Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Linden Lab

Skill Gaming Policy Thread

Recommended Posts

Yes, but you've only posted 16 times, so you're not exactly a frequent forum user. Sorina has over 1000 posts to her name, so she is a frequent forum user. Still, I suppise it depends on where in the forum a person frequents. Here in General Discussion, PIOF is very common.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with not knowing what PIOF means, even as a frequent forum user. But Sorina did effectively criticise someone for using something obscure, which PIOF isn't. Not in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Guy Gossamer wrote:

That might be true if you are speaking about a very specific alogorithm that does "a specific thing and nothing else". Most of the definitions of an alogorithm I have read (I don't need to reference as you seem intelligent enough to do a little google search all of your own) suggest that an alogoithm is a piece of programming that is used for calculating, processing, automating or reasoning something. I believe it is fair to say, it is an alogorithm (not defining specifically which one) that is responsible for processing, calculating, reasoning and automating the moves of a computer based chess program, for example.

So, for instance, if you talk about LSL, in a game someone created, it is the alogorithm that determines, when, where, which colour, how often, to what degree of probability certain things will happen when a player does X. If is not the programme, or the functions, it is the alogorithm.  As a result, to my mind, the player is playing against an alogorithm (I use 'an' loosely). 

I don't know why people might use or misuse the word alogorithm, and I really don't care.

I'm taking back my 50/50.  :matte-motes-big-grin:

hehe. You can't take your 50/50 back. It belongs to me now, and I've binned it.

An algorithm is the design of a programme. Larger programmes almost invariably cosist of multiple smaller programmes, even if they are all in the same file, and each of the smaller programmes has an algorith - a design. In many cases, the smaller programmes can be used by many programmes; e.g. an LSL function, such as llListen() can be used by all LSL programmes. llListen()'s design is its algorithm.

The main programme - the one that makes use of small programmes - has a design (algorithm), but, imo, it's still wrong to refer to it as an algorithm, as in "you play against the algorithm". It is a programme, and there is no need to refer to it as an algorithm, especially since those who don't know will get the idea that 'algorithm' is another word for 'programme', which it isn't. That's probably the reason why people misuse the word in this forum.

An algorithm is the design - the way the programme works. A programme is the programme itself and not the design. We play against the programme.

When you drive a car, you press the brake pedal. Most of us don't know exactly how pressing the brake pedal slows the car down down. You 'play' the brake pedal. That's the equivalent of the programme The way that the car manages to slow itself when you play the brake pedal is the equivalent of the algorithm.

One is the thing. The other is the design of the thing. We play against the thing.

I'll give you a few percentage points because we do play against the design of the thing, but 'algorithm' is still not the right word to use, especially when it's used as interchangeable with 'programme', which it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel a retreat coming on!!

Ok, so, you say "An algorithm is the design of a programme". You also say "An algorithm is the design of piece of programming that does a specific thing and nothing else." and "An algorithm is a part of a programme, although it may constitute the whole programme". It appears to me, you have fully endorsed with your definition my assertion.

The most important thing you have said in our discussion is, "but, imo, it's still wrong to refer...". I have stated all along that I belive an alogorithm to be a piece of programming that calculates, automates, reasons, processes. I still believe it is that part of the programme that handles the automating, calculating, reasoning, that you are playing against, as in the very first mention of it in this thread, I referred to the alogorithm that calculates what candies appear in Candy Crush. All the other alogorithms that add up to the full alogorithm (programme) are immaterial in my point, as they do other things. The don't calcualte the play moves/candies appearing.

So, what we have here, are two arguments, both credible. IMO, I am not wrong :matte-motes-big-grin:, as I believe the alogorithm that handles the 'chess game' moves or Candy Crush candies are what the player is playing against. By your own definitions listed above, that's an alogorithm. 

I own the 50/50 now, you can phone a friend, or ask the audience. :matte-motes-big-grin: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Stormie Windlow wrote:

Anyone know what the "Checking Licences" is all about.   That's appearing on some games.   Didn't think it was starting til 1st September?

Can you link us to some specific examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an issue with the servers having a problem recognising certification on some games.   Not related to the new rules coming into force apparantly.   Its just a coincidence.   Been in secondlife a long, long time and can still see things you've never seen before.   Whatever was the problem, is now sorted.   For now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

I've only skimmed the thread, so I could be way off base here...

What's the bigger issue; what constitutes "skill" or the size of the Skill Game Region license costs (both the direct fee and the time and external cost of registration for the region/game)? I don't know what the costs might be, but I wonder what L$ volume a game would have to move to make such fees tolerable. If the fees end up being exhorbitant (what Linden fee here isn't ;-), and If the only way to avoid the fee is to eliminate any payment into the system by players, then the skill/chance discussion is moot. The only games here will be those in which nobody pays to enter.

Did I get this wrong?

ETA: I think I read that payment into skill games can only be done from PIOF accounts. That's another dissuasion, no?

I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF. As it is not a common enough used term even within SL to have it abbreviated
.

 

Wow, you need to get out more. It's a very common term and one that applies ONLY here in Second Life, to the best of my knowledge. I'd seen it used when I'd been here a month. I did have to look it up then, mind you. But it is used all the time.

Payment Info on file is common term of course. The abbreviation is not. Common terms in SL in general are things like Sim, port, TP, etc. Payment info on file is something that comes up often in my circles but I don't think a term that might be used a couple times a year that in SL business circles is in need of a abbreviation. Its a common internet thing to do among some to abbreviate a term even one that is not often used at the expense of clarity in order to reduce having to type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF.

'PIOF' is extremely common here in the forum.

I usually just say payment info on file when it comes up because generally its not a frequent topic except to LL possibly and when trying to determine alts etc. you would think there would be abbreviations for actual freqeuntly used subjects say like Group chat LAg (GCL?). Its not common for those that don't hang out on the forums all day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Stormie Windlow wrote:

It was an issue with the servers having a problem recognising certification on some games.   Not related to the new rules coming into force apparantly.   Its just a coincidence.   Been in secondlife a long, long time and can still see things you've never seen before.   Whatever was the problem, is now sorted.   For now.

If your talking about games that have Slysense licencing/copy protection such as Zyngo, Deal, and many others it apparently was not working for a day but looks like it is now. I am not sure what the issue was but their Slysense servers seem to been working ok on their end. It shouldn't just block out Slysense anyway as it is a service that can be applied to many other items and games for loss and copy protection and not just skill games. I am unaware of any non game that is using it but there could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is auto racing covered under this policy? there is inherently some chance involved in any competition, especially sports, but there is no script putting random numbers or anything of the sort in to actually put chance in, in fact every effort is made to take chance out and make it all about skill.  We have removed buy-ins in advance of the policy taking effect, as have other racing sims, but is this necessary?

It seems that auto racing would fall well outside the realm of gambling, since it mainly rewards skill and the only randomness is in other people messing up and taking you out, but a lot of people in racing have been concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Snugs got PIOF after trying that maneuver. That has since vanished. So, I don't know what conclusion to draw!

The law of random probabilities?

or

maybe the uncertainty principle. the more something is observed the less certain it becomes. which kinda runs counter to the seeing is believing thingy

jejeje (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Guy Gossamer wrote:

I feel a retreat coming on!!

Ok, so, you say "
An algorithm is the design of a programme". You also say "
An algorithm is the design of piece of programming that does a specific thing and nothing else." and
 "
An algorithm is a part of a programme, although it may constitute the whole programme". It appears to me, you have fully endorsed with
your
definition my assertion.

The most important thing you have said in our discussion is, "
but,
imo
, it's still wrong to refer...". I have stated all along that I belive an alogorithm to be a piece of programming that calculates, automates, reasons, processes. I still believe it is that part of the programme that handles the automating, calculating, reasoning, that you are playing against, as in the very first mention of it in this thread, I referred to the alogorithm that calculates what candies appear in Candy Crush. All the other alogorithms that add up to the full alogorithm (programme) are immaterial in my point, as they do other things. The don't calcualte the play moves/candies appearing.

So, what we have here, are two arguments, both credible. IMO,
I am not wrong 
:matte-motes-big-grin:
, as I believe the alogorithm that handles the 'chess game' moves or Candy Crush candies are what the player is playing against. By your own definitions listed above, that's an alogorithm. 

I own the 50/50 now, you can phone a friend, or ask the audience. :matte-motes-big-grin: 

LOL. I don't need to ask the audience or phone a friend. On the whole, we don't disagree on what an algorithm is. Where we do disagree is that, when playing a computer game, such as chess or whatever, we play against multiple algorithms, because mutiple algorithms are involved in each 'turn'. So the correct word to use, when saying "we are playing against the <insert word here>" is a programme, because the whole thing is a programme, whereas the design of each seperate part, such as an object, or sub-routine, or function, is an algorithm. We can be correct in saying that "we are playing against the algorithms" (plural), but, unless it's a very simple top-down programme, we are not playing against the algorithm (singular).

In probably every case where the word 'alogrithm' is used in the forum, not counting this discussion of course, it is used incorrectly.

You've used your 50/50, but you still have phone a friend and ask the audience left ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I had to do some googling what you meant by PIOF.

'PIOF' is extremely common here in the forum.

I usually just say payment info on file when it comes up because generally its not a frequent topic except to LL possibly and when trying to determine alts etc. you would think there would be abbreviations for actual freqeuntly used subjects say like Group chat LAg (GCL?). Its not common for those that don't hang out on the forums all day.

I didn't sday it was common for non-forum users. i said that it's extremely common in these forums. It's a long-established part of the language here. I would have thought that, having over a thousand posts to your name, you would have picked it up ages ago, but it may depend on which sub-forums you normally frequent. Either way, your initial criticism of its use was misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Anthony Stuart wrote:

is auto racing covered under this policy? there is inherently some chance involved in any competition, especially sports, but there is no script putting random numbers or anything of the sort in to actually put chance in, in fact every effort is made to take chance out and make it all about skill.  We have removed buy-ins in advance of the policy taking effect, as have other racing sims, but is this necessary?

It seems that auto racing would fall well outside the realm of gambling, since it mainly rewards skill and the only randomness is in other people messing up and taking you out, but a lot of people in racing have been concerned.

This has been asked a few times but to begin with but your a bit confused what this policy is about. The new skill game policy has nothing to do with if a game is one of chance or skill. Games of pure chance are not allowed. The Skill game policy affects ANY game not already excluded by the wagering policy, which requires or permits payment to start the game AND participants are awarded Linden dollar prize.

A game of skill would include things like chess, backgammon (which has chance elemets bot not predominently so), and simulated auto racing. So auto racing as long as it has pay to enter and money to win clearly is affected by the skill gaming policies. Something like auto racing is VERY likely to be allowed BUT with pay and win options they would have to be restricted to gaming sims and only accessible by players legally able to access the sim based on their location.

It sucks but yes people in racing do need to be concerned. If I ran a chess tournament with pay and win options I would also have to go through the approval process with the game and take place on a gaming sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance we can try to avoid postings not related to the topic here? This  forums has been flooded with non relevant posts when people are trying to seek help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tut Tut (tt) Sorina,

don't be such a hypocrit - "Payment Info on file is common term of course. The abbreviation is not. Common terms in SL in general are things like Sim, port, TP, etc. Payment info on file is something that comes up often in my circles but I don't think a term that might be used a couple times a year that in SL business circles is in need of a abbreviation. Its a common internet thing to do among some to abbreviate a term even one that is not often used at the expense of clarity in order to reduce having to type." ‎08-02-2014 08:02 PM - Sorina Garrigus

Like I said previously, you're doing more harm than good to the skill gaming community by communicating with anyone other than yourself. Even your rant at Monday Beam in the Skill Games Help group was completely unnecessary and down right rude at times, irrespective of whether there was a laugh or two among your snide and cutting remarks. 

Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Guy Gossamer wrote:

Tut Tut (tt) Sorina,

don't be such a hypocrit - "
Payment Info on file is common term of course. The abbreviation is not. Common terms in SL in general are things like Sim, port, TP, etc. Payment info on file is something that comes up often in my circles but I don't think a term that might be used a couple times a year that in SL business circles is in need of a abbreviation. Its a common internet thing to do among some to abbreviate a term even one that is not often used at the expense of clarity in order to reduce having to type." 
‎08-02-2014
 
08:02 PM - 
Sorina Garrigus

Like I said previously, you're doing more harm than good to the skill gaming community by communicating with anyone other than yourself. Even your rant at Monday Beam in the Skill Games Help group was completely unnecessary and down right rude at times, irrespective of whether there was a laugh or two among your snide and cutting remarks. 

Guy.

1: Not sure what your hypocrit comment is refering to. I didn't use an obscure abbreviation.

2: The Monday Beam issue is still highly questionable the way he is going about things by many people. Someone brought up the Monday Beam issue at the SL Bar association the other day and the response during the Q&A session was pretty clear that you should know who your dealing with and verify they are infact a licensed attorney. Not someone that refuses to reveal his identity unless you first pay a retainer fee, writes in his terms that all that all legal advice is considered roleplaying solely for entertainment purposes, etc so on. That is completely insane. Also several attorneys at the SL Bar association did not hesitate to say what their real names were. What he is doing is the smart way to go but there needs to be someone else that is willing to disclose such basic information like who he is and offer his credientials. For all we know he is could be just some random law student playing lawyer. He is an attorney. Attorney's that prosequte the mob have public identities. Saying he is afraid of a SL griefer as reason is nuts.

3: At the SL Bar association meeting which he isnt a member of I only mentioned his name. Other individuals raised questions about him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

1: Not sure what your hypocrit comment is refering to. I didn't use an obscure abbreviation.

No you didn't use an obscure abreviation. Nobody did, but you chose to highlight it just the same. Your personal ignorance about something doesn't make it obscure. It just means that you are ignorant about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, I just read the Skill Gaming Policy and (of course;) don't understand if my game is affected by it. I sent a support ticket to the Lindens, but they just tell me to hire an attorney. So maybe here somebody can give me an opinion.

Is a simple hit and run shooting game affected by the Skill Game Policy? It is basically a fantasy setting, let's say similar to Linden Realm. Players play for free with a basic gun. They run around, shoot NPCs and receive points. The best player with most points wins money once per day. So according to the Skill Game Policy there is a payout. The players do not have to pay to play, but they can purchase an advanced gun or a HUD for the game. So there can be an optional payment by the player related to the game. The policy says "2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play;"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting one. If the game does not require payment to play, AND if the game cannot be set to require payment to play, it does not come under the new rules, even though there is a payout. But your game has a little extra bit associated with it, and this is the way I see it...

If the extra thing - the advanced hud - is sold by a completely seperate object, then it's not part of the game and the game still won't come under the new rules. But, if the game object does sell the extra bit, then the game does come under the new rules. That's my opinion only. Others may have different opinions.

Then there's another way of looking at it. LL's documents about the new rules only mention game objects. Your game isn't in an object, so it's not subject to the new rules. But there has been a lot of discussion about games that are not in objects - racing games - so others will probably have different ideas. What you can be sure of is, if you remove the extra hud thing completely, then your game won't be affected by the new rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 4 conditions and 1 pre-condition that must be met for your game to come under the skill gaming policy. 

The pre-condition is that the game is implemented through an in-world object and the conditions are, skill determination, requires or permits payment, payout in L$, and is a legal skill game. Your game does not meet the pre-condition of being implemented through an inworld object, and further, does not meet the condition of requiring/permitting a payment (via the in-world object).

Therefore, in my humble opinion, your game is not subject to the skill gaming policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

1: Not sure what your hypocrit comment is refering to. I didn't use an obscure abbreviation.

No you didn't use an obscure abreviation. Nobody did, but you chose to highlight it just the same. Your personal ignorance about something doesn't make it obscure. It just means that you are ignorant about it.

:/ and literally right after you said you would happy to drop the non topic. Ironic of course given the post is talking about hypocrits. Again please drop the sillyness so people can ask questions on the actual topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...