Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. 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.
  2. Even before that. I think it was the VisiGoths who refered to a 64k sqm field of land as a sim.
  3. 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.
  4. Bots do have to be run by a programme to be called bots. LL calls them 'scripted agent', which means that the avatar is run by a programme, and not a person. Yours are not bots/scripted-agents at all unless they do things automatically. The Linden who told you to register them got it wrong.
  5. @kali Wylder Don't worry about the discussion in the thread. Your entry into it was fine. It's just that a few people in the forum like to show themselves up by dumping on me personally. It's what they do when they think they see an opportunity. I say "show themselves up" because they get it wrong for everyone else to see, as they did in this thread.
  6. I know what the OP started the thread about - identifying bots - not bots in general. It's you who didn't know, so you talked about resources, and the unfair use of them. That's nothing to do with identifying bots. And you're still talking about resources! Sheesh!
  7. Can't stand being corected, eh? I understand ETA: Or didn't you read the op, and you genuinely didn't know what the thread was about?
  8. I do apologise. I hadn't realised that when someone changes the subject to throw in a criticism about me, then it's not derailing, but when I defend the criticism, then it's me who is derailing and not the one who changed the subject to throw in the criticism. I'm so sorry. I didn't realise that. I understand now. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I appreciate it. (Original text replaced)
  9. Since you started the thread, and you are taking part in a derail, I take it that you're happy enough for them at this point. You make fair points, but not about 'resources'. Your points would also apply if a person owned 3/4 of a mainland sim and continually had 30 avatars in it. You could equally say, "No one else will want to hang out on that sim, no one will move in or make a home, no one will set up shop or start a club and everyone who has land is left holding onto it with a choice to either take a massive loss or wait the bot farmer out." and you'd be right. But it wouldn't be an unfair use of resources, which is what I think you're commenting on.
  10. I told you why I prefer the less simple way. In case you forgot, it's because I don't care for the plural of he/she/it being used as a singular. I didn't say it was wrong to do it. I said I don't care for it.
  11. That's a common way of thinking, but I disagree with it. It isn't very often that the idea of "unfair use of resources" is correctly brought up, and this isn't one of those times. I stated a reason earlier - a mainland sim can only hold 40 avatars, so anyone who owns less than 1/40th of a sim would be using more than his/her fair share of resources by standing on the land. That's anyone who only owns a 1024 or a 512 for instance. It's all a matter of who wants to use sim's resources. In the current example, nobody in the sim was going short of resources. Apparently one peson thought she was (not avatar slots) and she reported it, but the Linden who responded didn't agree with her, because he allowed all of the OP's 'army' to remain. Fair use of resources is a matter of common sense, and not down to a 'fair' division of resources by numbers. If a lot of avatars are in the sim, then a land owner would be using avatar slots unfairly if s/he had 20 people over when s/he only owned a small parcel. But if the sim is otherwise empty, or just has 2 or 3 avatars in it, and the same landowner brings 30 friends to visit, then it's not a unfair use of resources (avatar slots). 'Unfair' implies denying others their fair share. In this case, it implies denying others their fair share of avatar slots by using more than your fair share. That didn't happen. Second Life has never been an environment where each of us only uses the number of avatar slots according to the size of our land. It could never work like that because a user would need to own at least 1/40th of a 64k mainland sim before s/he could even go to his/her own land. So fair use of resources has always been a matter of common sense, and never a matter of numbers. It's not uncommon for the "unfair use of resources" idea to be trotted out where it doesn't belong. First you said that it was a shame that someone (BilliJo) derailed the thread with a post about grammar, and you were right. Then you said, "But to get to the real purpose of this thread", and went on to talk about something that has nothing to do with the real purpose of this thread. This thread is about wanting users to be able to see which avatars are bots. It isn't about resources and fair shares of resources. So your contribution keeps the thread derailed lol.
  12. Solar gave the perfect answer to that question. I.e. you don't pronounce it.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. @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.
  16. 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
  17. You are correct, and nobody is suggesting that old threads become unavailable. The suggestion is merely to lock them so that they don't get necroed with posts that reply to something as though the something was written yesterday. It's no big deal, really. People often don't notice that the post they are replying to was written as a reply to something that was written years before, so usually the necro post is a total waste of time for everyone, as are any replies to it. Occasionally, someone does a search, finds an old thread that applies, perhaps doesn't notice how long it's been since the thread was last posted to but that doesn't really matter, and adds to the thread. Such necros are perfectly valid, but mostly necros are not valid.
  18. A long time ago, people were negative about traffic bots, which was fair enough. At least rational thought went into it, and the complaints were about the fairness of it. But I don't remember people being negative about bots in general back then. It was just traffic bots as far as I remember. After traffic bots were outlawed, it seems as though the negativity about them passed to bots in general. Some people just have to have things to moan about, and bots seems to have become a good target, whether there is any sense in it or not. Those who moan will probably applaud animesh avatars that do the same job as some bots, but woe betide anyone who uses an actual unmanned user account for the same job. Totally irrational, init lol. I think that some people's thinking is selfish; i.e. they want to know how many real people are logged in, or they don't want to treat an avatar as though it has a real person on the other end if it doesn't have one - not even for the seconds it takes to realise it. All about self, and nothing to do with SL or other people. At least when it was just traffic bots that were complained about, it was about SL and the workings of SL.
  19. I totally agree. I recently wrote a post about the negativity concerning bots. People just seem to be negative about them without giving it a moments thought, other than to be negative just for the sake of it, and usually because they've seen other people being negative about them in the past. Being irrationally negative about bots seems to be a thing here.
  20. It might be now that you've noticed it lol.
  21. I think that Wulfie is implying that you first wrote that it would take expense and manpower to accomplish it, i.e. write and add the code to do it because forums don't have that capability, and then, when Wulfie pointed out that no code needs to be written, because it's just a click in this particular software, you wrote that he isn't telling you anything you didn't already know. I think that's what he's pointing out. You may have meant that he isn't telling you anything you don't already know about something different to what I've just written, but that's the way I read your posts and maybe Wulfie did too. I agree with the thread's topic. I see no reason not to lock threads that haven't been added to in a very long time. If this software really does have that switch, and if the 'active' period can be set, then, imo, it was idiotic not to flick it ages ago when we had spam posts that were posted so that the spammers/bots could come back at a later date and modify them to link to whatever website is being promoted in the search engines, without the posts being bumped. It would have been done in seconds, rather than the time/measures it took to eventually get rid of that stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...