Jump to content

Guy Gossamer

Resident
  • Posts

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy." There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. " There you go again Sorina with your twisted take on things. You have taken one line from the definition of Skill Games/Skill Gaming to suite your backward agenda. It has been clarified. Here is the full definition for anyone looking for clarity. “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.As you can see (well most of us can, Sorina is obviously blind or just plain stupid) it clearly states at 2) requires of permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play. So, "There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in." is plain and simply a complete lie. Like I've said time and again, do not take any advice from Sorina Garrigus. Please seek legal opinion from an attorney. You can clearly see she is ranting about older games..yadda yadda. Just ignore her.
  2. "In world" there has been discussion and confusion on the Federal wire act." - I can only assume someone like you is involved. The opinion from the US department of Justice nearly 3 years ago was that the federal wire act only applies towards sporting events or contests and other similar events one might bet upon say like the Oscars etc where the better is not a participant. When it says "sporting event or contest" it is speaking of events such as the Oscar example I gave. This has no baring on the skill game policy directly but it might based on how payment into games operate such as games with a percent to the pot on local or grid wide games." Please don't post such stupid opinion unless you are prepared to reference exactly where you have pulled this information from. Referencing wikipedia and three news websites while admirable and a clear demonstration of how credible your basis for argument is, proves nothing more than any idiot with access to a pc posted the information on wikipedia, and any idiot with a editorial policy posted something on their news website. Outside of that the links you posted are worthless. "The opinion from the US department of Justice nearly 3 years ago was that the federal wire act only applies towards..." - give the exact US Department of Justice reference for this, the link, document, page, lines exactly where it can be found, or don't post this type of crap at all. If you cannot post the link to said document etc, it is nobodies opinion but your own, and we all know what to do with your opinion. By the way, just because you read something on a news website or on wikipedia doesn't make it fact. 'Yes your Honor the legal basis for my opinion is wikipedia, reuters, cnn and fox!!'
  3. Fabulous post Yingzi. Credit where it's due. Welcome to the "we", although, you may be the founder. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:
  4. "The we you are refering to was someone defending an alleged SL attorney that refused to give credentials unless you paid them L$800 first and sending out incomplete RLOs with no opinions about specific games" I assume that you are referring to me as I haven't seen you discuss Monday Beam with anyone else, however, I would really like for you to illustrate where and exactly how I was defending the "alleged SL attorney" Monday Beam. I am 100% certain you cannot, but go ahead, give it a try and convince everyone here how you are right on that claim. You really are a silly girl. If you are claiming that Monday Beam sent out Reasoned Legal Opinion "with no opinions about specific games" you should show that as fact, and not just throw crap at the guy on a public forum. You should copy whatever you have in writing that states from the attornies of Linden Lab, they received RLOs from Monday Beam with "no opinions about specific games". To add, this is not me defending Monday Beam, this is me asking you to verify the claim you have made about him, and his work. Don't get this mixed up with me defending him, I am not, silly girl. "The other was a someone with all the signs of an alt has game sim in his picks that does not exist." Again, I think you are talking about me. Looks like you are repeating yourself trying to build up fictional numbers for "The we you are refering to". Everybody, I would like to confess, I am an alt. However, everything I have stated is true and factual. I am an alt because silly little girls like Sorina go looking on your SL profile for anything they can use to throw crap at you when they have nothing but crap to say (look at how she is trying to sling crap at Phil too about his furniture business - according to her), thinking they have the right to find out whatever they can and share it with the world. I'm an alt so that I don't have silly little girls like Sorina trolling me and my business in Second Life. You really are a silly girl Sorina. If I was you, I would focus on trying to reduce the lag at that monstrosity of yours, totally unbearable.
  5. Sorina, I feel sorry so for you. I really do. The only reason I am on here is to try and guide people away from listening to your very ill-informed advice.. You assume that because I said "Even your rant at Monday Beam in the Skill Games Help group was completely unnecessary and down right rude at times, irrespective of whether there was a laugh or two among your snide and cutting remarks. " that I am backing Monday Beam, or that I am a client of his! This is where you should shut up, as you are publically suggesting/disclosing information that suggests I am a client of his, cheapskating, endorsing him, using him, or whatever the case may be. I'm sure this is a TOS/Community Standards violation. I suggest you retract your accusation about what I am doing in real life with attornies as it should not be made public. You are so wrong (what's new?), all I am suggesting is that you are so off point on so many topics, without anything relevant and on point to say, you feel the need to carpet bomb everything and everyone with 'crap' in the hope that some of it sticks. You have been found out by multiple contributors on this thread and proven time and again to be wrong, wrong wrong, and I just hope that people are taking genuine advice given by other contributors in the context of the policy and ignoring everything you say. My advice to you, you deal with your attorney, and offer me a very public apology and I will take no further action. I can't help but feel so sorry for you. Let me add, you do NOT have my consent to share ANYTHING about me. Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.
  6. Hey Sorina, such a lovely day outside today. Anyway, just to clarify some of the nonsense you have been talking about. 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; This is not open to interpretation in any way, as it means two (2) things, and two things only. It means 1. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) has a requirement to pay it L$, it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy, and 2. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) permits the payment of L$ it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy. What condition 2) does not do, is put in place circumstances stating that 'permitting L$ payments to play' is allowed in circumstance x, y, z, and as a result of this not being there, it is reasonable to decduce that under all conditions where a game has/will have/had/can have/may have/might have/once had a facility to permit payment of L$ in order to play (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition), that game falls under this Skill Gaming Policy. The only place where these conditions apply, and games do not fall under the Skill Gaming Policy, is in Sorina's head. For this reason alone, I re-iterate to everyone, please do not listen to Sorina'ss advice, and do take legal advice from a qualified attorney. The other option is that the Skill Gaming Community reside in Sorinas head where her 7 years experience in China Shop management, and Linden Bull farming means ... oh, why bother! Also, just to add, to the hordes of people searching this blog for information, even though Sorina finds it necessary to sprout that she has seven (7) years experience working with "all kinds", I can confirm that she has absolutely zero (0) years experience working with games that fall under the new Skill Gaming Policy, and as such her seven years of experience doing all kinds is about as valid in this scenario as my PhD.
  7. There are 4 conditions and 1 pre-condition that must be met for your game to come under the skill gaming policy. The pre-condition is that the game is implemented through an in-world object and the conditions are, skill determination, requires or permits payment, payout in L$, and is a legal skill game. Your game does not meet the pre-condition of being implemented through an inworld object, and further, does not meet the condition of requiring/permitting a payment (via the in-world object). Therefore, in my humble opinion, your game is not subject to the skill gaming policy.
  8. Tut Tut (tt) Sorina, don't be such a hypocrit - "Payment Info on file is common term of course. The abbreviation is not. Common terms in SL in general are things like Sim, port, TP, etc. Payment info on file is something that comes up often in my circles but I don't think a term that might be used a couple times a year that in SL business circles is in need of a abbreviation. Its a common internet thing to do among some to abbreviate a term even one that is not often used at the expense of clarity in order to reduce having to type." ‎08-02-2014 08:02 PM - Sorina Garrigus Like I said previously, you're doing more harm than good to the skill gaming community by communicating with anyone other than yourself. Even your rant at Monday Beam in the Skill Games Help group was completely unnecessary and down right rude at times, irrespective of whether there was a laugh or two among your snide and cutting remarks. Guy.
  9. I have to admit, having posted only posted 19 times on these forums, even I know what PIOF means :matte-motes-big-grin:
  10. I feel a retreat coming on!! Ok, so, you say "An algorithm is the design of a programme". You also say "An algorithm is the design of piece of programming that does a specific thing and nothing else." and "An algorithm is a part of a programme, although it may constitute the whole programme". It appears to me, you have fully endorsed with your definition my assertion. The most important thing you have said in our discussion is, "but, imo, it's still wrong to refer...". I have stated all along that I belive an alogorithm to be a piece of programming that calculates, automates, reasons, processes. I still believe it is that part of the programme that handles the automating, calculating, reasoning, that you are playing against, as in the very first mention of it in this thread, I referred to the alogorithm that calculates what candies appear in Candy Crush. All the other alogorithms that add up to the full alogorithm (programme) are immaterial in my point, as they do other things. The don't calcualte the play moves/candies appearing. So, what we have here, are two arguments, both credible. IMO, I am not wrong :matte-motes-big-grin:, as I believe the alogorithm that handles the 'chess game' moves or Candy Crush candies are what the player is playing against. By your own definitions listed above, that's an alogorithm. I own the 50/50 now, you can phone a friend, or ask the audience. :matte-motes-big-grin:
  11. That might be true if you are speaking about a very specific alogorithm that does "a specific thing and nothing else". Most of the definitions of an alogorithm I have read (I don't need to reference as you seem intelligent enough to do a little google search all of your own) suggest that an alogoithm is a piece of programming that is used for calculating, processing, automating or reasoning something. I believe it is fair to say, it is an alogorithm (not defining specifically which one) that is responsible for processing, calculating, reasoning and automating the moves of a computer based chess program, for example. So, for instance, if you talk about LSL, in a game someone created, it is the alogorithm that determines, when, where, which colour, how often, to what degree of probability certain things will happen when a player does X. If is not the programme, or the functions, it is the alogorithm. As a result, to my mind, the player is playing against an alogorithm (I use 'an' loosely). I don't know why people might use or misuse the word alogorithm, and I really don't care. I'm taking back my 50/50. :matte-motes-big-grin:
  12. Never heard of PIOF before until this thread either.
  13. How about we go 50/50 on this :matte-motes-nerdy: I would say the calculation, processing and reasoning done by the alogorithm is what you are playing against, and that the programme is what is delivering the result visually, or similar.
  14. If the Bingo object does not require or permit L$ to play, it does not come under the Skill Gaming Policy. Outside of that, it doesn't matter whether it is a game of chance or not.
  15. While I understand the endevour of your point, you point suggests that it is a game of skill when the gaming operator is losing money on it, and is then not a game of skill if the operator is making money on it. Profit doesn't enter into the equation in determining whether a game is a game of skill or chance. In case you think I am defending any of the games with the stoploss feature, I am not. I'm merely making the point, that profit doesn't and shouldn't enter the equation in the determination of skill over chance. Modest profit is subjective. If every operator is operating to the exact same definition of modest profit, there is no competition. There is currently a lot of competition in the SL gaming sector.
×
×
  • Create New...