Skill Gaming Policy Thread

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

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 pay 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.

---

The problem here, I think, is that the two of you are reading the words "the game" in two different ways.   Phil is reading it as referring to all instances of a particular game and you're reading it as referring to each particular instance.    

In your reading, if I properly understand it, if you and I both have copies of a game that can be set to free to play or pay to play, and mine is set to free to play and yours is set to free to play, you have to register as an operator and provide legal opinions and your game can only be played on registered sims, whereas I can rez mine wherever I want, without reference to LL.

The creator of the game, obviously, will have to register it, since some instances of the game are capable of being set to pay to play.

To my mind, if LL intended to have a situation in which something is clearly a game of skill (since it appears in the list of games of skill they have approved) can be played outside gaming sims, provided it's set to be free to play, they'd have said that, if only to spare themselves a tsunami of ARs concerning games set to free to play that have been seen outside gaming sims.

However, the answer is perfectly simple, it seems to me.   If someone accepts your reading of the rules, then they can simply leave the free to play game out wherever it is.   Someone will doubtless AR it at some point, and if you're right, nothing will happen.   If Phil's right (which I think he is, but that's neither here nor there) then the game will doubtless be returned by LL, and then the owner will know.  If s/he finds him or herself suspended for a while for following your advice, it's going to be regrettable but hardly the end of the world (probably less annoying than paying for a legal opinion that turns out not to be needed).

If the owner is worried about leaving the object out, then I'd suggest first checking with the creator to see if s/he has heard anything from LL and, if that doesn't clarify things, then the prudent course of action would be to take up the games and wait to find out what happens to ones that have been left out.

 

---

"you are reading the words "the game" in two different ways"

No the pivot point is on the word permit and not "the game".  As the policy states the a game that is free to play is not within the scope policy and a game set as free to play. A freeplay game does not permit pay to play. There is no mention of capability otherwise. This mostly affects older unsupported games from the last decade though. The policy clearly covers games that are currently supported when it is talking about game distribution. But all the same it is best to update if it is at all possible. Phil is reading into the word permit a lot more than what is there. LL did have a clairification on freeplay in the FAQ

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.

People with a wider range of experience with games for any significant amount of time are very aware of games which have optional pay in options. This goes back to 2007 I believe in a multiplayer game called Devil May Care which is the game Zyngo was based off of (DMC of course being based on the game outside of SL called Slingo). In this game players would pay into a tip jar to be part of the pot. They were not required to pay to play though. They did this after 2007 with the casino ban as a loophole attempt when they were more uncertain how LL would view the game. The pay the "tip jar" approach is permitting paying to play but not requiring it but the non tippers are not likely to win much or any at all possibly if they don't.

This external optional approach has been used for a long time and up to current times. Karsten Ruteledge's games like Greedy, Simopolis, Cosair etc all had a prize server which could be paid into as opposed to paying the game. I had them set this way myself as an option. But with this policy paying a prize server is permitting paying to play.

"... and mine is set to free to play and yours is set to free to play..."

I will assume you meant to say one was set pay to play and one was set free to play. But in general a game fixed at freeplay is not within the scope of the policy. But if a game can be set to pay to play is really only is an issue with older unsupported games. Games currently supported will likely have freeplay only versions people can "update" to. There are very very few freeplay only skill games that have been made and most are not on the market anymore such as Ravkom that did this.

"To my mind, if LL intended to have a situation in which something is clearly a game of skill (since it appears in the list of games of skill they have approved) can be played outside gaming sims, provided it's set to be free to play, they'd have said that, if only to spare themselves a tsunami of ARs concerning games set to free to play that have been seen outside gaming sims."

If they intended it either way you would think they would clairified because people will definitely be putting out games set according to how the policy is written and will possibly be getting a flood of ARs regardless for those going out ARing freeplay games. I am not sure why anyone would waste their time doing that but I imagine LL would not waste their time responding to ARs on freeplay games assuming the person filing mentions it.

I doubt LL would suspend people following the policy as it is written. If they meant games that are capable of being set from freeplay to pay and win status were within the scope they would just say that. But as it is written now a freeplay game is not within the scope of the policy.

LL is looking for people violating the policy, I doubt they have the man power to enforce a thought police policy. If they did they would ban all games outside game sims across the board because people can just make manual bets.

I did potention LL on the their wiki to clairify by the way on the freeplay issue. They haven't changed anything to clairify outside the pay to start and refund option.

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

 

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.

 

---

 

Wrong.  The answer they gave was specific to Phil's question about greedy tables that have the option of pay to play even if they are set that way by the owner.  Perhaps English is a second language to you,  So here is the definition of permit in Webster's Dictionary

per·mit

verb \pər-ˈmit\

: to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something)

: to allow (someone) to do or have something

: to make something possible

It is possible to permit a greedy table to be pay to play.  Therefore it is not allowed as it stands except on gaming sims.  If the maker updates it not to permit pay to play then it's ok to use anywhere.

I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds and games.  That is why if you live in a state that forbids skill gaming you won't be able to go to gaming sims.  Under the circumstances destroying decades of content wouldn't compare to covering there butts against legal liability, particularly if the Treasury dept deemed something as gambling vs skill which is probably why pay to play games have to be approved as skill games.

You can interpret things as you please of course, but if you are wrong then  you only have yourself to blame if you're AR'd or caught by LL and face disciplinary actions.

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

 

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.

 

---

 

Wrong.  The answer they gave was specific to Phil's question about greedy tables that have the option of pay to play even if they are set that way by the owner.  Perhaps English is a second language to you,  So here is the definition of permit in Webster's Dictionary

per·mit

verb

\pər-

ˈ

mit\

: to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something)

: to allow (someone) to do or have something

: to make something possible

It is possible to permit a greedy table to be pay to play.  Therefore it is not allowed as it stands except on gaming sims.  If the maker updates it not to permit pay to play then it's ok to use anywhere.

I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds and games.  That is why if you live in a state that forbids skill gaming you won't be able to go to gaming sims.  Under the circumstances destroying decades of content wouldn't compare to covering there butts against legal liability, particularly if the Treasury dept deemed something as gambling vs skill which is probably why pay to play games have to be approved as skill games.

You can interpret things as you please of course, but if you are wrong then  you only have yourself to blame if you're AR'd or caught by LL and face disciplinary actions.

 

---

The response did not reference any game it just gave a general all encompassing echoing of the policy.

"to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something)"

Yes a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting  payment to play.

 

"I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds"

The Treasuring department has nothing to do with enforcing gambling laws. Use of virtual currencies in general it might. Given the interstate nature of the issue it would fall under the Jurisdiction of the FBI most likely. It is also likely it was pressure from individual states. There could have also been a result of a civil suite. which caused these policies. The Treasury Department has more concerns with money laundering issues which has been an issue in virtual worlds for ages. They are concerned with the matter with gambling establishments also but really there are much easier ways to launder money in SL then setting up a game room. They can just sell random prims.

If I am wrong then LL needs to update their policies. I am advising everyone to follow them myself and don't even try any of these crazy loophole approaches that people are thinking of. One person I heard was goingto try to have freeplay with a fee to pay to enter the land for example. That definitely won't fly. LL isn't likely going to be wasting their time running around removing freeplay games that are clearly within their own policy. I can only go off what the policy and the FAQ says. People that run around filing ARs on freeplay games should be temporarily suspended for hurrasment and wasting LLs time and resources.

 

[Kenbro Utu]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

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.

---

I have not been involved in this squabble, though I have read every post.  It finally got to the point that I just had to weigh in. My job is performing quality assurance on medicolegal documents, so I have a fair amount of knowledge about grammar, sentence structure and subject matter.  You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the policy.  The worst thing though, is your refusal to learn from the instruction of others who do have an understanding.  

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

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.

---

I have not been involved in this squabble, though I have read every post.  It finally got to the point that I just had to weigh in. My job is performing quality assurance on medicolegal documents, so I have a fair amount of knowledge about grammar, sentence structure and subject matter.  You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the policy.  The worst thing though, is your refusal to learn from the instruction of others who do have an understanding.  

---

I am talking with people on a daily basis that are dealing with this policy. I have yet to see a single high profile game owner post in this forum. I am hearing responses coming from LL as this mess is being worked out. Actually some of them have seen these posts and they say I am wasting my time given most of the most prolific responses have no real interest in games in SL and are not even really looking into it.

But in your alleged expertise, given this question has been raised multiple times why hasn't LL posted in the FAQ or updated the policy wording it something along the lines of "game capable being configured to pay to play and money to win is within the scope of the policy". Freeplay has been addressed in the FAQ including pay to start with immediate refund options which again only happen in pay and win skill games. A game that is currently set to freeplay obviously IS NOT permitting payment play outside the pay and refund scenario.

I have worked with literally hundreds of games, in SL going back to 2004 but on a daily basis since 2007. IF LL intended games with that are capable to be set to be within the policy they would say so in a similar fashion. And if they didn't then LL needs to become more litterate of the history of games in SL, how they work, how people used work arounds to "permit" payment into a game in the examples I gave.  They may later actually do that. But the fall out is the elmination of countless creations that can and would be used within the policy as freeplay.

 Also I haven't seen people that disagree, ie Phil the furniture guy, demonstrate any knowledge in which to learn from. He has demonstrated countless contradictions, fabrications.

Its not a major squabbel anyway. Phill keeps saying LL clearly clairified which they did not either in the forum and definitely not in the policy or FAQ. It's up to LL to clairify things in the FAQ. Thats all anyone can go off of.

[MooTownGames SLSGO]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

I have yet to see a single high profile game owner post in this forum.

 

I don't really have anything to add to this, but do I count as a "high profile game owner"? :-)

and if so, do I win a prize?

and if so, would that be a skill game? :-)

 

~Paso Clip

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

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.

---

It's perfectly clear to everyone else. Why isn't it clear to you? Did the Greedy Greedy game permit pay-to-play when it was being used as free-to-play? Of course it did. It was built into it (before it was updated to comply with the new rules). Exactly the same is true of the Chains game. Before they were updated to remove the pay-to-play feature, they both permitted both pay-to-play and free-to-play. And they were both updated precisely so that their use in any sim will remain 'legal' when the new rules come into force.

I can actually see where you're coming from. You are thinking that, when a game is set as free-to-play only, it is not at that time permitting payments to play it. But that's stretching it a bit because, even at that time, the game does permit pay-to-play because it is built into it. That's why everyone disagrees with you about it, and it's also why your thinking is wrong.

Incidentally, it has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge of games. It's all about knowledge of language. You know about a lot of games - more than most people in SL. Good for you. But you don't know any more about the english language than anyone else here. Expertise in the games field doesn't come into it. Because it's about language is why people have to consult lawyers who, like most of us, are not even familiar with games in SL. It's all about the words. So your 'games expertise' card that you keep trying to play is totally worthless in this discussion.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

 

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.

 

---

 

Wrong.  The answer they gave was specific to Phil's question about greedy tables that have the option of pay to play even if they are set that way by the owner.  Perhaps English is a second language to you,  So here is the definition of permit in Webster's Dictionary

per·mit

verb

\pər-

ˈ

mit\

: to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something)

: to allow (someone) to do or have something

: to make something possible

It is possible to permit a greedy table to be pay to play.  Therefore it is not allowed as it stands except on gaming sims.  If the maker updates it not to permit pay to play then it's ok to use anywhere.

I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds and games.  That is why if you live in a state that forbids skill gaming you won't be able to go to gaming sims.  Under the circumstances destroying decades of content wouldn't compare to covering there butts against legal liability, particularly if the Treasury dept deemed something as gambling vs skill which is probably why pay to play games have to be approved as skill games.

You can interpret things as you please of course, but if you are wrong then  you only have yourself to blame if you're AR'd or caught by LL and face disciplinary actions.

 

---

The response did not reference any game it just gave a general all encompassing echoing of the policy.

 

---

The response was specifically to a question about Greedy Greedy, because that's the post he was replying to, and that's what was in his mind, but it is written in a general way, because other games can also be set as free or pay.

Don't you think that, if he had meant that a game that permits both pay and free according to how the owner sets it, can be used anywhere as long as it is only used in free mode outside of gaming sims, he would have said something to that effect in answer to that specific question? If that is what's meant, there is no benefit to LL in confusing us by not saying it when replying to that particular question, is there?

Let's try this. Suppose I come to your store to buy a game and I see one that I like. Let's say it's the orginal Greedy Greedy. I ask you, "Will it permit either free-to-play or pay-to-play according to how I set it?", your answer would be yes. So it permits both. It permits both. And if I then ask you, "So it will still permit pay-to-play if I change the setting, even when I've first set it up as free-to-play?" You're answer would again be yes. Do you see what I'm getting at? A game that is set as free-to-play will still permit pay-to-play if the owner changes the setting. There is never a time when it will not permit pay-to-play.

Let's try something else. The Policy states, "requires or permits". Think about those three words instead of just the one word 'permit'. 'Requires' means that a player has to pay to play the game. A game like Greedy can be set as pay or free. When it is set as pay, payment is 'required' to play it. Therefore, there is no reason to add the words "or permits". "Required" is sufficient by itself. The fact that "or permits" was added must mean that the phrase encapsulates another state than just the "required" one. The collective common sense in this thread is that the other state is when a game can be set to 'require' payment. It 'permits' it if the owner wants to use it that way. The fact that LL replied to that specific question the way they did confirms it.

 

@Sorina and Innula:

Innula is correct about Sorina talking about instances of games; e.g. one instance of a game may be set as free-to-play, and another instance of the same game may be set as pay-to-play. According to Sorina, one instance is allowed anywhere, and the other instance is only allowed in gaming sims. And they are the same game with identical programming.

Sorina is correct in that she is talking about the word 'permit'. Her thinking is that, if a game that can be set as pay-to-play is actually used in its free-to-play mode then, at that time, it does not permit payments to play.

So you were both right

Sorina's idea isn't so outlandish, because, at the time a game is set as free-to-play, it cannot accept payments. But common sense dictates that it's the wrong idea. The other idea, the one that the rest us have, is that all instances of a game that permits both pay-to-play and free-to-play, albeit not simultaneously, are subject to the new rules. We think it because such a game does permit pay-to-play, even when it is not being used in that mode.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

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.

---

I have not been involved in this squabble, though I have read every post.  It finally got to the point that I just had to weigh in. My job is performing quality assurance on medicolegal documents, so I have a fair amount of knowledge about grammar, sentence structure and subject matter.  You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the policy.  The worst thing though, is your refusal to learn from the instruction of others who do have an understanding.  

---

I am talking with people on a daily basis that are dealing with this policy. I have yet to see a single high profile game owner post in this forum.

---

Game owners are in no better position to understand the policy than anyone else whose native language is English - at least not the particular part we're discussing. The discussion is about language - what a group of words actually means - and not about games.

Incidentally, I am a game owner and operator. It's why I got into this thread. What do you mean by "high profile"? I have a high profile in this forum population, and a relatively high profile in SL (a lot of people know me, or know of me). So I'm a high profile game owner I know it's not what you meant. High profile game owners are in no better position to understand english than any other native english speaker, but I thought that was obvious.

May I ask you what you think you've got that I haven't got that allows you to understand the wording of the policy better than me and everyone else in this thread? Surely you can't seriously think that people who spend their time with games are better able to understand words like "Requires or permits <something>" better than the rest of us. I don't believe you're that thick, though I don't completely discount the possibility that my belief is misplaced.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

"

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.

---

I almost missed something in your post that I've quoted. I didn't even notice it until I re-read your post quoted in someone else's reply to it.

You see, Sorina, your post that I've quoted demonstrates how your lack of understanding of English causes you to come to the wrong conclusions. First notice how LL responded to my Greedy Greedy question with, "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy.", as you correctly quoted. Then notice how your mind subtly changed it, so that even you didn't realise the change - "A game that is not set to permit paying to play and money within is not." Do you see the difference? Do you see how that difference makes LL's statement and your statement completely different? I'm being extremely generous by allowing the possibility that you didn't realise how your mind had subconciously changed LL's statement so that it meant something quite different to what was stated.

You may not notice the difference so I'll explain it for you. LL's response did not mention anything about a game being, or not being, "set to" permit paying to play. You added that yourself. Whether conciously or subconciously, I don't know. Only you know that. That addition would make it so that what you've been saying is correct, but it's your own addition, and nothing at all to do with what was written in LL's statement.

You can't argue against what I've written in this post. It's right there in black and white. But I don't expect you to actually admit it here, because you don't admit when you're wrong, even though there is no way for you to successfully deny it to yourself. What it does show everyone else is how your mind works, either to subconciously fool itself and, hopefully, fool others, or to intentionally shift the facts slightly, hoping that no-one will notice, and hopefully fool others. There are far too many sensible people posting in this discussion for you to fool anyone, so I'm afraid it has always been a lost cause for you.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

Also I haven't seen people that disagree, ie Phil the furniture guy, demonstrate any knowledge in which to learn from.

He has demonstrated countless contradictions, fabrications

.

---

Really? I thought I had demonstrated suitable knowledge on this topic. I taught you how to spell a word correctly. I decided against teaching you how to spell 'harassment' though - you spelt it 'hurrasment' in a later post. I helped, with several others, to teach you about semi-colons too. My sentences and puctuations are correct, although I often fail to put a capital letter at the start of proper nouns, but that's due to a poor typing technique (I press the shift key but release it a fraction too soon) and not due to my ignorance. All-in-all I think I've demonstarted my knowledge very well indeed.

As we know, this discussion is about the meaning of words and sentences, and not about the games themselves, so what more knowledge would you like me to demonstrate to be acceptable in this discussion? However, you yourself have demonstrated a great lack of suitable knowledge for this discussion - bad spelling, lack of understanding some punctuation, lack of understanding of some English words. What makes you think you are acceptable in this discussion? I am FAR more suited for it than you are

You have a great interest in it - far more than most of us - but that doesn't make you more suitable to discuss the policy, that's written in English, than any other native English speaker. In fact, your poor English makes you decidedly less suitable than most 

Would you mind showing me some contradictions and fabrications? They don't exist and, if you can't show any, they never existed. Actually, forget showing me some contradictions because I've contradicted you, of course, but so has everyone else, simply because you've been wrong so much. But fabrications? If you can't show any, they never existed. And you (wrongly) called me liar! Ha!

I'm so looking forward to you getting back and getting stuck into this latest crop of posts

[Yingzi Xue]

As Phil has laid out clearly in his last two posts, LL has been crystal clear with their responses.  In the case of a game having a configurable option for switching between pay-to-play or free-to-play, it was clear in LL's response that it would fall under the skill gaming policy if a game gave the option for both.  I myself asked LL early in the thread about specific game concepts and they responded with the same language found in the wiki; in other words, an assertion of the language.  They didn't have to come out and tell me, reasserting the language made it clear.  That's called affirmation, directly from LL.  Anything else you read into it is just that, you reading more into it than you should.

Sorina, I respect the fact that you've been into games since 2004 and heavily since 2007.  I am sure you know SL games quite well, having used them for so long.  I think we can all acknowledge that and move forward from it.  It doesn't apply to interpretation of skill gaming policy, which takes basic reasoning skills and common sense, not experience with games.

[Sorina Garrigus]

You win a random Linden Teddy bear

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

Yingzi Xue wrote:

As Phil has laid out clearly in his last two posts, LL has been crystal clear with their responses.  In the case of a game having a configurable option for switching between pay-to-play or free-to-play, it was clear in LL's response that it would fall under the skill gaming policy if a game gave the option for both.  I myself asked LL early in the thread about specific game concepts and they responded with the same language found in the wiki; in other words, an assertion of the language.  They didn't have to come out and tell me, reasserting the language made it clear.  That's called affirmation, directly from LL.  Anything else you read into it is just that, you reading more into it than you should.

Sorina, I respect the fact that you've been into games since 2004 and heavily since 2007.  I am sure you know SL games quite well, having used them for so long.  I think we can all acknowledge that and move forward from it.  It doesn't apply to interpretation of skill gaming policy, which takes basic reasoning skills and common sense, not experience with games.

---

Everyone is moving forward, the road is clearly bumpy on all sides though for those that are on it and for LL.

I site my experiences solely for the first hand experience working with vast variety of types of games and not just solo skill games. Anyone that is similiarly familiar the vast game landscape will know right away that the word "Permit" is far from sufficient to replace the statement of a game capable of being configured to pay to play with money to win being within the scope. So yes knowledge of the game landscape is important at least for LL.

I am just combining knowledge, experience, the policy, and some of the eternal laws affecting these policies, and of course common sense. When/if LL opts to destroy a decade worth of content that can be used within the spirit of the policy and makes it clear (which really is not difficult to do AT ALL) then I will adapt. I can only go off the polices and the FAQ. It's not hard for LL to be Crystal clear. They did make it crystal clear freeplay games are not within the scope as are the pay in L$1 to trigger freeplay.

Keep in mind it is completely insane for anyone trying to follow the policies to be expected to search through 100s of messages in a forum as part of the policies.

When LL posts in the FAQ that games capable of being configured to pay to play with money to win even when set in freeplay status are within the scope then that would be crystal clear. If you think the statement requires or permits payment with money to win is crystal clear in context of the multiple examples of games that payment is not required but PERMITTING payment with money to win is optional, then you need to double check your thinking of what crystal clear means to you.

When writing policies and FAQ they have to take in the context and the big picture to avoid misinterpetations. They have been condemed in the past for poorly written policies this could be another example of that.

 

[Sorina Garrigus]

I am trying to not responding to you but I pointed out multiple contradictions but reread the old posts. I pointed out A LOT. I am not wasting my time going through them again to repost them again. You lost all credibility on multiple levels.

[derby Hansome]

I have read this forum.I maybe be another one of the so called bigger places .I just shake my head at these posts .

[Sorina Garrigus]

---

derby Hansome wrote:

I have read this forum.I maybe be another one of the so called bigger places .I just shake my head at these posts .

---

I been getting the same comments in world how I am wasting my time talking to some of these people that apparently spend more time on the forums than in SL in some cases. The most comon comment is how some of the more vocal people talking about it are not even involved in games and have little knowledge on the subject let alone have motive to look into the policy.

I only post in the attempts to help people with legit questions.

[BisKreet]

Well I have to say a lot of this was just a rehashing of the same old stuff right?   I do want to thank you all for your thoughts and input and the passion in reading many of your post.

Keep in mind my question where based on the current written Skill Gaming Policy - and not side chats or Wiki pages not found in the TOS or Skill Gaming Policy.

Now LL can say and do just about anything it wants, issue is they defer to US law in their Skill Gaming Policy. So in doing so they should clearly define intent in policy. as stated in US law. 8^)

Intent is a powerful term and has a clear defining meaning based on ones action and intent of use. The Current police has left a very clear gray area of interruption, as seen in my two questions.

I am well aware of side chat and conversation and comments made by LL on wiki pages, but the comments are not in the Skill Gaming Policy this in itself is part of the issue.

REF: Sorina Garrigus) I see a lot of comments to Sorina Garrigus, In fact I think Sorina Garrigus sees this gray area vary clearly and has proven its merit based on TOS or Skill Gaming Policy and not other non binding content.

@ All @ Yingzi Xue

As Phil has laid out clearly in his last two posts, LL has been crystal clear with their responses. In the case of a game having a configurable option for switching between pay-to-play or free-to-play, it was clear in LL's response that it would fall under the skill gaming policy if a game gave the option for both.

ME ^^ Then that need to be clerly stated in the Skill Gaming Policy. ^^

Lets pick apart the TOS or Skill Gaming Policy here.. easy to do it comes down to this. and let look at a game that has the capability of being turned on for pay to play but is not. Settings are No pay to play and no pay out. (The Dice game)

Keep in mind there is no declaration that you must fit 1,2&3 or otherwise. So you must take each rule /statement on its own merits. RIGHT!?

1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance.
(Dice game) So random roll of dice game would be ok right. its all about chance and not based off skill.- PASS

2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; (Ok now this is clear right) anything you have to pay to play is a no go. However don't get this confused with possible function possible function is not addressed in TOS or Skill Gaming Policy. So the game is not set for Pay to Play we must give it a PASS

3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; 
Not set to pay out so we must give it a PASS ...
**BUT what's this we can't give away L$ even? 3 is tied to 4.. and 4 stats this " is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law." US can give away $$ But I think this was miss placed context and meant for pay to play.
Just very poorly written/stated. But no matter you have to work based of what is stated. Not what they meant to say.

So to, LL are you saying no one can give away L$ or is this suposed to be contenget on rule 1?

Now we look at 4 oops 3+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.

Now this one statmenat really clears it up- If you are not making them pay to play well it's clear... Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.

Now remember the question of can be activated is not covered nor defined in the Policy.

BUT HANG ON WE HAVE MORE!!  the last part of that statment as defined by applicable United States and international law.

It should say as we inturpet ...  any how, are they saying they know the law in the state you live in and this is what we are telling you? OR they trying to say Go look it up for yourself? 

 

Fact is, it has no play in the Policy they set for you/ us. They are clearly stating "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy".

 

Bis

 

 

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

 

I am talking with people on a daily basis that are dealing with this policy. I have yet to see a single high profile game owner post in this forum. I am hearing responses coming from LL as this mess is being worked out. Actually some of them have seen these posts and they say I am wasting my time given most of the most prolific responses have no real interest in games in SL and are not even really looking into it.

---

This policy is important for all residents not just game owners.  Even people that only play games, even if only occasionally, or that have a game table at home have to be clear on this policy because the policy makes clear that it applies to all owners of games, not just game venue owners, as well as all participants too.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

You can ignore the 'side chats or wiki pages' including the FAQ pages if you want,  but the portal for official LL policies is in the wiki .  Further the portal shows the FAQ under the category of Official policies on wagering and gaming.

The answers given by a Linden to questions here in the forum were given by an account named Linden Lab. This account is driven by people who are authorized to speak in the Lab's name.  It may be that the same Linden's you choose to ignore will render judgement on an AR or will be enforcing the policy if LL goes hunting for violators.  Your intent will make not any difference as there isn't a court where you can plead your side.  You can only appeal but LL is not required to listen to an appeal.

"So random roll of dice game would be ok right. its all about chance and not based off skill.- PASS" is not a pass.  This falls under the Wagering policy because outcome depends on chance not skill and is clearly gambling and not allowed.  Of course if no money is involved roll away.

People can give away all the money they want as long as people don't have to donate or pay to get it.

A week from now when the policy goes into effect and it is enforced over time, we'll see how it all falls out.   Since the consequences of a violation are severe, I am not going to risk it.  If in doubt, anything in my inventory that I use for private events for my clients and that might fall under this policy gets thrown out.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I am trying to not responding to you

but I pointed out multiple contradictions but reread the old posts. I pointed out A LOT. I am not wasting my time going through them again to repost them again. You lost all credibility on multiple levels.

---

You're not doing very well then, are you?

I contradict you a lot, because you're wrong a lot, There's no argment about me contradicting you. But I asked you to show us one or more of my fabrications that you stated I wrote. I know you were lying, but I did give you the opportunity to show that you weren't. Of course, you couldn't, because you were lying..

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

---

derby Hansome wrote:

I have read this forum.I maybe be another one of the so called bigger places .I just shake my head at these posts .

---

I been getting the same comments in world how I am wasting my time talking to some of these people that apparently spend more time on the forums than in SL in some cases. The most comon comment is how some of the more vocal people talking about it are not even involved in games and have little knowledge on the subject let alone have motive to look into the policy.

I only post in the attempts to help people with legit questions.

---

You see, Sorina, you still are unable to accept that we are not talking about games. We, including you, are only talking about the meaning of some words that LL wrote. You seem to be unable to realise even that basic truth, so how you expect to mount a sensible and relevant discussion is quite beyond me - and probably beyond a lot of other people here.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:

I site my experiences solely for the first hand experience working with vast variety of types of games and not just solo skill games.

Anyone that is similiarly familiar the vast game landscape will know right away that the word "Permit" is far from sufficient to replace the statement of a game capable of being configured to pay to play with money to win being within the scope

.

So yes knowledge of the game landscape is important at least for LL. 

---

The word is 'cite', with a 'c', and not 'site' with an 's'. I haven't noticed you thanking me for all the spelling lessons I'm giving you. I'm beginning to think you may not be grateful for them, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are.

Well, we've had a couple of such people ("similarly familiar") post here recently, and neither has backed your thinking. What does that tell you?

Sorina. The word 'permits' does not have a special meaning when it comes to SL games. Yes, you'd like it to have a special meaning, because you seem to want to be important in all of this, but it doesn't, and you are not. It is just an English word in an English sentence that conveys what the writer wanted it to convey. Everyone understands what the writer wanted it to convey - except you.

I'm thinking that the reason you are so against the reality may be because you have a vested interest. You say that you sell a lot of different games. If many of them become unsellable because of the new rules, you stand to lose. Maybe that's why you are arguing againt reality - hoping that reality can be persuaded to change. If that's why you're doing it, you're arguing in the wrong place. We can't change the reality. Or maybe you just want to appear here as an expert. If that's what it is, that possibility disappeared a long time ago.

I found it interesting that when you started discussing the words "or permits", all you were saying is that it needs clarification because it's unclear. In recent days, you've changed your stance and argued that games that permit both pay and free are allowed in non-gaming sims under the new rules as long as they are set as free-to-play. It's interesting because you appear to have changed your stance as a result of being backed against a metaphorical wall by the weight of opposition - a 'puff your chest out and fight, and to heck with truth' type of reaction.

Whether or not knowledge of the game landscape is important to LL is irrelevant. It's not even marginally important to this discussion.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Sorina Garrigus wrote:.

I only post in the attempts to help people with legit questions.

---

Nobody posts against you when you do that. Others come in only when you try to help someone by posting things that are plainly untrue. When you do that, others will correct what you write, for the benefit of the one who sought help.

[Invader Dench]

This is the most stupidest thing I have ever seen any online game do, and I been around for awhile.   MMO's and other things, you basically are now going to cut off alot of those people who are your economy.  Hey I live in one of those states, I work my butt off, if I wanna goto a Skill Gaming sim and spend some lindens that I bought with my hard earned money, THAT SHOULD BE MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT!   You are doing this while hey look Prostitution and escort services are around, but no lets not target them.  Lets target the people who work their butts off to the bone who goto these sims to relax, to spend some of their real life cash into lindens.      What burns me up the most about all of this...Arkansas has a lottery that is gambling so either you guys up there didn't do all of your homework, or something else.  Heck I can go 15 miles away to West Silaom Springs, Arkansas to a casino.   I applore you do a age limit, don't punish those users in those listed states in this.   

 

http://myarkansaslottery.com/

https://lottery.az.gov/

http://www.delottery.com/

http://www.flalottery.com/

https://www.kylottery.com/apps/

http://www.louisianalottery.com/

http://www.mdlottery.com/

http://www.sceducationlottery.com/

http://lottery.sd.gov/

http://www.tnlottery.com/

 

Everyone of those listed states has a lottery, which goes under skilled gaming, so why punish them?  I for one play the Arkansas one quite a bit,   Please reconcider this, I don't want to lose the ability to goto these sims cause someone up in LL decided to target these states and punish the users in those states from it.   Go with a 21 year old Age limit and keep it at that.   These sims are a large part of your economy please look at it that way,  I goto Ocean view games alot, and I tell you I have NEVER had issues there.  The people are friendly.