Quote:
Originally Posted by Aodhan McDunnough  Nope. That's because camping is easier than gambling to disguise if ever it's explicitly banned.
And if such a ban were made, there will also be too many people who may be mistakenly banned because their presence resembles camping.
Go to a club to party, fall asleep while your avatar is dancing. To the world... you'll appear to be camping when all you did was fall asleep. |
It's clear to me, that you don't understand the camping issue at all.
Camping is a supply-side problem.
if the club owner is paying people a "per-time-spent" salary for remaining onsite, then that is the behaviour you can and should target for removal.
The fact is, the way to target that behaviour, is to remove the "traffic" incentive altogether. Remove any value for a location generating more people-hours, and you remove the incentive for people to PAY others to stand around, and/or use bots in an effort to increase the "appearance" of location popularity
In the process, you punish those who actually HAVE popular places, because they can no longer be recognized compared to unpopular places.. and then there's the whole issue of search ordering, and what defines "relevance".
But, the real world doesn't order search results in the phonebook based on popularity.