Phil Deakins

It hasn't crashed. I still have 2 avs logged in.

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote: I agree with Prokofy- this kind of traffic gimmick is doing absolutely nothing for your business. People who want to use camp chairs are people who do not want to purchase things. Why do you want them coming to your store? Just to artificially inflate traffic? I'd rather have a traffic score of 5 and a sale or two than traffic in the thousands and no sales. I completely disagree with Prok about that. She is no doubt right about many places that have camping but she is definitely not right about all of them. Some camping is there just for the sake of giving something away. Some people are like that, y'know. Such places put the camping on its own parcel that isn't in search, so its traffic is irrelevant.

Penny Patton wrote: When I tried to clarify with you, you were very specific in that it was not content creator run businesses where content creators are selling products, you were talking about, then you brought up "stores" again. You're the one that seems to have a hard time with words here. So you're not talking about content creators who sell things, and you're not talking about landowners who rent shop space out to them. If it's neither of these entities is there any way you could maybe explain just who these mysterious "stores" are then? I don't know where you got that from, but it wasn't from anything I wrote. Imagination? Perhaps you are refering to my second post on page 2, which was a reply to you. I started it by saying, "I didn't say that businesses have folded due to the marketplace." and went on talk about stores. Read it again. If you were refering to that part, I'll explain why I said that "I didn't say that businesses have folded due to the marketplace." It's because businesses that had stores can continue in the marketplace and, if the stores don't produce enough to make them worthwhile keeping open because of tier, they can close, but the business can continue - in the marketplace. If you didn't understand it, you could have asked. It would have been much better than putting words, such as "malls", in my mouth. You know that doesn't make sense. Incidentally, I don't believe I ever mentioned "content creator run businesses" or any similar phrase. If you imagine that I did, please quote it. To the best of my knowledge, you're the only one who's used that phrase in this thread.

Qie Niangao wrote: The Lab's strategy seems to be to let in-world business wane in favor of Marketplace. That may be what they are knowingly doing but I don't believe it is, or ever was, their strategy. It's my belief that someone at LL realised that a lot of money is being made in SL by selling stuff, and they thought that it would be good get of a cut of it for LL. I believe that's all it ever was, and still is. Then, with that view in mind, they unscrupulously plugged their marketplace, even to the extent of putting "Welcome Markeplace User" on the login page for all users, regardless of whether or not the user ever used the marketplace. It may be that they've realised the effect on land and tier income since then, and they may have decided that it's worth it to LL. But I believe that the only reason for the marketplace's creation and continuation is to get a cut of the money that was, and is, being made from selling stuff. I don't believe they ever thought that inword stores would wane, but I do think that they are now delighted that are getting a cut from most purchases, and therefore don't care that inworld stores are waning. It's totally in keeping with their attitude to paying customers.

Penny Patton wrote: This thread and the arguments I've been addressing, on the other hand, are about the complaint that the marketplace has driven out mall owners. It's become clear that you only want to talk about malls, to the extent of assuming that other people (me, for instance) are only talking malls when they are obviously talking something quite different. But this thread isn't about malls. It's about stores, malls, clubs, and no doubt the author meant other things too. Read the first post again You may have a thing about malls, but this isn't about them. It's about a number of things, including them.

Penny Patton wrote: Also, I would suggest using better terminology. "Malls" are not "stores". A mall is a collection of stores. The stores themselves are run by the content creators. The malls are simply landlords renting out space to the stores run by content creators. And I would suggest that you go to SpecSavers. I never talked about malls. You only need to read my posts that you quoted to see that I've only ever mentioned stores. You're the one who keeps trying to change it - perhaps because you know that that you have no argument against what I said about stores. ETA: Perhaps it will help you if I quote what I said that you're arguing against:- "Your "building on sand" comment is nonsense. The stores that have folded because of the marketplace didn't build on sand. They built on bedrock. Some time later, LL turned the bedrock into sand." That 's it - in total - on the second page of this thread. Notice my cunning use of the word "stores", and the complete absence of the word "malls"

Penny Patton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: But you are free to think that the marketplace hasn't had a negative impact on stores if you wish. Are you still talking about malls, or are you talking about content creator's stores now? If the former, you've got a memory problem because this statement contradicts even the first paragraph of your post here. Phil Deakins wrote: I was just pointing out that your "sand" was in fact bedrock when the stores were built, and LL turned it into sand later, when they unscrupulously started and pushed the marketplace. . Clearly, I was never talking about malls, regardless of you wishing that I'm "still talking about malls". The clue was in my use of the word "stores", which you quoted more than once. Perhaps it was too hard to spot, eh? And you've failed to make a pursuasive argument. If that "bedrock" were so solid, the existance of an online shopping venue wouldn't be an issue. The purpose of in-world malls only served to provide content creators with more visibility. That's it. An online store achieves that much more easily. In addition, it makes shopping easier for the consumer. Browsing a content creator's selection of products is much more easily done in the online store format than camming around an in-world shop (or multiple in-world shops spread across multiple sims). The existance of a web-based shopping venues was never a problem. On-Rez and Xstreet were around for a long time before LL produced the marketplace, and stores were still built on bedrock, not the sand you stated. Perhaps you don't go back that far. Stores, Penny, stores. Not malls. It may be easier to shop in a web-based system, but that isn't anything to do with what I said, which was that the stores that failed because of the marketplace, were built on bedrock and not on sand. You'd said they were built on sand. Sorry, but there's no point in you continuing to argue about it, because you're wrong. That is unless you want to continue only discussing malls - something which I neither mentioned nor meant, as is clearly seen in the parts of my posts that you've quoted.

Penny Patton wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Penny Patton wrote: The only people hurt are those who rent out shop space for stores and malls. But that simply wasn't a sustainable business model so long as LL's goal is to draw in more users. The domino effect described only applies to those whose business model can only be described as "building on sand". Your "building on sand" comment is nonsense. The stores that have folded because of the marketplace didn't build on sand. They built on bedrock. Some time later, LL turned the bedrock into sand. Care to back that statement up? First off, what shops have folded due to the marketplace? Why did they fold? Again, the marketplace isn't driving content creators out of business. The marketplace is a venue from which content creators sell. Second of all, I've pointed out why an online shopping site makes more sense (It's provides indisputable benefits to both the seller and the consumer above and beyond in-world shops), from an end user standpoint, than in-world stores. You've yet to back up why you believe the opposite is true. When your rebuttlel consists entirely of "nuh-uh":, maybe you should reevaluate your position. I didn't say that businesses have folded due to the marketplace. If you care read again what you quoted, you'll see that I said "stores", which makes the rest of your post redundant. Pre-marketplace stores did build on bedrock, as I said. Later, LL changed the bedrock to sand when they started the marketplace and plugged it for all was worth. They did not build on sand as you suggested. However, judging by the many many threads on the subject, it has to be assumed that the marketplace has been the cause of many stores closing, simply because the marketplace has become the 'standard' place to buy things, and stores manage to pay for less and less of the required tier to support them. But you are free to think that the marketplace hasn't had a negative impact on stores if you wish. I was just pointing out that your "sand" was in fact bedrock when the stores were built, and LL turned it into sand later, when they unscrupulously started and pushed the marketplace.

Calamari wrote: So how do you tell the difference between a bot and a registered scripted agent, if some one is using a registered scripted agent and it's effecting search placement then you need to file a jira not an AR. How to tell the difference is a good question, I just visited a very advance greeter bot/scripted agent that I know of and other then it's profile stating it's a bot there's no way to tell if it's registered. I even just tried changing my scripted agent status for a few minutes to see if any thing in my profile showed it, and could find nothing. So it may be hard or imposable on an individual avatar basis to spot a registered scripted agent, but bot farms are easy to spot. There is no way for we users to discover whether or not an avatar is registered as a scripted agent. There is a way that can sometimes be used to discover that avatars are most likely to be registered though. If the land's traffic count doesn't appear to be in keeping with the number of avatars that are on it a lot, then some of those avatars must be scripted agents. I'll use Lucinda's example. Until recently, I had 4 bots in my store - for customer demo purposes. They were there most of every day but the traffic count wasn't all that much more than just one avatar can score in a day. So it was obvious that at least most of the bots were registered. If you hung around the store, you'd see people come and go, so you'd be able to judge that it was probable that all the bots were registered - which they were, and still are even though I haven't logged them in for a while. Other than that, there is no way for us to know.

Lucinda Bulloch wrote: Did it, I still wonder about you, who are you really, forgive me but most here have been told to hate me, so why are you different, is it the good cop, bad cop stuff. PS those brain damaged inbreeds are but children to me, so don't take their advice. You wish

Lucinda Bulloch wrote: It is called adapt to survive, they need them for the malls, but the mall owners will go by sales, as bots drive people away, example I went to phils store and only saw sex bots there to try out beds, so after throwing up in the sick bag which he didn't provide I tped out. The demo bots on the sex beds are all registered as 'scripted agents' and don't count for traffic - as a quick glance at the land's traffic number would have shown you, if you'd bothered to look instead of jumping to silly conclusions. I don't mind you throwing up in my store but your idea is that bots are always cheating in some way, when even common sense says that many are not, so your idea is nonsense. In the case of my store, they can't be cheating because they aren't counting for traffic. They are there to help potential customers who might want to see the animations (so they can decide whether to buy or not) but have nobody with them. There's a male-female pair on one bed for those who don't want to use their own av, a male on another bed for those who do want to see their av with a male, and a female on a third bed. Sorry, but your attempted criticism failed on this occasion. Do try again later Note: I say "they are there" but they haven't been there for a few weeks now, but if you need to clear your stomache anytime, do let me know and I'll put them back so you can visit again

Nope. Advertising products in these forums is not allowed.

In that case, LL already operates with two types of money - L$ and US$. US$ can't be transfered but L$ can. This isn't a comment about cards. It's only a comment about someone suggesting two types of money.

I'm curious as to why you want to have some bots rezzed that don't actually do anything? Are you wanting to sell the bots? You want to place a small store so what would it sell? It's obviously a business so have you considered doing it as everyone else does - by putting your own money into it?

ArcaneMasterK3 wrote: Second Life should have 2 kinds of Linden one being transferrable and the other not. I'm curious as to what use non-transferable L$ would be. You couldn't buy anything with it. Or did you mean that it can't be cashed out?

Penny Patton wrote: The only people hurt are those who rent out shop space for stores and malls. But that simply wasn't a sustainable business model so long as LL's goal is to draw in more users. The domino effect described only applies to those whose business model can only be described as "building on sand". Your "building on sand" comment is nonsense. The stores that have folded because of the marketplace didn't build on sand. They built on bedrock. Some time later, LL turned the bedrock into sand.

There are too many posts in this thread to read through so, on the off-chance that it hasn't been said before... 1. Yes, it's perfectly ethical. Why wouldn't it be? 2. Yes, it's allowed by the ToS, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be. If you think differently, you'd need to show the part of the ToS that disallows it, instead of just fishing in the dark.

Lucinda Bulloch wrote: 1. Before there was TV, people gathered together in places like pubs No no no no no. We gathered round the radio and listed to things like "Have A Go Joe" with Wilfred Pickles. Aaah... the goold old days

Does honstry exist in SL? Yes it does. Unfortunately, there is some dishonesty as well.

Oh, I don't think that my little observation is going to bog anything down here

"Corporate culture"? What corportate culture? LL isn't big enough to have corporate culture. It's only big enough to have a 'relatively small business' culture.

Thanks, Innula. I expected to find the method where it intuitively should be - in the MY FRIENDS tab of the floater that opens with the People sidebar button, but there's no way of doing it from there.

Hippie Bowman wrote: Good morning all! Its May the 1st! Here is todays history. 1751 – The first cricket match is played in America. I think that should be the first international cricket match, and I think it was between America and Canada. Or could it be the first time that a cricket match was played in America. I would think that it was little early for the first international but I may wrong. What it wasn't was the first cricket match to be played

I've been using LL's current V3 for a short time and I'm now looking at Friend permissions - edit my objects, map me, etc. - but I can't find any way to either grant or remove any of those permissions. How is it done?

Qie! Welcome to the thread I was trying to clarify what I remembered of what you wrote - out of curiosity more than anything. And I managed it. Thank you for confirming what I've now understood.