BOT places! List them here!

Well you can post for whatever reason you want I suppose ..

But ..

It is convoluted to say the least to have someone who may or may not be playing Devil's Advocate on a subject where many of the points of contention are based on Ethical considerations.

"hysterically immersed"
Coming from someone who would lecture on proper reasoned debate, the use of the phrase is a tad colourful.

A better form of words would have been "I am not so immersed in the history of SL to know or care what Umnik Hax did."

Tut!

I'm always open to learn new things Sling.. why would that be a better form? In my opinion you might well have appeared hysterical before during or after your immersion?

mmm.. alright maybe a bit of ad hominem in there..

And I'm no scholar, but why can't I accuse you of logical fallacy even if my syntax is incorrect?

I think this thread as become some evil attempt to wear Phil's fingers down to the bone

I didn't say or claim that, Colette. You are making giant leaps of non-insight.

Colette. In his opinion I am a liar, but it is only his opinion - it's not a known fact. In fact it's totally untrue. He could have said, "I think you are a liar" or "In my book you are a liar", but he didn't. He chose to insult me instead by writing it as a statement of fact - and you know it. In return, I called him stupid. I honestly believe that he is stupid, and I didn't say that it's just my opinion, so what I said was intentionally insulting.

Now you're getting there. *IF* - you wrote it. Until it is proved, it is just opinion.

True. But they are insults just the same.

An insult is an insult, whether or not it's relevant to the discussion.

Feel? I don't feel. I *see* insults thrown at me - I'm not blind.

No I didn't. Surely you know the difference between not telling the truth and lying. I said you didn't tell the truth, and I was correct. If you believed that you were telling the truth, you weren't lying, even though what you said wasn't the truth. Apart from that I asked you if it was bare faced lie. I didn't say that it was.

I didn't call you a liar, or lash out at you. Why do you feel that I did? You weren't tellling the truth when you said I was the first, but that's different. You might have been lying or you might have been mistaken - there's no way for me to know, so I didn't say you were lying. If you actually think I was the first, show me. I showed you where the first insult is - you show me where I am mistaken. Or perhaps you think it's ok for people to insult the bad guy, and insults are only insults when it's the bad guy who says them.

A lot of the time when you play word for word games, Phil it all just comes off as Spin.

You always claim you didn't say something which we all saw you said.

Or you claim you didn't mean something when it was clear what you meant.

Anytime someone directly points out the inconsistencies you still claim to be misinterpreted. So really it is pointless to bother the point for point game with you.

Whether or not you agree, you do come of as more argumentative and insulting than anyone else on this thread and many others.

While others who share your viewpoint on the use of trafficbots - Marcel and 3 Ring, for example, do not.

lol, this thread is still going.

Who's alt is Bartlebus Baxton?

Philip Linden's

I can't help what twists you put on what I say, Colette. If you think I called you a liar, for instance, you are WRONG! You can say all you like, but if you don't take what I write as being what I actually mean, it's your fault - not mine.

Perhaps I should start a poll?

How many would feel Phil called me a liar in this post?



I mean you even start off right in the first sentence ..




No Trafficbots are allowed to vote in the poll either.

We can hope, can't we?








.

That's exactly what I mean, Colette. You didn't tell the truth. You may have believed what you said was true, but it wasn't. If you did believe it, then you weren't lying, but you still didn't tell the truth. I would have thought everyone knew the difference between saying something that isn't true and lying. I seems I was wrong. Believe me, if I wanted to call you a liar, I would. I'm sure you know that.

You can stir it as much as you like, Colette, and get as many votes as you like, but no matter what you do, you cannot make those words mean something that they don't say. You can fool youself, and you may even be able to fool a few people, but you cannot change the truth.

I do think that you're a nasty person, if that help you to feel attacked or insulted, which is what you seem to want.

Phil, this time I do not agree with you.

And yes, I do understand what you ment. Technically it is even right: Someone not telling the truth, and not knowing that, is not a liar.

But if I tell someone he/she is not telling the truth, I might as well call them liar, because that is how 99 out of 100 people will translate it that way. So your words might have been poorly chosen. You may not have ment liar, but it was received that way.


But, and that is a thing Colette should know, I never saw you insult someone who did not start themselves. You know I did not alway agree with the way you responded to people posting in an insulting way, but it was them that started. Needs to be said.

Now I will never post insults, at least not that I know of. If a person with a different opinion starts insulting, they are simply out of arguments. Where they should quit argumenting, they revert to insults. Well, I rather have them show who they really are, then reverting back to insults myself.

Being called unethical, I do not mind anymore though

LOL

Do you not even see how hypocritical you are being?

You split hairs as to whether you called me a liar. Yet you are quick to launch into direct personal attacks at every perceived insult you feel is thrown at you.

In this thread you have called Chip a dickhead, Rebecca Weird, me Nasty and called more people stupid and brain dead than I care to remember.

Why the heck should someone be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you give none?

Absolutely not.

There's no splitting hairs about it. I meant what I wrote. You did not tell the truth. It's simple enough toi understand. I've no idea whether or not you were lying, so I didn't say that you were. But you are free to fool yourself as much you like.

At every insult. They are not perceived - they are real. Do you have a point?

But show me one of them who didn't insult me first. They asked for it. That's it. But for the information, and since you seem to lack reading skills, I didn't call you nasty. I'm not even going to explain it to you. It's just not worth it because all you're doing is stirring - it's all you ever want to do.

Nobody has to give me the benefit of the doubt. I'm not asking for it. There is no doubt. You can't alter the truth by wishful thinking, even if it's all you have left to stir/troll about. You can think what you want Colette. It's no skin off my nose. If you want to continue fooling yourself, be my guest.

More information for you:
I actually do think you were lying, but I don't *know* you were lying, so I didn't say you were. It's not exactly difficult to understand. It's there in plain english, but you think what you want. I'm not interested. If it helps, would you prefer "What you said was not the truth, Colette". It's the same thing, but you think what you want, dear. I have no interest in it - or in you. In fact, I'll put you on ignore again, so you can have last word on it. Enjoy

What I find facinating about this whole debate, is that politics is as alive and well as it is in RL. The dynamics are interesting.

My point is pretty simple.

You have decided that you are the final arbiter that decides when you have been insulted ..
which results in direct rude personal attacks.
---

Yet you also want to be the final arbiter as to whether an attack you launch is actually an insult towards your target or not.
---

I am not sure how that works exactly, but there is an obvious logical disconnect.

For consistency's sake either those who "insult" you should be able to spin everything they say to you however they want without being called on it, as you have attempted here.

Or you should stop playing the spin game and just take any resulting lumps from saying something rude to someone.


-----------------------

As to whether you "ignore" me, that is neither here nor there since you evidently find it impossible to actually keep your virtual mouth shut with regards to your opinion of me.

If Phil changed his POV, removed bots, admitted he was wrong then he would soon have more people recommending his business to others. Word of mouth and non-advertisement forum mentions and recommendations, could be far better advertising, then faking traffic numbers to snare the unaware.

Deception and lying is the same thing and that by using bots to create the deceptive impression of lots more traffic, then he is guilty as charged. Phil's dogged support of the use of traffic bots and his vocal support of this deceptive practice, is absurd and borders on masochism.

Nonsense. Have you ever been at his place? There are always people there, I am sure he gets the word of mouth anyway. Furthermore, do you have any idea how small the actual forum community is compared to the total amount of active accounts? And of that forum community, how small the actual anti-bot group is? He would be crazy to change a working business model because of a handful of people against bots


Nonense they are not the same. Not even close. So this makes no sense whatsoever. Go buy a dictionary, or use the internet, if you really think they are the same thing.

Hello Chaps, first thing a very rare apology.. I admit I tend to be a bit "Trollish", it's a vice over which I have very little control.

I've read this thread with a lot of interest, and while my gut instinct as an RL business owner is to side with with Phil. I do realise that even legitimate actions in a closed system such as SL have magnified repercussions.

In RL business I admit that while I try to act ethically, I do also know that I adhere most strongly to the legal framework rather than any ethical one.

In my defence (and many business owners I suspect), I do have to compete to survive, and I have to make sure I compete on as even a playing field as is available.

Strangely, for me at least, this isn't just so I can shovel away as much cash as possible. My biggest responsibility is to the 18 people I employ and their families who depend on me making the right decisions and "competing" successfully.

Lol.. ok, I know that sounds like a big pile of self justification, but maybe at times in RL you do have to sacrifice or at least tweak your ethical framework in order to protect those that depend on you. ALthough I'm sure an ethics expert will roll in and tell me why that's rubbish..

I'm not sure what Phil's situation is, however if his SL business largely contributes to his RL earnings, it's a very tough call. Acting in what is considered an "ethical" manner by many on this thread, may impact the financial well being of his family. I've got to say, my family's well being will always come before any ethical position this forum might want me to adopt..

Anyway, all that aside, I've had a look around and found the following link which seems to indicate that LL is looking at alternatives to "Traffic" as we know it now anyway.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/04/28/second-life-showcase-popular-places-and-the-future-of-traffic/

Many of you will already be aware of this initiative, but there is also an associated action group in world (details of how to join are at the bottom of the blog entry) which I've joined.. you may want to too.

B

Wow this thread is awesome. It's like a massive hair splitting fun fest.

Anyways.. I don't see traffic bots as the greatest evil in the world. Sure I think my SL would be better with out them, but not by much. Would I use them? Maybe, if I really needed the income. I guess I probably would if I was in the low prim furniture business, considering the competition.

One view expressed in this thread that does bother me is the notion that if it's not illegal i.e. against the TOS, then it must be acceptable. To me the TOS and the community standards are minimums for acceptable conduct. I think it is unfortunate that more people don't set their sights higher than meeting the minimum.

I must be in an idealist mood.

Bartlebus,
Think you exactly hit the nail on its head there.

When starting a business, in order to be successful you have to compete. Now I do not think many persons in SL are dependent on the earnings of their SL business, to survive in RL, but we do take our business seriously.

So, you build a lot of items, that are worthy selling. Create a shop, set up, and voila, you have a business. Only thing lacking, are customers. Just as RL if you are not having a shop in some busy city center.

During the whole process, you have to look at your competition. Make better, cheaper, or different items then they do, for example. But also, how they get their customers. And apart from word of mouth, that means being noticed in search.

Word of mouth takes a lot of time and an initial customer base, so start advertising and giving away items at clubs for example (clubs often love to get some prizes to give away). Hold events, do everything you can to get your name out.

Search depends (among others) on the following parameters: Search All: Parcel name, parcel description, inbound links (picks).
Search Places: Traffic! and of course parcel name and description.

So you have to work on parcel name and description, and get traffic and picks. Looking at your competition, you see enormous traffic numbers, and learn the only way to get them is camping or bots. As for Picks, the older established businesses have many, for newer it goes as slow as word of mouth.

Now you can be as ethical as possible, and refuse to create traffic, and refuse to use a pik camping system. But as a serious business owner, you might just put aside the ethical point of view and make sure you compete by using all allowed ways possible. And when your own ethis do not conflict at all with these methods, the choice is easy. But even when they are against your ethics, I can understand that someone says: The hek with ethics, they run bots so why shouldn't I.

Phil came into a world where bots were already used, and he decided to use them as well to compete as well as possible.
Myself, I saw a possibility in Picks Camping to get my picks, and decided to compete as well as possible.

Something to think about:
If Phil stops running his bots, he will probably still be #1 in Search All. So all wel have to do is wait until Places Search as we know, disappears.
If I stop Picks Camping today, I will probably still be at #2 in Search All. Half the Picks do not even bother to shop up to collect their lindens. Of the other half, a part will keep the pick anyway is my bet. And yet I will keep on paying, I am glad with their support and do not want to stop the payments now that my ranking is established.

Disagree. IMO Phil is right - saying that you are not telling the truth is clearly not the same as calling the person a liar, for potentially many reasons including the one that Phil gave (and clearly delineated in his response quoted). That difference is too key to too many discussions in RL as well as here. You should be able to assert that the truth is contrary to what someone says without them making it into something that wasn't said, such as that they were called a liar. This type of fill-in logic causes too many problems in discussions and those that do it should not be rewarded by putting the fault on the person that spoke correctly. Bad enough in conversations, but there is no excuse to not go back and reread for content and clarity.

That said, you and Phil tend to be the most precise in replying (responding to what was said, whether or not that was what the person intended) and response (fairly clear demarcation of your own thoughts). As a former linguist, I do find that contrasted against the many that choose to read what they expect to read, rather than what is actually there, and respond in kind, to be amusing in its own way. But as a verbal ping pong game, it really offers very little expectation of resolution. OTOH, every one involved seems to be having fun, so play on, play on...

On the other hand, there are ways of saying the same thing that are less susceptible to misinterpretation. What about "You are mistaken". However, I guess that's not really the object of this game.

So essentially you admit it is "deception" while attempting to dispute that business deception is lying"?

So the Dictionary says: LIE:


1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2.Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v.lied ly·ing (lyng), lies


1.To present false information with the intention of deceiving.

2. To convey a false image or impression: "Appearances often lie."


and DECEPTION:

1. The use of deceit.
2. The fact or state of being deceived.
3. A ruse; a trick.


Synonyms of LIE

canard, cock-and bull story, falsehood, falsity, fib, fiction, inveracity, misrepresentation, misstatement, prevarication, untruth, story, tale. tergiversation, subreption, concealment, evasion, fabrication


call it what you like... it's lying to people.



GEEZ people.