Skill Gaming Policy Thread

Perrie Juran · August 21, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

Skill Gaming Policy / Intent of item use

I am looking for som oclarification on Skill Gaming Policy as intent of a scripted item has not been fully defined.

I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar.

As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process.

Bis

Possesion of a Bomb is still illegal in most places whether you intend to use it or not.

Phil Deakins · August 21, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

I am looking for clarification on the below part of Skill Gaming Policy.

REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy

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

My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way

i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation?

This really should be clarified in the Skill Gaming Policy.

Bis

Such games come under the Skill Gaming Policy and can't be used after 1st September outside of a Skill Gaming region. It's perfectly clear in the policy but you quoted the wrong part.

Perrie answered the question in your second post.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

I am looking for clarification on the below part of Skill Gaming Policy.

REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy

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

My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way

i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation?

This really should be clarified in the Skill Gaming Policy.

Bis

LL had made no clairification on this matter. Some have responded to you already on this as if they did clairify but they are lying for unknown reasons. One of them has been caught in multiple lies and posts for trolling reasons.

But the policy states clearly the following (note how the trolls don't reference source material)

“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.

A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play. Additionally in the skill game FAQ it makes it clear games which have a L$1 pay to start the game but refunds it immediately are not within the scope of the policy

Are “freeplay” games in Second Life subject to the Skill Gaming Policy?

Freeplay games, in which the sole payment required or permitted is a nominal Linden Dollar payment for the sole purpose of triggering gameplay and is immediately and automatically refunded without conditions of any kind, are not within the scope of the Skill Gaming Policy.

The only games in Second Life that have this pay to start and get refunded are games that are solo skill games. There are a few solo skill games that do have menu start options with no pay in option as freeplay but not many. I can only think of one off hand that does this. This FAQ supports that at least older games are not within the scope of the policy when used as freeplay only.

HOWEVER. The policy is very clear that skill games can't be sold or distributed outside a skill game region. So in reality this mostly applies towards older games that are not capable of being updated. So until LL says otherwise in the FAQ and policy freeplay used for that purpose should be ok.

There are a number of reasons why this would be the case. For one it would wipe out games going back a decade that won't be updated. I gave the example before of a bumper car game where you fire weapons at each other. I know the creator of that game isn't coming back to SL. but it can be set to free play. there are 1000s of examples of this situation.

I recommend that you contact the maker of whatever game you have and request a version that has no pay in though. I have personally been trying to contact one of the better board game makers Rifkin Habsburg about his games but with little luck so far.

If you do use freeplay to avoid confusion, post signs in your place declaring your intentions. It is not likely you will have problems unless you blatantly violate the policy directly or indirectly.

Attempts to get around the skill game policy say like the dice game you mentioned where people pay into a tip jar of some kind and money gets dispensed to the winner of the game would almost certainly be considered "permitting" payment into a game. There are quite a few games that have used such a approach in the past. Given the wide variety of types of games this covers and approaches, until LL says otherwise I personally I am operating under what the policy is actually saying. Trying to create loopholes to get pay and win games to work indirectly is highly unadvisable.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

Skill Gaming Policy / Intent of item use

I am looking for som oclarification on Skill Gaming Policy as intent of a scripted item has not been fully defined.

I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar.

As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process.

Bis

Simply renaming a sploder doesn't change it's intent. If it still pays out then its still a Sploder. A tip jar doesn't pay out randomly to the people it pays into it. If you try to get around the policies simply by renaming a sploder to tip jar it obviously will not fly. Also Sploders were never legal and were pure games of chance. It is unclear why LL allowed them to come back. There have been true skill sploders where you run around clicking on prims it drops to win but the ones that think they are legal because they paid something to everyone never were. If they were then someone would have made slot machines that always paid out a little bit every play long ago.

Lisa Pye · August 22, 2014

This just looks like a bunch of bull for LL to earn added extra income off skill games. Wonder if there is a petition floating around yet.

Coby Foden · August 22, 2014

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

“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.

.....

A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play.

One question: If that game set to freeplay has also the option to set it to require or to permit payment, who is going to control that it will remain "set to freeplay" at all times?

Phil Deakins · August 22, 2014

You will have read Sorina's reply to you by now. I suggest you do what several people in this thread have suggested that people do - ignore Sorina's posts. She refuses to accept plain english and proof, even when it stares her in the face. I'll reiterate that any game that can be set by the owner to pay-to-play and win, comes under the new rules and will only be allowed in Skill Gaming sims after the end of this month. It doesn't make any difference whether or not the owner sets the game as free to play.

This is a very long thread, so you're not likely to read it, but, even though the Policy is clear, Linden Lab posted a clarification of that part of the ToS that covers it. It's quite early in the thread if you fancy reading it. It was a reply to the very question you asked. Sorina refuses to accept that and she is best ignored.

Examples: Because the Policy is clear about it, the creators of the games Greedy Greedy and Chains (different creators) have issued updates that remove the paying in part entirely. Neither of them are going to apply for a license, so they had to do that or stop selling those games. There are probably many more games that have had such updates. I only know of those two.

Incidentally, Sorina thinks of me as a troll, because I continue to disagree with her. I'm the one she refered to. But there are no lies in this thread, at least not by anyone who is not called Sorina She's also called other people trolls, and thrown insults at various people, also because they continue to disagree with her. But she's the only one in this thread who has her views. Everyone else says she's wrong - because she is wrong. It's all here in this thread. So the best thing you can do is ignore her and listen to other people for correct answers.

Phil Deakins · August 22, 2014

Coby Foden wrote:

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

“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.

.....

A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play.

One question: If that game set to freeplay has also the option to set it to require or to permit payment, who is going to control that it will remain "set to freeplay" at all times?

Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims.

Yingzi Xue · August 22, 2014

A number of games and operators were approved yesterday. Check it out.

Phil Deakins · August 22, 2014

That's good. Some games will be playable after the end of this month.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

Coby Foden wrote:

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

“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.

.....

A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play.

One question: If that game set to freeplay has also the option to set it to require or to permit payment, who is going to control that it will remain "set to freeplay" at all times?

The owner of the game obviously would. It would be VERY easy for LL to determine if someone was doing that via their transaction records. Anyone that tried to do something so stupid and reported wouldn't have much defense in the matter.

There are poker tables in SL that have no money options in or out that are allowed and people if they wanted to could just arrange that all paid manually or by creating a tip jar that pays out. Though the tip jar that actively pays out the winner would be permitting payment.

There was a time in some US states that a deck of cards was not allowed to be played in public. I don't think LL has this kind of thought police in mind when it comes to games.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

Please pay no attention to Phil Deakins, comments. Go off the skill game policies and FAQ. It would be addressed in the FAQ and the policy. He apparently wants to be a "somebody" in SL and does not like it when someone disagrees with him even if its someone that works with the topic being discussed on a daily basis for the last 7 + years. LL has NOT made ANY kind of clairification. In the forum someone asked about a game uses as freeplay. The response was far from specific and they just echoed the policy.

It is true the maker of Greedy Greedy has or is in the process of updating all of his games to not accept pay in. He has to if he wants them to be approved. The policy as I mentioned does not allow the sale or distribution of "skill games" outside of gaming regions and they apparently have no intention going through the process.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

Yingzi Xue wrote:

A number of games and operators were approved yesterday.

Check it out

.

I saw those. Solitaire I wasn't suprised were approved. I was most suprised Reel Wild Tournament was approved though. I tried it yesterday and you get 20K in points sometimes under the tiles. It seems games won't change much once this mess clears up for the short term.

Durandir Darwin · August 22, 2014

No Devil was approved as a skill game. *lol

Somebody should try an RLO for "Toss a coin".

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

I have heard this confirmed from more than one source, one being a high profile attorney and one from Linden Labs themselves. LL made it clear that an operator can submit an older game to be approved. But they would need contact information for the game maker in the form of an email. They would allow them as long as they are compliant. The assumption made by many including myself that a skill game has to be on the approved game list apparently is not correct. This was confirmed by a recent correspondance from LL. Just the game has to be compliant and legal but still will need a reasoned legal opinion. If it the game maker is not active or able to update the game and it is not compliant it would not be approved. I assume if later it is determined not to be compliant for some reason it would also no longer be allowed.

Sorina Garrigus · August 22, 2014

Durandir Darwin wrote:

No Devil was approved as a skill game. *lol

Somebody should try an RLO for "Toss a coin".

Compared to one of the other games on the list, its practically chess. But to be fair No Devil has much less chance elements than most slingo style games and was one of the first to do so.

BisKreet · August 23, 2014

Folks that have replied up to this point.
I thank you all for being open and welling to share your thoughts.

@Phil D, Thank you for your input and perhaps my next comments will justify Sorina Garrigus follow for you and other, perhaps not.

A good amount of folks have made statements based on prelim reviews and older content. that is not in the Skilled gaming police itself or in the TOS.

In a full review of the police provided to end users I found two very clear unknown. (again my question)

So I posted 2 questions on the forum, same two question I open tickets for in getting clarification, It was not only to get feedback but to have a matter of record for asking the question.

The same question I am asking where reviewed by legal guru in the industry. They came to the same concussion purposed in my question based on the new Tears of Server content (all of it).

So I ask you all based on the two question pull out and define your replays so that I may better understand where your view point is coming from. Please only make your assessments on the content found in the TOS and all linked Policy provided in the TOS.

Yes so I ask you to re-rearview...

@ Perrie Juran, I own a gun and it can do harm in the wrong hands, but it's not illegal... Pleas don't follow up on my threads. I would like comments from readers that can make a well justified argument or view of the matter.
Keep in mind the word "Intent" <---

1st question:
REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy
***Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy
My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way
i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation?

2nd question.
I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar.
As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process.

------------------------------

@ Phil D - Also you commented on one of your follow up's the following.
Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims.

Can you link us to where you have seen this? and let me know where on the page as well.

---------------------------------

Amethyst Jetaime · August 23, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

...

Yes so I ask you to re-rearview...

@ Perrie Juran

, I own a gun and it can do harm in the wrong hands, but it's not illegal... Pleas don't follow up on my threads. I would like comments from readers that can make a well justified argument or view of the matter.

Keep in mind the word "Intent" <---

If

you post in the forum any one can answer you in any way they want to as long as they abide by the Community Guidelines. You can't tell someone not to answer but you can ignore their answer.

1st question:

REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy

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

My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way

i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation?

Message 19 Phil asked specifically about gaming tables:

My question is this: Will that game be allowed to be played for free and without prizes, without it needing to be in a Skill Gaming region? Or will the fact that it can be set to pay-to-play and give cash prizes, even though it isn't being used that way, mean that it can't be used in a non-Skill Gaming region. I.e. will the fact that it CAN be used with money void it from being used without money in non-Skill Gaming Regions?

Message 29 Linden Lab answered this question.

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

2nd question.

I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar.

As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process.

No, this would not pass muster. It is clearly an attempt to just get around the rules. It's like an escort saying they just asked for donations and gave the donors some sex as a thank you.

------------------------------

@ Phil D - Also you commented on one of your follow up's the following.

Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims.

Can you link us to where you have seen this? and let me know where on the page as well.

See the answer to your first question where I have quoted and answer from LL about this along with the message number in this thread.

---------------------------------

Intent may matter in a case of RL law, but this is a policy incorporated into the TOS not a law. SL is owned by LL and you have to agree to abide by any rules or policies in the TOS they care to establish, as long as it doesn't break a RL law, if you want to log in. If you don't, it makes no difference what your intent was if you are caught you most likely will receive some sort of disciplinary action from LL.

Phil Deakins · August 23, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

@ Phil D - Also you commented on one of your follow up's the following.

Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims.

Can you link us to where you have seen this? and let me know where on the page as well.

---------------------------------

It's in the polciy itself:-

“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.

In post #19 on page 2 of this thread, I posted a question to Linden Lab about the game called Greedy Greedy, which can be played freely or it can be set by the owner as pay-to-play and win money. Linden Lab replied on page 3 of this thread, post #29, by saying that, "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." The Greedy Greedy game does permit pay-to-play and so it is subject to the policy. Your first question describes exactly that - the game permits payment, whether it is used or not.

That was the exact question you asked, except you didn't name a game, and those places are where the correct answer can be found. Everyone who has posted in this thread, except Sorina, understands that correct answer, as does the Greedy Greedy creator. Sorina cannot show any evidence to support her opinion. It's just her personal opinion. The rest of us in this thread accept the actual evidence as provided by Linden Lab. So the answer to your first question in your first post is, no, it would not be conceded as validation. The game you described is subject to the Skill Gaming Policy, just like Greedy Greedy is.

If you fancy reading through this whole thread, you'll come to understand Sorina. If you don't fancy reading it all, you will do well to ignore her so that you don't become confused.

ETA: From what I've read, LL does not reply to the sort of questions you asked them. They tell people to consult a lawyer about specific games. From LL's point of view, it has all been stated so, if you want to check on a game, you need to ask a lawyer. The matter really is very simple though. If a game permits payment, and pays out, it is subject to the polcy, whether or not payment is turned on. Just like LL's answer in this thread about Greedy Greedy.

Phil Deakins · August 23, 2014

My comments are in red...

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Please pay no attention to

Phil Deakins

, comments. Go off the skill game policies and FAQ.

That's what we're all doing, Sorina. It's you who keeps trying to find ways around the policy.

It would be addressed in the FAQ and the policy.

Exactly! And guess what - it IS addressed in the policy.

He apparently wants to be a "somebody"

But I

AM

somebody in SL. I am Phil Deakins. Not just any Phil Deakins though. I am the

one and only

Phil Deakins of Second Life. I thought you knew that

in SL and does not like it when someone disagrees with him

Wrong. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. In fact I love it. I love showing people where they are wrong. Unfortunately there aren't many such people around here so I'm really pleased tio have found you

even if its someone that works with the topic being discussed on a daily basis for the last 7 + years.

And you called me a liar? Really! You haven't worked with the topic any longer than the rest of us have - just a few weeks. You've worked with games but the topic is the

NEW

Skill Gaming Policy, which has only existed for a few weeks, so you have no more experience than the rest of us.

LL has NOT made ANY kind of clairification. In the forum someone asked about a game uses as freeplay. The response was far from specific and they just echoed the policy.

Wrong again. What you don't seem to have grasped is that LL's reply in this thread was specifically about a game that can be used as free-to-play or pay-to-play and win - the

exact

thing that BisKreet asked about. And the reply meant that it is subject to the Skill gaming Policy. It wasn't a general reply that covers all games. It was a very specific reply that covers games that can be set as free or pay-to-play. If LL meant to convey that, as long as the game was set as free-to-play, it would be ok to use it in all sims, they would have said so. But they didn't say anything like that. They said that it is subject to the Skill Gaming Policy.

It is true the maker of Greedy Greedy has or is in the process of updating all of his games to not accept pay in.

I thought you were very experienced in it all. The Greedy Greedy game was updated some time ago - twice, because the first update had a bug. So it's not being updated at all. It has already been updated. Some 7 days a week experience you have huh? lol.

He has to if he wants them to be approved.

Wrong - yet again. He doesn't want it to be approved. That's the whole point of updating the games (removed the pay-in completely) for goodness sakes! They no longer need approval. I do hope that you appreciate me adding to your experience here

The policy as I mentioned does not allow the sale or distribution of "skill games" outside of gaming regions and they apparently have no intention going through the process.

I think that's it for now. Glad I was able to help you with your understanding and "experience"

Perrie Juran · August 23, 2014

BisKreet wrote:

Folks that have replied up to this point.

I thank you all for being open and welling to share your thoughts.

@ Perrie Juran

, I own a gun and it can do harm in the wrong hands, but it's not illegal... Pleas don't follow up on my threads. I would like comments from readers that can make a well justified argument or view of the matter.

Keep in mind the word "Intent" <---

OK, let me be specific here. What you are doing is asking LL to create or state a specific exception to the rules.

People who "tip" have a "chance" of getting something back. Whether or not your intent is to try and get people to tip more by paying something back, in other words you are just trying to be nice to the tippers in order to garner more tips, the people who tip are gambling on getting something back.

So while I used a little bit of hyperbole, I don't see where "intent" comes in.

It's still pay to play and it has a payout. No matter what language you want to dress it up in.

Of course my assessment could be wrong, but that is at least how I see it.

eta:shpeling

Sorina Garrigus · August 23, 2014

Phil Deakins wrote:

BisKreet wrote:

@ Phil D - Also you commented on one of your follow up's the following.

Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims.

Can you link us to where you have seen this? and let me know where on the page as well.

---------------------------------

It's in the polciy itself:-

“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.

In post #19 on page 2 of this thread, I posted a question to Linden Lab about the game called Greedy Greedy, which can be played freely or it can be set by the owner as pay-to-play and win money. Linden Lab replied on page 3 of this thread, post #29, by saying that, "

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

" The Greedy Greedy game does permit pay-to-play and so it is subject to the policy. Your first question describes exactly that - the game permits payment, whether it is used or not.

That was the exact question you asked, except you didn't name a game, and those places are where the correct answer can be found. Everyone who has posted in this thread, except Sorina, understands that correct answer, as does the Greedy Greedy creator. Sorina cannot show any evidence to support her opinion. It's just her personal opinion. The rest of us in this thread accept the actual evidence as provided by Linden Lab. So the answer to your first question in your first post is, no, it would not be conceded as validation. The game you described is subject to the Skill Gaming Policy, just like Greedy Greedy is.

If you fancy reading through this whole thread, you'll come to understand Sorina. If you don't fancy reading it all, you will do well to ignore her so that you don't become confused.

ETA: From what I've read, LL does not reply to the sort of questions you asked them. They tell people to consult a lawyer about specific games. From LL's point of view, it has all been stated so, if you want to check on a game, you need to ask a lawyer. The matter really is very simple though. If a game permits payment, and pays out, it is subject to the polcy, whether or not payment is turned on. Just like LL's answer in this thread about Greedy Greedy.

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

yes they said that. A game that is not set to permit paying to play and money within is not. THEY DID NOT clairify if a otherwise. You CLEARLY have very litlte knowledge about games in SL. nor this policy. If the ACTUALLY clairify this, it will be posted in the FAQ.

Sorina Garrigus · August 23, 2014

Perrie Juran wrote:

BisKreet wrote:

Folks that have replied up to this point.

I thank you all for being open and welling to share your thoughts.

@ Perrie Juran

, I own a gun and it can do harm in the wrong hands, but it's not illegal... Pleas don't follow up on my threads. I would like comments from readers that can make a well justified argument or view of the matter.

Keep in mind the word "Intent" <---

OK, let me be specific here. What you are doing is asking LL to create or state a specific exception to the rules.

People who "tip" have a "chance" of getting something back. Whether or not your intent is to try and get people to tip more by paying something back, in other words you are just trying to be nice to the tippers in order to garner more tips, the people who tip are gambling on getting something back.

So while I used a little bit of hyperbole, I don't see where "intent" comes in.

It's still pay to play and it has a payout. No matter what language you want to dress it up in.

Of course my assessment could be wrong, but that is at least how I see it.

eta:shpeling

This is exactly why LL is using the word permit in the policy to cover these loopholes attempts.

Sorina Garrigus · August 23, 2014

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Message 19 Phil asked specifically about gaming tables:

My question is this: Will that game be allowed to be played for free and without prizes, without it needing to be in a Skill Gaming region? Or will the fact that it can be set to pay-to-play and give cash prizes, even though it isn't being used that way, mean that it can't be used in a non-Skill Gaming region. I.e. will the fact that it CAN be used with money void it from being used without money in non-Skill Gaming Regions?

Message 29 Linden Lab answered this question.

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

Intent may matter in a case of RL law, but this is a policy incorporated into the TOS not a law. SL is owned by LL and you have to agree to abide by any rules or policies in the TOS they care to establish, as long as it doesn't break a RL law, if you want to log in. If you don't, it makes no difference what your intent was if you are caught you most likely will receive some sort of disciplinary action from LL.

In the response from LL they only echoed the policy. Asking someone to clairify a point of a policy and just repeating it is not clairifying. It was a cut and paste response. If they clairify that a game which can potentially be set to pay to play and money to win is within the scope. It's not difficult for them to put such specifics in the FAQ which they did for games with a pay and refund option which only happens with solo play games of skill anyway. As it is written freeplay games are clearly not within the scope of the policy. Repeating the policy is not clairifying it. Its like asking a specific question about the instructions on a shampoo bottle and they just repeat what it says on the bottle. That isn't clairification. Thats just them redirecting people back to the policy with a non helpful response. Also a forum response is not clairification in general. It would need to be in the FAQ. Countless people concerned with this policy is not likely going to be reading one post out of thousands. When LL puts it into the FAQ and clearly so then that will be different. They might not want to because it has the potential to create a class action lawsuit for the cost of those products.

The problem if they do clairify this to be the case then it destroys a decades worth of content. Things like old combat bumper car games, pool tables, arcade games, and many other games, activities, and amuzements that were never considered to be "skill games" in the SL commercial sense. I don't think it is LL's intent to destroy countless creations that are clearly not within the spirit of this policy.

But it is clear games sold currently have to be approved and sold in a gaming region.

Innula Zenovka · August 23, 2014