BOT places! List them here!

Or did you perhaps get me mixed up with Cheyenne? We do both have that CM initials thing going. She came after you pretty good. I don't think she bought the innocent shopper bit.

Or maybe Phil told you how mean and nasty I am so we're fabricating things.

Rawr

Your last sentence doesn't deserve a response.

But yes I think it was actually Cheyenne, I apologise.

Is no problem.

I am sorry bout the "Mean and nasty bit" I should have left that off.

This quote is particularly interesting from Torley:

Does not seem to be a ringing endorsement of the practice really does it? Hopefully that will dispel the nonesense that what one Linden says is always LL policy.

On one hand we have Phil's testimony that some Linden effectively said words to the effect that said its OK to use traffic bots as there is no policy against it and then we have Torley Linden showing quite evident disapproval of the practice here in public which I doubt he would be doing if the company line was in favour of traffic bots.

All good

What idiotic garbage.

My observation is that Torley is very cautious. He is probably more engaged with the Resident community than any other Linden Lab employee. He's also not one to absorb bullshit and regurgitate it as feel-good warm fuzzy crap.

I would caution against assuming that his comments on external forums represent the position of Linden Lab, however. As a community manager he is very influencial, within the Lab and within the Community. His remarks on external sites however do not always represent the official position of Linden Lab. Sometimes it's just Torley talking.

It is perhaps telling of the internal vibe, but inconclusive.

Ummm Zaphod, that is exactly what I was saying, though you seem to think I was saying the opposite.


The last part of what I wrote was meant to taken as an indication that LL would probably get their employees not to post negatively in a public place about something they had sanctioned though thats probably not a hard/fast rule either. Most companies would stop their employees from doing that.

This is an amazing exchange.

And to think he actually dared dispute his lack of ethics and morals earlier in this thread.



And then to attempt and shame another by calling them "untrustable" simply because she would not stoop to his lows and be complicit in regard to the lack of ethics and morals displayed while taking advantage and victimizing others through exploits is just shameless and mind-boggling to say the least?

Unbelievable.

You juxtaposed Torley's remarks against Phil's "phantom Linden" remarks, and clearly attempted to add weight to Torley's vs Phantom Linden. I merely reminded the crowd that neither position is official. What Torley states outside of his capacity a community manager is strictly Torley. I love him to death for remaining so vocal, as it shows his affection for the community, but nevertheless, his remarks are his alone..

Ummm good night.

Actually no that was not what I was trying to do at all, Zaphod. My intention was to show that one Linden may say one thing and another may say another - thus showing that they are obviously not showing a united front on things. Hence what Phil was told is not necessarily company approved. This is also what you pretty much said. I thought that was clear, what other meaning does this quote have?

Then I went on to say that I did doubt that LL would let Torley go around posting stuff that was completely contrary to the company line. Indicating that I felt Torley was closer to the company line than a miscellanous Linden who left no public trace of his/her statements.
That was my intent and you should read no no other meaning in to it.

The two parts of my post were meant to be taken seperately.
I will go and place a seperator between the lines to make this clearer.

wow.

And he actually said this stuff on the forum?

Musta missed it.

Of course if you accept Phantom Linden's remarks you also have to accept Torley's

Or neither.

I'd say Jaska's remarks which you quoted before are official, and the probably most applicable to date.

Now we can search for as many Lindens as we can to get an opinion, but the situation is simple: LL does nothing against bot use, whereas it would be very simple to do so. That definately does not mean they approve of traffic bot use, but is does mean they allow it, at least for the time being.

We can spend countless posts about this, but the bottomline is that so far, LL does allow bots. Your best shot might be the Jira system, or any other way to inform Linden Labs you do not agree with traffic bot use. They are the ones who can do something. As long as they do not, people will keep on using bots, period.

The conclusion of the whole argument is that influencing the Search system by using either bots or Picks Camping, is disapproved by some of the users. Of course the users that do use one of these systems, think different. Bots are not against Phil's ethics, Picks Camping (and bots) is not against mine. We both think what we are doing is justified, and a bunch of you doesn't. That wraps it up nicely.

Arguments against bot use have been that they put a strain on the system, cause lag, are an unfair use of resources, but none of that is the key issue. Paying for Picks does nor do anything of the above and people are still against it: Search influencing, call it cheating if you are inclined to do so, is the problem. So lets drop the whole line of arguments, and just say what it comes down to.

Time to forget all nastiness (By the way Colette, great you came back on your harsh words to Bella earlier!), and have a drink together. People hating bots or Picks camping simply do not shop at places that use them, end of the story. Put up a Jira to ventilate your opinion about these things, and we are done. Linden Lab has the final word in the end.

It's not true to say that LL allow the use of traffic bots or allow the use of paid picks to influence search rankings.
"Allow" implies that they accept the practice. LL are extremely slow to do anything. A. Hax had to take ad-farming to new depths before LL came out with a ban. Even after the ban, we still have ad-farmers operating. They operate as close to the limits as possible.
LL "allow" search gaming in the same way that they continue to "allow" ad-farming.

You are correct to say that people will keep on gaming search until LL find an effective way of stopping it. Some people will always try to gain by sharp-practice / cheating.
You are not correct to think/imply that just because LL are not preventing gaming that those who game should not be villified at every opportunity.




What it comes down to is that the primary objection to gaming search via such cheats as traffic bots, paid picks and html exploits is that it is dishonest. This is regardless of any load that the methods might or might not impose on the system.




This thread started with a "bot-hater" proposing a name and shame list of places that use traffic bots.
Some bot-runners joined in to defend the practice. They were not treated kindly. They do not deserve to be treated kindly. They are cheats.

People can be on opposing teams in a physical or other competitive sport and yet have a drink together afterwards.
However, if one or more of them are unashamed cheats, then it is right to shun their company. It is right to name and shame such dishonesty.


You appear to be suggesting that we could all be drinking mates with A. Hax right up to the instant that his most egregious abuses were banned.

Well Sling, feel free not to have that drink, frankly I cannot be bothered by you. Read back my posting, then read back yours, and you might understand why. Have a nice day.

I completely understand your posting and I completely understand your response.
You basically want to treat the discussion as if it were a football game, where after a long hard tussle, we all swap jerseys and go for a drink together.

You want to be well thought of while continuing to be a cheat.
Dream on!

You'll come back and say that you don't lose any sleep over my opinion or the opinion of others that oppose your behaviour.
Save yourself the trouble. We already know that.

Whatever

So tell Torley to get bots and camping stopped - or even just bots.

One the one hand we have LL putting in writing for me that bots are not against the current ToS, and on the other hand we have Torley appearing to disapprove of bots. So? Are you trying to make a serious point or do just you like spewing hot air? One Linden's personal disapproval means nothing. The only thing that means anything is LL's policy.

I hope that helps.

Cheyenne. When you grow up, and your brain deveoples, you might just be able to evaluate things sensibly - but I wouldn't count on it.

Do you know what this thread is about? I'll tell you. It's about bots. Remember now?

Oh man, guess Phil didn't think.

Admitting on the forums that you discovered an exploit and rather than inform LL you keep quiet about it... and use it to your advantage

Well not the brightest thing to do.

It seems to me he don't mind people using exploits... wonder if that would change if instead of benefiting him the exploit allowed someone else to benefit but him.

You are mistaken. What I have in writing is official. You can't see it, and you don't have to accept or believe it, but it's offical.

You claim to have written proof.

It's hearsay, and not actual proof till it's shown. Much like saying Anonymous Linden said such and such... it's simply you claiming that it happened with nothing to back it up.

Where the quote from Torley is actually there for all to read.

You are not just mistaken, Sling - you are so wrong that as even a child would laugh at you. LL *does* allow the use of bots and Picks camping. Nobody can argue sensibly against that. They also allowed ad-farming. Then they decided to disallow it. They are free to disallow traffic bots, camping, Picks camping, whatever, whenever they feel like it, but they don't yet.They allow them. For whatever reason, they allow them. That's all there is to it.

You know, Sling. You people used to argue about 'system resources', but don't any more, because it's been shown to be wrong, and no evidence can be shown to the contrary.

Can't you get anything right, Sling? *One* bot runner joined in. Got it now? I consider it a great pleasure when people like you think I'm cheating them, Sling. I do enjoy a really good laugh at you - thank you ROFL

ROFL. Man, you are so deluded. Do you honestly think that people care about what a small group of idiots think of them? Personally, I enjoy a good laugh at your expense. You lot have your knickers in so much of a twist over something you can do absolutely nothing about that it is truly funny to me. You wouldn't believe the laughs I get out of it. Why do you think I enter these threads? I entered this one to get place on the list, for goodness sakes LOL. Once, I even considered starting a bot thread myself when we hadn't had one for a couple of weeks - it's absolutely true. And *you* think that people care about being thought well of by a small group like you lot? HA! Man, you're really weird.