TerryDavidd Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Actually thats not quite how the games work , but thank you for your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizur Zessinthal Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thank you for the clarification to my earlier questions, i do appreciate that a lot. Next i wish to ask, in the terms and conditions on the actual Creator and Operator applications, it says to add new games you have to go through the application process again. Does this mean that as a Creator I have to another 100 bucks every time I make a new game and wish to get it approved? Can i submit these games "in bulk" on a single application if that is so? Same for Operators wishing to add games to their approved list? Can they just put as many games on it as possible the first time to try and keep their costs down even if they do not run all the games they list? Thank you for any clarification on this issue you can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoovious Aloix Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 TerryDavidd wrote: Actually thats not quite how the games work , but thank you for your opinion. I think his point was more about how else those rules could be stretched to impact other things... How many times in RL has a law been passed, that we were told was narrow and specific, which turned out to be more vague and broad than expected, that impacted so much more than was ever intended, just because of the specific language that was passed? They think they are defining what qualifies, but there is a lot of room for interpretation still... some of which is what is considered a "game" in the first place... He sees a possible interpretation that could affect those things. Worthwhile to get a definitive comment on it that we could point to later if it ever becomes an issue. (as for the cones? I don't see that being relevant here, as I don't see those as being wager-related or skill-related... the landowner is paying for visitor traffic, and the people hopping the cones are getting paid specifically for visiting locations... effectively being hired for micro periods of time at each hop. The only random component is where they go to next, and I don't even think that's actually random... except for the captcha to foil bots) -- Smoov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryDavidd Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Ahh ok the games I speak of are more like the traffic cones . they are distributed across the grid and players go search for them and wait by them ( causing traffic ) and then move on tho the next location to search for more.. they do get fractions of lindens for this and periodically cash out . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sassy Romano Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Linden Lab wrote: Hi Sassy, The application fee is $100, and upon approval, license fees will be waived through the end of 2014. Following this initial period, a reasonable license fee will be assessed quarterly, but the exact amount is yet to be determined. When the quarterly license fees have been determined, we'll add this information to our FAQs. Thanks for the reply but you also missed the other part of the question, why the double money grab?:- "...and why does an approved game that LL has accepted into the list then ALSO need the operator to go through the same lawyer legal process when the operator has no sight of the code and thus can't assert that the game really does what it says? Why does LL want fees from TWO entities for what is essentially the same thing?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 yes pretty much. the law of unintended consequences + just a thought on how you described cones if argue this in this way then can make a case that is not covered by gaming policy. So all good if LL accept this however. have maybe also successfully made the argument that the game contravenes the Camping Policy so win the Gaming Policy argument and lose the Camping Policy argument I played the cone game recently. I had to wait 6 minutes to get my payout at each cone station I went to. The parcel traffic counter kicks in at 3 minutes as I understand it for my dwell/traffic to count. So unless LL have changed this then murky + i think that the worst place anyone can put themselves is in a situation where they are on the edge of policy/law/rules/regs. is lots of scope to change dwell and chance games into skill games and I think the people who make these new types of games will do pretty good out of it + just as a personal preference if I do have to spend time waiting to get paid then I rather be given/asked to do something for my reward. I can spend hours grinding these kinda games to get loot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoovious Aloix Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 It was already argued in that way for the cones (and other systems, like the Meetro) to remain compliant, when LL stamped out "camping" years ago, which was often used to boost traffic. That system, you'd basically stand on a prim... and you could just be sitting, or like in some clubs, dancing... and different camping chairs would sometimes offer a different hourly rate, and you'd just stay in one spot and dance or do whatever other animation, if any at all... one club I went to often to camp at, also had a SLingo game going so many of us would play that while we camped. This was considered a form of traffic fraud tho. While not directly banned by the ToS now (as far as I know) the method for counting traffic was changed to make camping much less effective and it pretty much died out as a means of boosting traffic ratings... the cones and other 'lure' type systems to generate traffic replaced that. The cones were billed as a way to see new places tho, and had an interactive component so you had to be active while using them... or at least active enough to satisfy the captcha... lots of the older camping included links to small programs that kept your mouse moving so you wouldn't get marked Away and disconnected after an hour... lots of camping spots also wouldn't pay if you were Away... As a means for exploring, which is claimed as the primary reason for the cones (and coins, being considered a game itself... like the ones that remind me of mario bros) is enough to satisfy the 'no camping' rule I'd think... if not, then I imagine the argument could be made about clubs in so many mall areas being there only for camping as we just stand around there listening... the effect is the same, but primarily we're there for music. (I iknow this isn't really relevant... I started talking about it meaning to link it in after a little history, but now I lost whatever connection I thought I had and have nowhere to go from here ) The point is that nothing is wagered, there is no random component, and you can't lose. With the traffic lure systems, it is a straight pay-for-service model, and you, as the hopper, don't have a way to lose anything. You're simply performing a task and getting paid for the task. You aren't risking anything yourself, or placing any kind of bet. Therefore the traffic lure systems don't apply to the new policy. (with the exception of the grid-wide sploder systems, which are intended more for traffic generation like the lure systems, but at heart, they are still sploders, so those will probably violate the ToS... the only sploders I've seen that had any kind of "skill" component to them, were solely for making sure the entrant was a human and not a bot... not to affect the result itself... tho admittedly, I haven't seen all of them) -- Smoov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Since under last years changes to the terms of service all rights of creators on created content uploaded to secondlife have been assumed by linden lab for themselves in perpetuity, Does that not mean that it is for Linden Lab to pay for the attorneys to comply with their own rules and no one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoovious Aloix Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Oh, jeez, yeah, I totally forgot about that... so many creators I knew left because of that... So with that rule in place, I wonder how that affects LL's liability even further? Since they now have the rights to the software and objects, a creative attorney might be able to craft an argument that makes LL a cooperating partner in whatever fraud one of the games might end up being involved with (should it happen), and since LL's endorsement of the game (however they want to call it, they do endorse and approve of the authorized games) it would be very hard for LL to argue about being a disinterested party when they have chosen to take a very active participation in the gaming community as a whole, to the point of putting their stamp of approval on the game to operate within their world. Also, since they are now defacto co-owners of the content (thanks to their ToS update), could it be argued that they are in some kind of partnership with them now? When before, they could have gotten away with staying distant and uninvolved in the activities the users chose to engage in for themselves? I wish we had a lawyer in here who could toss that thought around for a bit for us, possibilities, what might fly, what might not... should be an interesting read. -- Smoov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekShane Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Hi, We support Linden's efforts to help Creators and Operators and the replies have been helpful, thank you. The timetable is really aggressive here. We have a few questions please: 1. Will there be any type of "white list" for key employees who live in prohibited jurisdictions? Can Operators, associated avatars or employees receive access to skill gaming regions to do their work? Perhaps these service providers can be considered as part of the 4.©(1) Exceptions list? 2. Can an existing non-mainland sim be converted into a gaming region? It appears to be yes in 5(a). For sims that are mixed use (with a mall or club or skyboxes), can part of the sim be parceled off for non-gaming activities? We're hopeful about the parceling because of 5.(b) "...the full Region fee will apply even in Skill Gaming is not operated in the entire Skill Gaming Region." This will affect a lot of places. Can a skill gaming region be placed immediately next to a non-skill gaming region? 3. With respect to the paragraph with the defined terms "Skill Game" and "Skill Gaming", it's stated: "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not subject to the requirements of these Terms." Freeplay games are free to play, but Linden's technology requires a L$1 payment that is immediately refunded. Are Freeplay games considered, "pay to play"? And/or would Linden consider making it possible to eliminate those L$1 payments? Players and our transaction reports will thank you. 4. Is it an error in Paragraph 4 of the Application? Operators won't have the data mentioned in 4(a)(iii): "A Reasoned Legal Opinion that describes each Skill Game (including detailed operational descriptions) and provides a detailed analysis of its compliance with applicable United States and international law:" If the game's creator must provide a legal opinion about a particular game for it to be approved, why must Operators also provide an opinion? A Operator's opinion, legal or otherwise, won't be sufficient for an approval determination. Our plan has been to complete the Operator application, then to look at which games have been approved and those are what will run. 4(a)(iii) is difficult because Linden's asking for legal review of games or creators that may not even be approved and therefore moot. This is sort of chicken and egg: Until Operators know what games are approved they're at a stop point, and if Creators don't have customers there's no incentive to create. Can you please help us understand how you'd like to see this process move forward since the timing is so short? JP Linden used to be the contact on these matters, is there someone assigned to this project that can be contacted? Again, thank you for a lot of effort Linden's put into this and for reading and considering the comments in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octavia Sorbet Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Hi Everybody! Ok, after reading all that I can find, and discussing with colleagues, here's my 2c as of this time... The following is my opinion as a legacy gameroom owner, and I may be wrong in any statements I make, this situation is still new, and I am in the same place as the rest of the potential 'operators' waiting to see how all of this will come to pass. This new policy effectively bans skillgaming in sl for the vast majority of current gameroom owners. I will elaborate as to why later in this opinion but first lets look at the impact of skillgaming currently has on the SL grid. The revenues are incredibly huge, and I'm going to venture a guess that it makes up for at least half of the volume of $linden dollar trading inworld. Probably more. If this revenue source is lost, I speculate that it will hurt linden labs, and hurt the grid, just like the gambling ban hurt in the past. Just like marketplace hurt inworld product merchants. A large amount of the money earned by gameroom owners goes to rent, or tiers. If gamerooms close, it will mean those rents/tiers will no longer be making its way back to linden labs, and that means lost revenue for linden lab. With the recent announcement of a new sl grid under development, I am not suprised this has happened. LL has had years to do this, why do it now? It seems like an afterthought in the light of the recent 'new grid' announcement. The grid has a bright future of establishments closing thier doors, sims disappearing, and people fleeing to other venues for thier online activities. Looks like the "zyngo parlours" will be the first to go. Now, why do I say this policy effectively bans gameroom operations as they currently exist? Gamerooms are very expensive. For many, they are -currently- a cost prohibitive business model. The new policy raises those startup costs exponentially. Many, many gameroom operations are 'profit share' operations. Purchasing games and add ons from creators is very expensive, plus you have land rent/tiers, and then the basic need to build an inviting, attractive place to put the games. There are many factors in opening a gameroom, many expenses. Some operators offer 'profit split' games, to allow newcomers to enter the gaming business with much less startup cost than would be needed otherwise. The game owner rezzes his games on the land owned or rented by the gameroom owner, and the profits are split between them. The new policy forbids linden dollar payments from the operator account, thus making profit shares a thing of the past. Even if the payment was allowed, the profit share operator is SOLELY responsible for the volume and income tax on the profit as recorded and reported tothe IRS by linden labs. So we have a ban on profit share gaming, and creators who have created and sold profit split devices are out of a business. Next, it is my understanding from talking to a couple of game creators that all current skillgames will need updates to comply with this policy. Not only is the policy vague on just what constitutes a game to have 'a material part' of chance, but special lsl calls need to be present in the game, like llTransfer... and (slgaming) among other things. This represents a great loss to all current skillgame operators who have games that will not be updated by thier creators. The main reason the new policy effectively bans skillgaming in sl for 95+% of gameroom owners is the application process and its requirements. If it were -just- the $100 application fee, that could be absorbed. If it were -just- the raise in tier costs for gaming sims, it could be absorbed.. but what absolutely cannot be absorbed is the attorney fees and retainers assiociated with obtaining written legal opinions on each game a game room has. There is dozens of variety of games in SL, and not only do the creators have to pay an attorney for this service, but the policy states the operator must as well. This is -Impossible- for any operator to provide, unless they are also the game's creator. Attorneys deal in facts, and any legitimate attorney will not give an opinion unless its based in known fact. As a gameroom operator, I rely COMPLETLY on the creator to affirm that the game complies with SL TOS. It is Impossible for me to know FOR A FACT that it does or not, because I do not have access to the source code. This is a common sense problem and its a huge flaw in the gaming policy. Operators SHOULD not have to pay huge attorney fees to get legal letters written thus making startup cost prohibitive. Operators CAN not be expected to supply legal opinions from attorneys about virtual inworld goods that they do not have access to the source code, and thus cannot verify the wether a game has 'a material part' of chance/skill. They simply dont have enough evidence to make that kind of determination. Changes to the skillgaming policy are needed. Elimination of the requirement for operators to provide legal opinion from attorneys is a no brainer. Operators just dont have the information needed to obtain this. Creators can and should prove this with a legal statement, and then the cost of obtaining those legal statements can be passed on to operators and finally to gaming residents, spreading those costs among the many, and requiring each game title to only have this approval process one time. Lastly I want to comment on the fairness of this policy. It stifles the creative process of game creators by adding exponentially to the cost of developing the game. These costs -may- be passed on to operators -if- the game is popular enough to sell enough copies. But there is no guarantee, epecially when there is not going to be -nearly- as many operators int he market for games. This policy destroys the game market. Finally, how is a game creator supposed to beta test a game that is not approved yet? That is an imporrtant part of the creative process that is banned. Another reason this policy is unfair is because it favors very large game operators over the small independent operator. Many gameroom operations are currently in clubs and only consist of a handful of games. This policy shuts down the casual gameroom operator completely. It seems as if the lindens sat in a room with the good ole boys of skillgaming... like maybe the sushants and a few other creator/operators and came up with a way to establish a monopoly in the sl skillgaming business. It is only members of the established, super large scale gaming operations that will be making enough money at this to justify attempting the application process, and they -can- get thier games verified because they developed many of them exclusively, and have access to the source code, and this can provide proof to attorneys the games are in fact games of skill and do not have 'a material part' based in chance, in order to obtain the required legal opinions. I know this is a wall of text and I appreciate the time from those of you who took the time to read it all. I am disappointed and frustrated that in a few weeks time my online virtual businesses that I have been so proud of building up from one game, will be closing. I feel it is unfortunate to have to provide an expensive legal opinion to be able to operate a skillgame machine that is legal under most US and international laws. This goes against the grain of the society we live in, and is a symptom of how givernment regulations and the illegal codes and statutes instituted by the US government adversely affects what goes on in our public, private, and virtual spaces internationally. Octavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinRJ Fayray Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Octavia Sorbet wrote: Purchasing games and add ons from creators is very expensive Okay I'm sorry to stop you right there, but this is nonsense. Gambling-casino hosts in Second Life never paid more than like 50.000L$ for a commissioned extremely advanced Zyngo-like game-machine (you know with 8 different play-modes, auto-play-mechanism/particles/sounds/bling, statistics and administrative functionality, and moving parts/effects and the like). And if a scripter charged more, they (the casino-hosts) simply found another scripter who did it for less. While on the other hand there are many zyngo- and other gambling-game- players in SL, which pay/bet 10.000 L$ or even more for playing a SINGLE GAME as a payin, using these slot machines. SL- casino-games are far from expensive. You can have experienced scripters write your own Zyngo from scratch for not more than 2000L$ to 5000L$, even with basic models, sounds, particles and textures included. Scripters who are writing SL-gambling-casino games most often have a worse hourly income than pole-dancers in SL-nightclubs. Blame the insanely extreme limits and limitations of the LSL scripting language and the LSL-virtual machine, which make programming games under pressure a true horror for the scripter. Those games often take 100+ hours to create only the scripts. But the gambling-casino hosts yet don't want to pay more than like 50.000 L$, sometimes 70.000 L$ for the entire machine, including mesh-models and texturing-work. To be honest: I feel sorry for every single scripter who still does that. It's not expensive to commission scripters to create gambling-casino-machines in SL. No it is the opposite: these games are extremely cheap, from the programmer's point of view. The L$ gainings (profit) for the scripter usually don't even pay up for the coffee- (or soda-)consumtion during the development of one of those 'games'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madman Magnifico Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 There's a lot about this that seems like a good idea, and even a few things that I have, in the past, wished for as a creator. The idea that the games can be presented to Linden Lab and approved prior to actually implementing them is great. No more guessing, if we have a game idea, just write up some specifications, send them in a supplemental application, make any adjustments to the specifications, get approval, and then start coding... It will save me a lot of time in the end, and you're certainly going to make several attorneys happy as well. Also, there are dozens of unanswered questions raised by the documents released today, many of which have been asked already. Rather than hand them all over at once, I'm just going to ask a couple of them. First off, could we have a link to a copy of the application that we can email and/or print for our attorney, and also to cite in these discussions here in the forum? Now, I have created and marketed a game of skill which runs grid-wide games. The machines are sold to various Operators, and when players pay them the L$ is sent to another avatar which holds the L$ for the duration of the game. At the end of the game, the winner is paid from that avatar, the Operators are all paid a small commission, and the Creator of the game (me) and a business partner are paid another small commission to cover service expenses. I clearly need to apply for a creator's license, but the thing that is unclear at this point is whether or not I need to apply for an operator's license as well. I do not own the games, except when I am designing and/or testing them, and neither does this other avatar of mine which handled the distribution of the L$. Another question I will ask now involves the actual "Operators". Under section 4 © of the application, it is stated that "the transactions of an Operator Account shall be limited to transactions with Second Life residents through the approved Skill Games..." And then, below that is an exception (i) which states "Under limited circumstances, the Operator Account will be allowed to make Linden Dollar payments to Second Life residents who provide services to an Operator..." Is it safe to say that those circumstances do not exclude normal operating costs such as advertising, tiers, and contests as well as paying all in-world employees? Are you specifically and intentionally prohibiting the operators of these games from spending L$ in world, and effectively requiring them all to withdraw the L$, pay the fees involved, wait the minimum 1 week for the USD, and then purchase L$ with that money and paying more fees if they wish to actually use some of their L$ income in Second Life? Many operators are actually a group of people that all share the job of maintaining the sim, all receiving some percentage of periodic net profits, many of which spend much or all of that as L$ without ever selling it for USD. Would places like this still be able to pay other avatars a salary from the designated operator? What exactly is the purpose of this restriction, anyway? The last question is more of a statement. There absolutely must be some way to determine (in LSL) whether or not: A region is allowed to have skill games. An avatar is allowed to own skill games. ...otherwise several of your demands are pretty unreasonable (particularly section 3 (e) (iii)) In addition, it makes it much easier for us to ensure for you that the games are only operated by approved avatars on approved regions. Any technical details on how to do this would be great. As much as I hate to admit it, what would have made a lot more sense would have been to just put it all on us (the creators) and given us an LSL function to just see (1. if a player is eligible to play skill games and 2. if an owner is eligible to own skill games) and then made it a requirement for us to check these things. Anyway, you released all this information yesterday and we have 3 weeks before it goes into effect, but I just figured I'd add that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenbro Utu Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Octavia Sorbet wrote: The revenues are incredibly huge, and I'm going to venture a guess that it makes up for at least half of the volume of $linden dollar trading inworld. Probably more. This is where I stopped believing you had anything real to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octavia Sorbet Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 MartinRJ Fayray wrote: Okay I'm sorry to stop you right there, but this is nonsense. Hi Martin You made several good points, I'm not going to argue them. However I'll just say your basis for comparison for what is a lot of money is relative. A full sim of gaming can have hundreds of games. To compete with established gamerooms there is a myriad of costs. Purchasing a variety of licensed games, add ons, having enough money on hand to pay the jackpots, a staff, a builder, any custom artwork, a greeter bot, other attractions, gadgets, etc adds up and for someone to establish a competitive gameroom represents a signifigant investment in linds. It may not be alot for YOU, but it is alot for ME. Plus, all these expendatures motivates the linden economy. The adverse effects of this policy will damage all of that business going on. If someone was going to open a full sim of gaming and install ONE game they had custom scripted for $50000 linds, It would be an epic fail, and frankly, its not how it works. That is nonsense. As a gameroom operator you have to offer the latest and greatest and all the variety there is available. The latest web based add-on system costs $140000 linds which is appropriate for a fullsim gameroom. This is not a custom build, its just the everyday sale price. And it is highly desireable to have, to compete with large gameroom operations that already have it, that is just one example. But im afraid you may have missed my point, which is saddling operators with attorney fees to evaluate each and every game they offer for play in a game room can cost alot. I have heard numbers thrown around between $5000 and $10000 USD. (ignoring the fact that the actual evaluation for an operator is impossible, due to the fact that we don't own the source code) That is a slap in the face. And it shuts alot of us down if it happens, so I suggest creators do not adopt an 'us against them' attitude with operators because we are in this together and depend on each other along with the gaming residents to be successful. Octavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octavia Sorbet Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Kenbro Utu wrote: Octavia Sorbet wrote: The revenues are incredibly huge, and I'm going to venture a guess that it makes up for at least half of the volume of $linden dollar trading inworld. Probably more. This is where I stopped believing you had anything real to say... Okay! Have a great day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eva Darkwyr Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 What I'm reading if the game pays out, it has to be on the new designated gaming sims, like the first thing mentioned on the blog -- "Skill games that offer Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed in Skill Gaming Regions only." I have a GREEDY GREEDY table, but it's on free play and does not issue lindens or prizes or anything. The dev of those type of games probably will need to offer 2 versions, one that you pay to play and win Ls and another that's totally free play with no option to make it pay. But some other games that do freeplay sometimes require a 1L payment to start it, which is refunded immediately and let you play for free. Those probably will be restricted to the gaming sims regardless. I think the Labs held off as long as possible on this issue, but now need to take action before the U.S. feds do it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Densmith Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 MARTINRJ, its you who are totally NON SENSE here: Ocatavia highlighted the stupidity of this New tos (or potential new tos, because US, the resident are supposed to SUGGEST to LL our recommendations about it, so LL still able never launch this new tos, thats why i recommend to every people to highlight the stupidity of this potential new tos, in this topic. What you wrote is true but out of context. Its TRUE that unknown scripters are paid ridiculous amounts for commissionned "zyngos". The source of that is the basis of zyngos, is full perm and everyone who is a bit aware can get it easyli. So paying that amount for something you can get full perm and free even if the scripter highly update this full perm basis, its honnest deaL. But : "Octavia Sorbet wrote:Purchasing games and add ons from creators is very expensive" When octavia wrote that she was talking not about commission from noname scripters, she was talking about the few creators that MONOPOLIZED , as a mafia cartel, the whole game buisness in sl. COREs, DEALs, ZYNGO, MONEY vault, NO DEVIL, they all cost 1000L£-2000L$ per machine, so its far from what you writing right now. For those big land owners they go up to 150.000L$ to buy copy nodevil, etc, for addons like high wheels (LL didnt answer my precedent post: do you recognize the illegality of high wheel in second life? why you avoid answering my first ) its 40K L$ in copy, same for contest boards or replay boards: 40K copy or more, at r&a core sims. Its like buying nike but for games machines, most of big sims owners always buy same machines cause they are everywhere, of course, the main reason is the original big sims owners are alts of those same creators SINCE THE START (sushant diesel-kain cleaver to give only an an example), owners feel obliged buy those for a very expensive price from a little number of creators that ll closed eyes about their activities for too much time, now . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Lucifer Densmith wrote: Ocatavia highlighted the stupidity of this New tos (or potential new tos, because US, the resident are supposed to SUGGEST to LL our recommendations about it, so LL still able never launch this new tos, thats why i recommend to every people to highlight the stupidity of this potential new tos, in this topic. That part I bolded, what does it mean? That is, "supposed" by whom? Did LL somewhere say they were soliciting suggestions? (I'm not being snarky; it's just completely disconnected from reality as I understand it, so I wonder if I'm missing something here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Densmith Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Suggesting_a_policy_change We (Linden Lab) love listening to our Residents' feedback. But "feedback" covers a huge amount of stuff, so let's be specific: what if you disagree with Linden Lab policy — like what's shown on the Policies & Guidelines page — and want to suggest a change? On occasion and often in response to broad Resident concerns, we bring up an issue for discussion on the Second Life Blogs, where we'll provide an open discussion thread. This mainly applies to new policies, as well as policies we'll consider changing because they may not make sense over time. We may also use other communication venues to discuss policy, such as User Groups that meet inworld. Some Residents use the Issue Tracker to informally suggest policies. However, since the Issue Tracker is primarily focused on technical issues like bugs, Linden Lab employees in general don't watch there for policy discussions, and your concern may be replied to by other Residents, but it's unlikely for a Linden to ever see it. However, "policy" in this case can also expand to such things as software licensing legalities due to open source contributions. Before suggesting a policy change, please become deeply familiar with the material involved. For example, on the topic of intellectual property, you can't understand it without being knowledgeable about copyright and trademark mechanics. This in turn makes related discussions more productive for everyone. Do thorough research on how a particular policy came to be; issues that seem simple on the surface often have dependencies and good rationale behind them. We're unable to change a number of things for practical reasons. For example, "All land should be free!" and "Don't ban anyone" are both unworkable and inactionable. When legal advice is needed, specifics are essential. We can't provide a blanket answer for "all policies and situations" as each is different, and we recommend you consult an attorney. In addition, some topics which are related to "service" or "policy" can be found as specific ticket types in the Support Portal, so when submitting a ticket, have a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Oh, okay, so just the general ability to suggest changes to policy, nothing specifically tentative about this particular policy. Gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Densmith Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Well its better to change a policy before its been launched than after. And i would suggest to see many examples, of SL community reactivity that changed things in SL: --> the redzone problema, a forum thread with 8000 post resulted the ban of (NEAR- why ll protecting voodoo sploders remains mystery for me) all security system that abused privacy of users. If LL see a massive amounts of potential problems, due to this potential tos change, or a massive amount of negative feedback, they could abort it. its up to you, and me, - cause ill continue posting my DEMONSTRATION OF THE CORRUPTION OF THE WHOLE "skill gaming" syetem in second life for years- to make things change. If SL residents already give up and accept everything. LL will think they accept this tos change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoovious Aloix Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Octavia Sorbet wrote: ... Another reason this policy is unfair is because it favors very large game operators over the small independent operator. Many gameroom operations are currently in clubs and only consist of a handful of games. This policy shuts down the casual gameroom operator completely. It seems as if the lindens sat in a room with the good ole boys of skillgaming... like maybe the sushants and a few other creator/operators and came up with a way to establish a monopoly in the sl skillgaming business. ... Not unlike the way the land business went years ago, when the legacy owners got 'grandfathered' into a separate group that got lower tiers for their sims, while the rest of us couldn't have access to the same discounts, effectively locking out any new players who wanted to enter the land baron business... This always happens with more and more regulation... the biggest can survive, and all of the smaller competition trying to compete, get crushed out of the market completely, when the only ones who can afford the regulatory environment are the biggest companies. -- Smoov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucifer Densmith Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 lets now continue, the demonstration i started in my first post here: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Skill-Gaming-Policy-Thread/td-p/2771090/highlight/false/page/4 The first post highlighted the passivity of the lab for many years, and the many little change tos to... both avoid RL laws, and keep the buisness alive- and in fact limit it to a very little of creators that abused it for years with linden lab closing their eyes, each time. Now in this second post (of a long serie iam obliged divide posts) ill focus, on the script and programmer part problem of the "skill games", and on the notion of skill in this post. 2007, ban of: Baccarat Blackjack Craps Faro Keno Pachinko Pai Gow Poker Roulette Sic Bo Slot machines Official reason: (To fit with FBI recommendations.) It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life® environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games: Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,OR Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND provide a payout in Linden Dollars (L$)OR Any real-world currency or thing of value. more infos :http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Policy_Regarding_Wagering_in_Second_Life *Scriptly talking , how worked those games: * the are scripted on a random basis, for random numbers or cards to appear. 2008+: Zyngos came to permit gambling staying in second life, under the name of "skill games". *Scriptly talking , how worked those games: * the are scripted on a random basis, for random numbers or cards to appear. 2010-2011+ : deal, nodevil, etc... *Scriptly talking , how working those games: * the are scripted on a random basis, for random numbers or cards to appear. zyngo -like games grew more and more, the lsl changes of function related to external server/sl communication permit games to be more reactive in second life, but also never verifiable. *How server parts can influence machines? : -The code is on the server: ll cant verify, nor anybody else. It can simply give back to the machine the random (not so random, so) numbers, or amount of jokers..etc.. -Sql databases of players and amounts they play are done. -Machines can be updated in near real time: example of abuse of the updates by server on real time: a creator (from the cartel few big creators of machines) can set up a ratio win/lose for NEW machines, making them attractable for players. With a ratio of 50% win/lose owner wont take big risk and players will like those machines that dont lose much. Then when machines are played a lot creator can change ratio, with only one update and then all players will be ripped off. etc.. etc... i can explain and give examples further, but you can easily understand, that NOW, the codes are online and LL can never watch them. thats the main explanation the following reasons: -owners near never lose. (so its not a skill game if its setted up for a determinated amount of win/lose ratio!, a skill game would mean with your skill player have chance to win , to make profit. -players have a 50% ratio when they fresh players to theses games. -player get a 20% ratio after they played a lot (understand- they became addicts) i can furnish proof of that as past owner of those machines, and player. anyway ask players, they will all say" i started i was winning after i lost all". Thats because if the system would be really random new players could have a chance to lose a lot directly, but if new players lose all directly they will never come back to game sims so they need to have a good ratio win/lose at start - or good ratio on little bets machines- bad ratio on big ones, etc... -spam lists circulating between new sim owners games, that auto spam avatars that played before (i keep on getting auto spammed by new sims launching on my main avatar that played giants amount of money... YEARS ago) - combinaison of bot scripting and server wtaching can make bots playing sims in some big owners sims. So , to resume since 2010, we no more even have machines scripted to give ranom numbers, no, the "buisness" grew to be controled by creators (and their alt owners) to avoid, them mainly: losing money (and players making profit: that was possible in past that casinos been ripped off by players, its no more possible, the casinos and those machines NOW ONLY WIN (on a long term basis) So we turned from 2007's random games, to a system that abuse people. Was it supposed to be skill somewhere? my part 3 message will come soon to go further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WDL Bayn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm wondering about the part of obligation from the operators to provide a "reasonable legal oppinion that describe each skill game including detailed operational description". We will only be allowed to operate approved games. This double checking nonsense. Why is necesarry for an operator to present the legal oppinion for a game that is already approved and certified by LL that complies with the new ToS ? What will happend when we want to use a new game ? We have to apply again ? What if we want to become operators but have no idea what games will pass the approval process? What if no games pass the approval process? Then what do we operate? Thanks, WDL Bayn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now