Skill Gaming Policy Thread

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

If LL were going to make it any clearer, they would've done so by now.  We have four days left until the policy goes into effect.  I think it's safe to say all four were meant to be together, considering the last statement that says games that don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy.  If the four items were meant to be mutually exclusive, the policy would be contradicting itself.

---

I wish I could disagree but your right they are not going to make things clearer so everyone has to move forward with a big rush job of a mess. There plenty of operators filling everything out, turning over all 2013 business records and associates over to LL, but no games are or game creators approved yet. This policy was something they clearly needed to do years ago until their had apparently was forced to make changes so operaters were even capable of operating within the law (gaming sims, restricted access etc). If they did this ages ago they could have had more time working out the wrinkles. They need at the very least an extended deadline

"don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy"

It defines in part that  skill game is a game that "requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play" meaning optional pay in games/contests are included. If they said that, they are not being consistent.

Games had as the skill game industry often described for years the wager TOS as  "read our minds policies" based on what it said and how LL treated its own policy. They need to be clear and concise this time. 

 

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I feel the same way, Phil.  I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs.  I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

---

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic. "camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels and of course is pointless to do. When they banned camping they even had issues with multiple traffic devices like lucky chairs when nobody was aware that was considered camping.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I feel the same way, Phil.  I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs.  I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

---

I gave up on most of those traffic devices a while back because almost all of them are abused with alts or bots. I think if someone came up with a solid legit traffic system which really is to bring people to your sim as opposed to leechy bots.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

Any game that attracts a large group of people for the sole purpose of generating traffic and supposed interest for a location.  Such games still exist, some call themselves skill-based games, a thin line that keeps them from being called camping games.  Since they're not pay-in (unless having to buy items to play them is considered pay-in), they're not considered a part of the skill gaming policy.  How they generate revenue is the land owner pays the gaming unit, which then attracts people to the location to play the game.  Said games are supposed to generate interest in a location, but gamers leave as soon as the game is over (as expected) to collect their "earnings" at an ATM.  The negative impact of such games is mainland parcels fill up with gamers and you can't access your region. 

Anyway, I hashed this out earlier in the thread, I'm just repeating myself to answer your question.  You mentioned leeching, I consider those types of games leeches as well, they just take a trip around the current policies to be allowed to exist.  In my mind  there's not much difference.  The skill gaming policy is skirted by not being direct pay-in, so nothing will be done.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I feel the same way, Phil.  I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs.  I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

---

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic

.

"camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels and of course is pointless to do

.

When they banned camping

they even had issues with multiple traffic devices like lucky chairs when nobody was aware that was considered camping.

---

And here you are with more stuff that you have no idea about. You really should stick to closing down your store instead of spreading untruths here in the forum.

The term camping refers to giving someone money in exchange for staying on the land for a period of time. Being on the land does inflate the parcel's traffic, of course, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Camping is not pointless when on land that doesn't show in search. You really do have an imagination. I've had camping in my store for a long time on it's own parcel (I just closed it 2 or 3 days ago). The point of it was to give people small amounts of money. Just that, nothing more.

Camping was never banned..

Those devices were never called, or thought of, as camping. They were usually there for the same purpose that camping was usually there for - inflating traffic for search ranking benefits - but they were not called, or thought of, as camping. Camping is a specific thing, and that's not it.

Clear now?

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

If LL were going to make it any clearer, they would've done so by now.  We have four days left until the policy goes into effect.  I think it's safe to say all four were meant to be together, considering the last statement that says games that don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy.  If the four items were meant to be mutually exclusive, the policy would be contradicting itself.

---

I wish I could disagree but your right they are not going to make things clearer so everyone has to move forward with a big rush job of a mess. There plenty of operators filling everything out, turning over all 2013 business records and associates over to LL, but no games are or game creators approved yet. This policy was something they clearly needed to do years ago until their had apparently was forced to make changes so operaters were even capable of operating within the law (gaming sims, restricted access etc). If they did this ages ago they could have had more time working out the wrinkles. They need at the very least an extended deadline

"don't require a pay in are not the focus of the skill gaming policy"

It defines in part that  skill game is a game that "requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play" meaning optional pay in games/contests are included. If they said that, they are not being consistent.

Games had as the skill game industry often described for years the wager TOS as  "read our minds policies" based on what it said and how LL treated its own policy. They need to be clear and concise this time. 

 

 

---

I know what you're saying.  I struggled for years whether to release a game concept or not, for fear it would be against some sort of policy or rejected altogether.  Aside from the wagering policy, there wasn't much else made clear.  I literally put off releasing a game for years because I didn't know what the boundaries were.  Now I have a better idea and I'll probably be releasing non pay-to-play games at some point.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

Any game that attracts a large group of people for the sole purpose of generating traffic and supposed interest for a location.  Such games still exist, some call themselves skill-based games, a thin line that keeps them from being called camping games.  Since they're not pay-in (unless having to buy items to play them is considered pay-in), they're not considered a part of the skill gaming policy.  How they generate revenue is the land owner pays the gaming unit, which then attracts people to the location to play the game.  Said games are supposed to generate interest in a location, but gamers leave as soon as the game is over (as expected) to collect their "earnings" at an ATM.  The negative impact of such games is mainland parcels fill up with gamers and you can't access your region. 

Anyway, I hashed this out earlier in the thread, I'm just repeating myself to answer your question.  You mentioned leeching, I consider those types of games leeches as well, they just take a trip around the current policies to be allowed to exist.  In my mind  there's not much difference.  The skill gaming policy is skirted by not being direct pay-in, so nothing will be done.

---

Ah. Thank you for the explanation. They are things that I haven't come across, probably because I'm not into gambling/gaming/games like that

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I am not here fighting changing the polices. I am already shutting down my game store.

I am just  here to help people out

[...]

---

I'm glad that you're closing your game store down. I am against gambling, and my opinion of people who promote it, such as by selling or operating gambling games, is so low, there aren't words for it. They, including you, are nothing more than leeches.

By spreading lies? That's what you do when you say that the semi-colons make that part unclear. You know it's not true and yet you still say it. That's what lies are. Perhaps you're so cheesed off at having to close your store that you've decided to confuse people by spreading lies.

---

So you are fully aware, skill games was only a small part of what I did. I was primarily about board and card games, pinball, arcade some virtual sports etc. I also have a real world game store. Some of the skill games helped fund some of the content I provided. But I actively promoted and helped game makers of every possible kind for years and years.

Your against gambling but are you against freedom of choice? Its fine to not like a activity. I find porn disgusting and SL is filled with it. But I am not going to go out and attack it and demand others to adhere to my standards.

Also if you think people that play or have "gambling" as you call it are low then you are also calling low churches that have charitiable bingo, every state and country that has a lottery, chess tournaments, buying raffle tickets, and of course grown adults choosing what they can do with their entertainment dollar.

So if your going to talk out of your hind quarters try using the facts or attempt to take a moment to look at them because your high horse is clearly up to its kneck in quicksand.

[Yingzi Xue]

That was partly my fault Phil.  I tend to make a generalization of a group of people hanging in an area to make money, either directly, or in a roundabout way, as camping, but I know that there are clear cut definitions as you just stated--and I shouldn't refer to it specifically as camping.  Bad habit. hehe

I am in total agreement with everything you said.  And that type of attraction is harmless in my opinion.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Ah. Thank you for the explanation. They are things that I haven't come across, probably because I'm not into gambling/gaming/games like that

---

The only reason I know they exist is because I've had personal experience, being denied access to land I own because of said games.  At the risk of repeating myself, I do wish they would look at them and consider them when August 1st rolls around.  Maybe they will, who knows.  With that, I digress.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

Any game that attracts a large group of people for the sole purpose of generating traffic and supposed interest for a location.  Such games still exist, some call themselves skill-based games, a thin line that keeps them from being called camping games.  Since they're not pay-in (unless having to buy items to play them is considered pay-in), they're not considered a part of the skill gaming policy.  How they generate revenue is the land owner pays the gaming unit, which then attracts people to the location to play the game.  Said games are supposed to generate interest in a location, but gamers leave as soon as the game is over (as expected) to collect their "earnings" at an ATM.  The negative impact of such games is mainland parcels fill up with gamers and you can't access your region. 

Anyway, I hashed this out earlier in the thread, I'm just repeating myself to answer your question.  You mentioned leeching, I consider those types of games leeches as well, they just take a trip around the current policies to be allowed to exist.  In my mind  there's not much difference.  The skill gaming policy is skirted by not being direct pay-in, so nothing will be done.

---

Some of these traffic games do have a kind of buy in. And I am not clear how they will be looked at with these new policies. some imply they are skilled but really aren't that I am aware of. But for example the fishing games people buy worms and such to increase their chances (I believe thats how those work but could be wrong). But I don't think its a good idea to encourange LL too much to go on a censorship binge. SL was not meant for that. But this is a reason why LL needs to clairify things in this case have some examples.

The problem is events are created to boost traffic as well and a legit game say like trivia game would do the same. I wish these traffic device creators would make more legit game related devices because they will pull actual people to an actual event rather than alts and bots. SL businesses would be smart to use such actual real people traffic devices as bots and alts don't spend that much money at their places anyway. And visitors won't want to come back if its lagged out with traffic bots.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

So you are fully aware, skill games was only a small part of what I did. I was primarily about board and card games, pinball, arcade some virtual sports etc. I also have a real world game store. Some of the skill games helped fund some of the content I provided. But I actively promoted and helped game makers of every possible kind for years and years.

Your against gambling but are you against freedom of choice? Its fine to not like a activity. I find porn disgusting and SL is filled with it. But I am not going to go out and attack it and demand others to adhere to my standards.

Also if you think people that play or have "gambling" as you call it are low then you are also calling low churches that have charitiable bingo, every state and country that has a lottery, chess tournaments, buying raffle tickets, and of course grown adults choosing what they can do with their entertainment dollar.

So if your going to talk out of your hind quarters try using the facts or attempt to take a moment to look at them because your high horse is clearly up to its kneck in quicksand.

---

I'm kinda like Phil, I have an opinion bordering on hostility toward gambling.  You make a good point about sex, but there's a difference... they aren't changing the policies for sex, they're changing the policies for skill gaming.  While I agree with you 100% on the sex stuff and not liking it or agreeing with it, it is what it is.  What you're seeing in this thread, from some of us, is a bunch of pent up rage being released for a variety of reasons, personal experiences or convictions about the last 7 years of gaming.  Me personally, I can't stand people making money off of others in what I perceive to be skirting the boundaries of ethics.  I'm not saying game operators are bad people, I just don't agree with making money that way.  Being a highly ethical person, I think people should make money the normal way--hard work and personal investment (not money, talent and work).  By the way, I wouldn't be a member of a church that uses bingo to make money.

I think it's great you have offered more than just those types of games.  I stopped by your place, I saw many of the true skill based games you have.  Many are legit classic games of skill and strategy.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Some of these traffic games do have a kind of buy in. And I am not clear how they will be looked at with these new policies. some imply they are skilled but really aren't that I am aware of. But for example the fishing games people buy worms and such to increase their chances (I believe thats how those work but could be wrong). But I don't think its a good idea to encourange LL too much to go on a censorship binge. SL was not meant for that. But this is a reason why LL needs to clairify things in this case have some examples.

The problem is events are created to boost traffic as well and a legit game say like trivia game would do the same. I wish these traffic device creators would make more legit game related devices because they will pull actual people to an actual event rather than alts and bots. SL businesses would be smart to use such actual real people traffic devices as bots and alts don't spend that much money at their places anyway. And visitors won't want to come back if its lagged out with traffic bots.

---

Traffic is such a non-issue, except to get people to your place and have them see it.  99.999% of those that arrive leave as soon as the fun ends.  Live artist venues, for instance, tend to lose more money than they rake in because of the costs to get the artists to your club.  When the artist leaves the groupies leave.  It's the same thing.  The off-chance that someone likes your place, landmarks it and wants to come back is pretty slim.  Knowing this, is it worth it?  Evidently it still is to some who think it'll create some sort of regular customer base.  If it worked, I might support it a bit, but it doesn't.  Traffic no longer counts for search and people only show up for the chance to earn cash doing little to nothing.  As a business owner, I wouldn't want that kind of patron.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

So you are fully aware, skill games was only a small part of what I did. I was primarily about board and card games, pinball, arcade some virtual sports etc. I also have a real world game store. Some of the skill games helped fund some of the content I provided. But I actively promoted and helped game makers of every possible kind for years and years.

Inckuding gambling games, which makes you what I said.

Your against gambling but are you against freedom of choice? Its fine to not like a activity. I find porn disgusting and SL is filled with it. But I am not going to go out and attack it and demand others to adhere to my standards.

I'm absolutely fine with freedom of choice. It doesn't change my opinion of those who use their freedom of choice to attract suckers in order to relieve them of their money. Like you, I've never gone out and attacked something that I'm agains (gambling), so put your imagination away. It does you no credit at all.

Also if you think people that play or have "gambling" as you call it are low then you are also calling low churches that have charitiable bingo, every state and country that has a lottery, chess tournaments, buying raffle tickets, and of course grown adults choosing what they can do with their entertainment dollar.

Nope. Churches and charities need money, and they use things like raffles as fund-raisers. But I'd much prefer to simply donate than buy a raffle ticket. Bingo may be a bit different because it's a very desirable social entertainment for many people, and not really gambling. You're grasping at straws now.

So if your going to talk out of your hind quarters try using the facts or attempt to take a moment to look at them because your high horse is clearly up to its kneck in quicksand.

What can I say to that? Grasping at more straws? Wishful thinking? You get the idea?

Aren't you the one who called me troll very recently, because I wasn't agreeing with you? Y'know - just like you called Dresden a troll not many posts back because he wasn't agree with you either. Did you ever do as i suggested, and look up the word 'troll' to see what it means? If you ever bother to look it up, you'll find that its definition doesn't include simply disagreeing, or arguing, about something. What with semi-colons and the meanings of words, you do need to brush up on your english

---

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I feel the same way, Phil.  I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs.  I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

---

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic

.

"camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels and of course is pointless to do

.

When they banned camping

they even had issues with multiple traffic devices like lucky chairs when nobody was aware that was considered camping.

---

And here you are with more stuff that you have no idea about. You really should stick to closing down your store instead of spreading untruths here in the forum.

The term camping refers to giving someone money in exchange for staying on the land for a period of time. Being on the land does inflate the parcel's traffic, of course, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Camping is

not

pointless when on land that doesn't show in search. You really do have an imagination. I've had camping in my store for a long time on it's own parcel (I just closed it 2 or 3 days ago). The point of it was to give people small amounts of money. Just that, nothing more.

Camping was

never

banned..

Those devices were never called, or thought of, as camping. They were usually there for the same purpose that camping was usually there for - inflating traffic for search ranking benefits - but they were not called, or thought of, as camping. Camping is a specific thing, and that's not it.

Clear now?

---

you didn't clear anything up I didn't already know and I have no clue what your problem is.

"The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic. "camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels"

"The policy we announced is about Traffic, how that relates to Search, and how a deliberate attempt to falsely drive up the traffic score will no longer be allowed. We know from your comments that you want Search to be fair and relevant, and we want that too. Whether a landowner uses Bots or Camping Chairs, or Camping Chairs with Bots in them, the effect is the same - the traffic score for that parcel is inflated unfairly."

 

Also giving money to alts and bots is not "creative", its  giving money to alts and bots who most just cash out and never spend at your store.

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

The policy we announced is about Traffic, how that relates to Search, and how a deliberate attempt to falsely drive up the traffic score will no longer be allowed. We know from your comments that you want Search to be fair and relevant, and we want that too. Whether a landowner uses Bots or Camping Chairs, or Camping Chairs with Bots in them, the effect is the same - the traffic score for that parcel is inflated unfairly."

 

Also giving money to alts and bots is not "creative", its  giving money to alts and bots who most just cash out and never spend at your store.

---

You're right, whether they're bots or alts or not, chances are they're there for one thing only, to earn money and leave.  It's an empty way to generate traffic because it doesn't create a customer base at all, unless you host the very game they're there to play.  If you are hosting that kind of game, you're paying more into it than what you get out of it. After the game "event" they leave and never return until the next time you pay in for more traffic.  It's pointless in my opinion.  You'd think a business owner would want to attract traffic that actually cares about what they're offering.  You know who wins?  The game creator, who gets paid regardless, while your customer base never materializes. lol

[Phil Deakins]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Ah. Thank you for the explanation. They are things that I haven't come across, probably because I'm not into gambling/gaming/games like that

---

The only reason I know they exist is because I've had personal experience, being denied access to land I own because of said games.  At the risk of repeating myself, I do wish they would look at them and consider them when August 1st rolls around.  Maybe they will, who knows.  With that, I digress.

---

If it's a digression from Sorina's ramblings, it's very welcome

Another reason I haven't come across those things is because I hardly ever go anywhere in SL. My feet are usually glued to one spot. I won't bore you with why, but it's true.

 

An aside - about filling a sim

I used to run traffic bots and I was very proud of the system I created for them. I've had many a good argument about traffic bots in the orginal forum

I owned most of a mainland sim but 2 or 3 other people owned very small bits of it. My system was such that it would fill the sim almost to capacity with traffic bots, but it always left a few spaces for other people to arrive. I did need customers to be able to get in, of course. So, when an avatar arrived in the sim, one of mine logged out. When an avatar left the sim, one of mine logged in. But there were always several empty spots and the sim would never be full. Other land owners, and their guests, could always get in because mine logged out as people arrived.

I'd developed the system over a number of weeks and the day came when it was finished. It worked perfectly, and it was a joy to watch it in operation. The very next day, LL announced that gaming traffic will be banned as of a certain date a few weeks hence. My pride and joy died at birth 

[Sorina Garrigus]

Pre this new skill game policy the only restriction on games were the wagering policy was an issue on games of pure chance. Assuming there was clearly no loophole pay in system at all something like video poker that just paid out would be ok and really would be now. But I tried to get some people to come out with some proper game based traffic devices with little success. Mostly because people are addicted to traffic numbers as opposed to quality traffic which in my book is real people rather than bots and alts. Bots and alts can't very easily play a lot of games. But I understand your concerns because when they had the policy about gaming traffic a lot of people in good faith were using the lucky chairs then because it was really a game of musical chairs rather than just paying someone to sit for hours on end. I had some out and I got suspended for a few hours and was most people were very suprised they did that with those. But SL needs some good solid real traffic devices that bring people to various places that are more bot and alt proof. As I see it a legit multiplayer game that say had huds letting people know when the game was being played would be ok and not gaming traffic at all. Its just a more efficient way to let people know the game is starting than say a group noticed they may or may not be in.

Whenever I saw mostly bots and alts on anything like that would pull them or reduce them greatly.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

[...] Traffic no longer counts for search [...]

---

Another little aside

Do you know that for a certainty? It still had a ranking effect with the GSA, even though many people believed that it didn't. More than once I've described (in the forum) how LL incorporated traffic into the rankings, and it wouldn't surprise me if they've included it with the current engine - maybe even in the same way.

A few days ago, I had a little discussion with someone about it, and I did just 2 searches. I know it's an incredibly small sample, but it did appear to me that traffic still has an effect in the rankings. It may not have, but, on that extremely tiny sample, it did look as though it has.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

So you are fully aware, skill games was only a small part of what I did. I was primarily about board and card games, pinball, arcade some virtual sports etc. I also have a real world game store. Some of the skill games helped fund some of the content I provided. But I actively promoted and helped game makers of every possible kind for years and years.

Your against gambling but are you against freedom of choice? Its fine to not like a activity. I find porn disgusting and SL is filled with it. But I am not going to go out and attack it and demand others to adhere to my standards.

Also if you think people that play or have "gambling" as you call it are low then you are also calling low churches that have charitiable bingo, every state and country that has a lottery, chess tournaments, buying raffle tickets, and of course grown adults choosing what they can do with their entertainment dollar.

So if your going to talk out of your hind quarters try using the facts or attempt to take a moment to look at them because your high horse is clearly up to its kneck in quicksand.

---

I'm kinda like Phil, I have an opinion bordering on hostility toward gambling.  You make a good point about sex, but there's a difference... they aren't changing the policies for sex, they're changing the policies for skill gaming.  While I agree with you 100% on the sex stuff and not liking it or agreeing with it, it is what it is.  What you're seeing in this thread, from some of us, is a bunch of pent up rage being released for a variety of reasons, personal experiences or convictions about the last 7 years of gaming.  Me personally, I can't stand people making money off of others in what I perceive to be skirting the boundaries of ethics.  I'm not saying game operators are bad people, I just don't agree with making money that way.  Being a highly ethical person, I think people should make money the normal way--hard work and personal investment (not money, talent and work).  By the way, I wouldn't be a member of a church that uses bingo to make money.

I think it's great you have offered more than just those types of games.  I stopped by your place, I saw many of the true skill based games you have.  Many are legit classic games of skill and strategy.

---

When it comes to games I would be the very first to object to say a rigged game that cheated people. I also think there should be laws about real casinos that offer free alchol with the intention to impair peoples judgement. But I do have to say investments are a form of gambling such as the stock market. But anyone that gambles on games of chance as a way to try to make money (other than say professional sportsmen who pay fees to enter contests) spending their money foolisherly. Anyone that chooses to play a game should do so like it was just another way of spending their entertainment dollar. Anyone that does otherwise I would suggest they use their entertainment dollar elswhere.

Yes Its a shame that a lot of those classic SL skill games got pushed to the back burner. Perhaps they will make it to the front lines again with these polices. Honestly there are more than a few games I am not sure why LL allowed in the last few years based on their own polices.

[Sorina Garrigus]

"Bingo may be a bit different because it's a very desirable social entertainment for many people, and not really gambling. You're grasping at straws now."

 

Bingo is pure gambling, more so than blackjack or poker ever will be. I host board game nights in RL and trust me there are a hell of a lot better things to play for "desirable social entertainment" than gambling on bingo or Bunco even. Unfortunately you have completely entered the realm of hypocracy so I don't think there is anything else to really say from here on out.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

I feel the same way, Phil.  I wish the skill gaming policy covered camping/traffic games, which are also reach-around leeches and region resource hogs.  I guess I'll just accept this victory and hope LL gets rid of them at some point in the future.

---

I don't know what you mean by 'traffuc games' unless you mean gaming traffic, but camping is fine. Camping to inflate traffic figures on land that shows in search was banned years ago, and shouldn't exist at all, but camping itself is fine.

---

The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic

.

"camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels and of course is pointless to do

.

When they banned camping

they even had issues with multiple traffic devices like lucky chairs when nobody was aware that was considered camping.

---

And here you are with more stuff that you have no idea about. You really should stick to closing down your store instead of spreading untruths here in the forum.

The term camping refers to giving someone money in exchange for staying on the land for a period of time. Being on the land does inflate the parcel's traffic, of course, but there is nothing wrong with that.

Camping is

not

pointless when on land that doesn't show in search. You really do have an imagination. I've had camping in my store for a long time on it's own parcel (I just closed it 2 or 3 days ago). The point of it was to give people small amounts of money. Just that, nothing more.

Camping was

never

banned..

Those devices were never called, or thought of, as camping. They were usually there for the same purpose that camping was usually there for - inflating traffic for search ranking benefits - but they were not called, or thought of, as camping. Camping is a specific thing, and that's not it.

Clear now?

---

you didn't clear anything up I didn't already know and I have no clue what your problem is.

"The term camping refers to artificially inflating traffic. "camping" is only fine on unsearchable parcels"

You're right. I didn't clear anything up for you. But that's because you didn't understand what I wrote. Your definition of camping is totally wrong.

 

"

The policy we announced is about Traffic, how that relates to Search, and how a deliberate attempt to falsely drive up the traffic score will no longer be allowed. We know from your comments that you want Search to be fair and relevant, and we want that too. Whether a landowner uses Bots or Camping Chairs, or Camping Chairs with Bots in them, the effect is the same - the traffic score for that parcel is inflated unfairly."

I have no idea why you included that quote. Perhaps you'll explain. We all know that artificially inflating traffic is banned, so i don't understand why you've quoted that paragraph.

 

Also giving money to alts and bots is not "creative", its  giving money to alts and bots who most just cash out and never spend at your store.

Eh? What are you on about? Trying to deflect away from your wrong definition of camping? Are you talking about the camping in my store? I already told you that it was there solely to give bits of money to people. It had nothing whatsoever to do with them spending it in my store. Maybe you can't believe that some people would actually do that, although I can accept that a leech won't find it easy to understand.

---

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

Bingo may be a bit different because it's a very desirable social entertainment for many people, and not really gambling. You're grasping at straws now.

"

 

Bingo is pure gambling, more so than blackjack or poker ever will be. I host board game nights in RL and trust me there are a hell of a lot better things to play for "desirable social entertainment" than gambling on bingo or Bunco even. Unfortunately you have completely entered the realm of hypocracy so I don't think there is anything else to really say from here on out.

---

Yes, bingo is technically gambling, but it's a fun social event for those who do it. It's not even close to being the sort of gambling that games like blackjack and poker are - those are true gambling games, and those who promote them, by selling or operating them, are leeches.

I have no doubt that there are many "desirable social entertainments" as well as bingo. I do some myself. But church bingo, which is what you asked about, is social and not gambling in the same way that casino games are. You are really stretching credibility to the limit here by comparing church bingo and poker. Don't you have any sense of embarrassment in your genes?

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

If it's a digression from Sorina's ramblings, it's very welcome

Another reason I haven't come across those things is because I hardly ever go anywhere in SL. My feet are usually glued to one spot. I won't bore you with why, but it's true.

 

An aside - about filling a sim

I used to run traffic bots and I was very proud of the system I created for them. I've had many a good argument about traffic bots in the orginal forum

I owned most of a mainland sim but 2 or 3 other people owned very small bits of it. My system was such that it would fill the sim almost to capacity with traffic bots, but it always left a few spaces for other people to arrive. I did need customers to be able to get in, of course. So, when an avatar arrived in the sim, one of mine logged out. When an avatar left the sim, one of mine logged in. But there were always several empty spots and the sim would never be full. Other land owners, and their guests, could always get in because mine logged out as people arrived.

I'd developed the system over a number of weeks and the day came when it was finished. It worked perfectly, and it was a joy to watch it in operation. The very next day, LL announced that gaming traffic will be banned as of a certain date a few weeks hence. My pride and joy died at birth 

---

I'm the same way, I hardly ever leave my land.

See, now that's responsible.  I wouldn't mind if it were being done responsibly.  I do everything I can to be a responsible citizen of SL, which means going out of my way to ensure my scripts have as little impact on a region as possible, being as efficient as possible... and respecting/sharing mainland with my neighbors.  I've never had an issue where I received a complaint, because I care to do right by others.  That's the crux of it, it's all I expect, common courtesy.

Man that sucks that you had to let it go.  My partner and I both use bots, one each for our separate businesses and then we share with our joint projects, in case one goes down there's a backup.  Good ole scripted agents. hehe

[Yingzi Xue]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Another little aside

Do you know that for a certainty? It still had a ranking effect with the GSA, even though many people believed that it didn't. More than once I've described (in the forum) how LL incorporated traffic into the rankings, and it wouldn't surprise me if they've included it with the current engine - maybe even in the same way.

A few days ago, I had a little discussion with someone about it, and I did just 2 searches. I know it's an incredibly small sample, but it did appear to me that traffic still has an effect in the rankings. It may not have, but, on that extremely tiny sample, it did look as though it has.

---

I'm not 100% sure, but I know I get unique results every time when I use search, which don't appear to be weighted with traffic numbers at all... or if they are, they're interspersed with other search results.  Maybe they're still using a pseudo traffic algorithm and it's just not public knowledge, or evident.  It wouldn't surprise me.

You can still get a top listing if you list your business in a unique way.  One of my locations ranks in the top 10 consistently, but results might vary depending on what your business is.