Jump to content

Skill Gaming Policy Thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1244 days.

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

Recommended Posts


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:

Presumably, if the operation/game is good to go according to US legislation (and LL TOS), if you have beef with your local authorities or not is not really their business because there is nothing they can do about it. You only inciminate yourself in your country. 

I was thinking more of possible problems with PayPal it might cause LL if they're facilitating my unlawfully running a game from the UK, but since I'm not immediately planning to operate any games (though I may make some) I'm not going to worry about it.

I don't see how Paypal (or any payment processor) could practically monitor that. 

If order a drug or something that is legal in the US from a US retailer's internet store and pay with Paypal, I am the one who get busted and fined if the goods is stopped in customs. It does not have any consequence for the retailer or Paypal. The retailer would get their payment from Paypal as for any other transaction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Gavin Hird wrote:


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Gavin Hird wrote:

Presumably, if the operation/game is good to go according to US legislation (and LL TOS), if you have beef with your local authorities or not is not really their business because there is nothing they can do about it. You only inciminate yourself in your country. 

I was thinking more of possible problems with PayPal it might cause LL if they're facilitating my unlawfully running a game from the UK, but since I'm not immediately planning to operate any games (though I may make some) I'm not going to worry about it.

I don't see how Paypal (or any payment processor) could practically monitor that. 

If order a drug or something that is legal in the US from a US retailer's internet store and pay with Paypal, I am the one who get busted and fined if the goods is stopped in customs. It does not have any consequence for the retailer or Paypal. The retailer would get their payment from Paypal as for any other transaction. 

You're prohibited from using Paypal for anything that can be construed as gambling, including games of skill, unless the provider has been vetted by Paypal already.

https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

1) Will LL license someone as an operator when the games the info is provided for are not yet approved? (the current situation)

 The answer to question 1, I would have thought, is clearly contained in the
"
I already operate games of skill that offer Linden Dollar payouts. What do I need to do to ensure I am following the Terms of Service?"

That is, submit your application before August 1, and carry on as normal until you hear from us.   

And if the would-be operator does not already operate the games?


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

2) What does the operator do when a new game comes out and gets approval? Pay another fee, plus pay a lawyer, to operate that one as well? If so, it will result in operators paying fees and lawyers time after time when each game is approved.

The answer to question 2, as far as I can see from page 7 of the application form, is that yes, you do need to submit a separate application each time you want to add a new game (though you can apply for approval for several games at once).

As far as I understand L
Why do both proposed creators and operators need to provide reasoned legal opinions?, 
it's because they want to be sure that it's lawful for the operator to operate this particular game in his or her home jurisdiction.    That seems not unreasonable; we know that different states have different laws about what games residents of the state may play, so I can understand that it might well be legal to operate a particular game if you live in Texas, but not if you live in Utah, or vice versa.

It still seems very shambolic to me. An operator should only have to demonstrate that s/he is a person of good character, imo, especially if online gambling is allowed in the jurisdiction. But I suppose that the legal jurisdiction of the applicant may be significant when online gambling is not allowed but playing games of skill for money is. Even then an application should merely attest that operating skill games online, where money can be paid in and won, is allowed where the applicant lives.

I do think that LL are going way over the top as far as operators are concerned, especially since operators have to shell out a lot of money (lawyer and fee) each time they want to add a game.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Way too much "assuming" here. I'm not prepared to spend money on assumptions.

Any operator with a smidgen of financial sense would wait for games to be approved before forking out legal fees for games that may or may not be approved.  I guess you have unlimited funds?  And my lawyer is not prepared to offer an opinion on games that may or may not comply with any laws, US or international atm.  International not "local".  If your lawyer is based in the US and is willing to do that, feel free to give us his/her name.  We could all use a "credible" lawyer like that and would be eternally grateful to you.

Let's not forget that these documents need to be submitted WITH the application and until an application is submitted, the operator CANNOT continue to operate after Aug 1.  So your argument that operations can continue while your application is being reviewed is moot - there is NO application because  ..meh . . forget it. 

Clearly LL is not going to address this at all, Gaia.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

:/

That quote does not appear in the link to the TOS you had nor the new skill game policy. So yes you may have a clue what your talking about but when people declare something that is known to them to be clearly untrue it is refered to as a lie. Games of pure chance are prohibited in Second Life but games of skill never were.

I didn't link to the ToS. I linked straight to the blog post. If you meant the first link - the one in green - I didn't create that one. It was copied and pasted along with the rest of the LL statement. I naturally assumed that it goes to somewhere applicable, which I'm sure it does.

Saying something that is untrue is not always a lie. If a person believes that what s/he says is true, but it isn't actually true, then it's not a lie; it's a mistake. Anyone who thinks it is a lie, is wrong. (I'm practising using the semi-colon there. I hope I used it right - but I probably didn't :) )

Games of pure chance ARE allowed in SL, and always have been. You missed out the bit about paying in and paying out ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"You own a gaming sim? Didn't you know that gambling hasn't been allowed in SL for years? But you did know, and you chose to break the rules."

You have no clue what your talking about there is a policy on wagering not gambling per say
. Games of chance have not been allowed in SL for years. Games of skill always have been allowed and is clearly stated right on the wagring policy.

Additionally LL has been very aware of games of skill such as all the slingo variants since 2007. Its impossible not to and they actively allowed them and even had a secret white list of games that were ok.  

"
Gambling is strictly
in Second
". Those are the very first words of the 
about the new policy. Notice that is says "gambling". I think I do have "
a clue what I'm talking about
"
;)

A secret white list? What's secret about it if you know it exists? But yes, I do know that skill games have been allowed since the gambling ban. It's just that when someone says they have a gaming sim, it's generally understood that gaming is gambling, as in 'online gaming'. Do a search in Google on the word 'gaming'. You'll see all the online casinos come up, using the phrase 'online gaming'.


I randomly found the quote you quoted. It is in the section entitled Skill Gaming Approved Participants.

you clearly had to dig to find that poorly written wiki. The skill gaming policy is almost as poorly written. The poster does not understand what the word gamble means. They clearly wrote it as if the word is only ever used in relations to games of pure chance. When they said gambling, they meant to say games of chance, otherwise the rest completely contradicts other new policies, the wagering policy, and itself.

But if you read it all in context which clearly you didn't want people to read or discover it says the following.

 

Gambling is strictly
in Second Life and operating, or participating in, a game of chance that provides a Linden Dollar payout is a violation of our
. However, games of skill are legally permitted in many jurisdictions, and Second Life’s
establishes that skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed, but each game, its creator, its operator, and the region on which it is operated must be approved by Linden Lab. Additionally, access to skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be limited to Second Life users who are of sufficient age and are located in a jurisdiction that Linden Lab permits for this type of online gaming activity. For more information on this program, please read the
and associated
.

 

There is enough legit confusion without you spreading BS out there like a common place troll.

I haven't spread any BS. Everything I wrote is true, and you quoting the rest of the paragraph doesn't make it any less true. There is nothing in the paragraph that contradicts the very first statement.

You seem to have problems with the way things are written, and find difficulties where there are none. Earlier you said that the semi-colon made things unclear. I didn't know at that time, but I've since learned in this thread that the semi-colon was exactly the right punctuation to use to make it an AND seperated list, and it was you who didn't understand the semi-colon.

Link to post
Share on other sites


WhataBig Camel wrote:

Way too much "assuming" here. I'm not prepared to spend money on assumptions.

Any operator with a smidgen of financial sense would wait for games to be approved before forking out legal fees for games that may or may not be approved.  I guess you have unlimited funds?  And my lawyer is not prepared to offer an opinion on games that may or may not comply with any laws, US or international atm.  International not "local".  If your lawyer is based in the US and is willing to do that, feel free to give us his/her name.  We could all use a "credible" lawyer like that and would be eternally grateful to you.

Let's not forget that these documents need to be submitted WITH the application and until an application is submitted, the operator CANNOT continue to operate after Aug 1.  So your argument that operations can continue while your application is being reviewed is moot - there is NO application because  ..meh . . forget it. 

Clearly LL is not going to address this at all, Gaia. 

Innula quoted LL's documentation, that's all. She didn't suggest that people should actually go ahead and shell out a load of money to become an operator in advancf of the games being certified. At least I didn't read it that way.

Also, I believe that any suitable lawyer will give an opinion of uncertified games, simply because they can be shown to him/her. Existing games don't need to be certified to be examined by a lawyer. It takes the same amount of time either way. A lawyer may suggest not spending your money until the games are certified, because it may be a waste of money, but that's different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure she didnt mean it that way but if she sees no stumbling blocks then it DOES read that way.

Any "suitable" lawyer can give an opinion but as you say, "A lawyer may suggest not spending your money until the games are certified, because it may be a waste of money.." and that is the issue here.

A few peeps requested an extension for operators to submit applications until an approved creators' list was available and I think that this would make a lot more sense both operationally and financially. However, whoever said common sense was common?  This way LL would have done their legal due diligence process, approved it and then our lawyers can step in and write up their opinions.  Maybe I'm reaching?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw people suggesting an extension for operators, and I agree with it. It's ludicrous to expect operator applicants to shell out and get their applications in before any games are certified.

But it does seems as though LL isn't interested in how ludicrous it is. It certainly looks like they are merely getting themselves up to date from a legal standpoint, and they don't seem to care what effect it has on their customers, especially since the ones who will be affected (the would-be operators) are very very few. They'd probably prefer that all the games went away because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, operators should have a later deadline than creators...

 

imagine this case...

 

You have a dozen operators, all shelling out the expenses for a lawyer's opinion, affidavit, the application costs to LL...

 

and then end up having the creator's games that all dozen of those operators are using, either end up having their games denied, or the creators decide to close up shop instead of go through the hassle.

 

So you end up having all of the operators end up spending easily up to a couple/few thousand dollars jumping through hoops for no reason, and their cames ended up not being approved anyways, even if their legal opinions would have ended up approving the operators.

 

So LL gets to keep the application fees, all of the operators have just taken a big hit, for nothing.

 

The games have to be approved first. It is just rediculous to have to go through the process as an operator, when no games have gone through approval yet.

 

-- Smoov

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the Second Life Skilled Gaming FAQ page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 

  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 

  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully :)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

I've been wondering if LL has still been looking at this thread. I hope they are.

But I was also wondering if we haven't some what hi-jacked this thread with our side discussions making it diificult for it to serve its intended purpose. 

That point is definitely NOT a hi-jack.  That second question is completely moot.  It would only be valid if an approved operator was automatically granted approved creator status.  The skill gaming TOS does not grant that to an operator.

So yes, that particular question is meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the thread served its purpose up to the point where LL stopped answering questions. I'm thinking that most newer questions were repeats of older ones that were already answered.

I'm not sure if people started suggesting a later deadline for operators before or after LL stopped replying, but I've come to the conclusion that current operators are being dealt a very short straw by LL - being shafted. I think it's actually wrong for them to have the same deadline, given that applications cost a very significant amount of money, particularly because a lawyer has to be paid, and none of it refundable. I've come to feel quite strongly about that, even though it doesn't affect me personally. It seems to me that it's just another way that LL is sh_tting on their paying customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

Not sure what you are asking for us to look for unless you didn't read the question carefully and think it is saying the operator is adding games they created to the "list" They are talking about the LIST that they created not that they created games.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

I've been wondering if LL has still been looking at this thread. I hope they are.

But I was also wondering if we haven't some what hi-jacked this thread with our side discussions making it diificult for it to serve its intended purpose. 

That point is definitely NOT a hi-jack.  That second question is completely moot.  It would only be valid if an approved operator was automatically granted approved creator status.  The skill gaming TOS does not grant that to an operator.

So yes, that particular question is meaningless.

I don't see many posts that qualify as it being hi-jacked. They just didn't think things through too well so there is a lot of questions and fall out with this policy hitting on a TON of SL content unfortunately. It's a bit of a mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

My guess is that the thread served its purpose up to the point where LL stopped answering questions. I'm thinking that most newer questions were repeats of older ones that were already answered.

I'm not sure if people started suggesting a later deadline for operators before or after LL stopped replying, but I've come to the conclusion that current operators are being dealt a very short straw by LL - being shafted. I think it's actually wrong for them to have the same deadline, given that applications cost a very significant amount of money, particularly because a lawyer has to be paid, and none of it refundable. I've come to feel quite strongly about that, even though it doesn't affect me personally. It seems to me that it's just another way that LL is sh_tting on their paying customers.

I can't imagine LL not getting the suggestion on adjusting the deadline given the mess this has all created on pretty much short notice. I was going to ask all my game creator contacts to see if they have any idea about an eta on game approvals.  But I have heard but can't confirm that LL has told applying operators that they will be able to continue to operate as long as they applied. So I take that as there will be a fuzzy transitional period.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I saw people suggesting an extension for operators, and I agree with it. It's ludicrous to expect operator applicants to shell out and get their applications in before any games are certified.

But it does seems as though LL isn't interested in how ludicrous it is. It certainly looks like they are merely getting themselves up to date from a legal standpoint, and they don't seem to care what effect it has on their customers, especially since the ones who will be affected (the would-be operators) are very very few. They'd probably prefer that all the games went away because of it.

I doubt they would prefer games woudl all go away. They been actively allowing and profiting off of skill games for 7 years and that income has been signficant.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

My guess is that the thread served its purpose up to the point where LL stopped answering questions. I'm thinking that most newer questions were repeats of older ones that were already answered.

I'm not sure if people started suggesting a later deadline for operators before or after LL stopped replying, but I've come to the conclusion that current operators are being dealt a very short straw by LL - being shafted. I think it's actually wrong for them to have the same deadline, given that applications cost a very significant amount of money, particularly because a lawyer has to be paid, and none of it refundable. I've come to feel quite strongly about that, even though it doesn't affect me personally. It seems to me that it's just another way that LL is sh_tting on their paying customers.

The only unanswered question I really see here is the "competitive sports" question.  Where competitors pay in to participate and the winner(s) receive a prize.  Where for instance people are racing their own boats or cars against other users.  Personally I don't think the new rules apply to that.  But wagering on those races is out.

As far as LL goes, yes it is a very short time frame being allowed.  But I'll reserve judgement because unless they tell us we really do not know the details of what prompted this 'sudden' action.  If it was because the Gov't stepped in and said something, they may have been given a short time frame to comply.  From a publicity point of view I would consider it in their best interest to say so if that was the case.  But when it comes to legal issues, lawyers will always tell you to keep your mouth shut.  Many people have inadvertently hung themselves by opening their mouths when they thought it was safe to.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"You own a gaming sim? Didn't you know that gambling hasn't been allowed in SL for years? But you did know, and you chose to break the rules."

You have no clue what your talking about there is a policy on wagering not gambling per say
. Games of chance have not been allowed in SL for years. Games of skill always have been allowed and is clearly stated right on the wagring policy.

Additionally LL has been very aware of games of skill such as all the slingo variants since 2007. Its impossible not to and they actively allowed them and even had a secret white list of games that were ok.  

"
Gambling is strictly
in Second
". Those are the very first words of the 
about the new policy. Notice that is says "gambling". I think I do have "
a clue what I'm talking about
"
;)

A secret white list? What's secret about it if you know it exists? But yes, I do know that skill games have been allowed since the gambling ban. It's just that when someone says they have a gaming sim, it's generally understood that gaming is gambling, as in 'online gaming'. Do a search in Google on the word 'gaming'. You'll see all the online casinos come up, using the phrase 'online gaming'.


I randomly found the quote you quoted. It is in the section entitled Skill Gaming Approved Participants.

you clearly had to dig to find that poorly written wiki. The skill gaming policy is almost as poorly written. The poster does not understand what the word gamble means. They clearly wrote it as if the word is only ever used in relations to games of pure chance. When they said gambling, they meant to say games of chance, otherwise the rest completely contradicts other new policies, the wagering policy, and itself.

But if you read it all in context which clearly you didn't want people to read or discover it says the following.

 

Gambling is strictly
in Second Life and operating, or participating in, a game of chance that provides a Linden Dollar payout is a violation of our
. However, games of skill are legally permitted in many jurisdictions, and Second Life’s
establishes that skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed, but each game, its creator, its operator, and the region on which it is operated must be approved by Linden Lab. Additionally, access to skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be limited to Second Life users who are of sufficient age and are located in a jurisdiction that Linden Lab permits for this type of online gaming activity. For more information on this program, please read the
and associated
.

 

There is enough legit confusion without you spreading BS out there like a common place troll.

I haven't spread any BS. Everything I wrote is true, and you quoting the rest of the paragraph doesn't make it any less true. There is nothing in the paragraph that contradicts the very first statement.

You seem to have problems with the way things are written, and find difficulties where there are none. Earlier you said that the semi-colon made things unclear. I didn't know at that time, but I've since learned in this thread that the semi-colon was exactly the right punctuation to use to make it an AND seperated list, and it was
you
who didn't understand the semi-colon.

You quoted a partial sentence COMPLETELY out of context and further more it came from a skill game approval wiki on how operators that want to apply to have a skill game business w hich people can GAMBLE on. In my book quoting something blatantly out of context like that is EXACTLY the same as a lie.

Here is the contradiction

"Gambling is strictly prohibited in Second Life"

"Second Life’s Skill Gaming Policy establishes that skill games offering Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed"

They need to get someone else to write these things. Gambling is not something that is restricted to a game of chance.  When you buy stocks at the stock market you are gambling that it's value will grow. When you play a chess game with a friend and both agree the winner buys lunch, that is a gamble. There is nothing about the word gamble that implies it can only be used when referencing a game of chance. The writer needs to make an extra effort to be clear on these things. But the context which you intentionally omitted is clear they meant to say games of chance are strictly prohibited as stated in the wagering policy.

 

As for semi colons, they are not words and are only separators or have any meaning other than a pause. The way it is written it is implying that if a game has any of those parameters listed that it needs to be approved. Now take a look at the wagering policy where they actually use words to convey wha tthey are saying instead of punctuation.

It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life® environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games:

  1. Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,
    OR
  2. Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,

AND provide a payout in

  1. Linden Dollars (L$)
    OR
  2. Any real-world currency or thing of value.

 

Note the clear use of conjunctions. If need more information on conjunctions I recommend searching youtube for "conjunction junction what's your function"

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I think this demonstrates how disinterested LL is about applications - probably hoping there won't be any. From the 
page:-

 

When I become an approved creator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

When I become an approved operator, will I need to pay an application fee every time I add to the list of games I have created?

 
  • No. The application fee will be a one-time assessment.

 

Read the second question carefully
:)

Not sure what you are asking for us to look for unless you didn't read the question carefully and think it is saying the operator is adding games they created to the "list" They are talking about the LIST that they created not that they created games.

Yep, you are right.  But using the word "created" may not be the best choice.  I think it would be clearer if it read, ".....list of games I have provided to LL," something that they are required to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites


WhataBig Camel wrote:

I'm sure she didnt mean it that way but if she sees no stumbling blocks then it DOES read that way.

Any "suitable" lawyer can give an opinion but as you say, "A lawyer may suggest not spending your money until the games are certified, because it may be a waste of money.." and that is the issue here.

A few peeps requested an extension for operators to submit applications until an approved creators' list was available and I think that this would make a lot more sense both operationally and financially. However, whoever said common sense was common?  This way LL would have done their legal due diligence process, approved it and then our lawyers can step in and write up their opinions.  Maybe I'm reaching?

I'm not intending to apply to operate any games (though I may create some in the future).    Furthermore, obviously people must reach their own decisions about what to do.

However, if I were operating any games of skill at the moment, I wouldn't be particularly worried about submitting them for approval before the creator had been through the approval process IF (and it's maybe a big "if") I felt confident they were, in fact, games of skill rather than games of chance got up to look like games of skill.

Maybe American attorneys work differently to English solicitors,  but I wouldn't expect my solicitor to charge me much, if anything, for an initial discussion on the matter and some informal advice on which of my games -- based on my descriptions of them -- looked like games of skill and which ones didn't.   I'd also expect her to give me a firm price for the work before she started, and I would -- in the light of her initial advice -- feel confident on which games to ask her to write an opinion and which not to bother with.

That's just my view.  I'm not telling other people what they should do, but I don't think getting a bona fide game of skill approved is going to be too difficult.   Some of what have been passing for  "games of skill"  in SL, though, seem -- at least to the casual observer -- to be anything but that, and if I wanted to get one of them approved, I might well think it prudent to wait and see if their creator could gain approval first. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why an operator would have to do anything more than supply an opinion from a lawyer stating that it's legal for them to operate a skill-gaming region within their jurisdiction and submit an affidavit attesting to the fact that they will only operate games which have been approved for use by LL.

Then, they could provide a list of games which they are currently operating, even though none have been approved yet.  That way, on August 1st, LL would simply notify them and clearly state which games must be removed (because the creators of those games didn't file an application for their approval before the deadline).  Then, they could send out subsequent notifications as games get approved or disallowed.

Also, I'm convinced that LL will approve every single game (and operator) they possibly can... it's simply in their best interest to do so.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

I don't understand why an operator would have to do anything more than supply an opinion from a lawyer stating that it's legal for them to operate a skill-gaming region within their jurisdiction and submit an affidavit attesting to the fact that they will only operate games which have been approved for use by LL.

Then, they could provide a list of games which they are currently operating, even though none have been approved yet.  That way, on August 1st, LL would simply notify them and clearly state which games must be removed (because the creators of those games didn't file an application for their approval before the deadline).  Then, they could send out subsequent notifications as games get approved or disallowed.

Also, I'm convinced that LL will approve every single game (and operator) they possibly can... it's simply in their best interest to do so.

...Dres

I think its a clear this is a case of LL trying to protect its buttocks on both sides and do the Pontius Pilate thing and wash their hands of it so if there are legal issues they can show they did their bit and point to people to talk to. In the past LL created for themselves a liability issue by getting too close to games. The entire game industry in the past was pretty much built around what LL will allow or not to the point some game creators have been known to AR their own games to see if LL would let it fly or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea how your reply relates to what I posted, but, nevertheless...

 


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I think its a clear this is a case of LL trying to protect its buttocks on both sides and do the Pontius Pilate thing and wash their hands of it so if there are legal issues they can show they did their bit and point to people to talk to.

 I think this goes without saying.  What company in its right mind would want anything less?

 


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

In the past LL created for themselves a liability issue by getting too close to games. The entire game industry in the past was pretty much built around what LL will allow or not to the point some game creators have been known to AR their own games to see if LL would let it fly or not.

If this is you being critical of the way LL has regulated skill gaming in the past, then you should be delighted with the new policy.  If nothing else, it will provide creators (and operators) with definitive answers as to whether or not their creations (and games they use) are allowed.  Never again will anyone need to AR themselves for clarification.

...Dres

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1244 days.

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...