Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. I like your last sentence, Qi - that's what the laugh is for. My understanding is that the proposal is for avatars that are registered as scripted agents.
  2. I automatically think of bots as traffic bots, and not for the porpose of being seen on the map (apparent popularity). I've realised that it's the latter that this thread is about and it seems to me that the most straight forward answer to your request is simply not to show avatars that are registered as bots on the map. It would be very easy to implement. The downside would be that, when traffic bots aren't visible on the map, they take a little while to find and report if the high traffic land is search enabled. So maybe colouring registered bots is probably the better answer. BilliJo's suggestion of taking movement into account is no good because bots can be programmed to move. Not long ago I had a bunch of them wandering all over the sim. All run by one small external programme in conjunction with some inworld scripts. The suggestion might have been tongue-in-cheek though.
  3. The border line is aprt of the land and goes where the land goes. It isn't seperate terraformed seperately, because it isn't a seperate bit of land. The problem ridge isn't the border line, as the OP said it is. The border line is in its centre, and the adjoining parcels each have a strip of ridge land at the sides of the border.
  4. That number would only last a day in the legacy search, and wouldn't mean very much in the web search, if it even made it there, because the web search spiders the pages of search-enabled plots at intervals. When it gets to the newly search-enabled parcel, the high traffic number may be over and done with. Or the web search system could index a parcel's page as soon at the parcel is enabled for search. Either way, the high number won't last long at all.
  5. Gifts (e.g. flowers) are also traditional.
  6. That's true, but in this case - Valentine's Day - I have no doubt that the tradition in the western world, and possibly in most of the world, hasn't changed at all; i.e. the giving of cards, sometimes anonymously, to indicate a romantic favourite. The fact that the idea of 'all give to all so that nobody is special to anyone, and nobody is left out' apparently has and probably does happen in some schools, but that's not change of Valentine's Day tradition. It's merely a tiny implementation of something similar. I fully believe that Valentine's Day is traditionally about romantic thoughts towards a person. I believe that that's the truth throughout the world, with the possible exception of tiny bits of the world, and that it hasn't changed. Selena argued that it has changed, but I'm sure she didn't realise what I said, and that it changing in a school devoided what I said, but it didn't. Luna -...well, I can't imagine what she was thinking, so I assume she was being obnoxious for the sake of it. I hope she'll explain what she was thinking.
  7. It's always ok to disagree. You know that. Most discussions have some disagreements in them.
  8. @Luna Bliss I'll tell you what, Luna. Instead of posting a laugh icon on my post, and writing a post that simply laughs at me, how about you tell me what I wrote that you think wasn't true - what you were laughing at - eh? Would you do that for me please? It would be so much better for you than posting mere emotions without any sort of explanation, because, without an explanation, people will naturally think that you don't actually have one, and that you just wanted to be objectionable for the sake of it. After all, this is a forum, and people do disagree with people, but we say what we disagree with and why we disagree with it. That's what happens in forums.
  9. I didn't think you'd accept the truth, but that's what I've written. I haven't woven any webs. You simply didn't understand the perfectly simple conversation that you chose to get involved in. Still, I see that you're opting out now, so I'll do the same.
  10. In that case, part of it is on the adjoining land, and you can't change that. So whatever you do, there will be a ridge. One way to deal with it, if a ticket doesn't get anything done, is to raise your side to the height of the ridge. Then there will just be a downward slope on the adjoining parcel.
  11. Alright. It changed where you live - that's the only place where you were - but not in the rest of the world. So, of course, you weren't there. On second thoughts, it didn't even change where you live. You are wrong. The tradition might have changed in a school or schools where you live, but not in the town where you live, and that's much bigger. The tradition in the town hasn't changed at all. Note that I am not saying that 'all give all a card so that nobody is special to anyone' didn't and doesn't happen. I'm saying that the tradition of the romantic giving of Valentine cards has not changed - anywhere - including where you live. I suspect that you haven't understood this bit of the conversation.
  12. If the ridge is on the adjoining land, then you won't be able to remove it. Anomolies, like an apparently invisible object, do occur when terraforming. They usually disappear a while later.
  13. That's just the way things are on mainland and it's entirely your choice to be there. You want it different? Move to private estate
  14. You see what I mean about people not thinking things through? Nobody was ever blocked from buying land on the sim because I always bought it as soon as it was put up for sale, so there was never any land for anyone to buy. Guy Linden was so used to it that, when a piece was abandoned, he set it for sale to me personally, without even contacting me. I actually owned all but 1536 sqm of the sim, so your thinking was way off I did. Except that the 1536 was never put up for sale or I'd have had it. I still paid for a full sim though. And resources? a few dozen bots very high in the sky use very little of a sim's resources. My view about people who don't think things through or complain merely on principle was right, wasn't it?
  15. I didn't own the whole sim - just almost all of it. I don't think it was reported at all. Traffic bots were allowed and the sim access was never an issue. As I said, the system always made sure that there were 3 or 4 spaces for people to come into the sim. It was a beautiful system Only people who don't think things through, or who object to things merely on principle, could possibly have found any fault with it as far as what was allowed is concerned.
  16. Inworld search (that's the web search) sorts by search criteria, and not by traffic. It's only if you switch to the legacy search that the results are sorted by traffic. You would have had a huge issue with me in the past then I wrote my traffic bots system to maintain high occupancy in the mainland sim. It kept tabs on how many avatars were in the sim, and, by logging bots in and out, always made sure there were 3 or 4 spaces available for people to come in - customers, land owners, passers-by. The very day after I'd finished it and it was running perfectly, LL announced the banning of everything that manipulated traffic counts. It had to go lol.
  17. It could be because it was compaints about traffic bots that caused the new rules. Nobody complained about camping or sploders - just traffic bots. So it's always bots that people have in mind, and I guess that, over time, the word 'traffic' has tended to be dropped, although I do think people still mean bots that are used to inflate traffic. Coffee brought up a good topic with this thread, and, imo, a very good suggestion. I've no idea why LL decided that we couldn't see the bot status of avatars, but they did. Imo, it would be better if we could see them, so that time isn't wasted trying to ascertain whether or not people are behind them. We can't even do that anyway, because a small group can be in IMs, so we wouldn't know. And we wouldn't waste everyone's time (LL's and ours) by reporting avatars that aren't breaking any rules but look as though they are.
  18. @BilliJo Aldrin Your reasoning concerning bots and alts inflating traffic misses one important thing. It's not just that traffic bots aren't allowed. It's the artificial inflation of traffic by any means that isn't allowed. It's why camping, sploders, etc. on land that's set to show in search became prohibited when traffic bots did. When LL brought the new rules out, it was easy for them to include a flag for bots, but all those methods are equally against the rules, including yours - the placing of multiple alts, that are logged in with viewers, on land that's set to show in search, for the purpose of inflating your traffic. Your alts would fall foul of the rule just as a group of unregistered bots would, unless you'd registered them as bots, of course. So there's no difference between your alts on viewers and unregistered bots run by programmes, when it comes to inflating the traffic count. They are both against the rules.
  19. And you know most SL whores, right? lol. So you've no idea if I'm wrong or not, and you made a false statement I don't know most SL whores either, so I prefer my view.
  20. No it didn't. At least not here in the UK, and I seriously doubt that it changed anywhere else, including where you live.
  21. It may be what you described but, even if it is, to the world it is what Bradford described, where one individual shows (sometimes anonymously) another individual that they are special in a romantic way. It could be that the tradition is in the early stages of changing but it hasn't changed yet, and the silliness of 'all give all a card so that nobody is special' is what it says on the tin ... silly.
  22. Actually, Bradford hasn't looked in any way negative to me during this thread, and he can't make himself look worse, because the word 'worse' doesn't apply when you're on the up. He's been making good sense all the way through the thread. Some others haven't made a great deal of good sense though - imo, of course. In fact, I would say that some (not naming any names) have been arguing just for the sake of it - rather stupidly, imo.
  23. LL didn't introduce mesh bodies. Users did. I'm convinced that LL introduced mesh for objects, not anticipating that users would use it for things like bodies, and maybe clothing. As LL has improved SL with things like sculpties, mesh, animated mesh, the system has become slower/laggier, especially since LL has always insisted on squeezing as many sims as they possibly can into each sim server. As time goes by, SL becomes a system that needs computers of higher and higher specs to run it. Computers get faster and memory gets cheaper, so lower end computers automatically have higher specs, and speed up as SL's requirements do, but not as fast as SL's requirements. The result is that computers continue to fall behind and SL gets generally laggier.
  24. Most of the emerald code was open source, and all of it was intended to be completely open to the developers. But one of the main developers (I think it was the guy who actually started emerald - the creator of copybot) decided that a small part of the code was open only to him. He hid what he'd put in it from the other developers. What he'd put in it was described by LL as DDoS attack code that operated every time someone either opened emerald or logged in with it. I don't know which. It was never a DDoS attack though, because there were never enough users opening/logging in with emerald to deny the target from servicing requests. It may be that those of us who remember that are loathe to trust strangers with running SL software in our computers, knowing that it's just a hobby to those strangers, and not a profession.
×
×
  • Create New...