Jump to content

Skill Gaming Policy Thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2532 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Phil Deakins wrote:

Games that
cannot
accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play
do
come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not.

This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy." There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


native Bigbear wrote:

Thanks for the reply phil i just hope your right about that im more concerned about the rodeo rides ive sold to my customers in the past so fingers crossed all will be ok.

I doubt you will have issues on older games that you created. Just be sure to have updates perhaps on games that might have been pay to play and money to win. I can't imagine LL creating problems with a game creator's older builds that might be floating out there. If they did that would mean they intend the policy to be retroactive to 2004 and they would have to ban Phillip Linden for creating an old fairy tale slot machine.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Games that
cannot
accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play
do
come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not.

This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "
Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.
" There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying. 

It has absolutely been clarified both in the policy document and by Linden Lab in this thread. You're the only one who refuses to accept it, and you're the only who seeks to cause confusion about it (and other things).

@everyone. I'll repeat what I and others have said in this thread. Ignore Sorina's posts. She doesn't understand things and she only causes confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a reply to your previous post (#976) as well as the one I'm replying to (#977).

It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy. It's silly to suppose they do. All than anyone needs to know is LL's Skill Gaming Policy. Everything that anyone needs to know is written there.

RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't. It is, of course, necessary for the lawyers of the creators and operators to know the relevant laws, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the creators and operators themselves know the relevant laws. They still need their lawyers to know them.

I wondered why you'd posted about the laws. I really didn't expect it to be because you thought that creators and operators needed to know them. I thought it may a 'just out of interest' thing, or maybe you were wanting to change LL's policy in some way, or maybe you posted them to show the reasons for LL's policy. So I asked you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy." There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. " There you go again Sorina with your twisted take on things.  You have taken one line from the definition of Skill Games/Skill Gaming to suite your backward agenda.  It has been clarified. Here is the full definition for anyone looking for clarity.

 

  • “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.

As you can see (well most of us can, Sorina is obviously blind or just plain stupid) it clearly states at 2) requires of permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play.  So, "There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in." is plain and simply a complete lie.

Like I've said time and again, do not take any advice from Sorina Garrigus. Please seek legal opinion from an attorney. You can clearly see she is ranting about older games..yadda yadda.  Just ignore her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Games that
cannot
accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play
do
come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not.

This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "
Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.
" There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying. 

It has
absolutely
been clarified both in the policy document and by Linden Lab in this thread. You're the only one who refuses to accept it, and you're the only who seeks to cause confusion about it (and other things).

@everyone. I'll repeat what I and others have said in this thread. Ignore Sorina's posts. She doesn't understand things and she only causes confusion.

What the hell is wrong with you. I quoted the actual response they just paraphrased the policy back. They did not clairify anything. I am not going to waste the time to search and quote exactly what they said again. Please feel free to post the link and exact post.

You were questioning why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion. CLEARLY you don't understand this policy and the ramifications AT ALL. Why are you commenting on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

This is a reply to your previous post (#976) as well as the one I'm replying to (#977).

It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy. It's silly to suppose they do. All than anyone needs to know is LL's Skill Gaming Policy. Everything that anyone needs to know is written there.

RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't. It is, of course, necessary for the lawyers of the creators and operators to know the relevant laws, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the creators and operators themselves know the relevant laws. They still need their lawyers to know them.

I wondered why you'd posted about the laws. I really didn't expect it to be because you thought that creators and operators
needed
to know them. I thought it may a 'just out of interest' thing, or maybe you were wanting to change LL's policy in some way, or maybe you posted them to show the reasons for LL's policy. So I asked you.

"It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy"

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal,"

 

What? Seriously stop commenting in this forum. Clearly you have some obfuscation agenda. Linden Labs is REQUIRING both game owners and creators to offer...

... "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing (the "Reasoned Legal Opinion"), which describes in detail the operatoin and LEGALITY of the Skill Games, in accordance with the requirements further described ...."

https://secure.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=9EX6XU7I3J32XJ

This is a complex situation and your not helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guy Gossamer wrote:

"This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "
Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.
" There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. " There you go again Sorina with your twisted take on things.  You have taken one line from the definition of Skill Games/Skill Gaming to suite your backward agenda.  It has been clarified. Here is the full definition for anyone looking for clarity.

 
  • “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.

As you can see (well most of us can, Sorina is obviously blind or just plain stupid) it clearly states at
2)
 requires of permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play.  So, 
"
There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in.
" is plain and simply a complete lie.

Like I've said time and again, do not take any advice from Sorina Garrigus. Please seek legal opinion from an attorney. You can clearly see she is ranting about older games..yadda yadda.  Just ignore her.

I totally agree. Seek a legal opinion from a verified attorney willing to provide credentials without hesitation. BUT As it was stated by others including another attorney, an attorney that is unwilling from the very start to present their credentials without a retainer first is and should be considered "shady as hell". I am not sure why anyone should listen to you who wanted to do nothing but squash a MAJOR red flag concern. That is not only a noob thing to do in Second Life, it's a noob thing to do in First Life.

Yes I am primarily talking about older games because once this policy goes into effect, newer games with pay and win conditions will not be able to be distributed outside skill game sites.

1) I don't think LL is interested in censoring games say a bumper car game made 7 years ago by an inactive game creator that is operating legally according to the skill game policy.

2) This policy IS NOT only affecting solo play games of skill. It has a much wider impact than what your tunnel visison allows you to see.

3) "requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play". A Game set to freeplay obviously does not currently require or permit the payment of Linden Dollars to play.

4) Permit can easily be refering to tip jar style pay and win games to omit the possiblity of loophole attempts.

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

6) A game set with pay AND win options currently active  outside a gaming sim could and should be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't."

FALSE. The whole point to policy is some states do not allow their citizens to play games of skill with pay and win conditions such as a chess or backgammon tournament for example. The policy DOES allow things that are illegal in some states. Really LL has allowed things to go on in SL that have been illegal in SL for years but only no ware taking the time to address that. BUT the policy creates the situation where players have to have their identity verified which include their residence. If playing a game of skill is not legal in their state or country, then then that individual would not be able to access those gaming regions. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POLICY FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Games that
cannot
accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play
do
come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not.

This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "
Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.
" There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying. 

It has
absolutely
been clarified both in the policy document and by Linden Lab in this thread. You're the only one who refuses to accept it, and you're the only who seeks to cause confusion about it (and other things).

@everyone. I'll repeat what I and others have said in this thread. Ignore Sorina's posts. She doesn't understand things and she only causes confusion.

What the hell is wrong with you. I quoted the actual response they just paraphrased the policy back. They did not clairify anything. I am not going to waste the time to search and quote exactly what they said again. Please feel free to post the link and exact post.

You were questioning why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion. CLEARLY you don't understand this policy and the ramifications AT ALL. Why are you commenting on it.

Aha. You've changed your tune. Previously you said that Linden Lab quoted the policy back. Now you say they paraphrased it back. Not very consistent, are you? Either way, both policy itself and the post made by Linden Lab make it abundantly clear. It is only you who prefers to think it still clarification. I told you before that, when you post confusion about things that are absolutely clear, I will correct you for the benefit of the person you reply to - just as I've done this time - again.

I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion. I asked you why you posted all those law links,. Perhaps that's why you fail to understand things that are absolutely clear to everyone else - because you have difficulty understanding what's written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

This is a reply to your previous post (#976) as well as the one I'm replying to (#977).

It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy. It's silly to suppose they do. All than anyone needs to know is LL's Skill Gaming Policy. Everything that anyone needs to know is written there.

RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't. It is, of course, necessary for the lawyers of the creators and operators to know the relevant laws, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the creators and operators themselves know the relevant laws. They still need their lawyers to know them.

I wondered why you'd posted about the laws. I really didn't expect it to be because you thought that creators and operators
needed
to know them. I thought it may a 'just out of interest' thing, or maybe you were wanting to change LL's policy in some way, or maybe you posted them to show the reasons for LL's policy. So I asked you.

"It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy"

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal,"

 

What? Seriously stop commenting in this forum. Clearly you have some obfuscation agenda. Linden Labs is REQUIRING both game owners and creators to offer...

... "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing (the "Reasoned Legal Opinion"), which describes in detail the operatoin and LEGALITY of the Skill Games, in accordance with the requirements further described ...."

This is a complex situation and your not helping.

Again, you've had difficulty understanding what's written before your eyes. You quote LL as saying that LL requires "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing", which they do. They don't require anything like that from operators or creators, so it isn't necessary for operators and creators to understand all the laws. That's the job of the lawyers. Get it?

When you tell me to "stop commenting in this forum" I assume you mean in this thread. Or are you telling me to stop posting in the whole forum? I'll assume it's just this thread and I'll explain to you that it's not your thread and you don't have any say in who posts in it. Unfortunately, I and others in the thread don't have any say either, or you would have been long gone from it, due to your continual posts that do nothing but confuse people who genuine questions that matter to them. You're the odd one out, Sorina. Everyone else understands it. It's just you who doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aha. You've changed your tune. "

:/ They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy

I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy.

Again what the hell is wrong with you

 

"What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'"

"I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion"

Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't."

FALSE. The whole point to policy is some states do not allow their citizens to play games of skill with pay and win conditions such as a chess or backgammon tournament for example. The policy DOES allow things that are illegal in some states. Really LL has allowed things to go on in SL that have been illegal in SL for years but only no ware taking the time to address that. BUT the policy creates the situation where players have to have their identity verified which include their residence. If playing a game of skill is not legal in their state or country, then then that individual would not be able to access those gaming regions. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POLICY FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!

Oh dear. You are so wrong far too often. Linden Lab has made a list of states whose residents will not be allowed in the special sims. Users don't need any understanding of any laws. Either LL's system will deal with it automatically, or users will need to avoid those sims if they are in any of those states. Either way, knowledge of laws as far as users are concerned isn't the subject of this discussion. You tried to change it from laws concerning creators/sellers and operators, but I am not fooled by such a childish tactic. You were wrong that creators/sellers and operators need to know the relevant laws, and that's all that we are discussing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"
Aha. You've changed your tune.
"

:/

They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy

I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy.

Again what the hell is wrong with you

 

"What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'"

"I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion"

Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it.
 

You can't wriggle out of it, Sorina lol. You quoted the post AFTER you'd said that LL quoted the policy. So you're wrong again ;)

And of course the echoed the policy. The policy is perfectly clear so why shouldn't they echo it. It's only you can't seem to understand it.

That's right, Sorina. I didn't mention the wire act when I asked you what relevance your post had to this discussion. I asked you what relevance the whole of your post had to this discussion. It was a long post and the wire act might have part of it, but it was all those links to all sorts of law things and stuff that was in your post that I asked you about. I didn't single out the wire act. In fact the only time I mentioned the wire act was in a reply to Perrie, where I said that I've never heard of it either. You really are getting confused, aren't you? Perhaps it's time you went to bed, eh? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again, you've had difficulty understanding what's written before your eyes. You quote LL as saying that LL requires "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing", which they do. They don't require anything like that from operators or creators, so it isn't necessary for operators and creators to understand all the laws. That's the job of the lawyers. Get it?"

:/ Yes reasoned legal opinions come from lawyers. Your not making any kind of point. But they do require game operators and owners to supply those opinions from their respetive attorneys. This is all in the no friggin duh catagory. Its not like random lawers are filing RLOs for no particular reason. Game owners and operators will be the ones supplying that information to the attorney

Lastly that whole post CLEARLY STATED, to relay that information to your respective attorney on the chance they are not aware.

CLEARLY you are arguing to argue and your making a fool out of yourself with most of your posts. you keep attacking from the position of a troll and I keep quoting actual policy, statements, news sources and in general the actual facts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"
Aha. You've changed your tune.
"

:/

They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy

I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy.

Again what the hell is wrong with you

 

"What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'"

"I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion"

Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it.

 

 

Someone will doubtless correct me if I'm mistaken, but, at least as I recall, people got rather excited at the time (2011) about this Federal Wire Act business, until it transpired that what the Department of Justice had actually said was that they didn't intend to use the Wire Act any longer to prosecute certain behaviours because it had always been debatable about whether they were, in fact, caught by that legislation (though the D of J maintained they were) but because the D of J had take the policy decision that, in future, they would use more recent legislation that certainly did cover whatever it was the D of J had hitherto been going after under the Wire Act.

In any case, presumably since even I'd heard of this -- they got excited about in SLU at the time, and probably here, too -- I'm sure LL's lawyers are fully aware of it, as should be (or so I would hope) any competent attorneys retained by people wanting to create or operate games of skill in SL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" You were wrong that creators/sellers and operators need to know the relevant laws, and that's all that we are discussing here."

"It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy"

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal,"

"Users don't need any understanding of any laws."

HOLY BLEEP. You should start replying to your own posts. You will be in a never ending conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"
Aha. You've changed your tune.
"

:/

They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy

I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy.

Again what the hell is wrong with you

 

"What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'"

"I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion"

Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it.

 

 

Someone will doubtless correct me if I'm mistaken, but, at least as I recall, people got rather excited at the time (2011) about this Federal Wire Act business, until it transpired that what the Department of Justice had actually said was that they didn't intend to use the Wire Act any longer to prosecute certain behaviours because it had always been debatable about whether they were, in fact, caught by that legislation (though the D of J maintained they were) but because the D of J had take the policy decision that, in future, they would use more recent legislation that certainly did cover whatever it was the D of J had hitherto been going after under the Wire Act.

In any case, presumably since even I'd heard of this -- they got excited about in SLU at the time, and probably here, too -- I'm sure LL's lawyers are fully aware of it, as should be (or so I would hope) any competent attorneys retained by people wanting to create or operate games of skill in SL.

I recall the same when that statement came out. I suspect that might been in part why some games in SL may have started to see where the line was of what was within TOS. I recall some movement of some states allowing online poker but restricted to that specific state that it was legal as a result of the wire act. But State laws are another matter. Though the wire act may not consider to apply towards anything other than sports and similar event betting state laws are likely to have effect.

But I learned a long time ago to do your own research but in cases like this give that research over to your attorney. There are not a lot of attorneys that specialize in gaming laws and the ones that do are probably in Vegas and have considerably high fees. So it doesn't hurt to give your attorney a direction to look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My posts, quoted by you, are in green.

Your post is left in black.

My comments to your post is within your post and in red.


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"Again, you've had difficulty understanding what's written before your eyes. You quote LL as saying that LL requires "
A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing
", which they do. They don't require anything like that from operators or creators, so it isn't necessary for operators and creators to understand all the laws. That's the job of the lawyers. Get it?"

:/

Yes reasoned legal opinions come from lawyers.
That's exacty what I've told you. So it isn't necessary for creators/sellers and operators to actually know and understand the laws. That's the lawyers' job. I'm glad to see that you've finally come round to the right way of seeing that.
 Your not making any kind of point.
I wasn't actually trying to make a point. I merely asked you why you posted those links to laws and stuff. You claimed that it's necessary for creators and operators to know the laws, whereupon I explained that it isn't.
 But they do require game operators and owners to supply those opinions from their respetive attorneys.
Of course LL requires that. It's not been in dispute.
 This is all in the no friggin duh catagory. Its not like random lawers are filing RLOs for no particular reason. Game owners and operators will be the ones supplying that information to the attorney
Yes, they be supplying details of their game(s) and showing them LL's policy. Nothing to do with the relevant laws. that's the lawyers' job.

Lastly that whole post CLEARLY STATED, to relay that information to your respective attorney on the chance they are not aware.
Fine. There's nothing wrong with providing links to laws, but it shouldn't be necessary. Lawyers are supposed to find the laws themselves. However, you actually said that it's necessary for creators and operators to know those laws, which, of course, it isn't. That's what we're disagreeing about here.

CLEARLY you are arguing to argue and your making a fool out of yourself with most of your posts. you keep attacking from the position of a troll and I keep quoting actual policy, statements, news sources and in general the actual facts.
I don't mind if I'm making myself a fool in my replies to you, Sorina. As long as the people who ask questions get the right answers, it's fine by me, even if it means telling those people that your answer is wrong. But.... and there is but... I'm not altogether convinced that it's me who looks like a fool here. Especially, since everyone who has posted in these little discussions finds you to be in error and not me
;)
All you have to do is stop telling people that this or that is open to interpretation, when all opinion here says differently (except yours), and you and I will probably have no need to reply to each other's posts.
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sorina Garrigus wrote:

" You were wrong that creators/
sellers and operators
need to know the relevant laws
, and that's all that we are discussing here."

"
It isn't necessary for creators
and operators
to know the laws
that concern the Skill Gaming Policy"

"
RL laws have no effect on it
, unless the policy allows things that are illegal,"

"
Users don't need any understanding of any laws
."

HOLY BLEEP. You should start replying to your own posts. You will be in a never ending conversation.

Eh? What ae you on about? What sort of straw is it that you're grasping at now?

Anyway, I'm off to bed now. I'll reply to any more replies from you in the morning. I bid you goodnight, Sorina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a look and you're right. The whole post was about the Wire Act. I hadn't actually read it. I just saw links to law stuff and text about law stuff, and I asked you why you posted them. I suggested some possible reasons (you wanted to persuade LL to change the policy, and you wanted to show people why the polciy is needed were two of them). It was a genuine question. If you'd said it was just for people's interest, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but you said that creators and operaters need to know, and proceeded to argue that. That's where you went wrong. And you're still saying something similar.

As for me being a troll, it's been well established in this thread that you don't understand what the word means, so we can ignore it. All you know about the word is that it can be used as an insult, like you've used other words to insult various people in this thread. I think you're the only one in this thread who's been throwing insults at those who don't agree with you. It's not a very good practise, is it? - because everyone reading the thread can see it and get to know what you are like as a person.

And as for me going to have fun elsewhere, forget it. Between the two of us, your'e the noob, and noobs shouldn't get all uppity with their elders :D

As for you not responding to those who you miscall trolls, meaning me and presumably others who you've called a troll in this thread, I'll believe it when I see it. It's not the first time you've said it so we can't take what you say as being accurate, can we? - much like some of the other things you've said in this thread ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've had a look and you're right. The whole post was about the Wire Act. I hadn't actually read it. I just saw links to law stuff and text about law stuff, and I asked you why you posted them. I suggested some possible reasons (you wanted to persuade LL to change the policy, and you wanted to show people why the polciy is needed were two of them). It was a genuine question. If you'd said it was just for people's interest, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but you said that creators and operaters need to know, and proceeded to argue that. That's where you went wrong. And you're still saying something similar.

As for me being a troll, it's been well established in this thread that you don't understand what the word means, so we can ignore it. All you know about the word is that it can be used as an insult, like you've used other words to insult various people in this thread. I think you're the only one in this thread who's been throwing insults at those who don't agree with you. It's not a very good practise, is it? - because everyone reading the thread can see it and get to know what you are like as a person.

And as for me going to have fun elsewhere, forget it. Between the two of us, your'e the noob, and noobs shouldn't get all uppity with their elders
:D

As for you not responding to those who you miscall trolls, meaning me and presumably others who you've called a troll in this thread, I'll believe it when I see it. It's not the first time you've said it so we can't take what you say as being accurate, can we? - much like some of the other things you've said in this thread
;)

101 pages and 1001 posts so far.  Throughout it all we're still no further along than the posts from Linden Lab early in the thread.  Giving answers helps, but turning the thread into a mud pit of endless speculation (Sorina) isn't helping anyone.  Skill Gaming Policy interpretation is up to the game creator, operator and their lawyer, who is supposed to guide the applicant and give a legal opinion. Knowing this, that the lawyer is the guide, it doesn't make sense to listen to anything anyone says in this thread about Skill Gaming Policy interpretation, including myself.

Probably the best post here, aside from the LL posts, has been the transcript (page 97; Innula) that does a good job of interpreting the Skill Gaming Policy, for those that want potential answers before hiring a lawyer.

We're mid-way through the month and still no games or operators listed as approved on the wiki.  *sits back with popcorn*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2532 days.

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
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...