Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. It's not something I've heard of before so I also did a search. I found and read a thread in this forum, and I also went to a website. From what I've read, the system was invented back in the days of camping and such, for the purpose of improving search rankings. Having to go to places, stay a while, and then get paid, and getting paid for Picks are the giveaway. Staying in places for money was called camping, and getting paid for Picks provided a link to the place. Both of them improved the search rankings. Doing things to artificially improve rankings was outlawed years ago, so I wouldn't hold out much hope that the Earn2Life system is still running.
  2. Like what, for instance? Selene certainly has the opportunity to learn something she didn't know - if and when she finally admits to herself that she'd been mistaken all these years - but I can't imagine what I could have learned from her. As for "being so focused on proving yourself right", that's what discussions of different beliefs are - each side trying to show that what they believe to be true is actually true. Nope. I think we've both argued it well enough (except when Selene resorted to insults). No need to bring other things into or it would have gone on forever, instead of just a couple of pages of an 11 page thread.
  3. You can all put me on ignore if you want to, but it would be your loss (*for a very short time). I don't tend to get things wrong, but it does happen once in a while. And, of course, I do admit it when I'm wrong, unlike a lot of people here. When it's clear that I've been wrong about something I don't just fade out of the discussion, like a lot of people do. I admit to having been wrong. The only thing I've got wrong in this thread, though, is refering to Kali with "OP", when she wasn't. What I definitely haven't got wrong is what I've been discussing with Selene. Nobody can show me that that's wrong - because it isn't - and you all know it *Very short time because I've finished with SL now. My Premium time is up tomorrow but I downgraded a couple of days early and uninstalled my viewers. The forum is the only thing left now, and I'll fade out of it very easily. You'll miss me when I'm gone ETA: And no! Nobody can haz my stuffs!
  4. You posted something that I needed to comment on because I didn't agree with it. This is a forum, y'know I haven't made any attempt to pull you into anything. You came in on your own.
  5. On the contrary, Skell. When someone says that there is an 'official status' when there isn't, that person is certainly wrong, and the one who says, 'there is no official status to be had' can claim to be right. Note: the 'official status' in this case, would be LL's rule that scripted agents must not be used as normal human-operated agents. That rule doesn't exist.
  6. @Skell Dagger Yes, it's wobbly ground, Skell, and certainly not put forward as actual evidence. That's why I used the word 'may', as in. "... so you may not have been fully aware ...". Similarly, it's interesting to note that nobody has agreed with Selene's opinion, and you know as well as I do that there are people in this thread who would jump at siding with someone against me if the opportunity arose. But they haven't done it. That's not actual evidence either, but it does have a similarity
  7. @Selene Gregoire I was just re-reading the previous post and something occured to me - about evidence for our claims. You don't have any, or you would have shown it already. You might think that I don't have any either, but that would be wrong. My evidence is that LL has written nothing at all to say how a scripted agent must, or must not, be used. Therefore, a scripted agent can be used in any way that the user sees fit, as long as it doesn't break any rules. You wrote about it as though it's a rule that can be broken, with subsequent consequences. But it's not a rule. If it were a rule, LL would have written it down for us to see. Not even LL punishes people for breaking rules that they've decided not to tell us about. So, since what you claim is not covered anywhere in LL's documentation, it cannot be a rule that we must abide by. I hope that makes things a bit clearer. ETA: My guess is that, when the scripted agent status came in, you just assumed that LL created a system for bots, and that they intended scripted agents to be used as bots. But that isn't what they did, or their intention. They created a system solely for the purpose of allowing bots to be used on search-enabled land without counting for traffic. That's all they did. I'm also guessing that that assumption has been with you for a very long time without any reason to question it. Until now. So it's become very deep-seated, which makes you reluctant even wonder if you might have been mistaken all this time. That's my best guess.
  8. Nope - not arrogant and conceited. Just right. Knowing you are right about something doesn't make you arrogant or conceited. It just makes you knowledgable about it. We all have knowledge about many things but it doesn't make us arrogant or conceited. And I don't lower myself to posting insults when I've lost the argument because I have no evidence to support my claim - like wot some people do So, a question... In your opinion, are you arrogant and conceited because you insist that you are right? You may be arrogant and conceited, but I don't think so. I may be wrong, but imo, you are just mistaken, that's all. And knowing a Linden or two does not mean anything, except that you have known a couple of people who work(ed) for LL. I knew one on a personal level for a while, but I wouldn't dream of claiming that it gave me any knowledge about this, because it didn't. I imagine yours didn't either, so I don't know why you even mentioned it. If you know any Lindens NOW, though, perhaps you'd like to ask them about this little detail. That might be the only way that you can accept the truth, because there isn't any written evidence. Alternatively, when you can show anything at all that LL has written or posted that says what you claim, then I'll stand corrected. That's not going to happen because nothing exists, so it remains just a figment of your imagination, and you've been corrected. More to the point, anyone who read and believed the wrong information that you wrote, has had the opportunity to read the correct information. Whether they believe it or not is up to them, but at least the truth has been presented to them. ETA: You may have been in SL since 2004, but I don't remember you in the forum until relatively recently, so you may not have been fully aware of what the 'scripted agent' status was, and is, about.
  9. That's right. A person keeping on saying that black is white can never make it true. In this case though, I'm not trying to make anything true that isn't already true, because I am right, and you are not. You've never seen anything from LL that says anything different to what I've said. Your view is just what you imagine, presumably because you weren't around at the time, and, for some reason, you've jumped to a wrong conclusion. Incidentally, I've followed the whole thread, so I did see your page, but that was before this little sub-topic came up.
  10. I forgot this bit. 1. There is no such thing as a 'bot account'. There are user accounts, some of which the users have set the scripted agent status, and others haven't. They are all just ordinary accounts. There are no bot accounts. 2. LL approves of accounts that are set as scripted agents being used as bots (run by programmes), and human controlled (dancing, exploring, building, etc.). LL approves of it all, as long as the activities are legal. If you still disagree, perhaps you'd like to page one or two forum Lindens to give their views.
  11. It's not an interpretation. LL has never said, or even hinted at, what we can and cannot do with agents that are registered as being scripted, so there's nothing to interpret. When an agent is registered as scripted it does NOT have to be run by a programme. The human is totally free to use it as s/he wishes, and LL has never said or hinted otherwise. Bots in SL are intended to be used exactly how the humans behind them wish. LL has no intentions or desires as to how bots are used in SL, other than that they are used legally. YOU are interpreting what LL has written, and your interpretation is wrong, I'm afraid. Actually, you're not really interpreting anything. You're believing something that has never been written or said. There is nothing whatsoever in any of LL's documents and statements that says that an agent that is registered as a scripted agent must be used as a bot. Nothing whatsoever. If you think differently, please link to it. I'm sorry, but that's total rubbish. LL never introduced the 'scripted agent' status so that people could use bots in SL. Bots don't have to be registered as scripted agents! They introduced it solely to prevent bots (that were already being widely used in SL) from counting for traffic. That is ALL it was introduced for. LL does not run a bots system in SL. LL does NOT require agents that are registed as scripted agents to be used in any particular way, and not used in other ways. I don't know how long you've been in SL, but you've certainly got the wrong end of the stick with this one, presumably because you weren't in SL when the scripted agent status was introduced. So I'll add a bit of history for you... The search results were being manipulated by various things such as camping and traffic bots (I used traffic bots). People cried out about it, and eventually LL did something. They outlawed the manipulation of traffic on land that is set to show in search. We are free to manipulate as much traffic as we like, and by any means we like, on land that isn't set to show in search. Banning camping and other such things on 'search' land was easy enough, but bots presented a problem. The problem was that there are valid reasons for bots to be on 'search' land. LL mentioned some of them in the document that you (I think) linked to. So they came up with a solution that would allow bots to be used on 'search' land, but without them affecting the traffic count. That was the 'scripted agent' status. It meant that bots could still be used on land that's set to show in search as long as they were registed as scripted agents. That's all it ever was, and it's all that it still is. You can search all the LL documents and forum posts you like but you'll never find anything that says that scripted agents must be used as bots, and must not be used as normal human-controlled agents. You've misunderstood why LL introduced the scripted agent status. It wasn't because they wanted bots in SL. It was because bots were already in SL and LL didn't want the search results affected by them counting for traffic. ETA: The reason why LL have never said or wanted scripted agents to be used as bots and not as normal agents is because, normal agents could affect the traffic and, therefore, unfairly affect the search results, but scripted agents can't do that. They can't do anything negative, so there's no need to state what they must be used for. Users can't see the status, so that isn't a reason either.
  12. Ooops. I meant Kali's army of course 😖
  13. I do agree with what you are saying on this topic, but not with the little bit I've quoted. I don't believe that there can be any "misuse" of a scripted agent. A scripted agent doesn't have a particular use, so whatever it does can't be a misuse. The only reason why it came in was to stop counting the traffic of certain types of agents. It wasn't concerned with anything that agents do, so I don't agree that a non-traffic-counting agent is being misused by going out dancing, exploring, etc. An example is Kali's army. The Linden who dealt with the OP (wrongly) had her change most of the army to scripted agent status, knowing that the human would still be operating each one of them so they weren't being used as bots. There would have been some sense in that if they were on search-enabled land so their traffic influenced the search results, but they weren't. The only reason for scripted agent status is traffic counting. It serves no other purpose at all, and it doesn't dictate what an agent can and cannot do in SL.
  14. I didn't say that you couldn't change your status to 'scripted agent'. You asked me, "If I self-identify as a Bot, can others tell me that I’m not a Bot?", and I said yes. Then you asked me, "If a Bot tells people that it’s not a Bot, can others tell it that it is a Bot?" and I said no. I don't know where you got the idea that a person can't actually change their 'scripted agent' status, but it certainly wasn't from me. Anyone reading this thread knows that you can, simply because the OP changed most of her alts to scripted agent. Yes, to LL you would be officially a robot, but that wouldn't make you a robot. To actually be a robot, your agent would have to be run by software and not by you. The LL documents linked to in this thread show that it's also LL's opinion. Changing your status does not make you a robot. Earlier I suggested that Blush and I were looking at it in two differnt ways. I'm looking at it very literally. I just thought of another way in which it can be seen in different ways - the phrase 'scripted agent'. It's just a phrase. It could be any words that LL gave a meaning to for that particular useage; e.g. 'no traffic'. If by checking that setting, an avatar becomes a 'no traffic', it's fine. It's just a phrase of words that, to LL, that means don't count the traffic for it. It doesn't mean that the agent is a robot. By checking the 'scripted agent' status, the agent becomes a scripted agent in the same way. In this case, the phrase does have a meaning other than domn't count traffic, but it doesn't actually mean the agent is a robot. So it could be argued that the setting is just a phrase that means don't count the traffic for it, while others argue that it actually does mean robot. I'm in the second camp, and I'm convinced that LL got the words wrong, especially when they have Lindens who don't know all the rules, and who, stupidly, make people change non-robots to robot status. All it does is give them that status. it does not make them robots.
  15. No it does not make them bots. The reason? Because they not bots. They are controlled by a human. That particular Linden got it wrong. Some of them do sometimes, y'know. They are not infallible
  16. Yes. You'd ony be a robot if the avatar is controlled by a software program, rather than by a human. See http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Second_Life_Glossary
  17. No I'm not adding to anything. A bot is operated by a programme - in the whole wide world - and it's no different here in SL. LL doesn't call them bots, anyway. We all know what bots are, and they are not avatars that are logged in in viewers and operated by humans. It's you who is adding something by including avatars that are clearly not robots. I'm saying 'external' because I don't know of any way to create a bot system using just LSL. To the best of my knowledge, a robot in SL must be operated by an external programme, perhaps in conjunction with LSL, as mine were, but not necessarily. I'm looking at this as black or white, because a robot is a robot. There are no shades of grey about it. You're adding a shade of grey by saying that some human-operated avatars are robots. I reject that, of course, because it's simply not true.
  18. No, my definition isn't too narrow. We all know what a bot is. Your store models had to be registered, not because thedy were bots, but because the rule about not artificially affecting the traffic scores came in. You weren't allowed to affect the traffic with them, which is why you had to register them. But that didn't make them bots. I'm assuming that they were logged in by you in some kind of viewer - thin or full - and not logged in by a programme. No, I would not say that animations on an avatar makes the avatar a bot. If you logged them in individually, and nothing about them was automated by an external programme (not a viewer of any kind), then they weren't bots. They looked like bots (to Lindens, because only they can see the 'scripted agent' status), but they didn't quack like bots, so they weren't bots. Kali's aren't bots either. The way you are looking at it, anyone who is being animated (dance, sex, whatever) is a bot if the human isn't actually at the keyboard. But if the human is at the keyboard monitoring the avatars, then the avatars are not bots, even if the human is only watching, ready to take some action should the need arise. To be a bot, an avatar must be logged in by an external programme, and not by a human. And, once in, its actions must be determined by an external programme. That's a bot. The prgrammes can be a combination of LSL scripts and external programmes, but it's the external programme that tells the bot what to do. E.g. my bot systems used LSL scripts, but what those scripts did was tell the external programme what's happening, and the external programme would make the bots do things. In conclusion, not all avatars that are registered as scripted agents are actually scripted agents (bots), because they aren't fully controlled by scripts. The registration just means that an avatar is registered as such, but that doesn't make it an actual. Both yours and Kali's fall into that category. I think that we are differing because I am talking about bots quite literally, whereas I think you are thinking that a registered avatar is a bot because it's registered, even though it isn't opeated by an external programme. ETA: My store models were bots because an external programme logged them in so, when the new rule came in, I naturally registered them. Although there was a period when they were loggd in by me on viewers, and I monitored them - 4 to a screen. They weren't registered at that time, even though they were store models. It was before the rule about traffic came in. If the rule had been in place, I would have registered them because they were artifically inflating the traffic figures, but that wouldn't have made bots.
  19. Yes but, if it looks like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck, it's not a duck. If it looks like a bot and isn't operated by a programme, it's not a bot.
  20. It would be the behaviour of a bot, but it wouldn't be a bot. We can all mimic bots, but that doesn't make us bots
  21. And at the end of the day, words mean what the user intends them to mean. With the words under discussion, it's usually very obvious what the user means, except for the word 'host' when it's about SL servers. It's not a commonly used word for SL. You were right to explain that one, Qie.
  22. That's like saying that such-and-such a game is excellent, but not meaning the game you see on the screen, but meaning the programme that runs the game and creates what you see on the screen. As is often pointed out here, language is created by users of it and not by dictionaries. 'Sim' means what the person saying it means by it, and different people mean different things, but users in general understand 'sim' to mean the 64k sqms of land section of Second Life. To LL one meaning is correct, and to users as a whole, the 64k meaning is correct. In other words, 'sim' has more than one correct meaning. ETA: I remember many years when a Linden explained that a region could be a sim or a group of sims - a region of them. Sim being what most of us mean by it - a 64k area of SL. So the word 'region' doesn't necessarily refer to a 64k area. At least it didn't back then.
  23. Even before that. I think it was the VisiGoths who refered to a 64k sqm field of land as a sim.
  24. I was going to suggest that. I'm pretty sure that restarts shuffle which sims are on which machines, and there's no way to make sure that a sim is coupled with the same sims as before. I'm using the word 'sim' as we users have used it for centuries.
×
×
  • Create New...