your best bet is to attend every releveant office hour and push like mad for it, preferably taking others to push with you.
|
Jojogirl Bailey
jojo's Folly owner
Join date: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 1,094
|
10-17-2008 06:36
For those who were not around for all the hours and hours of traffic town hall type meetings...many of us went to express our opinions that traffic should be eliminated as a means of enhancing one's position in search. We all showed up, we all discussed, we all agreed. The lindens were all set to remove places in search and everyone was pretty happy because it would eliminate alot of things - camping, traffic bots, lucky chairs, camping chairs, etc as a means to inflate traffic counts.
However, a very small minority took issue with the fact that LL was going to add the showcase tab to replace the places tab in search. They felt that their biz would suffer and that it would not be "fair" to have some folks highlighted through showcase which is a set of places that the lindens agree to promote. These folks felt that showcase was going to put tons of people out of biz, etc - none of which has happened in the least.
So at the very last minute, LL pulled their plan of eliminating the places tab which would have eliminated most of the traffic inflation. Many of us were not happy about that, esp since it seemed that all of the time and effort we put into offering input and feedback was pushed aside because a vocal few screamed.
To say that lindens are against traffic bots is untrue...I have been in meetings where more than one of them have not said one word against them. I believe the recent notecard was to indicate that they are still working on this issue many months later. I think hinging an entire argument on the word "disruptive" is very short sighted given that many of us were around for all those hours of deep discussion. We do know what the lindens think on this and we know why. It is not an assumption on our part.
_____________________
Director of Marketing - Etopia Island Corporation Marketing and Business Consultant Jojo's Folly - Owner
|
Kidd Krasner
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,938
|
10-17-2008 07:03
From: Phil Deakins Wakey wakey, Sling. LL have said several times that it's ok to run traffic bots. They also say that they disrupt the search and, at the same as saying that, they say that they'll get round to doing something about it eventually. Cory wrote that traffic was being gamed years ago, so there's nothing new about it as far as LL is concerned. What do you conclude from all that? Something like, LL has decided that it's ok to run traffic bots for now? That's my conclusion. My conclusion is that the ambiguity of the word 'ok' is a significant cause of the conflict and miscommunication in this thread. Does it mean 'permitted'? Or does it mean 'reasonable'? Or does it mean 'ethically good'? I suggest removing it from the discussion as much as possible (i.e., everywhere except in direct quotes), and substituting a more specific word. Assuming the statements attributed to Kalpana Linden are correct and at least partially represent Linden Lab's views on the matter, my conclusion is that traffic bots are currently permitted by the rules, but are also recognized as contributing to a broader problem around search. Linden Lab's may or may not, as a matter of public relations, choose to comment on the ethics involved (and I'm not sure whether any of the quotes here represent such a comment). However, it is clear that they believe a system in which the use of traffic bots affects the priority of search results is a bad system. I can't prove one way or another whether they (either the individuals or the corporation) believe the use of bots is unethical, but to infer from this information that they do seems more reasonable than to infer that they don't. All I infer from their failure to take action is that in the big picture, technically, legally, and PR-wise, it's a difficult problem. Given limited resources, they have chosen to make other issues higher in priority.
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
10-17-2008 07:04
From: Phil Deakins The lifeguards *do* say it's ok to piss in the pool, and they've had a plan devised for a long time - it's stated in their roadmap for search and was stated there ages ago. It just isn't important enough for them to do it yet, and according to the notecard, it won't be done for a long time yet. If you want it done any quicker, your best bet is to attend every releveant office hour and push like mad for it, preferably taking others to push with you. It's either OK to piss in the pool or it's not. If it's OK then there is no need for any plan to deal with the issue - whether that plan be long=term or short-term. If it's OK; if it's not a problem of any kind, why is there a plan to make it not-OK? Add: This would apply to just about any definition of "OK".
_____________________
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
|
10-17-2008 07:11
From: Sling Trebuchet It's either OK to piss in the pool or it's not. If it's OK then there is no need for any plan to deal with the issue - whether that plan be long=term or short-term. If it's OK; if it's not a problem of any kind, why is there a plan to make it not-OK? Add: This would apply to just about any definition of "OK". This does sound sensible, but apparently it is not true. On several occasions LL stated it is permitted to piss in the pool (ie run traffic bots). They do say it is disruptive to search, but they also say that it is okay to do it. Weird but true. Jojogirl does give a pretty good view on it by the way.
|
Kidd Krasner
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,938
|
10-17-2008 07:28
From: Marcel Flatley Apart from the handful of users telling it in these threads, I see no one telling it is unethical. And in your example, that small group would, in numbers, fit better in the "group of serial killers" example, then in the "society as a whole". it is only a small group after all. They represent the group as much as I do. Which is not at all.
However, I see no one at all in this thread arguing that it's ethical. Only that it's permitted. Or that the arguments for it being unethical are imperfect (which doesn't invalidate them), or that they haven't been shown to be the views of more than a small number of contributors here (which, again, doesn't invalidate them). I believe that's also part of the problem here. It's one thing to say "I think my position is ethical and here's why." It's another thing to say "My position is allowed under the rules, so I won't even attempt to justify the ethics of my position, but I will dismiss your ethical arguments as being irrelevant and unimportant, or I'll misrepresent them as being a minority opinion on the flawed logic that only a small number of people are vocal about them." Before anyone responds that they have been arguing that traffic bots are ethical, let me ask them to revisit the boundaries they have put on that discussion. In particular, there is a general ethical question around the following: Is it ethical to make a statement that is technically true with full knowledge that the statement is likely to be misinterpreted by a significant number of people to draw inaccurate conclusions, in a way that benefits the person making the statement. The problem isn't that people are taking the 'yes' position, but that they're doing so without acknowledging that they're position is arguable and reasonably controversial. From: someone Then you mention that LL sets the ethical standards in the community standards and in ongoing formal communication, which might be true (though I think LL does not do much to set ethical stadards, but that aside). But the notecard that one Kaplana Linden sent out can hardly be compared to formal communication or comminity standards, can it? So in that context, nothing has been said about the ethical aspect of gaming Search.
It's the nature of ethical issues that they often go beyond formal rules. It's not the purpose of either the TOS or Community Standards to address all ethical issues in SL. In fact, the Buyer Beware clause of the Community Standards would seem to be an explicit statement by LL that they won't get involved in some classes of situations, even though ethical breaches might exist. So it's not valid to argue that the omission of an ethical statement in the formal communications carries more weight about their ethical position than some other communication that happens to be more relevant albeit less formal.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 08:43
From: Kidd Krasner My conclusion is that the ambiguity of the word 'ok' is a significant cause of the conflict and miscommunication in this thread. Does it mean 'permitted'? Or does it mean 'reasonable'? Or does it mean 'ethically good'?
I suggest removing it from the discussion as much as possible (i.e., everywhere except in direct quotes), and substituting a more specific word. I agree. I'll be more specific in the future - and hopefully I'll remember to be. I'll rephrase what I said when using "ok". LL's statements, when asked specifically about the use of traffic bots, is that they are not against the current ToS. That's why, when I remember, I include the word "current", to specify that I'm talking about right now. From: Kidd Krasner Assuming the statements attributed to Kalpana Linden are correct and at least partially represent Linden Lab's views on the matter, my conclusion is that traffic bots are currently permitted by the rules, but are also recognized as contributing to a broader problem around search. Linden Lab's may or may not, as a matter of public relations, choose to comment on the ethics involved (and I'm not sure whether any of the quotes here represent such a comment). However, it is clear that they believe a system in which the use of traffic bots affects the priority of search results is a bad system. I can't prove one way or another whether they (either the individuals or the corporation) believe the use of bots is unethical, but to infer from this information that they do seems more reasonable than to infer that they don't.
All I infer from their failure to take action is that in the big picture, technically, legally, and PR-wise, it's a difficult problem. Given limited resources, they have chosen to make other issues higher in priority. The statement that Sling posted is correct. I received the notecard too. It makes no mention of ethics, or even inplies that anything is unethical. The word that Sling is majoring on is "disruptive", which was included. It could mean disuptive in the sense of changing things, without any negative connotation at all, but my impression is that it carried a negative connotation. I agree with Sling about that. Where Sling makes a mistake is that she infers a new policy, but there is no new policy. Years ago, Cory wrote about the manipulation of traffic in a negative sense too, so nothing is new. If there is any policy at all, it is to allow the manipulation of traffic until such times as they get around to changing it, which, judging by the notecard, won't be for some time yet. The only place to find any mention of ethics is here, where it is used by a few people in order to give the appearance of having the high ground. They are right for themselves, if they truly believe themselves, but that's as far as it goes.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 08:47
From: Sling Trebuchet It's either OK to piss in the pool or it's not. If it's OK then there is no need for any plan to deal with the issue - whether that plan be long=term or short-term. If it's OK; if it's not a problem of any kind, why is there a plan to make it not-OK?
Add: This would apply to just about any definition of "OK". I've rephrased my use of "ok". My previous post deals with this. LL allows traffic manipulation, at least for now.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 08:54
From: Kidd Krasner However, I see no one at all in this thread arguing that it's ethical. I started to get into that, but it was sidetracked. I was interested to see where the views of both sides part company, because it can't be at the very root. They must fork somewhere, and if that place can be ascertained, then perhaps a serious discussion on it could follow - just like the discussion between Argent and myself. That one is very interesting because, if I can see that traffic bots do cause what he says they cause, I'll remove them. I won't remove them just on someone's opinion though. But back to this part... The use of traffic bots to improve rankings is not unethical.
|
RemacuTetigisti Quandry
Diogenes Group
Join date: 3 Jun 2008
Posts: 99
|
10-17-2008 08:58
From: Phil Deakins You are wrong on both counts. One instance of lying does mean that you are a liar, and the same with cheating.. By your logic, everyone here is a liar and a cheat . . . and you've condemned yourself . . . because I'm absolutely sure that you can't have gone through life without telling one lie or cheating at least once . . . particularly when you were a kid.
_____________________
--- Rema 
|
RemacuTetigisti Quandry
Diogenes Group
Join date: 3 Jun 2008
Posts: 99
|
10-17-2008 09:00
From: Phil Deakins You are wrong on both counts. One instance of lying does mean that you are a liar, and the same with cheating.. By your logic, everyone here is a liar and a cheat . . . and you've condemned yourself . . . because I'm absolutely sure that you can't have gone through life without telling one lie or cheating at least once . . . particularly when you were a kid.
_____________________
--- Rema 
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 09:05
From: RemacuTetigisti Quandry By your logic, everyone here is a liar and a cheat . . . and you've condemned yourself . . . because I'm absolutely sure that you can't have gone through life without telling one lie or cheating at least once . . . particularly when you were a kid. In that case we are all liars. I don't recall ever cheating though. Now, will you be kind enough to enlighten us as to why you are so against traffic bots?
|
Kidd Krasner
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,938
|
10-17-2008 09:31
From: Phil Deakins The use of traffic bots to improve rankings is not unethical.
Why or why not? In answering this, please address what people actually believe about search rankings and the way they actually use them, whether or not they're being logical or fully informed about it. At a minimum, do traffic bots take advantage of common misconceptions? And if so, is it ethical to take advantage of common misconceptions, and why? For the sake of comparison, is it ethical for a drug company to advertise that "more doctors recommend our drug" without also saying "we give ten times as many free samples to doctors for them to distribute to patients as our competitors do"? Are the answers to these questions cut and dry? Or do both sides have a legitimate basis for their position? Is this a situation where people can agree to disagree while still respecting the contrary position as being a reasonable position to take?
|
Kidd Krasner
Registered User
Join date: 1 Jan 2007
Posts: 1,938
|
10-17-2008 09:35
From: Phil Deakins It makes no mention of ethics, or even inplies that anything is unethical. ...
Where Sling makes a mistake is that she infers a new policy, but there is no new policy.
I agree that there's no mention of ethics, and no new policy. However, I don't begrudge people choosing to infer an ethical position from these statements, as long as it's a reasonable inference and it's clear that it's only an inference, that a reasonable person might choose to believe, without it being an indisputable fact.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 09:58
From: Kidd Krasner I agree that there's no mention of ethics, and no new policy. However, I don't begrudge people choosing to infer an ethical position from these statements, as long as it's a reasonable inference and it's clear that it's only an inference, that a reasonable person might choose to believe, without it being an indisputable fact. I do find fault with anyone infering any ethical meaning from the notecard. The only word in the nc that could have any bearing at all on ethics is "disruptive", which could have been used in the sense of changes, or alterations, or mixing up. I think it's likely that it was meant in a negative sense, but I can't assume it and argue the point. And even then, I can't infer that it meant anything to do with ethics, and to argue that it does, is an argument from fallacy.
|
Ciaran Laval
Mostly Harmless
Join date: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 7,951
|
10-17-2008 09:59
From: Jojogirl Bailey However, a very small minority took issue with the fact that LL was going to add the showcase tab to replace the places tab in search. They felt that their biz would suffer and that it would not be "fair" to have some folks highlighted through showcase which is a set of places that the lindens agree to promote. These folks felt that showcase was going to put tons of people out of biz, etc - none of which has happened in the least. Well Showcase isn't fair, I've found things in there that I would never have searched for. That's good for me and the parcel owner but isn't fair to a rival. Certainly in terms of fashion it's just completely wrong for that to be in showcase. As for traffic, I personally use search all, which isn't anywhere near as reliant on traffic, far more often than I use the traffic based searches. Indeed I only use them when I'm looking for traffic, at which point I then check to see how said traffic is being generated. If I'm buying an item, I don't check the traffic, I check the product.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 10:00
From: Kidd Krasner Why or why not? In answering this, please address what people actually believe about search rankings and the way they actually use them, whether or not they're being logical or fully informed about it. At a minimum, do traffic bots take advantage of common misconceptions? And if so, is it ethical to take advantage of common misconceptions, and why?
For the sake of comparison, is it ethical for a drug company to advertise that "more doctors recommend our drug" without also saying "we give ten times as many free samples to doctors for them to distribute to patients as our competitors do"?
Are the answers to these questions cut and dry? Or do both sides have a legitimate basis for their position? Is this a situation where people can agree to disagree while still respecting the contrary position as being a reasonable position to take? I don't see anything to answer yet. We start with a clean slate. Someone is using traffic bots to improve their rankings. Someone else says that it's unethical to do that. It's for the someone else to state why they think it's unethical (to state what is unethical about it), and then there will be something to answer. So far, all we've ever seen is that "it's unethical because I think it". It's not exactly a rational argument.
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
10-17-2008 10:02
From: Marcel Flatley Colette, What you are showing here, is who is really starting the stirring. 4 postings in a row with the sole purpose to attach Phil is even too obvious for you, don't you think?
And let me put one thing straight: I am not here to defend Phil. The same behavior against another user would result in the same reaction from me. Postings with the sole purpose of attacking a person, without contributing anything to the actual discussion (no matter how useless the discussion itself seems) can hardly be viewed any different then stirring. He is attacking another Poster. Rather nastily. I spoke up about it. He is also being internally inconsistent on his "Liar" claims. I pointed that out. ------------ I don't count my posts therefore if it were 4 it was 4, big deal. You really need to get over this "Stirrer" bullshit. I am as entitled to comment on this topic as anyone else. I am as entitled to comment on Phil's excessive breaking of the forum guidelines as anyone else. ------------------------------------------------------------- I will state it again so you can really, really understand me. NO POSTER EVER has made as many direct personal attack posts on these forums as Phil Deakins. Any of his competition were BANNED log before they would have gotten to a fraction of his nasty posts. He therefore should correct his behavior, or be banned.
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-17-2008 10:16
From: Marcel Flatley Colette, What you are showing here, is who is really starting the stirring. 4 postings in a row with the sole purpose to attach Phil is even too obvious for you, don't you think? Don't concern yourself with Colette, Marcel. Most people here know what she is. Just the other week someone asked what planet she comes from. It wasn't asked to me, but that was the question. I think everyone here knows what she is, or if they are new, they'll learn soon enough.
|