New Rules on Bots

[Callum Meriman]

5 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

You can argue until the cows come home

Phil will still argue his quibble not just until they come home but even after they've been turned into burgers.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Callum Meriman

[LittleMe Jewell]

7 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

You can argue until the cows come home

 

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

Phil will still argue his quibble not just until they come home but even after they've been turned into burgers.

 

Actually, he will argue until nobody makes any response because he must always have the last word.

[Phil Deakins]

You are wrong, LittleMe, as can be seen a multitude of times here - even as recently as yesterday - several times. But I don't like wrong information being the last post on a subject that interests me, so I do try to post the correct information last.

In this case there are two ways of looking at it. One is realistically (that's my preferred way), and the other is pedantically, regardless of the listener's understanding (that's the opposition's way). In their own ways, both are right, but one is more right than the other. No prizes for guessing which is the most right   I'll give you clue though. If someone posts that they use scripted agent on their land, what would people understand?

Edited June 10, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Callum Meriman]

[Coby Foden]

What happens when somebody is 'wrong' on the internet...

[Coffee Pancake]

[Fionalein]

Isn't he cute trying to weazle his way out after proven wrong?

[Rhonda Huntress]

Some people are so dependable.

[Phil Deakins]

10 hours ago, Fionalein said:

Isn't he cute trying to weazle his way out after proven wrong?

Far too cute for the likes of you. No proof that I'm wrong has been offered. All you've done is quote from an LL page, and nobody has argued against that quote. It doesn't reflect the reality, that's all. It's merely being pedantic. I've proved it more than once in this thread. Sadly, it has been met with rather large lack of common sense.

[Callum Meriman]

29 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

...and nobody has argued against that quote...

What would it achieve Phil? It's far easier just to stay silent and let you run out of argument.

[Phil Deakins]

Arguing against the quote would achieve nothing. I'm not aware than anyone has argued against it, so I don't understand your question.

On the other hand, my point has been proved several times. There's no question of running out of argument. I can't help it if a few people want to be so pedantic that they can't recognise actual reality when it stares them in the face, can I? And the silly little barbs that have been resorted to when they've run out of reason, is just childish.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Callum Meriman]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

I can't help it if a few people want to be so pedantic ,

[LittleMe Jewell]

6 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

  a few people want to be so pedantic

[Prokofy Neva]

On 12/15/2013 at 12:21 PM, Innula Zenovka said:

People may have missed this -- I had, until Dari Caldwell pointed it out in another place -- but LL have recently changed their rules on what scripted agents (alias bots) may and may not do.

The main change seems to be that the number of messages and communications of any sort that a bot may make in a day is now limited to five thousand, and that if a bot sends a group message, or says something in a group, that counts as one message for each person in the group.   So if a bot sends a group message to a group with 1000 members, that counts as 1000 messages.

See Linden Lab Official -- Bot policy for more details.   

I'm glad to see the Lindens tackle an exploit that has been used to harass me enormously multiple times by so-called "bots" which I can't be sure are really bots. These creatures go into a group and spam them with racist, anti-semitic, crazy hate messages, pretending to "advertise" my rentals -- or the opposite, pretend they are fighting this purported racist/hater (all fake) -- and claim they are my "bot" or my "helper" with names including the name of my company, etc.

So they fill up groups with spam, then the people in those groups send hate messages at me, swearing at me and also spamming me "back," so they imagine, with only a few smart enough to realize this is not me, and not related to me. No one in their right mind would "advertise" rentals in this fashion. PS I didn't vote for Trump, I voted for Hillary, not that it should matter to remove such haters from the People List.

Now, if these creatures are "bots," great, they will only able to do this hateful thing 5 times in large groups of 1,000 -- but not all groups have 1000, but let's say they might do it now 10 times a day. Well, frankly, that's enough still to cause my day to be filled with haters over this impersonation of me. Still, I suppose it's progress.

The reality is, I fail to see the use case for ANY bot entering a group and spamming ANYTHING. Why would anyone want this? It only annoys people.

If the point is that this bot is doing something like saying "and the winner of our wet t-shirt contest is..." or "the next sale is starting at 12:00 noon" or whatever "legitimate" uses it could have, it still doesn't seem to be very wide spread. I'd like to hear what ARE the cases for bots entering groups just because they are open, where they aren't founders or officers, and spamming stuff. I can't imagine what it is.

 

 

[Solar Legion]

That's nice - it annoys you and you fail to see the use case/reason.

Others - including those in charge of the service - apparently do see a use case/reason.

As for what you'd like to hear - good for you! No one is obligated to entertain you.

[Innula Zenovka]

16 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

If the point is that this bot is doing something like saying "and the winner of our wet t-shirt contest is..." or "the next sale is starting at 12:00 noon" or whatever "legitimate" uses it could have, it still doesn't seem to be very wide spread. I'd like to hear what ARE the cases for bots entering groups just because they are open, where they aren't founders or officers, and spamming stuff. I can't imagine what it is.

That's the only use case I can think of -- automate things like sending out group announcements so that the group owner doesn't have to keep on breaking off whatever she's doing to send them manually.   That, though, seems to be banned by LL's bot policy (unless it's changed again since 2013).

[Phil Deakins]

It seems to me that needing a bot for general group announcements would mean there's an awful lot of announcements. Are they actually used that way?

What in the policy indicates that it's banned, Innula? The quantity?