BOT places! List them here!

I don't mind people exploiting situations - of course I don't. It's the way things normally work. I've said words to that effect before in this thread.

I've admitted the most effective additional thing that I discovered, but I'm not going to say what it is on the forums - I'm keeping that one mostly to myself - for my own personal benefit. Nice, init?

I've told it to 3 very trustable people, and we'll keep it for own personal benefit. Really nice, huh? .

At 1122 posts (and counting) this thread has to be the longest-running disagreement in the entire SL forums...

The "proof" I claim is about resources - not about what's written. However, what is written is hearsay as far as you are concerned, but not as far as I and LL are concerned. You don't need to see it, whereas I do since I run traffic bots. I couldn't show you anyway.

Phil,
While I admire the fact you keep on writing, it is an argument you cannot win. Arguments that were used before are disgarded within seconds, if proved wrong:

Bots put a load on the system: could not be proved, but suddenly thats not the point, the point is you cheat.

Picks Camping abuses the true purpose of Picks: As soon as the counter argument came up that they were already abused long before picks camping existed, suddenly this was not the point: I cheat.

Then, when I came up with what I think a good conclusion of the last >1000 posts, Trebuchet thought lets start all over again with arguments that make no sense whatsoever.

Of course, when LL knows about what people do, and let them do it on their system, they do allow it. If they do not allow it, they stop it, even with a simple blog entry they could do so. If they do not stop it, they allow it. Simple as that.
But apparantly that is too hard to get for some people. Some people just won't rest until... well I'll be damned if I know until what

Once more for everybody: The Jira is probably the best place to ventilate your concerns about bots and picks camping. As long as Linden Lab allows both, people will continue to do so. You believe we are wrong and unethical, we believe we are not. We tried to explain why not, you tried to explain why. Doesn't that about wrap it up?

So you have no problem with people using tools to copy your entire inventory? By exploiting the system and then turning around and selling it all for less than you do?


Trust among those who utilize exploits... trust among thieves... I have a hunch both will be about the same in the end.

Besides you know that using an exploit is grounds for account termination at LL's discretion. Amongst other possible sanctions.

I know, Marcel, but I enjoy it

That's outright theft, and no I don't approve of it. Of course I don't. I refer you to the post about "argument from fallacy" Ok. I'll explain it...

Copybot steals.

Copybot uses an exploit.

Therefore, exploits steal.

That's the fallacy that you tried to argue.

It depends what the exploit is. Some people here say that camping, traffic bots, etc. are exploits. technically that's probably correct but, to my way of thinking, they are exploiting the situation. The thing that Kitty wet her knickers over writing is more of an 'exploit', imo, but not one that would attract an account termination, or it would already have happened - but not even a warning

Its funny how you always think that you have the point and everyone else is just "spewing hot air". So show us this LL sanctioned document and perhaps you will gain more credibility. So far today your credibility is in the gutter after lying, then trying in a inexcusably lame attempt to wriggle out of those lies by trying to say you forgot about it hahahaha. You have admitted knowing and using exploits that should be reported by responsible users of the system.

You show us this written permission then you might have something to say against what others have shown here. Until then STFU.

I hope that helps.

Typically, exploits are harmful one way or another, at least that is how they are looked upon in general.

Bots and Picks camping do indeed exploit the current way things work, one might even say they are harmful to search. No, that is not what I say, but for arguments sake, you could say so.

Back to reality: the Company knows of the existence of bots and picks camping. They are not ignorant, both Phil and me did speak to Lindens about it, and no doubt some of the anti-people did inform a Linden or two about it as well But, they are not harmful. At least not in their opinion, we could assume that they would ban things that are harmful to their system.

So, I would say they are not exploits. The owner knows about them, they know we use them, so I would not know where the problem is.

Even the "exploit" Kitty refers to, is no real exploit, as it does not harm any system at all. It's no more then make optimal use of the options Linden Lab provide us with. No secrets in it even.

Comparing that with Copybot... well what can I say

Isn't that the same person that accused both Phil and me of Intimidation? Weird... so how are the words "jaded view" and bull**** more intimidating then telling someone to STFU?

Not really Marcel, I said basically put up or shut up. That is a choice, your earlier comments were just rude without any choice or reason behind them. I responded to Phil's email in the same tones he responds to me. If neither of you like it then tough. Don't want the same done to you? Don't do it in the first place.

Sure Gabriele, STFU is basically the same thing as shut up.

My earlier comments in the other were, by the way, not without reason: You contributed absolutely nothing, but just saw an opportunity to display your view upon bots and picks. Not even an attempt to answer the OP. Something you holds against Cristalle in a later posting, by the way. But of course, you were right, the three people thinking you were out of line there, were wrong. How could I have missed that.

OK Marcel, just like how you and Phil derailed this thread and many others. What a hypocrit you are. I will tell you this, I may be guilty of all manner of bad practices when it comes to the forums but I have never sunk to the lows that you, Phil and the others do and have done to get the almighy dollar.
Attempt to justify what you did all you want but you have no high ground from which to preach.

Actually, I do have the point, as you put it, but don't you think the same about yourself? lol. You're too easy, Gabriele

Don't try to lump yourself with the others. It's *you* who I asked about spewing hot air. When I ask it or say it of the others, then your response will be vaild. Easy to grasp when it's pointed out, init? lol

There's no wriggling on my part. You can think what you like - you're good at that. I didn't lie about it, but you are free to believe what you like. I've taught you what lying is. If you're too dense to understand it, that's just the way it is.

The LL document is in the LL website, and is connected to me. It isn't possible for anyone except me, LL employees, and hackers to view it.

You are not likely to say that you are Phil, how bizarre you think I or anyone else expect you to admit that. Nevertheless because you say it is one way or the other does not mean that it is. Your words have no weight or credibility.

Your assertion that there even is a document is just vapour until you show it to the public in the same way Torley's disapproval was shown in a public arena. Regardless of what you say you wriggle, twist and turn and attempt to trip people up over semantics endlessly.
Don't bother to let me know how little you consider me or my views, I already know and care nothing.
So show the public proof of the document or concede the point about approval - there are no other options. You can take that to be my point.

There are times when a person can't put up, but it doesn't mean that there is nothing there. For instance, show me your account page. You can't, but I don't doubt that you have one. I've copied and pasted in the past, but that doesn't mean anything if you are intent on the silly idea of 'show me or it doesn't exist'. I've taught you what lying is and isn't. I hope I don't have to teach you that some things simply cannot be shown.

As for the "or shut up" bit - I didn't bring it up in this thread. I may be mistaken, but I think Colette was the first to mention it. You yourself brought it up again in the last couple of pages, so what's with the "or shut up" bit?

Gabriele, you just make it too easy.
Phil and I derailed this thread, is that all you can come up with after I showed you your own mistakes?

For the record:
Phil posted at #27, long after the thread was derailed. He claimed his place on the list, so he was even on topic.
You posted at #191, and since it was not an answer to the OP, is was not on-topic.
My first post was at #703.

The thread derailed within the first 10 postings already, I posted at #703, and you tell me I derail this thread??? Calling me a hypocrit??? You do have some nerves, Gabriele. And frankly, you are making a fool of yourself.

Then why are you talking with me?

LOL. Sticks and stones...., Gabriele. You don't have the wherewithall up top to make any sort of sense, so I *am* surprised that you continue to try. You must know that you talk garbage.

Ooop. Too late

I guess I have teach you again, dammit. I do wish you had more up top <sigh>. I'll tell you what I'll do. You show me your account page, and I'll show you the document. If you don't show me your account page (I need the URL), you don't have one. Am I getting it through to you, or are you just too dense. There are no other choices, so which is it?

People who have stuff that cannot be proven because that information cannot be shown for legimate reasons do not rely on that information in a public forum. Your bringing that here means that you either have to produce that information regardless of the restrictions or concede the points you are attempting to rely on. It really boggles my mind I have to even explain that.
The phrase "put up or shut up" is a common way of saying prove what you are saying or shut up talking about it.
In this case it means either show proof or stop making arguments that are based off the assertion that you have proof you cannot show.

I could claim I have a document from LL that directly refutes your document and is newer. I could also claim that said document cannot be shown because I was sworn to keep it secret. Would you accept my claims? No point in answering that because we both know what the answer would be. You would not be able to prove I didn't have such a document though and I could keep claiming I had it over and over again just like you do.

You cannot teach anyone anything, you have no authority or credibility to do so.
You don't even realise how ridiculous the things you say are.
You call out about sticks and stones when that's most of what you do. Don't you like a taste of the same medicine? Then don't give it out. I could ask you the same question, you obviously don't care one jot about what I think so why engage me? You just don't get how much of a hypocrite you are.

As ridiculous as falling back to: you are derailing the thread, without looking up if thats true?

Au contrair, Gabriele. I have the authority of experience, and I have a *lot* of credibility - just not in the views of a few silly people here, that's all.

Um.. How can I put this in a nice way? I don't think I can. You see, Gabriele, the ones who think what I say is ridiculous are those who don't have it up top. They are too dense to understand what I say.

Um... How can I say this without making you look stupid? I don't think I can. You see, Gabriele, when I respond in kind to someone's insults, *they* are the ones who you should say that to. Everybody know that *I* only give it back

Um... How can I say this without making you look stupid? I don't think I can. You see, Gabriele, it was *you* who engaged *me* in the thread - not the other way round. I merely replied.

Btw, I do hope you are enjoying this little dialogue. I'm having a ball with it

These points are what I have come to think of a Phillogisms.
I may have coined the term, but you will find an existing term that it rhymes with.

"The point" has not suddenly changed to cheating. Whereas the central point for me was always the cheating, it is still true that any avatar will impose a load of some sort on the system. The load depends on activity and placement of the bot.
Camping bots are perhaps the worst case. I have stood just over the sim boundary from a laggy sim that Live Chat were kindly rebooting. Poof went 22 campers. When the empty sim came back the lag was minimal. As the crowd of campers returned, the lag effect was appreciable.


It is a complete Phillogism to imply that because some people used picks to refer to their friends, that this is in any way an abuse that can be compared to or excuse the systematic abuse involved in paid picks.


As for your suggestion that LL can end abuse with a simple blog entry...... that is clearly ridiculous.
Read Jack Linden's Blog /346/d3/274884/39.html

He posted that on August 9th, nearly 6 months after he blogged the new LL policy on ad-farms (which he did on February 13th).
Clearly even LL believe that despite their blogging and the actioning of some AR's, the problem is still very much there. They clearly also realise that they need measures that go beyond the letter of the Ad-Farm blog in order put a stop to low-lifers.

This isn't some Phantom Linden talking to a single resident. This is a senior manager using the company's official blog.
He is clearly saying that 6 months after they introduced a measure against an abuse, the abuse is still there and there is a less easily defined form of the abuse still going strong.

However, both you and Phil would argue that because LL has not expressly forbidden every form of the abuse and have not stamped out what appears to have been expressly forbidden, then they are "allowing" it.
You would have it that they tacitly approve, whereas the truth is that they have difficulty in formulating clear policies that will address the problem without impacting those who are not actually abusing. They also have an obvious resourcing issue in enforcing policies.


Phil has unequivocally acknowledged that traffic bots run counter to LL's intentions.
He also acknowledged that this was a subversion of the system, but later had second thoughts and came back to chew over the meaning of "subvert".


What you are doing in gaming the system is sharp practice. It is entirely different to optimising keywords and content. It's cheating.
You try to take justification by saying that LL has not blogged to ban the activity.


You'd like to hide this topic away in the wastelands of Jira?
Tough!

Oh! Flames!

OK! Back to the thread, I have edited this film where you can watch many BOTs together in SL in an incredible synchronized movements!

'Crowded Silence' (Second Life Bots Footage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVzEib-uB08

Please mind it is a kinda documentary; I have nothing to do with the BOTs and its creators, or with the parcel where the film was set.

Sling:

I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again. A simple blog post that traffic bots are no longer allowed, on fear of penalties, would cause almost all of them to disappear at a stroke. Do you really think that people will continue using them in the quantities they do if they can be penalised for it, when they know for certain that they will be ARed because they cannot hide them. It doesn't need anything more than that, and it is completely scalable.

The idea hasn't escaped LL (Jack specifically), because I suggested it at a "Future of Traffic" meeting where he was. The fact is that they don't do it, and they *do* allow traffic bots to continue. To put in another way, traffic bots are allowed. There is no way that anyone can argue against that.

I didn't have second thoughts at all - not in the way you mean. I actually looked up the word "subvert", in case there was any misuderstanding, and I saw that one of it's meanings is "destroy". That's why I clarified exactly what was being said.