Jump to content

Skill Gaming Policy Thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1637 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Am I alone in thiking this looks a lot like an LL money grab? Some states lean on LL and PayPal about their local laws and while being forced into compliance the Lindens say "oh, we can make this more expensive"? 

I dunno but this just killed my new gaming club before it even opened (was gonna this week). Tons of cash down the dumper in purchased games and so on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably right, but I'd rather it was Linden Labs tellin' me that.  And I'd hate to see any long-runnin' contests disappear because the hosts are afraid of what might happen.

Or look at it this way: we're tryin' to help LL "debug" their policies by considerin' all the potential edge cases of their policy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Community Manager

Hi Phil,

As mentioned previously, Second Life residents will need to make this determination on a case by case basis to the extent that they believe that their "sploders", contest boards, and other objects are deemed a game of skill (instead of chance which is still prohibited under our Wagering Policy), and will need to comply with our updated Skill Gaming Policy.

Thank you!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please answer my question regarding costs.  I've found the operator, creator one... $100 per application but what about the quarterly fee and why does an approved game that LL has accepted into the list then ALSO need the operator to go through the same lawyer legal process when the operator has no sight of the code and thus can't assert that the game really does what it says? 

Why does LL want fees from TWO entities for what is essentially the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, I need some clarification. I have no problem complying with this, EXCEPT it appears that the "operator account" can't give or receive L$ from anywhere else. I own almost all of my machines with this same account that I use for my land business. I get tier payments, shop, go to live music and tip, etc. What is the point of taking in L$ if I can't spend it on things in SL? Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. Iam a creator of money games in Second Life (not on this avatar thought, but it really doesnt matters), iam a scripter and a server programer and i consider VERY strange the action you are starting right now.

I would even ask: is that a joke?


All the post that will follow will be the point of view of someone, who is, scripter/programmer of this kind of games (i only scripted few thought, i dont have giant buisness) and also, a PAST addict of this games, and BOth are important.


I guess ill need to divide my post in many parts cause its a problem that you CANT, FIX by only one TOS change , and NOT by this one. iam able to discuss with ANY Linden Inworld about that: i would even ask where i can join public lindens meetings to explain the whole problem, and my point of view directly.


I followed all the evolution about gambling in Second life and the 2007's FBI investigation. 2007 permitted the  ban of roulettes, blackjacks, poker, 777, etc... see google to inform yourself, it has been widely relayed by mass medias.

 

The things that follow, at the opposite, only players, owners creators and ll, knew it.

In 2010, i had a role by denouncing directly to Jp Linden/ gez Linden the Cheats related to the AutoON mode on machines like DEAL and Zyngos. The consequence of my reports have been a quiet silent change of TOS ("unoficial change") by linden lab that banned auto-on (a system that permitted players play "skill games" in automatic mode- which was nomore skill szince ALL the game was auto-, that permited owners make giants profits due to the increase of games played, increase of addiction, and increase of errors on this mode).

So, to resume, in 2007, LL changed the TOS due to RL Laws, in 2011, LL investigated on a "autoon" game mode abuse which consequences have been the UNOFFICIAL and SILENT ban of autoon mode, and renforcement of games watching in SL.

 

Since 2011? Nothing. No ToS change, and a low support reaction. Where is JP Linden that for example, in past Linden Employees were  banning in half an hour whole sims owned by  game sim owners who evidemently cheated?

We miss since 2011 the reactivity of the Trust And Safety Section of Linden Lab about reading of the ticket/reports, and general watching of game sims in SL;

So, to resume,The support of trust and safety is near inexistant/very low since 2011, no inworld linden lab employee that can help directly, and no read of abuse reports, or the abuse reports are read very slow/rarely.

 

--->The main proof of what iam advancing, is there: inworld for years, how linden lab can take decisions then remove those decisions the next years:

After the ban of autoon mode and the devils malus (and some other minor changes on the machines ) in early 2011-end 2010, DURING 6 MONTHES players didnt play a lot into games sims, of course, it was HARD to play, cause there has been a lot of attention from LL, to the SKILL notion: games turned long (20 turns needed), to fit new tos changes, etc.. and boring for "players.. To resume, game sims lost a lot of money during 6 monthes cause players didnt like the changes on machines-

 

Regarding the HUGE amount of MONEY those "skill games" give each day indirectly to LL (full sims, big amount of transactions, people becoming addicts- a friend of me lost 60.000 euros in 4 YEARS! one other had debts in real life, paid advertising), Linden Lab had the choice  to continue their  attention about the SKILL Notion, and watch of abuse from owners and creators, or to accept new games, to counter their own restrictions.

Same as 2007 the solution has been the creation of new games, i call this TO REACH A COMPROMISE.


The NODEVIL machines, have been created around 2011, and, it "fitted " the new tos changes! : 20turns of game, no devil/malus, no autoon, and 5x5 cases grid.

People came back to games sims, and all restarted, as before, cause the main problems (that ill explain in next posts) NEVER CHANGED SINCE 2007.

So the game buisness in SL has been in extremis saved, and the consequence has been the "skill" notion have been... forgotten..by ll and by players and addicts


Few monthes/years after, came new games!

Those games called: ZAP, FIREBALL, CORE, etc.. had 3x3 grid cases: with that trick those creators (and many other with similar games) BYPASSED the restrictions, and games that way were freshly and again playables, in...10seconds (i remember for example on certains sims you can play 30k games and lose that amount in 10seconds...

 

 

Then CAME some GAMES ADDONS:

the giants wheels, and the 777 addons, that are linked to jackpots, and many others: those addons are added on the machines that mean you play FOR A POT, ofc the machine (a core, a deal, a zyngo, etc..its compatible with all) is a "skill game", but what about those ADDONs: seriously: do you think giant wheels, that were all around for past 3 years WERE SKILL GAMES? SAME FOR the 777 addons, and many similars!

And the list can continue eternally:

some monthes ago i was able to play in auto on at kain cleaver sim on cores, and deals, isnt that against, tos, no, or they changed agin?

 

the follwowing posts will go further explaining that, explaining the programmer point of view and the whole system of gaming that grew in sl past few years: or LL take its own responsabilities and stop a partnership with few creators that are passively accepted for years but that abused the systeml for years or we continue like that.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Linden Lab wrote:

Hi Perrie,

Second Life residents will need to make this determination on a case by case basis to the extent that they believe that their "sploders", contest boards, and other objects are deemed a game of skill (instead of chance which is still prohibited under our
), and will need to comply with our updated
.

regards,

 

 


Linden Lab wrote:

Hi Perrie,

Second Life residents will need to make this determination on a case by case basis to the extent that they believe that their "sploders", contest boards, and other objects are deemed a game of skill (instead of chance which is still prohibited under our
), and will need to comply with our updated
.

regards,

 

 

We do understand that Virtual Worlds and Virtual Currencies have been subjected to greater scrutiny and regulation by the gov't, as well as regulation of "online wagering."  So we do understand the need for LL to protect itself as a service provider.

But the average Resident is clearly at a distinct disadvantage here.  Many Club owners do this as a casual activity, not for profit.

In my post above I linked to an example of a "Sploder."  There are many such devices for sale on the Market Place.   While it may be difficult to police InWorld sales of such devices it is clear that a policy is needed for listing such on the Market Place. 

Devices that meet the Lab's certification policies need their own listing category and that has to be the only category they can be listed with clear reference to the policies.  Devices that are sold InWorld need to be required to indicate their certification has been accepted, with anyone falsely claiming this being subject to being disciplined by the Lab up to and including a permanent ban.

Devices that are currently listed on the Market Place need to be reviewed and any that the use of would violate the policy need to be removed.  Telling us "Caveat Emptor" places an unfair burden on the average Resident.  And as devices get AR'd the Lab is going to be having to review them anyways.  It's a pay me now or pay me later situation.

Personally speaking, from my scant understanding of the rules, I suspect many of these devices will require certification under the new policies. 

 

Having looked again at the Wiki I have now struck out this statement.  I believe under the new terms none of these devices, even so called "legal sploders," can be sold on the Market Place.

4.2.iii 

Each Creator shall:

Verify that each purchaser of its approved Skill Games has been approved by Linden Lab as an Operator through the Skill Gaming application process. Linden Lab will maintain a list of Operators.

There is no practical way I can see that they can be left up for sale on the Market Place and a creator control who buys them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all moot anyway.  It's clear that this ONLY applies to skill based games that offer payouts in Linden Dollars.

Games just need to change to pay out by rezzing 0.5m cubes and the winner of said cubes just needs to link them together and set them for sale back to the game operator.

That's just a transaction of an object, such as happens all the time with shop purchases.  I see nothing in the rules prohibiting the sale of linksets comprised of 0.5m cubes!

Edit:  I think Linden Lab has me muted or is clearly ignoring the two requests now for

QUARTERLY COSTS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question:  Traffic games that use go-between game "currency" as payout and then let you cash out at their ATM... are these games considered within the same category as "Skill Games" that pay out?

Personally, I am glad these games are being limited to private regions.  General Terms and Conditions, item 2 states, "Skill Gaming is not permitted in the Second Life area in which Linden Lab is the estate owner (the “Mainland”)."  Yee freaking haw!  The impact one traffic game can have on a region is enough to warrant keeping them off of the mainland.  When you can't even access your own land because a traffic game is attracting a large number of players, something needs done.  As a long-time owner of mainland, I've intermittently been denied entry into my own land for a number of years, because of a sploder or game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:

Please answer my question regarding costs.  I've found the operator, creator one... $100 per application but what about the quarterly fee and why does an approved game that LL has accepted into the list then ALSO need the operator to go through the same lawyer legal process when the operator has no sight of the code and thus can't assert that the game really does what it says? 

Why does LL want fees from TWO entities for what is essentially the same thing?

Where do you see the requirement for a lawyer's affidavit for the OPERATOR? I see the requirement for the affidavit from the CREATOR in order for the equpement to be approved, and the operator then has to say they're using equipment that's been approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as I understand it....no more sploders - period - that people have to pay into. If we want trivia machines and contest boards, even though the patrons dont pay in to them, we have to apply for a rediculously priced liscence and pay quarterly as well. But that is also assuming the creators of those things have been approved and lsicensed? AND you have to pay a lawyer on top of this whole process? What?

 

Does LL not realize that this will have a bad bad fallout. Ok I understand no games of chance. Make that a specific rule. But THIS policy makes no sense, games of skill arent hurting anyone and its NOT gambling, so why all the fuss? Sounds like a bid to make more money, but honestly I do not think many will bother.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Theresa Tennyson wrote:


Sassy Romano wrote:

Please answer my question regarding costs.  I've found the operator, creator one... $100 per application but what about the quarterly fee and why does an approved game that LL has accepted into the list then ALSO need the operator to go through the same lawyer legal process when the operator has no sight of the code and thus can't assert that the game really does what it says? 

Why does LL want fees from TWO entities for what is essentially the same thing?

Where do you see the requirement for a lawyer's affidavit for the OPERATOR? I see the requirement for the affidavit from the CREATOR in order for the equpement to be approved, and the operator then has to say they're using equipment that's been approved.

It may be mentioned elsewhere, too, but it's certainly there on the online application form,  section 2A of the notes (page 5).

I was rather assuming the creator would obtain the legal opinion and then make copies available to customers, but that's just my speculation.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all game operators and creators. My attorney has been approached by several people needing help with compliance, and bringing up doubts regarding the legality of the new LL changes. We are putting together a group to approach LL, plus he can provide individual assistance. There will be a cost, but the more people we can get together, the more affordable it will be plus a better chance of success, if we unite as a group. Please IM me in world if you're interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it Ayesha, you're going to have to get all new games anyhow. You might as well put them under a dedicated "Operator" account. On the application for "Operator" you must give a listing of all compliant games that will be run under your "Operator" account. You must also acquire an affidavit from an attorney that says the games you are operating comply with LL's Skill Gaming Policy. I am curious if LL is going to allow game creators to provide these affidavits to the Operators to present with the Operator Application. Or, if each Operator is going to have to get their own attorney to provide one for each seperate type of game.

There is a good question...Will Game Creators be able to provide affidavits to Operators applying for a license? How will an Operator be able to give a sworn affidavit to the legality and operation of a game they cannot inspect or operate without buying it first? If I were an attorney (and I am not) I would be very hesitant to issue opinions based solely upon the opinions of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Linden Lab wrote:

Hi Phil,

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

best regards,

 

So if I make a game you can pay L$ to for additional items, special power ups, etc, then its a pay to play game? Or not? Does Bloodlines run afoul of this, since you have to pay ongoing costs to the game if you cannot find human to spam-err, bite? That's a pretty vague requirement if paying the game to play can be used as a single point determinator to decide if a game is a Game of Skill or not, since you no longer need to consider if the game pays money back out to participants. Is that what you are telling us, that if a game meets any of the 4 points in the guidelines, then it's a game of skill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1637 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...