Phil Deakins

Malanya wrote: In this forum people that call another a troll are usually doing the same thing they claim the said troll is. If you don't agree, or you speak up for yourself, people have a tendency to try and turn your words around. If you answer one of their questions all of a sudden you are trying to prove something, even though they asked you. If you ignore their replies then you are accused of something else lol. Then you have the people that are saying things to you in PM's that are afraid to post what they feel on the thread because of how they may "look" to the other forumites. Your insight is refreshing. There is a lot of truth in what you say, Malanya. People accuse others of trolling when they are not, and it happens quite often here. However, this forum does have one actual troll, who has been trolling here for many years, and everyone knows who it is.

Spunkypants Klata wrote: That's a very good point, Marigold. I think this may be my first and last camping experience, as I'm not really sure that it's worth it. I don't know how I've managed to be on SL since 2006, and haven't explored camping until now. HA! I'm stuck doing some stuff online tonight, so I thought I'd give it a go. But you're right; it doesn't really seem to be worth it. Thank you both for your responses. If you are doing stuff online, as you said, then camping is definitely worthwhile. Whether or not it's worthwhile leaving your computer on to continue camping while you go out or to bed, depends on how much the camping is paying. You'd need to keep an eye on the camping though because, as had been mentioned, camping systems tend to check that the camper is actually at the keyboard and isn't a bot. In the old days it didn't matter because camping existed for the traffic, but that's not allowed now and, apart from those who break the rules, camping exists for different reasons, and bots and afk people are not welcome and will be kicked off by the system itself.

Alright, alright already. I'll happily continue paying the premium fee for as long as it's useful to me But if I could just have a few ads along the roads instead....

Storm Clarence wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Heh! You do have a strange way of seeing things, Storm.... However, you did cite pep as being the SL bogeyman... ETA: In all honesty, I know he doesn't scare you... ETA (again): For the record, the recent posts between pep and myself did have an effect on me. The bogeyman cometh. Run! hehe. Methinks that the bogeyman hath run away lol

Heh! You do have a strange way of seeing things, Storm. And, if my credibility is at a low ebb in your eyes, then I'm very proud The last thing I want is to be thought highly of by trolls and supporters of trolls. However, you did cite pep as being the SL bogeyman, and you did state that his continued presence, in the guise of at least two other accounts, is scary. It's true that trolling is a childish activity, and he is a troll, so it sounds to me like you are scared of childish behaviour. I can only go by what you wrote, Storm. If you now say that it's untrue, I'll accept that. ETA: In all honesty, I know he doesn't scare you because I know that you are his friend and that you support his trolling - which speaks badly of you, of course. As pep himself put it, back in the RA discussions of the 'cancer' thing, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy". I don't agree with him, though. I think he's wrong. It should be, "The supporter of my enemy is my enemy". Trolls are enemies of forums, and anyone reading this can draw their own conclusions. ETA (again): For the record, the recent posts between pep and myself did have an effect on me. Not the effect that you wish was true though. Before it, I almost always skipped by his posts without reading them, simply because they rarely contained anything of any value to the discussions. I've now changed. It's now my intention to read his posts when I come across them and, if they contain insults or barbs (any trolling), I'll report them, and I hope others will do the same. I've no idea if it will do any good by way of getting him out of the place, as many forum users want, or by causing him to stop trolling, but I do know that doing nothing allows him to continue almost unabated, and that's always been bad for the forum as a whole.

I was thinking more of billboards at the side of roads and such, but I's be more than happy with a full screen ad for 5 seconds during login and logout instead of having to pay the premium fee

The idea that "Trolls will only stay when they are fed or given attention" is true BUT... If a person continually posts but never ever gets a reply of any kind - as though the person is invisible - s/he'll leave. That's true. But it never happens that way. A response such as, "There was no call for that" or "Don't feed the troll" is attention. The troll has got some attention and will stay - coming back with things like, "I'm not a troll. What I wrote is true", and so it will continue and the troll is in his/her element. The trouble is, many of us do just that, and the troll is happy. This forum's troll has a couple of loyal friends/supporters, which, incidentally, speaks very badly of them, but they don't matter because the troll gets fed by the objections, and is happy. I don't see any realistic way for users to get rid of a troll on their own, because one or more people will always respond by telling the troll off or by advising not to feed it. The only way I can think of is to report any and all trolling posts (those that contain the insults and barbs), and leave it to the moderators to deal with. Each little insult or barb is only a pinprick on its own, but multiple pinpricks add up to real pain, and they add up to showing the moderators exactly what an individual is continually doing. So, if a continual troll keeps getting reported by various users, even when they are not personally involved, the moderators will surely do something about it. Merely wishing that a continual troll would go away, doesn't work.

Storm Clarence wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: I must be missing your point... Pep hasn't posted here in a very long time. ...Dres Maybe "Pep" hasn't, but his identical twins certainly have. Scary, ain't it! The legacy continues... Pep and his alts scare you? A childlike person scaring grownups? Wow! Just wow! I think you watch too many movies ETA: "childlike" because trolling is a childish activity.

Billboards are easy to ignore. Can we have those instead of premium fees, please?

Aislin Ceawlin wrote: Phil, I'm willing to bet I know exactly whom said troll is And I am willing to bet you are right

Heh. I read your post a few minutes ago, and I'm now in the middle of reading a forum page that someone sent me a URL to, in which a forum troll (this forum) is defending his posts by claiming that he is not responsible "for the inability of others to manage their own emotions." This particular troll pushes and pushes at targets, knowing that the result is sometimes tears and worse, but he keeps on doing it - and claiming that it's not his fault if people are badly affected. It sounds like it fits very well with the descriptions of a troll that you posted. Any innocent and intelligent person, who realised the effect that their posts keep having on people, would change the way they post. But trolls just keep on because they want to cause those effects.

I think you've solved the mystery. The grey box being the grey ToS-containing window that open with each ToS update, and the gold coin being sarcasm about what the ToS does for LL.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Ohhnoes wrote: The Recreational Area of the Nursing Home = Phil I stopped going round the nursing homes and scaring the people in them a long time ago. These days I just scare forum trolls, and it's nice to see I have that effect ya we saw why you stopped messing with old people like you did.. 1 shotted!! Yep. Those old people really can be dangerous - too dangerous for me, anyway. It's much safer scaring forum trolls

Ohhnoes wrote: The Recreational Area of the Nursing Home = Phil I stopped going round the nursing homes and scaring the people in them a long time ago. These days I just scare forum trolls, and it's nice to see I have that effect

Even though I ran bots, and am known in the forum for it (or I was), I never got technically deep into them, so the info in your post is news to me - and interesting news, too. My bots were simple. The least simple of them were hybrids, using both LSL and OpenMV, and did simple things like logging in and out, moving around in pre-set paths, getting on and off objects. Stuff like that.

Bots don't use viewers so I can't see what benefit mouselook would be. Camping bots have been around for many years. The first bots I ever became aware of were camping ones. Mouselook, or any 'look' isn't needed, of course, because they can't see - no viewer.

There isn't much professionalism in SL. There's probably some who act professionally, but the vast majority are just hobbyists. Businesswise, I've only ever ben a hobbyist here, even though it's paid me very well. So I don't think that a lack of professionalism in SL is a good reason to take a break from it. It's to be expected. It's a place for business hobbyists.

I'm not doubting your memory, Laurin. I am doubting mine but not enough to decide that it's wrong. I'm still thinking that you didn't see everything. You may have done, but I'm thinking you may not have done. Rhonda herself posted the reason for the outburst in the page that pep linked to, so I'm on safe ground there She deleted the outbursts (several of them) but she didn't delete this. This is what she posted:- It was not his little barbs. It was what he did to someone you called a friend. She is gone now, so it is not like it can ever happen again The "she" was Amara, as you thought, and the "you" was Jerboa. The outbursts weren't caused by the 'thighs' barb, although that probably added to everything else. They were caused by what he did to Amara. You are right that nobody else responded in such a manner but others did respond in support of Rhonda after she wrote the outburst. It was just that others wouldn't have written such a thing themselves. Also, nobody wrote in support of pep. That whole part of the thread was written against pep's behaviour. I know that pep has friends in this forum - very few, but they do exist. To be honest, since they know what he does, it doesn't speak very highly of those friends, imo. I also know that he was trying to drum up support from outside the forum (I really did get messages of support from people) and it's my guess that's how you and someone else arrived in these threads out of the blue Incidentally, I know what Pep will do now - what he's known for doing - so I've already asked for this thread to be locked before it takes off.

Laurin. Let me be clear once again too What I remember is different to what you remember. I've already said, more than once, that my memory may be inaccurate and, on the strength of that, I actually apologised for bringing it up. But it doesn't mean that my memory is inaccurate. It only means that I accept that it may be. It's a strong memory so I'm reluctant to accept that it's wrong. You are right that he kept on and on about it afterwards. I just looked at the page that he linked to again. I like Mari's quote - "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - G. B. Shaw She was suggesting not to rise to him, but to ignore his barbs. I thought it was very applicable I also noticed that it wasn't his comment about Rhonda's legs that set her off. It was that his nastiness drove a friend of hers right out of the forum. There's some interesting stuff on that page. Anyway, I haven't relinquished my memory. I've only accepted that it may be mistaken. It may be that he only did what I said he did on the odd occasion, or he may not have done it at all. He was certainly very slow to deny it. It was only after he'd posted several times about it that he actually denied it. Unless someone is going to spend a lot of time going through all the old threads after the initial outburst, nothing is going to be proved one way or the other, so it's best to let it drop. The other thread is locked and this one will be too if it all takes off again, because I'll ask for it.

I'll suck it up when I know for certain that I was mistaken, and the memory is too strong for that. In the meantime, you won't kill this thread like you did the other one, because you'll be talking to yourself, and I imagine even you would soon get bored with that. This is my last post to you on this subject in any thread. You can keep your opinion. I won't help you.

It's not unknown for people to claim untrue things in order to get a replacement for something they still have. The method may be doing the rounds at the moment.

That discussion is over now, Love. I did know who started the cancer thing. I was never talking about that, so no bubbles have been burst. I was talking about what happened afterwards. But thank you, anyway.

The other thing that still makes me laugh when I remember it was also when I rented out skyboxes. I'd rented one out to a guy and, a minute later, I needed to fly up to another skybox above that one. For speed, I put on my carbon rod, which moves to so quickly that you can actually go through a thin solid wall before the wall has a chance to stop you. So I flew up and I inadvertently came up under the skybox I'd just rented out a minute earlier. In fact, I wasn't wholly under it. I only came to a stop when my head and shoulders were up through the floor - in the bedroom - at the foot of the bed, and facing it. In the space of the minute since I'd rented the skybox out, the new tenant was on the bed and giving his girlfriend a good seeing to - both stark naked. Fortunately, they only had eyes for each other, and they never saw me before I hurriedly got out of there. What makes me laugh, though, is imagining being on the bed, in action with my girlfriend, and seeing a strange head and shoulders come up through the floor and look at us

In my very early business life in SL, I rented out skyboxes and I wrote a system whereby tenants could change the décor from menus. The skyboxes I made and rented had two low walls and, in the décor system, I included the ability to remove each wall. The walls didn't actually get removed. They were made totally transparent and phantom. One day I got an IM from a tenant, saying that he'd just fallen through skybox floor and ended up on the ground. I checked the décor system and found that, for some unknown reason, I'd included a button to make the floor phantom. I still laugh when I think of the tenants playing with the décor system and thinking, "I wonder this button does".

Sassy explained that it's referring to the animations levels in your existing AO. If you want to buy the one your are looking you can detach the one you currently use and there won't be a problem.