Skill Gaming Policy Thread

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

There may be a gray area with the wagering policy which prohibits payout in Lindens or a thing of value. It also talks about chance. Who can argue that racing doesn't have an element of chance? On those two alone one could come to the conclusion that racing may not be allowed if a prize of any kind is awarded.

---

I don't know.  I would differentiate, in RL, as does the law  (at least in the UK) between a cash prize awarded to the winner of a race or other sporting event and the money people may win by betting on the outcome. 

If I put up a cash prize for the winner, and the winner doesn't have to pay to enter my event, I can't see how it's gambing.    The LL policy forbids wagering on events.  What's the wager?   I'm organising the event to attract visitors to my sim, and maybe hoping they'll buy whatever items I'm selling that are relevant to the race (motorbikes, maybe), but I can't see how any of that is betting.

ETA:   Here's what

Linden Lab Official: Policy Regarding Wagering in Second Life

says:

---

The term "wagering" applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary.

---

---

The point I was trying to make (albeit in an obscure way) is that, regardless of whether you pay in or not, you're relying on chance or skill to win a prize.  The only difference is you're not putting up your own money to do it.  The skill gaming policy reads that a game must be pay-in and pay-out to be considered within the scope of the policy.  If you look at the wagering policy, it covers chance and sport betting.  You're still "betting" on yourself in a race, even if you don't post any money as a bet.  You're still trying to win that prize.  The fact that pay-in has to be involved (as per the policy) doesn't change the fact that if you lose, you lose the prize, which basically gambling on yourself without paying in; you still lose.  Now, again, this isn't pertinent to the discussion at hand, but I thought it should be considered in the grand scheme of things, that prizes in general are won by chance or skill... and the only separator is pay-in (financial loss vs loss of pride and the prize).  It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

[secrets88]

Operators who have applied for an operator licence and that is still not approved or refused can still operate games after the 1st of August as per "you may continue to operate games of skill while your application is being reviewed."

But would they still be able to operate on a NOT Skill gaming regions while their application is being reviewed ?

[Yingzi Xue]

---

secrets88 wrote:

Operators who have applied for an operator licence and that is still not approved or refused can still operate games after the 1st of August as per "y

ou may continue to operate games of skill while your application is being reviewed.

"

But would they still be able to operate on a NOT Skill gaming regions while their application is being reviewed ?

---

That's a good question.  You know, it's kind of a paradox if you think about it.  Operators want to get games approved, but there are no games to ask to be approved yet, which means waiting on the creators.  Operators can apply for games that haven't been approved and risk losing the application fee if the game hasn't even been submitted by the creator.  Any way you look at it, a smart operator would wait on game creators to submit their games, then apply when the time is right.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

---

You're right... they didn't and now they're cracking down.

 

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Not sure why you think I am worried persay. The policies and such need to be written much clearer to clean up this mess and confusion. I can guess what they meant to say but people can't afford to guess. As written it can be interpeted as a video arcade style game where you simply pay to play is not allowed even if it is just for high score and for no prize of any kind.

---

On multiple occasions (during this thread), you've misinterpreted the policy.  The policy is completely clear, as where your interpretation is not... I'm not the only one who has pointed this out to you.  You've even gone so far as to call into question the existence of a semi-colon in LL's policy as being the decisive factor of how it should be interpreted.  As such, how can anyone, besides completely ignorant morons take you at your word for what they've actually said.

I don't blame you one bit for being so disgruntled and/or so cynical, but you can do that and stick to the facts as well.  You don't need to make crap up in order to sell it.

...Dres

---

If by cracking down if you mean they are cleaning up the mess they were signficantly responsible for and profited off of your right. But it is pretty clear someone cracked down on Linden Labs.

<snip>

 

---

How are they "significantly responsible" for all this?

Linden Lab does not police content on the Grid or on the Market Place for that matter.

Just from a practical point of view 30,000 some odd SIMs and how many million items on the MP?  There is no way they can be on every SIM 24/7/365.  Well, they could be but the man power needed would be insane. 

LL operates on an Abuse Report system and we have no way of knowing how they have responded to AR's on devices.  They do not publish that information.

You are right though, people have pushed the limits and now LL has to respond to that.

 

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I haven't interpreted anything broadly. I actually believe a few games pushed way too far past the line which for all we know is why there are problems now. The way games were handled in the past it ended up pushing out games that are more clearly skill based actually. If LL stuck to their original policies the skill game industry in SL would look very different today. People put out games that LL allowed and tested where the line was because it wasn't their original wager TOS.

---

You're right... they didn't and now they're cracking down.

 

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

<snip>

I didn't misnterpreted anything. It was written by people that don't even know what the word gamble means.

</snip>

 

---

 

"Gamble" is a very generic term.  Everytime I get in my car I take a "gamble" that some idiot is not going to run a red light and t-bone me.

But the TOS is a contract:  It is a legal document.  And for the purpose of this contract they define how the word "gamble" is used.  That is Contract Law 101 stuff.  It has nothing to do with not knowing the meaning of the word "gamble."  Contracts and Laws do that all the time.  They get real specific as to what is meant.

ETA:  Linden Lab could have wrote, "We do not allow APPLES on the Grid.  And by "APPLES" we mean "ORANGES."  And while a Court might raise an eyebow, for the purpose of the contract "ORANGES" are "APPLES."

[Sorina Garrigus]

"How are they "significantly responsible" for all this? .... Linden Lab does not police content on the Grid or on the Market Place for that matter."

 

The are responisible for how the skill game industry developed because games hav ebeen ARed frequently over the last 7 years. Anything from competitor game places, people that play poorly, to people attempting to hurrass other people in AR form or even filed in good faith. Additionally skill games places are hardly hidden away like speak easies. They are all over the place. Some skill game places have been as large as 6 sims. They are fully aware of skill games and games that might not properly fit that name for 7 years. But they actively allowed games that were pushed past the limits and by doing so it pushed clearly more skill based games out of favor to a small niche status. The "Shultz defense" (see Hogan's Heroes) doesn't wipe them clean of responsibility. The current new policies are likely to do that so they don't have to use the flmsy Shultz Defense. All I am saying LL needs to be aware their part in the issues with skill games. Game owners and makers were forced out of competitive reasons to attempt to figure out by trial and error what LL will allow. Some people in the skill game industry in SL refered to this as LLs read our minds policy. These new policies are an unfortunately necessity for sure but they need to be prepared to adapt because and adjust through these times and LISTEN and make every attempt ot make things as clear as possible. I hope LL won't take the stance of arrogance and just declare what they wrote perfectly clear when it clearly isn't. The need to take this unfortunate opportunity to get it right and for their sake keep create a thicker layer of plausible deniablity if things go south which these policies seem to be doing. Keep in mind LL is a business and a company. Not a bunch of hippies singing peace love. They would love if games were fully allowed even games of chance. They would prosper and it would make SL grow that much more. But that is not the case.

In contracts they do not redefine existing words let alone create contradictions in thoes contracts. If they defined gambling they would say something along of the lines  of "gambling which for the purposes of this policy is here after refering to as a wagering on a game in which is primarily determined by random results"

 

I am very very curious. What the heck is wrong with making the policies more exacting and clear? I have dealt contracts before written by people that you would think would know what they are doing but I have seen very stupid mistakes and errors. Even more so the signing party was an attorney. Contracts and policies HAVE to be very clear and exacting and made free as much as possible from misinterpretation. Changing the part where it says "Gambling is strictly prohibited" to "Wagering on games of Chance are strictly prohibited" and then reference back to the wagering TOS. Its really not that hard. And there is not a single good reason for LL not to go back, clear up some oversites and issues on these recent policies. The only single reason they wouldn't is the writer of them might be responding out of pure arrogance and considers they can't possibly make a mistake or could be more clear.  I am not arguing against them for Christ sake, I am just saying they should just make them clear.

[Sorina Garrigus]

If they take the we don't allow apples on the grid and by apples they mean oranges point of view, which they didn't with the term gambling, they would look like bafoons. You don't write contracts in code and riddles for crying out loud. When they used the word gambling on the operators page (which is the only place I could find the word) they referenced the old wagering policy which does not have the word gamble let alone define it

In the new skill game policy they do define terms there but Gambling is not defined.

What they did say when you take all the policies in context together is  you can't have or wager/gamble on games of chance on the grid, but we do allow wagering/gambling on games of skill, but gambling/wagering is strictly prohibited, but we allow gambling/wagering on skill games now if you apply with legal opinions.

Again why argue against clarity and common sense?

[Sorina Garrigus]

Games of skill can have a element of randomness. Most states and countries that allow games of skill but not games of chance (other than state ran lottery games of course) will use the term predominantly a game of skill. Meaning any random or chance elements do not determine the outcome of the game.

There have been for instance a few famous cases involving backgammon tournaments which does have dice but they have been demonstrated that a pro/skilled player will consistantly do better than an unskilled player. The dice do not determine the outcome of the game of Backgammon, just presents the players with the options.

For a reference to laws and backgammon here is a decent link.

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Ly/LuckVsSkill-BackgammonAndTheLaw/index.html

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

If they take the we don't allow apples on the grid and by apples they mean oranges point of view, which they didn't with the term gambling, they would look like bafoons. You don't write contracts in code and riddles for crying out loud. When they used the word gambling on the operators page (which is the only place I could find the word) they referenced the old wagering policy which does not have the word gamble let alone define it

In the new skill game policy they do define terms there but Gambling is not defined.

What they did say when you take all the policies in context together is  you can't have or wager/gamble on games of chance on the grid, but we do allow wagering/gambling on games of skill, but gambling/wagering is strictly prohibited, but we allow gambling/wagering on skill games now if you apply with legal opinions.

Again why argue against clarity and common sense?

---

They define "gambling" by referring to other laws - apparently the legal sense of the word "gambling" is crunchy enough that they want to avoid anything that is called "gambling" in a law. I quote:

“Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

By the way, the article you quoted extensively referred to "gambling" laws and the point was the skill element of backgammon meant it didn't fall under those laws.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

If they take the we don't allow apples on the grid and by apples they mean oranges point of view, which they didn't with the term gambling, they would look like bafoons. You don't write contracts in code and riddles for crying out loud. When they used the word gambling on the operators page (which is the only place I could find the word) they referenced the old wagering policy which does not have the word gamble let alone define it

In the new skill game policy they do define terms there but Gambling is not defined.

What they did say when you take all the policies in context together is  you can't have or wager/gamble on games of chance on the grid, but we do allow wagering/gambling on games of skill, but gambling/wagering is strictly prohibited, but we allow gambling/wagering on skill games now if you apply with legal opinions.

Again why argue against clarity and common sense?

---

I knew my example was a bit ridiculous.

And I'm not arguing against clarity and GOOD sense.

What I'm saying is that actually they are being very clear.

They are written in very plain language that after all these pages of discussion no one has been able to poke any holes into except to say that we don't like the grammar.  That says a lot for the way they are written.

What remains now is for people to confirm with their legal counsel whether or not their games conform with the rules. 

[Sorina Garrigus]

the word "gamble" context can very from state to state and country to country. But the problem is they need to define it for the purposes of their own policy. Additionally the policies are all deteached and separate so they need to be clear in each r set the definitions in each one. 

As for Backgammon the point of that article was that it was brought into question if it was a game of skill or chance. Additionally LL does not write laws but their own policies. They need to be consistantly clear through out because I highly doubt most of SL residents are lawyers or in a position to have to look at such laws. A lot of these people will declare any game you pay and win as gambling. LL needs to be clear for the sake of their customers, not just their customer's attorneys

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Games of skill can have a element of randomness. Most states and countries that allow games of skill but not games of chance (other than state ran lottery games of course) will use the term

predominantly

a

game of skill.

Meaning any random or chance elements do not determine the outcome of the game.

There have been for instance a few famous cases involving backgammon tournaments which does have dice but they have been demonstrated that a pro/skilled player will consistantly do better than an unskilled player. The dice do not determine the outcome of the game of Backgammon, just presents the players with the options.

For a reference to laws and backgammon here is a decent link.

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/Ly/LuckVsSkill-BackgammonAndTheLaw/index.html

---

I don't know about "most countries," but certainly the UK's gambling law doesn't try to distinguish between games of chance and games of skill, or to decide which predominates.

Instead, we talk about "games of equal skill."   That is, do all players stand an equal chance?   In something like backgammon or Texas Hold 'Em, they do, so, over time, the more skilled player will win.

However, if you're playing against the house, which enjoys a built-in advantage, it's not a game of equal chance -- it's rigged in the house's favour -- and it's subject to far more stringent regulations.

So if you're playing backgammon against a computer, I'd want to know if the dice are fair, or if the computer's always going to get rather better rolls than its opponent.   In the latter case, it might well be that an experience human is going to do better than an inexperience human against the computer, but the game isn't really a game of equal skill since it's always rigged in the computer's favour.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

the word "gamble" context can very from state to state and country to country. But the problem is they need to define it for the purposes of their own policy. Additionally the policies are all deteached and separate so they need to be clear in each r set the definitions in each one. 

As for Backgammon the point of that article was that it was brought into question if it was a game of skill or chance.

Additionally LL does not write laws but their own policies. They need to be consistantly clear through out because I highly doubt most of SL residents are lawyers or in a position to have to look at such laws

. A lot of these people will declare any game you pay and win as gambling. LL needs to be clear for the sake of their customers, not just their customer's attorneys

---

Their "policy" is that you aren't allowed to do anything that would be considered illegal under gambling laws, and that's why they're asking for a lawyer's opinion in the first place.

[Sorina Garrigus]

That has always been in their policy/TOS. It isn't really new to these lastest ones.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

That has always been in their policy/TOS. It isn't really new to these lastest ones.

---

In the past, though, LL have, for whatever reason, been prepared to accept as games of skill things that, to the casual observer, certainly look indistinguishable from games of chance.

Maybe Ebbe has raised his eyebrows at some of the items that pass as games of skill and has decided it's in LL's best interests to seek further reassurance.   Seems only right and proper that the costs of providing this reassurance fall on those who hope to profit from creating and running these games rather than be born by all residents or by LL's shareholders.

[Marishka Ixito]

There's no beating around the bush with this.

From the perspective of a games operator, in principle the whole game of chance / game of skill difference is really totally uninteresting. For both goes that they want to make sure they make money from them, whether chance or skill based.
Since games of chance have been outlawed in SL back in 2007 or so, the debate centers on games that can be made to pass as games of skill.
But because these games of skill are aimed at the same "gambling" enamored crowd (easier to part this group with their money), designers that produced games of skill have been more succesful in selling/leasing them the better they managed to make such games look like they are suited for gambling.

I imagine that in order to insure profit from these games a non random element is added to the game's algorythm/settings, for example the operator sets the "score to beat". Once enough data is available (and kept up to date) about the weighted average skill of players, then it's not so hard anymore to make sure that on average they'll still lose, no matter the skill level.
The gamblers are still attracted because they prefer to believe that somehow they can beat statistics.

All this was pretty easy in the old situation before LL raised the bar with their new policy.  But all that's really achieved, apart from covering LL's legal arse, is that the cost of bringing games to market, and the cost to operate them has gone up considerably. Consequently, the "score to beat" will go up also (operators still need to make -more- profit).

I'm thinking the market for these gambling skill based games will most likely shrink as a result of the new policy (possibly a lot), but the remaining operators may still be headed for a bright future (because the supply side will shrink more than demand).

As an aside, the inevitable conclusion is that the law generally isn't very smart about it, not in the usa, not in many other countries either. If lawmakers wish to restrict gambling they're losing track of the "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" truth when they refuse to see that many skill based games try their hardest to look and quack like a duck, so they don't qualify for separate regulation.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

That has always been in their policy/TOS. It isn't really new to these lastest ones.

---

In the past, though, LL have, for whatever reason, been prepared to accept as games of skill things that, to the casual observer, certainly look indistinguishable from games of chance.

Maybe Ebbe has raised his eyebrows at some of the items that pass as games of skill and has decided it's in LL's best interests to seek further reassurance.   Seems only right and proper that the costs of providing this reassurance fall on those who hope to profit from creating and running these games rather than be born by all residents or by LL's shareholders.

---

Intersting point but you forget LL profits the most from skill games when peopel cash out. Which both LL and Shareholders are happy to see higher profits. Residents I dont see why they would ever have felt any kind of impact. It's not like they are putting these policies in place and lowering all the tier on the non gaming sims.

The specifics of these costs have yet to be fully disclosed or the quartly fees, extra sim costs etc so on. The perception right or wrong amongst game operators have in part been that though these maybe nessessary it seems LL also wants a bigger cut than what they have been making of skill games. I would like to see some tranparency in all this and disclose what the costs cover which would address those concerns.

I have seen heard first hand commentary that supports the would in part allow things based on appearance. I could name a couple games that are more skill based than most but had issues based on the name because they called it 21 which is another name for blackjack. It was a game type that is currently found on full blow US based skill game sites.

I do agree that some games went to far in the last couple years. But the people that made them claimed they were following LL proposed guide lines.

I suspect games will possibly go back to Zyngo style games mostly being the line and possibly game like Shrooms, Gelliz, and Streetz having new life potentially. Hard to say though its way too early until we actually see some approved games.

[Sorina Garrigus]

If you ask me I wish law makers were more concerned with fixing the economy, giving opportunities to allow businesses and jobs to flourish, and not be as concerned with how adults spend their entertainment dollar.

Land of the fee .... yay

[Votarn Torvalar]

Do we know how Linden Labs intend to enforce these rules?  It seems that Sploders have always been illegal yet they seem to rely on members reporting them as abuse.  Will they really try to find every Greedy table that currently has the potential for requiring a pay fee?

 

[Phil Deakins]

Imo, it's unlikely that LL will go out looking for stuff themselves, and they'll rely on ARs. However, there is no need for a Greedy table to fall foul of the new rules because there's an update for it that doesn't have a pay-to-play option.

[Votarn Torvalar]

Thanks for that info... I'll go and get the upgrade.

[Yingzi Xue]

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL.  I couldn't believe the size of this place.  It takes up two private regions.

 

• 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24
• 30 Stomp the Fox 2
• 44 Money Vault
• 58 Bugz
• 44 4Play
• 44 Devil Hunt
• 44 No Devil
• 44 Reel Wild
• 58 Reel Wild Progressive
• 42 Wizard
• 58 Enchanted

Not a gambling operation at all.  People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill.  At least for another 10 days.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL.  I couldn't believe the size of this place.  It takes up two private regions.

 

• 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24
• 30 Stomp the Fox 2
• 44 Money Vault
• 58 Bugz
• 44 4Play
• 44 Devil Hunt
• 44 No Devil
• 44 Reel Wild
• 58 Reel Wild Progressive
• 42 Wizard
• 58 Enchanted

Not a gambling operation at all.  People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill.  At least for another 10 days.

---

Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name?  That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post.  Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills?

...Dres

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL.  I couldn't believe the size of this place.  It takes up two private regions.

 

• 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24
• 30 Stomp the Fox 2
• 44 Money Vault
• 58 Bugz
• 44 4Play
• 44 Devil Hunt
• 44 No Devil
• 44 Reel Wild
• 58 Reel Wild Progressive
• 42 Wizard
• 58 Enchanted

Not a gambling operation at all.  People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill.  At least for another 10 days.

---

Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name?  That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post.  Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills?

...Dres

---

Maybe you were too busy looking at your own avatar to understand the gist of the post.  Let me elaborate since you seem distracted...

Is all simulated gambling in Second Life is illegal?

This policy is not designed to provide you with legal advice regarding the legality of specific gambling activities in your jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for legal advice, either. Rather, to ensure that Residents comply with generally applicable laws, which do not permit wagering on games of chance or sports betting, and to comply with the rules of credit card associations, Second Life's policy is to prohibit inworld gambling activities.

The fact that LL hasn't enforced the existing policy on gambling and questionable games of skill means that it has gone unchecked.  The fact that operators like the above can grow to epic proportions and actually make a profit (and most likely pay for their tier and then some), is reprehensible and proof positive that money is the main factor in said games.  Until they're approved by LL as skill-based games, any argument for them is invalid.  I stick by my assessment that these games are more gambling than skill based.

As for counting the games, they were labeled with big bold signs, it took 5 minutes; something I was happy to do to prove a point, which you seemed to have missed while busy stroking your own ego.

[Perrie Juran]

 

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL.  I couldn't believe the size of this place.  It takes up two private regions.

 

• 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24
• 30 Stomp the Fox 2
• 44 Money Vault
• 58 Bugz
• 44 4Play
• 44 Devil Hunt
• 44 No Devil
• 44 Reel Wild
• 58 Reel Wild Progressive
• 42 Wizard
• 58 Enchanted

Not a gambling operation at all.  People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill.  At least for another 10 days.

---

Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name?  That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post.  Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills?

...Dres

---

Your comment got me curious.  I'd never been to one of these gambling gaming SIMs before.  I don't know if this is the two SIM set up they were referring to but was the first one I found using search.  The way it is organized would not be all that hard to count.

There were about 80 Ava's across the two SIMs and judging from their actions I don't think they were Bots.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL.  I couldn't believe the size of this place.  It takes up two private regions.

 

• 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24
• 30 Stomp the Fox 2
• 44 Money Vault
• 58 Bugz
• 44 4Play
• 44 Devil Hunt
• 44 No Devil
• 44 Reel Wild
• 58 Reel Wild Progressive
• 42 Wizard
• 58 Enchanted

Not a gambling operation at all.  People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill.  At least for another 10 days.

---

Let me get this straight... you counted 538 games across 2 sims and went through the trouble of separating them into a list of their instances by name?  That must have been quite an undertaking, just to be able to create a pointless forum post.  Or perhaps you were just testing out your counting skills?

...Dres

---

Your comment got me curious.  I'd never been to one of these

gambling

gaming SIMs before.  I don't know if this is the two SIM set up they were referring to but was the first one I found using search.  The way it is organized would not be all that hard to count.

 

 

There were about 80 Ava's across the two SIMs and judging from their actions I don't think they were Bots.

---

Nope, this isn't the one, but it's typical of the gaming operator locations in SL.  To call them anything other than casino's is an insult to intelligence.  They look like casino's, sound like casino's, play like casino's and they operate like casino's.  Some even call themselves casino's.  To argue different is to fly in the face of common sense.  People can argue skill vs chance all day long, but the truth is, if these games were primarily skill based, people would be getting rich on these games and they're not.  It's rigged, so that game operators are guaranteed a profit.  I don't think anyone can argue against the idea that if a game takes money and if they player loses money more than making money, despite any skill they may be using, that's pretty much gambling.  Call it for what it is.  And LL let it exist for 7 long years.  If skill were such a factor, it wouldn't be a successful business, because the players would make more than the game operator could pay out.  Thus, either skill is hampered by design or chance is a bigger factor than people want to admit.