Jump to content

Phil Deakins

Resident
  • Content Count

    11,773
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. 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?
  2. 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)
  3. 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 u
  4. 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.
  5. 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 w
  6. Solar gave the perfect answer to that question. I.e. you don't pronounce it.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. @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.
  10. 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
  11. 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 t
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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 m
  15. 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 di
  16. 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.
  17. 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 s
  18. 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.)
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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"?
×
×
  • Create New...