Skill Gaming Policy Thread

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

 

---

"If the game does not require payment to play, AND if the game cannot be set to require payment to play"

This is open to interpretation due to yet again poor writing of the policies.

• “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

The word permit is not defined at all. A game set to free play does not "permit" the payment of Linden Dollars. The term permit could just as easily be there to not allow optional pay ins in order to win. There are some multiplayer games that do this.

It would be HIGHLY unfortunate if they meant "requires or can be set to payments of Linden Dollars to play" as it would wipe out a LOT of older content where the game creators may not be active in SL. This is one of the reasons why LL needs too clear up their policies. If they start pulling games say like an old laser tag game or a shooting bumper car game  I have created by Blaze Undercity which had pay and win options you can potentially set but are not set, as written it would be a different from how their policies are written now.

Given Blaze isn't active that game would be dead and a violation to even rez even if it was set for pure freeplay. If those games were ARed for not being outside a Gaming sim LL would have to waste the time running around SL investigating, by policy, legally set games and decide to send them back or not.

They need to have at least an internal decision on what they mean by "permit". Its a huge mess for them and everyone if they mean that if its even possible to set a game for that. Technically someone with full permission scripts of a game can change that status at any moment.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Stephan Gaudio wrote:

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;"

---

The "2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play" portion is open to interpretation. There are some games in the past that have used tip jars or separate devices to pay as an option. For example multiplayer table games by KR Engineering (Simopolis, Greedy, etc) had a prize server as an option. It could be set to pay the server optionally where players pay the board and the winnner wins money. But to play the game this was optional. This is one way to interpret by what they mean by permit. Many solo skill game operators haven't never worked with many games other than the solo pay and win kind may or may not be aware of this or the wider SL game landscape. They will assume permit means if the game can be set at all to pay in because they don't know any other kinds of games. But to some of us with a wider understanding of SL games it can mean a few different things and I personally interpret it as you might be as optional payment or a optional/loophole payment like the KR Engineering prize servers.

But in your case I think you are safe. But if the same system for example required players to purchase ammunition on a regular basis that would likely be seen as requiring payment to play.

PS: It should be noted Karsten is updating all his games to remove payment options. I just used his prize servers as a more well known example

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Stephan Gaudio wrote:

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;"

---

I just reread LL's response was "Hire an attorney". There is no pay in on this if you told them that. This is a clear example LL dodging all responsibility even for their own policies or really even knowning them. Linden Labs seriously needs to do better. It's customers shouldn't have to hire an attorney for every simple little thing.

If it was a golf course where people win something with no entry fee but the place happened to sell golf clubs they probably would still say hire an attorney. Effectively thats all your situation is.

[Phil Deakins]

Ah but you continued the off-topic stuff before i did, and I did say that I'd be happy to stop if you did

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

 

---

"If the game does not require payment to play, AND if the game cannot be set to require payment to play"

This is open to interpretation due to yet again poor writing of the policies.

• “Skill Game”
  or
  “Skill Gaming”
  shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

The word permit is not defined at all. A game set to free play does not "permit" the payment of Linden Dollars. The term permit could just as easily be there to not allow optional pay ins in order to win. There are some multiplayer games that do this.

It would be HIGHLY unfortunate if they meant "requires or can be set to payments of Linden Dollars to play" as it would wipe out a LOT of older content where the game creators may not be active in SL. This is one of the reasons why LL needs too clear up their policies. If they start pulling games say like an old laser tag game or a shooting bumper car game  I have created by Blaze Undercity which had pay and win options you can potentially set but are not set, as written it would be a different from how their policies are written now.

Given Blaze isn't active that game would be dead and a violation to even rez even if it was set for pure freeplay. If those games were ARed for not being outside a Gaming sim LL would have to waste the time running around SL investigating, by policy, legally set games and decide to send them back or not.

They need to have at least an internal decision on what they mean by "permit". Its a huge mess for them and everyone if they mean that if its even possible to set a game for that. Technically someone with full permission scripts of a game can change that status at any moment.

---

Just stop waffling will you. You do nothing but try to confuse people who aren't up on this subject. Is that your objective here? Confusion?

Given the document extract that you quoted, together with LL's response in this thread, the word 'permit' is NOT open to interpretation. It means, if the game can be set to take payment to play, whether it's actually used or not.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Stephan Gaudio wrote:

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;"

---

The "2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play" portion is open to interpretation

. There are some games in the past that have used tip jars or separate devices to pay as an option. For example multiplayer table games by KR Engineering (Simopolis, Greedy, etc) had a prize server as an option. It could be set to pay the server optionally where players pay the board and the winnner wins money. But to play the game this was optional. This is one way to interpret by what they mean by permit. Many solo skill game operators haven't never worked with many games other than the solo pay and win kind may or may not be aware of this or the wider SL game landscape. They will assume permit means if the game can be set at all to pay in because they don't know any other kinds of games. But to some of us with a wider understanding of SL games it can mean a few different things and I personally interpret it as you might be as optional payment or a optional/loophole payment like the KR Engineering prize servers.

But in your case I think you are safe. But if the same system for example required players to purchase ammunition on a regular basis that would likely be seen as requiring payment to play.

PS: It should be noted Karsten is updating all his games to remove payment options. I just used his prize servers as a more well known example

---

It is NOT open to interpretation.

@Stephan. I strongly suggest that you do as others in this thread have suggested, and ignore Sorina's posts. She doesn't help. She just tries to confuse.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

 

---

"If the game does not require payment to play, AND if the game cannot be set to require payment to play"

This is open to interpretation due to yet again poor writing of the policies.

• “Skill Game”
  or
  “Skill Gaming”
  shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

The word permit is not defined at all. A game set to free play does not "permit" the payment of Linden Dollars. The term permit could just as easily be there to not allow optional pay ins in order to win. There are some multiplayer games that do this.

It would be HIGHLY unfortunate if they meant "requires or can be set to payments of Linden Dollars to play" as it would wipe out a LOT of older content where the game creators may not be active in SL. This is one of the reasons why LL needs too clear up their policies. If they start pulling games say like an old laser tag game or a shooting bumper car game  I have created by Blaze Undercity which had pay and win options you can potentially set but are not set, as written it would be a different from how their policies are written now.

Given Blaze isn't active that game would be dead and a violation to even rez even if it was set for pure freeplay. If those games were ARed for not being outside a Gaming sim LL would have to waste the time running around SL investigating, by policy, legally set games and decide to send them back or not.

They need to have at least an internal decision on what they mean by "permit". Its a huge mess for them and everyone if they mean that if its even possible to set a game for that. Technically someone with full permission scripts of a game can change that status at any moment.

---

Just stop waffling will you. You do nothing but try to confuse people who aren't up on this subject. Is that your objective here? Confusion?

Given the document extract that you quoted, together with LL's response in this thread, the word 'permit' is NOT open to interpretation. It means,

if the game can be set to take payment to play, whether it's actually used or not.

 

---

Where does it say that exactly. If they meant the game cannot be set to require payment to play they would update their policy to state that. Until they do it is open to interpretation because people read the policies rather than chit chat about the policies. For it NOT be open to interpretation they have to write it that way. I been urging for a while for LL to update the actual policy in this and many other points. It is VERY poorly written as are some other policies.

And as I said before it would effectively censor a lot of very innocent games that the creators are no longer active in SL that can be set in a legal innocent way according to the policy. LL needs to think things through and look at the bigger picture before sending the Bull Linden into the proverbial China Shop. There policy in effect has a cascade effect that they clearly are not aware of or possibly worse even care how it censors and destroys content.

Looking at your profile it appears deal in Furniture and likely have very little experience with games in Second Life. I been working with games for 7 years of all kinds. Some with commercial pay and win options and some not. I have worked with hundreds of games, and I couldn't begin to recall how many game creators. Looking at the policy I would say the writer really has very little knowledge and experience with the wider game pallete that is in Second Life.

[Sorina Garrigus]

Again it is open to interpretation. The writer of the policy needs to be canned and LL needs a update otherwise. They carefuly define other terms in that policy but DO NOT define permit.

 

Your clearly trying to confuse people, well you and Linden Labs really. So perhaps you might find a nice furniture policy to comment on instead of constantly trolling

[Guy Gossamer]

Hey Sorina, such a lovely day outside today. Anyway, just to clarify some of the nonsense you have been talking about.  

2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play;

This is not open to interpretation in any way, as it means two (2) things, and two things only. It means 1. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) has a requirement to pay it L$, it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy, and 2. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) permits the payment of L$ it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy. 

What condition 2) does not do, is put in place circumstances stating that 'permitting L$ payments to play' is allowed in circumstance x, y, z, and as a result of this not being there, it is reasonable to decduce that under all conditions where a game has/will have/had/can have/may have/might have/once had a facility to permit payment of L$ in order to play (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition), that game falls under this Skill Gaming Policy.

The only place where these conditions apply, and games do not fall under the Skill Gaming Policy, is in Sorina's head.  For this reason alone, I re-iterate to everyone, please do not listen to Sorina'ss advice, and do take legal advice from a qualified attorney.  The other option is that the Skill Gaming Community reside in Sorinas head where her 7 years experience in China Shop management, and Linden Bull farming means ... oh, why bother!

Also, just to add, to the hordes of people searching this blog for information, even though Sorina finds it necessary to sprout that she has seven (7) years experience working with "all kinds", I can confirm that she has absolutely zero (0) years experience working with games that fall under the new Skill Gaming Policy, and as such her seven years of experience doing all kinds is about as valid in this scenario as my PhD.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Guy Gossamer wrote:

Hey Sorina, such a lovely day outside today. Anyway, just to clarify some of the nonsense you have been talking about.  

2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play;

This is not open to interpretation in any way, as it means two (2) things, and two things only. It means 1. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) has a requirement to pay it L$, it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy, and 2. that if a game 

(in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill 

game/gaming definition

) permits the payment of L$ it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy. 

What condition 2) does not do, is put in place circumstances stating that 'permitting L$ payments to play' is allowed in circumstance x, y, z, and as a result of this

not

being there, it is reasonable to decduce that under

all

conditions where a game has/will have/had/can have/may have/might have/once had a facility to permit payment of L$ in order to play

(in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill 

game/gaming definition

)

, that game falls under this Skill Gaming Policy.

The only place where these conditions apply, and games do not fall under the Skill Gaming Policy, is in Sorina's head.  For this reason alone, I re-iterate to everyone, please do not listen to Sorina'ss advice, and do take legal advice from a qualified attorney.  The other option is that the Skill Gaming Community reside in Sorinas head where her 7 years experience in China Shop management, and Linden Bull farming means ... oh, why bother!

Also, just to add, to the hordes of people searching this blog for information, even though Sorina finds it necessary to sprout that she has seven (7) years experience working with "all kinds", I can confirm that she has absolutely zero (0) years experience working with games that fall under the new Skill Gaming Policy, and as such her seven years of experience doing all kinds is about as valid in this scenario as my PhD.

---

I agree take advice from a qualified attorney. But why are you backing an alleged attorney who says anything he does in SL is considered roleplaying as opposed to legal council? No ethical attorney that is remotely sane would require people to pay him before knowing who the hell he is. He smells of scam from 10 miles out with a little research.

How is anyone suppose to take anything you say seriously that is backing an "attorney" that is roleplaying in second life as an attorney? I know you and others want to save some money and what he is doing is great but he needs to disclose his credentials like any "credible" attorney would. If he doesn't disclose its hard to imagine LL would take such an individual as "credible" as they are asking for. His (roleplaying) clients have no idea if he is credible or not.

On the permit part YET AGAIN. IF that is the case LL needs to rewrite the policy to reflect that. It REALLY isn't that hard to clarify that by saying or if the game can be set to pay IN THE POLICY!!!! There is a HUGE difference! Techically any game can "permit a pay in" with an added script or added device. This policy as written isn't only covering solo skill games which may be your only perspective. It covers games of skill in general. When I mention my diverse experience with games in SL I am looking at the policy and considering 500 games of various kinds both solo and multiplayer. I already gave you examples of a few games that have ways to "permit" a player to pay but does not require them to. THATS WHERE THE INTERPRETATION PART IS! I can rez a few games for you that do this. It's not rocket science. LL needs to clairfy their policies. Especially the portion about the undisclosed quarterly fees. Actual gaming attorneys were litterally laughing at them.

Also Guy, again your someones alt. No payment history, the game place is in your picks has no sim, you have no profile pic, payment info on file, etc so on. your not being taken seriously if anyone looks at your data.

 

 

[irihapeti]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

On the permit part YET AGAIN. IF that is the case LL needs to rewrite the policy to reflect that. It REALLY isn't that hard to clarify that by saying or if the game can be set to pay IN THE POLICY!!!! There is a HUGE difference!

 

 

---

permit = allow

it isnt that hard to know that this is the definition. Is the meaning provided in Oxford dictionary

 

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

On the permit part YET AGAIN. IF that is the case LL needs to rewrite the policy to reflect that. It REALLY isn't that hard to clarify that by saying or if the game can be set to pay IN THE POLICY!!!! There is a HUGE difference!

 

 

---

permit = allow

it isnt that hard to know that this is the definition. Is the meaning provided in Oxford dictionary

 

 

---

Very true. But a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting people to pay to play. Its all in the context. Additionally there is this bit from the skill game policy that is specifically saying ...

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

So if games do not allow (no mention of possiblilty being set otherwise) paying to play the it is not covered under the policy. If said games were set otherwise directly or indirect then LL could and should act.  

 

[irihapeti]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

---

Very true. But a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting people to pay to play. Its all in the context. Additionally there is this bit from the skill game policy that is specifically saying ...

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

So if games do not allow (no mention of possiblilty being set otherwise) paying to play the it is not covered under the policy. If said games were set otherwise directly or indirect then LL could and should act.  

 

---

seems to me that you overthinking this

+

i create a scripted object that does functions A and B

i release this full perms public domain

somebody else takes this and mod/adds function C to it

i havent permitted/allowed function C. The modder has

+

the possibility that a modder might do this doesnt negate the purpose/intent for which I created the scripted object. Nor that they might/maybe/somehow do this doesnt put what I made in breach of ToS

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

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.

 

---

"If the game does not require payment to play, AND if the game cannot be set to require payment to play"

This is open to interpretation due to yet again poor writing of the policies.

• “Skill Game”
  or
  “Skill Gaming”
  shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law.

The word permit is not defined at all. A game set to free play does not "permit" the payment of Linden Dollars. The term permit could just as easily be there to not allow optional pay ins in order to win. There are some multiplayer games that do this.

It would be HIGHLY unfortunate if they meant "requires or can be set to payments of Linden Dollars to play" as it would wipe out a LOT of older content where the game creators may not be active in SL. This is one of the reasons why LL needs too clear up their policies. If they start pulling games say like an old laser tag game or a shooting bumper car game  I have created by Blaze Undercity which had pay and win options you can potentially set but are not set, as written it would be a different from how their policies are written now.

Given Blaze isn't active that game would be dead and a violation to even rez even if it was set for pure freeplay. If those games were ARed for not being outside a Gaming sim LL would have to waste the time running around SL investigating, by policy, legally set games and decide to send them back or not.

They need to have at least an internal decision on what they mean by "permit". Its a huge mess for them and everyone if they mean that if its even possible to set a game for that. Technically someone with full permission scripts of a game can change that status at any moment.

---

Just stop waffling will you. You do nothing but try to confuse people who aren't up on this subject. Is that your objective here? Confusion?

Given the document extract that you quoted, together with LL's response in this thread, the word 'permit' is NOT open to interpretation. It means,

if the game can be set to take payment to play, whether it's actually used or not.

 

---

Where does it say that exactly

.

If they meant the game cannot be set to require payment to play they would update their policy to state that.

Until they do it is open to interpretation because people read the policies rather than chit chat about the policies

.

For it NOT be open to interpretation they have to write it that way

. I been urging for a while for LL to update the actual policy in this and many other points. It is VERY poorly written as are some other policies.

And as I said before it would effectively censor a lot of very innocent games that the creators are no longer active in SL that can be set in a legal innocent way according to the policy. LL needs to think things through and look at the bigger picture before sending the Bull Linden into the proverbial China Shop. There policy in effect has a cascade effect that they clearly are not aware of or possibly worse even care how it censors and destroys content.

Looking at your profile it appears deal in Furniture and likely have very little experience with games in Second Life.

I been working with games for 7 years of all kinds. Some with commercial pay and win options and some not. I have worked with hundreds of games, and I couldn't begin to recall how many game creators. Looking at the policy I would say the writer really has very little knowledge and experience with the wider game pallete that is in Second Life.

---

In this thread - stated by Linden Lab. You set yourself up as some sort of expert and you don't even know something as basic as that. Go and look for it. It's there is you want to see it.

The policy does state it, and Linden lab confirmed it. It's you who is ignorant on the subject.

The policy doesn't need to be updated because it is perfectly clear. So people can read the policy and know what it means. People except you, that is.

That's true, but I do have some experience of games in Second Life. Specifically, I do have the experience of knowing exactly what "or permits" means because it was me who asked Linden lab about it, and it was me to whom Linden Lab replied. It's all there in this thread. You need to understand what you're talking about before you make statements such as, "it is open to interpretation" when it isn't because it's already been clarified.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Again it is open to interpretation. The writer of the policy needs to be canned and LL needs a update otherwise. They carefuly define other terms in that policy but DO NOT define permit.

---

Your value in this thread is nil.

The word 'permit', as used in the policy, does not need to be defined. Everyone knows what it means (except you). You need to consult a dictionary because you are wasting everyone's time in this thread.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

On the permit part YET AGAIN. IF that is the case LL needs to rewrite the policy to reflect that. It REALLY isn't that hard to clarify that by saying or if the game can be set to pay IN THE POLICY!!!! There is a HUGE difference!

 

 

---

permit = allow

it isnt that hard to know that this is the definition. Is the meaning provided in Oxford dictionary

 

 

---

Very true. But a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting people to pay to play. Its all in the context. Additionally there is this bit from the skill game policy that is specifically saying ...

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

So if games do not allow (no mention of possiblilty being set otherwise) paying to play the it is not covered under the policy. If said games were set otherwise directly or indirect then LL could and should act.   

---

You really do enjoy being obtuse, don't you. A game that is set to freeplay, still permits pay-to-play if that setting is in the game. Sorina. Turn away from your pride and look in this thread. You will find Linden Lab's exact answer to your confusion. You don't have a leg to stand on with this silliness.

I don't mind if you are confused, because you obviously want to be, and you're free to be confused. What I do mind is you confusing other people when there is no confusion. You'll find no rest over it in this thread because, as soon as you spout wrong things, as you've been doing, people, including me, will be here to correct what you say for the person you are confusing. Your best bet is not to continue swimming agaist the tide of facts.

 

ETA:

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "permits" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

[Guy Gossamer]

Sorina, I feel sorry so for you.  I really do.  The only reason I am on here is to try and guide people away from listening to your very ill-informed advice.. 

You assume that because I said "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. " that I am backing Monday Beam, or that I am a client of his!  This is where you should shut up, as you are publically suggesting/disclosing information that suggests I am a client of his, cheapskating, endorsing him, using him, or whatever the case may be. I'm sure this is a TOS/Community Standards violation. I suggest you retract your accusation about what I am doing in real life with attornies as it should not be made public.

You are so wrong (what's new?), all I am suggesting is that you are so off point on so many topics, without anything relevant and on point to say, you feel the need to carpet bomb everything and everyone with 'crap' in the hope that some of it sticks.  You have been found out by multiple contributors on this thread and proven time and again to be wrong, wrong wrong, and I just hope that people are taking genuine advice given by other contributors in the context of the policy and ignoring everything you say.

My advice to you, you deal with your attorney, and offer me a very public apology and I will take no further action.

I can't help but feel so sorry for you. Let me add, you do NOT have my consent to share ANYTHING about me.

 

1. Disclosure

   Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited.

[Aethelwine]

Since objects with internet browser functionality permit accessing and using online Casinos, will they then be banned even if never used for that functionality?

[Sorina Garrigus]

"in this thread - stated by Linden Lab"

1: where is the link.

2: How the hell does LL expect a forum thread to be part of the policy. They need to clarify the policy. People read and follow the policies NOT some kind of response. If a single person buys a game when this policy hits and LL acts on it when the policy clearly says a free to play game is not covered they created a liability issue for themselves. A small one granted but a innocent individual buys and uses a game as in a non skill game sim say some old bumper car game with old pay and win options, They set it with no pay and win possiblities at all for instance they are completely within the policy. Again because you are incapable of reading or going off the policy

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

There is not a single thing about IF a game is capable of being set to pay and win options. Hell most games that are at least modifiable can be changed to pay and win with a simple script and outside pay in and out object. Which would be permitting.

"The policy doesn't need to be updated because it is perfectly clear"

If it doesn't then pay in games set to freeplay are ok. They have to be aware of games that "permit" payment to win to an outside source than the actual game. It goes way the hell back to the old Devil May Care multiplayer game for crying out loud. I am talking to game makers and owners every day. There are a LOT of questions and frustrations with this policy. And those that are using their own attorneys (as opposed to a BS roleplayer attorney sending down cut and based HIGHLY general RLOs not addressing the games specically AT ALL)  are literaly laughing at Linden Labs for their policy expecially the part where the quarterly fees are undisclosed. That is such a joke.

 "it is open to interpretation" when it isn't because it's already been clarified."

Again if its not in the policy or at least in the FAQ its not clarified for everyone to know. It would be completely insane for any individual to be required to find a random response amongst hundreds. I am going off policies as should everyone.

 

What they DON'T want is people creating BS loophole pay in systems. That is touched on in the policy.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

On the permit part YET AGAIN. IF that is the case LL needs to rewrite the policy to reflect that. It REALLY isn't that hard to clarify that by saying or if the game can be set to pay IN THE POLICY!!!! There is a HUGE difference!

 

 

---

permit = allow

it isnt that hard to know that this is the definition. Is the meaning provided in Oxford dictionary

 

 

---

Very true. But a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting people to pay to play. Its all in the context. Additionally there is this bit from the skill game policy that is specifically saying ...

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy"

So if games do not allow (no mention of possiblilty being set otherwise) paying to play the it is not covered under the policy. If said games were set otherwise directly or indirect then LL could and should act.   

---

You really do enjoy being obtuse, don't you. A game that is set to freeplay, still permits pay-to-play if that setting is in the game. Sorina. Turn away from your pride and look in this thread. You will find Linden Lab's exact answer to your confusion. You don't have a leg to stand on with this silliness.

I don't mind if you are confused, because you obviously want to be, and you're free to be confused. What I do mind is you confusing other people when there is no confusion. You'll find no rest over it in this thread because, as soon as you spout wrong things, as you've been doing, people, including me, will be here to correct what you say for the person you are confusing. Your best bet is not to continue swimming agaist the tide of facts.

 

ETA:

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "

permits

" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

---

"You really do enjoy being obtuse, don't you. A game that is set to freeplay, still permits pay-to-play if that setting is in the game"

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

---

LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling?

 

I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:-

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "permits" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Since objects with internet browser functionality permit accessing and using online Casinos, will they then be banned even if never used for that functionality?

---

Those specfic objects probably would be removed I imagine. LL would have to ban the internet otherwise

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

---

LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling?

 

I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:-

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "

permits

" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

---

The ONLY way it is clarified YET AGAIN is if its in the policy or in the FAQ. Not because we have to take your word you got a random response. If they contradicted the policy in the forums then they need to address that. And why would a furniture builder ask about skill games anyway?

"Do you see where we are coming from?"

What we are you refering to? I understand this is a common tactic among passive aggressives trying to create a split where its one against the majority.

Also I am not being shot down in flames at all. I am pointing to the actual policies.

 

But I am done talking with you. You have nothing constructive to offer at all. If I have a furniture question I will be sure to ask you about it.

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this.  

---

LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling?

 

I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:-

I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "

permits

" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it?

Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it.

---

I found your question and the response on Greedy Greedy. LL just quoted the policy but did not define permit in any kind of context or reference the game or situation. They do this because they are not offering legal advice AT ALL.

"Hi Phil,

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

best regards,"

 PS: On Greedy just update it anyway if you are intending to play for no money in or out. Karsten has been updating al lhis games. He has to since he has no intention on applying his games as being skill games or have a skill game sim to sell them on. Just click the game and hit update.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

The ONLY way it is clarified YET AGAIN is if its in the policy or in the FAQ. Not because we have to take your word you got a random response

. If they contradicted the policy in the forums then they need to address that.

And why would a furniture builder ask about skill games anyway?

"Do you see where we are coming from?"

What we are you refering to?

I understand this is a common tactic among passive aggressives trying to create a split where its one against the majority.

Also I am not being shot down in flames at all. I am pointing to the actual policies.

 

But I am done talking with you. You have nothing constructive to offer at all

. If I have a furniture question I will be sure to ask you about it.

---

Aha. You didn't try to avoid it this time. You at least attempted a reply even though your reply is nonsense.

You don't have to take my word for it. It's right here in this thread - written by Linden Lab.

Because I have a Games Room in my store. I.e. I'm an operator

I'm refering to the many people who have told you in this thread that you are wrong. I'm just one of them. All of us together constitute the "we"

Oh but you are being shot down in flames right, left and centre. You don't understand the english in the policy document so you spread confusion. The rest of us put you right but, because you still don't understand, you argue about it like a voice in the wilderness.

I consider it to be very constructive when I put you right, because it corrects what you say for the person you say it to