Jump to content

Phil Deakins

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. 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.
  2. Blush is right. At first glance, it seems a bit opposite to what one would expect, but it's the right way to do it. The owner sets the maximum and it really is the maximum. The default maximum hasn't been set by the owner, so LL assume they can allow an extra 10% in because the owner hasn't stated any preference, but when the owner has explicitly set the maximum, then it would be wrong of LL to allow more in, so the premium perk is done the other way, and the maximum really is the maximum.
  3. 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.
  4. In this case, net does not mean the internet. It means the proceeds (the US$) you got in your account from selling your L$. They have spelt it wrong. It should be nett, with 2 't's. You can withdraw it to PayPal. (It may be that the americans have been contrary by dropping the 2nd 't'. They do like to muck about with spellings.)
  5. Aaaaah! That's very different. So, if the max isn't reduced, then it's the max plus 10% premiums. But if the max is reduced, then it's 90% of max everyone and 10% of max premiums. Ceka was right then, but only when the default max has been reduced. Apparently not, Ceka. Dropping the sim to 50 would mean 45 for everyone and 5 (the 10%) for premiums.
  6. Ty, Ethan. That's what I thought. So in the case of the full region being discussed, it would be 40 + 10% = 44. Which means, from the point of view of numbers, that the OP ought to have been able to get in when the region had 39 or less avatars in it.
  7. 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"?
  8. Yes, a non-mainland sim owner can set the maximum number of avatars for the sim, but I don't think they can set a number of premium accounts to allow in. So they can't set nn avatars + n premium accounts, or nn avatars, the last n of which must be premium. The recently added premium perk simply allows a few extra premium avatars into a sim above the preset maximum number. It doesn't reserve the last few slots of the maximum number for premium accounts. So a sim that's set to a maximum of 40 will allow 40 avatars of all kinds in, and then a few premium avatars on top. That's my understanding, anyway. I'm open to being corrected if my understanding wrong.
  9. If you are addressing kali, then you are mistaken. The Linden who dealt with it considered that all the avatars were perfectly ok to be there and not using an "unfair use of resources". That's why they all continued to be there with his/her blessing. ETA: All this "unfair use of resources" stuff that often gets spouted is usually garbage. It sometimes applies, though not in this case, but it's usually just silly people spouting the silly garbage that they've seen other silly people spout.
  10. No they can't. And, in this case, it doesn't apply even if they could, because all the avatars continued to be allowed to be there, so they weren't judged to be impeding any services.
  11. I've never heard of that before. Are you confusing it with the recently added premium perk of being able to get into full regions, which, as I understand it, adds to the region's capacity rather than reserve the last few spaces? Or have I missed something?
  12. @kali Wylder In that case, the Linden was flat-out wrong. As I said earlier, they don't know all the rules and sometimes they make decisions according to what they imagine rather than according to actual rules. I don't know why the other land-owners were complaining. You probably don't know either. But there is, and was, no rule against having many unregistered avatars on land that is not set to show in search. The Linden who dealt with it imagined that there was such a rule, so s/he allowed you to keep all the alts on the land as long as only 5 remained unregistered. That means (a) it wasn't a resources issue, and (b) the Linden didn't know the rules so s/he made a mistake by inventing one. I came across something very similar years ago when the rules changed on the launch of the adult continent. It's why I sometimes say that some Lindens don't know all the rules and sometimes gets things wrong. I used to have several scantily clad bots on sex beds in my store, so that potential customers could see, and even try, the animations before buying. They were in small cubicles that were out of sight of the main area. Although I sold furniture with sex animations in it, I chose not to join the exodus to the new adult continent. There had been a long forum discussion with one of the main Lindens concerned with the 'adult' change, in which he said quite clearly what the new rules would be concerning sex and moderate land, including about sex animations in stores on moderate land. So I knew that my bots were not breaking any rules after the 'adult' change. But not all Lindens knew that and, surprise surprise, some interfering nutcase of a busy-body reported my bots - because of the adult animations, not the fact of them being bots. Along comes a Linden and I had to remove them, even though they didn't break any rules. I contacted to that Linden's boss (Harry - great chap!), citing the forum statements, and the bots were restored. 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.
  13. That's news to me. I always thought that 3rd party viewers were a labour of love. They don't put advertisements in the viewer or forum, do they? They could make a little bit that way, but I don't think they'd make enough to write home about.
  14. My early days were pretty average and nothing worth mentioning, but the couple of mentions of dancepad camping reminded of something that happened back then. I went to a club with a friend. It had camping pads to dance on, so I used them a few times. On one occasion I got on one for a while, and it paid me every 5 minutes while I was on it. Then I went home but soon found that the pad was still paying me. So I went back to get on and off it it again to try and stop it, but couldn't get in the place. It appeared to be faulty. I logged out and back in, but the thing wouldn't stop paying me. Eventually I logged out for the night and went to bed. When I got up the next day, and logged in, I found that it had continued to pay me all through the night, and it was still doing it. It eventually stopped. It seems that the sim went faulty in some way. They don't make camping pads like that any more lol.
  15. That was always the case with FireStorm's predecessors - as your mere 13 years in SL will no doubt have known
  16. The rule is or was 5 accounts per email, but, if that were the reason, the result wouldn't have been registering them as bots. It would have been cancelling them. I'm wondering about Tiny Empires. I think that people use multiple accounts for that, don't they? So I'm thinking that kali might have been playing that with an army of alts, or doing something that required multiple alts to do, and doing it on land that's in search. It's all I can come up with that would require most of them to be registered and still allow 5 unregistered ones. If the problem was that the army was on land that's in search, then they came under the 'no artifically inflating traffic' rule, even if the purpose was nothing to do with traffic. If that's the case, then it's not that the Linden decided they were actual bots, but declaring them was a workaround that allowed you to continue using them without them artifically inflating the traffic count.
  17. I can't imagine why anyone would even consider keeping the fact that they log into SL a secret. I've never felt the need to hide it from anyone, and most people who know me know that I've been doing it for many years..
  18. I'm curious about this, and I have some questions. 1. Was your army of alts logged in on land that was set to show is search? 2. What was the purpose of logging in an army of alts? 3. Was each of the alts logged in with a full viewer, a thin text-only viewer, or what? The reason why I'm curious is because Lindens sometimes get things wrong, and it may be that you weren't breaking any rules, but the Linden thought you were. It can't have been anything to do with sim resources because you were allowed to log them all in, although most of them needed to be registered, so I think it must have been on land that was in search. Which brings up the question, why were 5 allowed? The answer seems to be that the purpose of the army logging in wasn't traffic, so I'm curious as to what the army of alts was logged in for that caused LL to get involved.
  19. @Selene Gregoire You see, that's what I meant. Bots are wrongly seen as negative. The very idea of reporting bots just because they are bots, and may be using more than the land-owner's fair share of sim resources, is sheer stupidity or sheer selfishness. Selfishness because bots are not what the reporter wants in SL, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with he reporter. There really are some stupid users in SL. Of course they won't. There's no reason why they should. They only do things when something is breaking the rules, and not just because some idiot thinks it would be a good idea.
  20. @CoffeeDujour I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I simply pointed out that first you said that you only got certain feedback about something, and a matter minutes later you said that you don't get any feedback. It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, designed to make you smile
  21. Whether or not the whole sim is owned is completely irrelevant. I said that my bots were on my land, and were nobody else's business, which of course, is correct. In other words, you are mistaken.
  22. It appears that bots are generally thought of in negative terms, but they shouldn't be. At least those that are on their owner's land shouldn't be - not automatically, anyway. One example has just been mentioned - Tyche Shepherd's survey bots. They are not a clear example because, although they do something that some people appreciate, they do land on everyone else's land without permission. They perform a positive function, but they are invasive. They are positive or negative depending on your point of view. I have a few clear positives examples of my own. One are the castle bots that I used to have when I had a castle and almost all of the sim it was in. They were characters that mostly moved around the castle and sim, guarding it, although one was a maiden who was imprisoned in the tower, waving a handkerchief out of a window, hoping for rescue. Another set of bots were just avatars that moved around the sim in no set pattern. That was the most recent set. And yet another set were store models which were on scripted furniture for potential customers to see the animations without needing to bring a partner. Apart from the store models, which were registered, they all added traffic counts to my land. The land they added counts to was not in search. All of them, though, made the sim on the map appear to have moving users in it, which brings me to my point... Regardless of what anyone else would like the map to show, it's my world and my imagination, and what I do in it is my business. I enjoyed creating the bots systems. It was a significant part of my SL hobby from time to time. The other side of my point is that it is nobody else's business whether or not I have a load of bots on my land, making people think there are real users there. If people assume that they are real users, it's their business, not mine. We don't have to arrange our SL hobbies to suit other people's preferences, and we don't have to arrange our SL hobbies so that other people don't waste a few minutes coming to realise that the avatars they see are not real users. In a nutshell, bots are not a negative. They can be used negatively, but it's the use they are sometimes put to that's negative, and not the fact of bots. So please don't shoot them on sight. Thank you for listening ETA: A few little stories about the bots... 1. One of the store models on sex beds sometimes got tips from guys. She was on a bed on her own, ready for someone to join her. She was sometimes treated (talked to) as though she wasn't a bot, even though the signs there said she is. The male model that was on a bed on his own never got tips. 2. There was a sex bed in the tower room that the maiden was in. Once in a while a guy would try to persuade her to get on it with him. She couldn't, of course. 3. I watched as a female turn up at the castle and tried to get one of the guards to have sex. Someone had told her that that particular guard was good for sex, and I think she was trying to find the form of words that would trigger it - sort of a password that would make the bot stand up and have sex with her.
  23. @Qie Niangao That's the whole point, Qie. The last thing that users want is the continued success of the bot bit bucket, and so indicating registered bots on the map is imperitive. We must lobby vigorously for it.
  24. @Qie Niangao Since registering 'scripted agent' status came in, users have not been able to know whether or not an avatar that is not their own is registered, which means that, when a user comes across a bunch of avatars that could be traffic bots, s/he is unable to know whether or not they are. If the land is not in search, it doesn't matter either way, but when it is in search then it would be useful to know whether or not a bunch of avatars that appear to be bots, are there just for the traffic count. If they are, they can be reported. If they aren't, it's better not to keep reporting a bunch of avatars that may well be bots but are not breaking any rules. So I think that it can be useful to know whether or not an avatar is registered as a scripted agent.
  • Create New...