Jump to content
CoffeeDujour

Please let us see bots.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

She refered to a mainland 1024 plot, and she implied that the number of avatars on it was an unfair use of resources. Apart from the fact that the idea of an unfair use of resources is utter garbage in this case (it's totally self-evident), the conclusion that can be drawn from her post is that more than 1/64th of the maximum number of avatars on a 1024 plot is an unfair use of resources. My logic is good. Yours is not. Well done!

ETA: If more than the fair share of avatars on a parcel (1/64th of 40 on a mainland 1024) is ok, what number must there be for it not to be ok? It's all a bit silly, don't you think?, especially when the Linden who dealt with it thought that the nunber of avatars (the "army") was just fine.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

Another point about your post...

If everyone took your post to heart, then a mainland 1024 plot owner wouldn't even be able to have a guest visit, because, by being there him/herself, s/he's already using more than her fair share of avatars for the sim, so having a guest over would be seriously criminal.

See what I mean about citing the "unfair use of resources"? ;)

There is a big difference between having some friends over and having an army of alts logged in on your land all the time. Of course it also depends on what you call 'an army of alts'.. :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, different people will think of different numbers to describe an army, but that's simply isn't the point here. The Linden came along, told her to register all but 5 of them, and then they could all stay, which is what happened. It clearly wasn't anything whatsoever to do with resources. As far as sim resources are concerned, there is no difference at all between a registered and an unregistered avatar.

My guess is that, the neighbors thought that the 'army' were bots, and wrongly thought that they weren't allowed, and so they reported them enough to bring a Linden along. The Linden didn't know what s/he was doing either, so s/he came up with a requirement that had nothing whatsoever to do with rules or resources. S/he made it up as s/he went along. Stupidity!

I'm sorry, Christhiana, but you were wrong. You merely spouted what you've seen people say about fairness and sim resources, and that is almost always a load of clap-trap, as it was in this case.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

....My guess is that, the neighbors thought that the 'army' were bots, and wrongly thought that they weren't allowed, and so they reported them enough to bring a Linden along....

I actually did speak to the person who reported me.  Her complaint was that the sim was laggy. I didn't think it was particularly laggy.  But different people have different tolerances.  I spend a lot of time in a very busy club and it gets incredible lag when it's full. My army is only an army to me, it doesn't fill the sim, so I didn't notice a lag problem. 

My own feeling is that it doesn't matter too much who is right or wrong. I think that people's feeling are more important.  I was distressing this person. So I took my army elsewhere.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/6/2019 at 2:33 AM, Qie Niangao said:

It's still not clear to me after pages of responses:

Is the proposal that we should be able to distinguish the registered "scripted agent" avatars from everybody else?

If there were a reliable way to distinguish bots in general from non-bots, that would have happened long ago. Whatever criteria we'd propose for making that distinction would be obsolete almost immediately as the bot-runners learn to defeat it. I just don't think that's worth exploring.

So, back to making user-visible the registered-bot distinction, what would be the effects? 

  1. We wouldn't be lured to map locations full of non-traffic bots -- those that serve Group-chat supervision, issue direct Group invitations, other common chores for which the Lab was too lazy to expose throttled script APIs.
  2. No change to traffic bots, of course, because they're necessarily illegally unregistered (else they wouldn't count as traffic).
     - The skyboxes full of traffic bots would still look like busy clubs on the map, same as always, and
     - Bot-inflated parcel traffic wouldn't get any less inflated
  3. [ETA: No change to Tiny Empire-playing alts, I guess, who presumably don't feel obliged to register.]

So yeah, I guess #1 would be of some benefit, but either I'm missing something or I'm too jaded to see all that much value here.

Either way, this thread has me considering whether to register myself as a bot. I mean, what's the downside? Most of my land isn't even listed in Search, and I certainly don't care to have my presence boost anybody else's parcel traffic count. (Now, if other, traffic-driven landowners really want my avatar to count, I might be willing to flip a "bot or not" switch if they meet my price for contributing traffic -- sort of "camper-dictated terms of employment.")

All bots have to be run by a program, correct?

So the Lindens can have users register who use those programs -- or block them. Instead of making the account be registered, make the program be registered. Like the way you have to register to make Experiences.

 

Edited by Prokofy Neva
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

All bots have to be run by a program, correct?

Yes, but not a program that runs on a Linden platform. Rather, they run on people's PCs (typically; theoretically they could be on hosted services such as AWS), so to Linden servers the bots appear to be regular viewer connections. There are ways to try to discern some signature of bot-like activity, but that's shoveling money into an ever-escalating battle against "antibiotic-resistant" bots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2019 at 4:41 AM, Phil Deakins said:

 

The Linden who dealt with my case didn't know the rules, but the rules were new so maybe he had an excuse - only maybe. The Linden who dealt with your case simply got it completely wrong. He should have known that your avatars were not breaking any rules. And what an idiotic decision s/he made - 'you can keep them all there, but register all but 5'? There's no sense in that at all. S/he was just making it up as s/he went along. S/he certainly wasn't making you comply with any actual rules. If the land was in search, s/he would also have been wrong to allow 5 to be unregistered.

"They" is an acceptable alternate to s/he. Its a real word, flows much smoother, looks better, and is an  alternative to he or she when gender isn't known.

And, it's much nicer than "it"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/they

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

And, it's much nicer than "it"

So that's why people always frown when I call babies "it"' (even if I know the gender...)

On 3/9/2019 at 7:11 PM, kali Wylder said:

My own feeling is that it doesn't matter too much who is right or wrong. I think that people's feeling are more important.  I was distressing this person. So I took my army elsewhere.

You are very kind, even if she chose to report you to LL instead of just asking you first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

"They" is an acceptable alternate to s/he. Its a real word, flows much smoother, looks better, and is an  alternative to he or she when gender isn't known.

And, it's much nicer than "it"

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/they

s/he is also perfectly acceptable. I don't care for the plural 'they' when it means a singular. It is used that way but I don't care for it.

Having said that, 'they' when used in a singular sense is still much better than 'that' when it refers to people; e.g. the person that said it... instead of the person who said it....

I don't care for 'they' as a singular but I actually dislike 'that' when it means people.

Each to his/her (their) own though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kali Wylder

There is one thing left unsaid in this thread, and it's just a matter of curiosity. How many avatars did/do you have in your 'army'?

Don't be afraid to say. I always freely say that I used to have an 'army' of just under 40 avatars (bots) logged in simulataneously. And it's not uncommon for me to have 6 to 8 avatars logged in simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

s/he is also perfectly acceptable. I don't care for the plural 'they' when it means a singular. It is used that way but I don't care for it.

Having said that, 'they' when used in a singular sense is still much better than 'that' when it refers to people; e.g. the person that said it... instead of the person who said it....

I don't care for 'they' as a singular but I actually dislike 'that' when it means people.

Each to his/her (their) own though :)

S/he is pc, they is proper English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say that 'they' isn't what you call proper english. I said I don't care for it. I'll add that that's the reason why I don't use it.

Happy now?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Then stop derailing it, for goodness sakes. It's not necessary, y'know.

When you feel tempted to start a derail, take a long deep breath and count to 10. Then breath out. You'll probably find that the temptation has passed.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Then stop derailing it, for goodness sakes. It's not necessary, y'know.

When you feel tempted to start a derail, take a long deep breath and count to 10. Then breath out. You'll probably find that the temptation has passed.

I had a change of heart and was gonna delete it, but it's too late now.

One other thing though, how do you pronounce s/he?

 I would think it would be "sh he" so to be really correct shouldn't it be sh/he.

But if you do that, why not just go all out and type she/he?

I wouldn't object to that, because it is at least pronounceable and makes some sense

Edited by BilliJo Aldrin
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

s/he is also perfectly acceptable. I don't care for the plural 'they' when it means a singular.

Hammer-head.gif.e4d633ab9e70953e1c78c6f5b98a6c8c.gif

¬¬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for ....

Such an oh so lovely derail over what ought to be a simple enough concept to grasp: s/he is read or spoken as "she" or "he" - it is contextual and like it or not just as correct as using "they" and derivatives.

Now would the two of you knock it off? It is bad enough that one of you is notorious for not backing down and trying to use semantics to "win" an argument or "debate" that either is not even present or that you bloody well started in the first place while the other purposely acts obtuse (depending on the topic) in an attempt to garner responses. Enough, grow up.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the topic at hand ...

User X inflates their traffic count by using alternate accounts or unregistered bot accounts and thus "tricking" other users that link traffic with popularity ....

Who the heck cares? For web based search, traffic was long ago removed as any truly major influence on the results. Legacy search? If you're going by traffic, you're doing it wrong - many of course, having been doing it wrong for a very long time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2019 at 10:51 PM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Is it fair? No, not really.  Is it allowed? No, not really. But to AR the club and get satisfaction would require a certain amount of concerted effort on my part and on the part of other parcel ownrs affected

1

It needs more than that.

Good luck getting anyone at LL to enforce their own rules.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2019 at 3:30 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Because it's generally not an alt, but a dozen. In an empty box. And it's very egregious.

See: Skybox at +1000 meters while the actual location is at ground level. Parcel privacy is set to hide avatars, so you can't see them unless you fly above ~80 meter. Flying is disabled. Most of these avatars are the LL starter avatars and/or empty profiles besides the land group.

4e360d8f3b.png

"Bot" is just a colloquialism for "not being used by human." An alt used primarily to passively boost traffic is a "bot" just the same as any other.

I once found a group of about 30 bots, the owner claimed they were real people watching a movie and banned me. They all had the same 4-5 outfits, all sitting staring at a TV which was not even set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 1:33 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

How about if avatars are color coded on the map according to how long its been since they changed location.

green for active, moved in the last hour

yellow not moved in two hours

orange not moved in three hours

red not moved in a day

brown not moved in a week

black not moved in a month

 

 

Oh great, then everyone will know I never move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

One other thing though, how do you pronounce s/he?

Solar gave the perfect answer to that question. I.e. you don't pronounce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...