Skill Gaming Policy Thread

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

---

LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling?

 

I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:-

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "

permits

" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

---

I found your question and the response on Greedy Greedy. LL just quoted the policy but did not define permit in any kind of context or reference the game or situation.

They do this because they are not offering legal advice AT ALL.

"Hi Phil,

If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy.

best regards,"

 PS: On Greedy just update it anyway if you are intending to play for no money in or out. Karsten has been updating al lhis games. He has to since he has no intention on applying his games as being skill games or have a skill game sim to sell them on. Just click the game and hit update.

---

He didn't "just quote the policy". He phrased it in a different way, so that even you could understand. Between the policy and the LL post that you quoted, there is no abiguity, and nothing is open to interpetation. Actually, the LL reply that you quoted is even more clear about it that the policy is. It's blatantly clear. I've no doubt that it's blatantly clear to you too, and that it's your pride that won't let you back down and be seen to have been wrong about it - just like you were seen by everyone to be wrong about the semi-colons..

I know all about the Greedy Greedy update. I even know that there was a bug in the first update which was fixed in the second one. I got it a while back, but thank you for mentioning it, anyway

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

---

LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling?

 

I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:-

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "

permits

" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

---

I found your question and the response on Greedy Greedy. LL just quoted the policy but did not define permit in any kind of context or reference the game or situation.

They do this because they are not offering legal advice AT ALL.

"Hi Phil,

If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy.

best regards,"

 PS: On Greedy just update it anyway if you are intending to play for no money in or out. Karsten has been updating al lhis games. He has to since he has no intention on applying his games as being skill games or have a skill game sim to sell them on. Just click the game and hit update.

---

He didn't "just quote the policy". He phrased it in a different way, so that even you could understand. Between the policy and the LL post that you quoted, there is no abiguity, and nothing is open to interpetation. Actually, the LL reply that you quoted is even more clear about it that the policy is. It's blatantly clear. I've no doubt that it's blatantly clear to you too, and that it's your pride that won't let you back down and be seen to have been wrong about it - just like you were seen by everyone to be wrong about the semi-colons..

I know all about the Greedy Greedy update. I even know that there was a bug in the first update which was fixed in the second one. I got it a while back, but thank you for mentioning it, anyway

---

I am not backing down, I am not interested replying to an obvious troll.

[Sorina Garrigus]

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

The other was a someone with all the signs of an alt has game sim in his picks that does not exist.

The other was someone that apparently hates games and game operators, and blames them for encouraging addiction while also stating that they also tried to make a skill game before I suppose so they could blame themselves for encouraging addiction.

Then of course there is you who is hung up on a punctuation comment.

Not exactly a credible we.

CLEARLY you are here to disrupt things as most trolls are. So have a good day and have fun making cheap furniture.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I am not backing down, I am not interested replying to an obvious troll.

---

No answers eh? So you do the next best thing and attempt an insult. You've shown yourself to be quite good at that when you're not getting your own way 

I told you before that you need to look up the word 'troll' because that's something else you don't understand. A troll is not someone who disagrees with you. For instance, you're not a troll because you continue to disagree with me and everyone else in this thread.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

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

The other was a someone with all the signs of an alt has game sim in his picks that does not exist.

The other was someone that apparently hates games and game operators, and blames them for encouraging addiction while also stating that they also tried to make a skill game before I suppose so they could blame themselves for encouraging addiction.

Then of course there is you who is hung up on a punctuation comment.

Not exactly a credible we.

CLEARLY you are here to disrupt things as most trolls are

. So have a good day and have fun making cheap furniture.

---

I thought you weren't interested in replying to me. You don't have a very good attention span, do you?

Anyway, the "we" I was referring to is exactly what I said it is - we in this thread. After all, it was me who used the word 'we', and it was you who asked who the 'we' is that I wrote about, so I told you. Even you have to give me credit for knowing what I mean when I write something. Or do you think you know what I mean better than I do? Perhaps you think that I'm trolling because you don't believe I used the word "we" in the way that I said I used it, and not in the ways that you claimed I used it.  It's clear that you are now grasping at any straw you can think of 

I'm here for a number of reasons, one of which is correcting the misinformation the you write, and I do it for the benefit of those you write it to. I've only corrected two things that you've written (plus your idiocy in telling me what I meant by the word "we", of course). One is your lack of understanding of the semi-colon, and the other is your misunderstanding of 'permit' as it is used in the policy document, both of which you told people are open to interpretation when neither of them are, and both of which you've been corrected on by quite a few people in this thread. It's gone on for so long because you refuse to accept facts when they stare you in the face, and you even resort to insulting those who disagree with you. It's entirely your doing. Forums aren't really your thing, are they?

ETA: I should tell you that I, and no doubt others, will continue to correct any misinformation that you post. When people ask questions, they want correct answers because it matters to them, and, when you give them incorrect answers, you will be corrected.

[Guy Gossamer]

"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.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

The other was someone that apparently hates games and game operators, and blames them for encouraging addiction while also stating that they also tried to make a skill game before I suppose so they could blame themselves for encouraging addiction.

Then of course there is you who is hung up on a punctuation comment.

Not exactly a credible we.

CLEARLY you are here to disrupt things as most trolls are. So have a good day and have fun making cheap furniture.

---

The first paragraph quoted above is aimed directly at me, so I came back to respond.

I made it clear throughout the thread, I don't hate games or game operators.  I called for balance, fairness and oversight.  I did call into question addiction, which you acknowledged and denied multiple times.  You yourself claimed to have banned addicted players because of addiction.  You can't have it both ways.  If it's pay to play, pays out, is addicting and skill plays second fiddle to chance then those are the hallmarks of gambling.  Maybe not all games fall into that category, I acknowledged that in several posts.  You deny that gambling exists in Second Life because the wagering policy doesn't allow it and LL has not taken action, taking that as proof.  Then you say that some games are clear violations, which negates your argument.

You paint yourself as a legal scholar and a skill gaming intellectual, which you seem to have garnered by osmosis as a game operator.  Your claim of expertise by association ("experience" with "hundreds of games") hasn't shined through in your posts at all, instead you've been divisive, insulting, argumentative and contradictory.

You took it upon yourself to IM me in-world, all in a tizzy over a tongue-in-cheek comment I made at the end of a post in this thread, clearly a joke.  You seek out dirt and associations (or lack of) to lay claim to intellectual superiority, in an attempt to defeat arguments.  Some points you simply ignore because you know it's the truth.

The self-importance with which you carry yourself in this thread is evident to all.  I can't name one post that has been beneficial to my understanding of the skill gaming policy.

My posts have been about my own concerns, debating the skill gaming policy, expressing my convictions and my experiences (i.e. normal discourse).  Your posts have been about yourself first, because you must always be right and must always have the high ground.  Clear cut answers become muddled in your quest for skill gaming policy "clarity". 

Calling someone out as being a creator of furniture in an effort to make their posts irrelevant.  Calling someone out as being an alt as if they're hiding something.  Calling a scripter out for being a hater of games because they have a different opinion.  These are all divisive and pointless and have no basis vs fact and opinion, which ALL are able to discern, regardless of background and experience.  You so badly want your opinion to be superior to everyone else, so you find anything you can to make others look inferior.  If you have to dig up perceived dirt or irrelevance to defend your position, your position doesn't have a leg to stand on.  I've seen more clarity from a guy who deals in furniture and an alt than I've seen from you, the supposed gaming expert you make yourself out to be.

I gave you respect, apologized and empathized with your position.  I even visited your place and complimented you on the layout.  I took the time to see who you were and what you do because I care about the subject matter, not whether I can be better than you or put you in your place.  I was and always have been sincere in every post (joking aside).  Rather than respond in kind, you chose to go a different route, which is telling.

Your frantic need to be at the center of attention, be accepted and be a voice for gaming has only made things worse, not better.  You counter-argue every valid point made with muddy half-truths and conjecture, serving to confuse the very community you want to be a pillar of.  If you're contradicting your own points in the same thread, It's not helping at all.

Lastly, no matter how you try to put words in other peoples mouths, their words are here to read in this thread.  In the end, truth wins out and is self-evident.

If it wasn't clear, let me reiterate:  I am a scripter and builder.  I love games.  I've scripted and built my own games from scratch.  I am for balance in gaming, to allow for profit and payout that makes sense; something that up to this point has been questionable.  I am for equal rights for all residents, which means these games should not have a negative impact on region performance or personal well-being (financial, psychological).  I am fully behind the wagering and skill gaming policies and how LL decides to implement them.  I'm not an AR freak, I don't belong to an AR group and I have no intention of ARing unless it affects me personally.  There is no grand conspiracy on my part, only strong opinion which I'm passionate about.  I am passionate about all of my opinions, regardless of the subject matter and it comes through in my posts.  Those are all facts.  Take note.  You will not put words in my mouth and you will not invalidate my opinion.

[Guy Gossamer]

Fabulous post Yingzi. Credit where it's due. Welcome to the "we", although, you may be the founder. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

[Innula Zenovka]

People might be interested to read the following, via Inara Pey's Living In The Modem World.

---

On Saturday August 2nd, 2014, Agenda Faromet, an attorney specialising in privacy and Internet law operating out of San Francisco, and a member of the SL Bar Association, gave a dual presentation on the recent (July 2014) changes to Section 2.3 of Linden Lab’s Terms of Service and on the changes to the Lab’s policy on Skill Gaming in Second Life, which are due to come into effect from September 1st.

---

An edited recording and transcript of the section on Skill Gaming, which makes very interesting reading indeed, and seems to clear up a lot of points, is to be found here.

I really would suggest that people at least read the edited transcript for clarification of several issues that have arisen in this thread.

[Sorina Garrigus]

Attention game developers, operators, and Linden Labs.

"In world" there has been discussion and confusion on the Federal wire act. 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. Both the US Department of Justice and the US Fith circuit court of appeals agree the Federal Wire act does not include "onling gambling" and online skill games are not mentioned but clealry they are not an issue with various online skill game sites that exist outside SL.

Laywers for Linden Labs, Game creators, and game operators should be aware of this information when looking at games of skill and their operation. Various sources and at the end of this post

The Interstate Wire Act of 1961, often called the Federal Wire Act, is a United States federal law prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting businesses in the United States. It begins with the text:

Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[1]

In September 2011, the US Department of Justice released to the public a formal legal opinion on the scope of the Act concluding, "interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a 'sporting event or contest' fall outside the reach of the Wire Act."[2]

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act prohibition on the transmission of wagers applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling.[3] The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/27/tech/web/online-gambling-legalization-likely/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/26/us-internet-gambling-idUSTRE7BO0HA20111226

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/26/legal-experts-see-states-wagering-on-online-gambling/

[Innula Zenovka]

What about the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act 2006, though?    

To my mind, that sounds as if it might be relevant to any discussion of online gambling, too.

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

People might be interested to read the following, via

Inara Pey's Living In The Modem World

.

---

On Saturday August 2nd, 2014, Agenda Faromet, an attorney specialising in privacy and Internet law operating out of San Francisco, and a member of the SL Bar Association, gave a dual presentation on the recent (July 2014) changes to Section 2.3 of Linden Lab’s Terms of Service and on the changes to the Lab’s policy on Skill Gaming in Second Life, which are due to come into effect from September 1st.

---

An edited recording and transcript of the section on Skill Gaming, which makes very interesting reading indeed, and seems to clear up a lot of points,

is to be found here

.

I really would suggest that people at least read the edited transcript for clarification of several issues that have arisen in this thread.

---

Thanks for posting this. I was there and was waiting for this to be put up to send to others. There was a first part also on copyright policies that was interesting also.

[Guy Gossamer]

"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!!' 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Guy Gossamer wrote:

"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 y

our Honor the legal basis for my opinion is wikipedia, reuters, cnn and fox!!' 

---

Sorina Said

"Laywers for Linden Labs, Game creators, and game operators should be aware...."

like all good trolls you ignore what was actually stated. These are important elements all legal parties should be aware of as I was suggesting and all parties to make their legal council aware of these updated (three years ago) views. This isn't really news to people in SL that keeps tract of such relevant news that may relate to gaming in SL. I am not offering any opinions other than the context of their statement made it clear it only addressed sports and other similar events. And thats not even an opinion of mine its just kind of already there in the statement.  If you have a problem with that, then take it up with the US Department of Justice.

Also REALLY? Three major news networks reporting the same story isn't good enough information to have your attorney research it?? REALLY? Not even the US Department of Justice?????? Fox news I could understand if it was political news. Definitely not Wiki either. They just had a clean paragraph that was short and encapsulated this old news.

Your REALLY stretching now. Here are some other sources you to troll about.

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

"The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) has analyzed the scope of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.c  § 1084, and concluded that it is limited only to sports betting,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in a letter on Friday"

If your just going to troll then just keep quiet. If your actually interested I gave enough source material and I am not interested in holding your hand the whole way. Even a  half ass attorney should be able to find out and look up the rest.

 

[Phil Deakins]

What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'? Do you think the policy should be changed because of it? (you did address the post the LL as well as others).

If you're thinking that LL came up with the policy because of some laws or whatever, and that what you quoted should make a difference to the policy, then what you quoted doesn't make any difference. The policy exists now, and that's all that concerns us.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'? Do you think the policy should be changed because of it? (you did address the post the LL as well as others).

If you're thinking that LL came up with the policy because of some laws or whatever, and that what you quoted should make a difference to the policy, then what you quoted doesn't make any difference. The policy exists now, and that's all that concerns us.

---

I can see how some Users may not know anything about the Wire Act but I'm certain LL does know.  But it is not LL's responsibility to explain it or any aspect of the law to anyone.  Sure they can provide link to information but the bottom line is they will always HAVE TO SAY that they can not give legal advise and refer you to your own attorney.

One of the things here is that LL's only job is self serving:  Making sure they are in compliance with the law.  If to do this they want to make rules that are stricter than the law they are perfectly free to do this. 

In the SLBA meeting, Agent Faromet stated in gist that what LL has done has been to bring them in compliance with the law(s).  But now for User the issue is this:

"10:25: Linden Lab right now is your state. The Linden Lab policy is all that matters, and if Linden Lab makes a determination about entrance fees and whatnot, that’s what matters more than Arizona state law [i.e., if your state happens to allow the LL proscribed activity]"

If someone does not understand the policy then they need to seek competent legal advise.

[Phil Deakins]

I'd never heard of the Wire Act either, but it makes no difference to me or anyone else. We have the policy now, and that's what we have to live by. If someone disagrees with the policy, then they should lobby LL about it. Posting it in this thread is no good.

But I don't know if the post is trying to say that the policy is wrong because of the Wire Act, or is showing why the policy is right. It was addressed to Linden Lab as well as to game makers and operators, so I don't know the purpose of it.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'd never heard of the Wire Act either, but it makes no difference to me or anyone else. We have the policy now, and that's what we have to live by. If someone disagrees with the policy, then they should lobby LL about it. Posting it in this thread is no good.

But I don't know if the post is trying to say that the policy is wrong because of the Wire Act, or is showing why the policy is right. It was addressed to Linden Lab as well as to game makers and operators, so I don't know the purpose of it.

---

I'll just add these two things here. In the SLBA meeting the Attorney never brought up the Wire Act.  Someone did in a question.

"Question: From my understanding, the wire act and case-law involving it would consider any money paid into something where by the amount that can be paid out increases by the number of players would be considered a BET rather than an entrance fee?

09:55: It looks like my comment about entrance fees and bets has confused a lot of people. Let me back up. A couple of states have had that discussion. This is something that would have to be a state-by-state evaluation. don’t let that throw you off, and maybe I shouldn’t even have mentioned it. What you have to look at is not whether a state has made that determination, you’ve got to look at Linden Lab’s policy.

10:25: Linden Lab right now is your state. The Linden Lab policy is all that matters, and if Linden Lab makes a determination about entrance fees and whatnot, that’s what matters more than Arizona state law

10:38: So back up a little bit about the entrance fee question. You law, as far as your concerned, is the Skill Gaming policy. So I would not suggest trying to create a system of entrance fees and prize monies and things like that, because that opens-up complications of having to comply with sweepstakes law and contest law and that gets really super difficult. I’m sorry if I confused people, I was just making the example."

Regardless it is the responsiblity of the Game Operaters and the Players to know if their activity is legal in the Jurisdiction in which they live, even if the activity is allowed by LL.

[native Bigbear]

I need some info i create and sell a fun games that payout 1 linden to a high score its a random payout , you do not have to pay to play its based on only bringing traffic to ones land there is no skills connected to it.

will this be allowed i have sent a message to linden lab but i cant seem to get a straight answer.

only things like send in for a license that cost 345 us dollars no refund seems very unfair just to get a anwser

[Phil Deakins]

Games that cannot accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play do come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not.

[native Bigbear]

Thanks for the reply phil i just hope your right about that im more concerned about the rodeo rides ive sold to my customers in the past so fingers crossed all will be ok.

[Sorina Garrigus]

Not worth responding to. There are way too many false and innaccurate statements to address, but good luck.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'? Do you think the policy should be changed because of it? (you did address the post the LL as well as others).

If you're thinking that LL came up with the policy because of some laws or whatever, and that what you quoted should make a difference to the policy, then what you quoted doesn't make any difference. The policy exists now, and that's all that concerns us.

---

Are you kidding? The skill game policy requires both game owners and operators to aquire reasoned legal opinions to apply as operators.

Yes LL is looking at legal status at each proposed skill game.

Not sure why your posting this should all be very basic on this policy to those looking into it.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I'd never heard of the Wire Act either, but it makes no difference to me or anyone else. We have the policy now, and that's what we have to live by. If someone disagrees with the policy, then they should lobby LL about it. Posting it in this thread is no good.

But I don't know if the post is trying to say that the policy is wrong because of the Wire Act, or is showing why the policy is right. It was addressed to Linden Lab as well as to game makers and operators, so I don't know the purpose of it.

---

If you have any plans on owning or creating games you HAVE to be aware of the laws that relate to games with pay and win options. If you are familiar with this and the related operator/creator policies you should completely understand the relevance of the wire act and any laws relating to games. If you don't I really am not sure why you are commenting so much on this topic.

The specific reason though is some in world discussion and possibly LL internally these updated legal opinions by the US department of justice on the Federal Wire act. The federal wire act prohibits betting communication lines to place bets on sporting events. Originally it was talking about phonelines (preinternet) but was interpreted include internet as well. The older general opinion prior to 2011 was that it could apply towards online casinos and skill games. It speaks. For SL specifically puts into question % to pot features on local and grid wide games sometimes called a progressive pot because the amount of pay out increases with each play. But in 2011 it was made clear that the act was specifically for sports betting.

Some alleged legal opinions floating about the wire act as it relates to SL was not addressing the 2011 court of appeals ruling and the US Department of Justice's legal opinions put out in a public statement.

I wouldn't dream of offering legal advice to anyone but I would suggest any attorney used when offering legal opinions on creating or operating games should be made very aware of those facts. Other laws may enter into it though but not the wire act.

[Sorina Garrigus]

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

If your making a game and players DO NOT pay directly or indirectly but does pay out, they are not within the scope of the policy such as a free to play game with a pay out assuming your not working a system to attempt to bypass the policy. Since your making games just don't have a pay in option in the game at all.  I wouldn't advise work arounds either.

If you send me a landmark in world I would be happy to take a look.

LL won't give straight answers it seems. They have just been telling people when they have to talk to an attorney. It is a major mess. I been trying to make game makers that are not in the skill game loop aware of these issues but some I have not been able to contact and may have issues given the short messy nature of how this has all been handled.