Jump to content

Skill Gaming Policy Thread


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1451 days.

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

Recommended Posts


irihapeti wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

There is a popular table game called Greedy Greedy. It's usually played for free and without any prize of any kind. But it includes the option of pay-to-play and of giving a L$ prize. The game involves clicking to roll 6 dice. The result of the roll is down to chance. Trying to mount up point, players select which dice to keepand whether or not to roll again. If they get too grredy and continue to roll the dice too many times, they'll not add any points, or even lose the points they have. That's a very general idea of the game.

Rolling the dice is the significant chance part, while deciding which dice to select and whether or not to continue rolling needs thought.

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?

i think that the inventors will start offering 2 versions of games. Pay to play version. And No pay to play version. Is less hassle for them in terms of licensing. Is less hassle for venue owners and resident customers as well

That's what I think too and I intend asking the creator to produce a no-pay no-win-money version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

first part of the message: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Skill-Gaming-Policy-Thread/td-p/2771090/page/4

second part: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Skill-Gaming-Policy-Thread/td-p/2771090/page/10

 

So, now i hope you understand there have been many abuses in past and still now. Abuses from creator sides, and now ill give the many way abuses have been made by owners ("operators").

I hope LL, and readers will now understand that even if this TOS wants to do things the good way, its:

*TOO  LATE, and will never compensate in any way SL residents that have been victims FOR YEARS of those abuses going even ruined in real life cause games in second life,

*TOO much weak, on that side i can help and tell what is the only way to make trustable gaming in second life as the programmer iam, this trustable gaming will fit the original goal of the trust and safety section of linden lab that unfortunatly we didnt see much around past years.

 

* 3rd part: example of owners (future "operators") easy way to cheat people/

- use of scripted bots - exemple at Dynasty gaming, sim recently closed. Oh it was JUST the first gaming sim of SL for YEARS. Just something to say: if the sim closed due to use of massive bots in the contests (which is the main rumor circulating) we should expect in real life people who have been ruined by this sim, to get back money they lost .. that will ofc never happen and owner may be having good holidays at carribean with all the money he made.

Other exemple on a well known owner that been spotted by me and many mentors- some of us were even sl wiki contributors, so we know what we did, on use of bots to cheat people in game sim in 2010. This guy is still there. Should have deserve a ban, i saw many others sim owners banned for less. But yes of course as he is someone representing vast amount of money in sl, he just removed quietly the bots...

 

-use of alts to get contest prices: very used for years, it was very simple in 2010-2011 since most of config notecard had option for owners to change THE AMOUNT OF JOKERS in a game... that way players are ripped off in extremis at the end of contest by unknown player coming and beating high score in just few games at end. Of course impossible to explain that by avatar report, that never been read seriously by ll

- use of owners alts in the replay boards- idem.

- use of alts and bots to get artificial traffic (did you ever remember those sims with 100k traffic daily...) so, its unfair regarding other lands in sl, since key words were "usa, club, money...etc..."

-use of "friend" that you could give money to kick true players from contest or replay, to increase gain as owner.

- possibility to be both CREATOR AND OWNER of game sims: many creators used alts or close "friends" to be into buisness: let me just tell this if you creator of game you have all rights to modify all games of your sim, isnt it A BIG PROBLEM!

-etc...etc.. all have been done...you can imagine easily.

- Lets talk also to the NOLIMIT AMOUNTS PAYABLE IN SL GAMES: you can find machines at 50k, even 100k, and lose this amount in 8seconds. No its not star strek, its SL!

 

I hope all now understand the vast abuses that have been done on creator side and owners side and that are done since 2007 changes.

Nothing really changed, and even if i thanks LL to have ban many cheaters, i regret highly that SOME IMPORTANT OWNERS AND CREATORS are still there AFTER PROOF OF ABUSE FOR YEARS. and those victims of the abuse ruined with giant amounts of RL money due to their addiction they have no chance to see compensation.

 

So now you understand fully the question iam wondering with a lot of honnest creators: will LL give a blessing to some of those (abusers creators or owners) with that new system, and even increase their SL Games Monopoly, or will LL will start thinking the abuses need to stop and have been SO FAR.

Or you continue with the same "cartel" that is responsible of the rip off thousands users, and maybe ALSO the LOSS of thousands SL PLAYERS, who'd better have BUY A LAND than playing their whole day to those stupid addictives games!

 

Its time to make a choice my next post will be suggestions for the LL "verifications"to seriously watch things, and stop all this comedy.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question about the requirement that both the Creator and the Operator of a game submit legal opinions about it.

Does the Operator have to obtain an opinion from her own legal advisor or may she ask the Creator for a copy of the opinion he obtained when first obtaining approval to sell the game, and rely on that?    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Several of us have now asked why this duplication, especially since it's impossible for a representative of the operator to forman opinion based on facts they won't have.

 

Wby LL want a second opinion about something for which they have already accepted one and already granted permission seems just daft and unnecessary.

 

Over to LL to explain the double money grab...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, Sassy, but when first I read the new rules, I didn't read them as meaning everyone would have to obtain a separate opinion on a game that had already been through the authorisation process.   Rather, I read them as meaning that the Operator has to satisfy herself that the game is a game of skill, and not simply rely on its having been approved by LL.

However, since so many other people are taking this as meaning all operators must seek opinions from their own advisors, I'm starting to think I may have misunderstood, which is why I would appreciate some clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi =)

 

that raises a few questions.

 

we run a car race sim.

the racers have to buy a car to run in our races.

after each race the best drivers get a payout from the sim owner.

 

do these new rules apply to us?

 

2ndly

 

we run demolition derbys...

the racers have to pay the operator of the races 20 L$.

after the derby the top 3 split the pot between them.

 

do these new rules apply to us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most sane approach LL could take on this is goes as follows.

The creator must provide the legal documentation to get the game approved. Once a game is on the approved list then and owner could provide a sworn/notarized statement that they are only using unaltered approved games on their property. Creator has to go the lawyer route the opperator does not in this scenario.

Both paying what is in effect a gambling license fee is pretty much expected. Placing the games only on gaming sims is basically a zoning ordinance.

I suspect LL could build a flag that simply prevents someone who resides in an area in RL that does not permit such games from ever  entering one of those sims. LL after all has our billing information and is requiring billing information to be a player of these games.

I do agree that a LSL call would be a good thing to further weed out those who try to sneak past the policy. If the game will not run by an internal check built into the script when placed on a non gaming sim that solves the problem of the small operator trying to slip through the cracks by being on the mainland.


As for the higher cost of the monthly fees for a gaming sim I am really not sure how that is justified. Keeping people out of those sims that should not be there is an automated process. The owner of the sim is already paying a fee for the gaming license + an additional quarterly fee. Unless LL is providing better servers for gaming sims I really do not see a legitimate reason for this additional monthly land cost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the application form, though, and while it's clear -- for perfectly understandable legal reasons, I would think -- that LL want to have on file a record of the fact I'm relying on a reasoned opinion by a lawyer that the game is a game of skill, it's by no means clear to me that I can't ask the Creator for a copy of his attorney's Opinion and attach that.   After all, I'm relying on his description of how it works.

LL, surely, are concerned to establish that I've satisfied myself the game I want to operate is a game of skill and not relied on the fact they've already permitted it to be sold in the the Marketplace or to be placed in-world.   I don't see that it matters if I've obtained an independent legal opinion or relied on the one supplied to the Creator.   

But I can see that I may have misinterpreted this, which is why I seek clarification, since obviously the authoritative  answer makes a great deal of difference to the cost of setting up a gaming parlour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! 

So much to take in & so short a period of time to get all this done for those of us that want to continue trying to run gaming in SL. So in order to break it all down I will comment on each phase of the new proposed TOS changes. 

First point ... 

      OK for one reason or the other LL has decided they need to step in and change the TOS on skilled gaming. Fine, its clear they plan to do so to some degree. But from the proposed TOS documents that I have read over the past 12 hours or so it seems whomever came up with these changes took ideas for changes to different areas of gaming ( creator, operator, players) and just combined all the changes without looking at how they interact with each other. Making this particular TOS change not only unfair to everyone involved but redundant as well. In no other place RL or Internet have I seen where a TOS doubles requirements in order to make sure a product or service applies with the governing law of that industry. Lets hope this is a ROUGH draft of a real TOS change and not the final say. If its the final version, I hate to say not only are we most likely looking at the end of gaming but as likely the end of SL. Why? Well lets break it all down..

 

Second point...

   The first part, change of region listing .. I can understand there needs to be a designated listing for gaming. i can even see a slight fee to have the listing added to a region. But to make the region's tier more just doesn't make sense. It doesn't take any more space on the LL servers to maintain than any other listing. They say there are extra cost to having a gaming listing? Maybe upfront cost creating the new listing ,which the fee to add a region to the gaming listing should well cover what little cost there will be. If the land settings are going to block residents not allowed on gaming region, then there is no added cost for LL to oversee. This is no different than the settings for adult lands. 

Summary .. I don't think any land owner would be apposed to having a small fee in order to allow their region or regions added to the gaming listing ( I assume this listing can be changed by the owner to fit their present type of activity on that region). So with a small one time fee this part of the change in the TOS is solved. Allowing land owners to continue to make their present income and still have the outcome of a restricted region for gaming.

 

Third point..

      LL wants creators to be approved. That is fine, a lot of us in the gaming industry believe this should be done in order to reduce those creators that hack their way through a game and produce games that are not only unfair to either the player or the owner of the game but are a security risk  to hacking from dishonest people. If also is a way to remove those creators that make games to produce outcomes that only benefit themselves. So you have them pay a one time fee to put in a application, lets say the 100 usd that is in place now. Once approved as a creator, they shouldn't have to pay a 1/4 fee and pay for future games they create. One or the other would be plentiful to cover the time it takes to approve the game and add it to the approved list .

For example ... as a creator you pay a 1/4 fee of say 50usd and when it comes time to have a new game approved, they send in the letter from their attorney ( which will be a cost in its own) and the game is approved or not .. giving the creator a change to correct and reply for approval. The 50usd every quarter from every creator will cover the approval process as most of the work falls on the creators in the first place . There will be some creators that don't even create a game every quarter so their fee will help cover the time for those that do. 

OR .. as a creator you pay an approval fee for each game they submit for approval. ( say a 20usd fee). Giving them a open approval case for the game so they can make changes in order to make the game "approved". Keeping in mind that LL is a beneficiary or all transactions in SL to some extent, since the L$ used to purchase the products have to come from uploading them at some point of the life of those L$ as well as when those L$ get changed over to currency.

 

Fourth point...

    I can understand the need to make sure the operators of gaming regions are operating within a state that allows such practice. Fine, have the 100USD application fee in order to prove they don't live and operate from within on of the banned states . It is a given that the TOS states that only approved games from approved creators will be allowed on gaming regions, so there is no need to require a operator to give proof of their ALREADY approved games by ALREADY approved creators. THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL and is basically double charging for the same approval process of a game. As far as a 1/4 fee, I see no extra cost on LL part, other than the random inspection of regions( which they state is done on all  regions) 

By having their business on a gaming region ( which will cost slightly more due to the listing fee to the owner of the region) and by only having approved games on their region ( which will cost slightly more due to the added expense of creating a game for the creators) the operators of game regions should be free from future fees.

As for the (one operator holding the L from the games) and no other transactions .. this has to be a mistake. there is an extreme amount of cost to running a successful gaming business. ( tier, advertising , promotions, give aways, staff) to mention a few. The L$ generated covers these cost and even comes up short frequently, causing the operator to upload more funds to continue to operate their business. LL can already and already does track when L$ are transferred into currency and therefore they are documenting the profits from that business. I would venture to say there are more gaming operators that never end up transferring L$ over to currency and make just enough profit to maintain their business. ( and a large number of operators have to purchase L$ to maintain the business)

 

Fifth point...

     As far as I can tell the proposed TOS in regards to players is fine as long as the new "gaming" listing will automatically check for players that are approved to be on a gaming region and not require the operator themselves to police this requirement.

 

Final thought...

   I have given my option on the new purposed TOS and some suggestions on how to adjust it to better fit all that are involved. Its not the fact that my suggestions should be all added but that the problems in the current proposed TOS  be addressed before requiring creators and operators to be within these new proposed TOS. Given the sustainable amount of requirements of a new TOS, i believe a further deadline should be set. Three weeks is a lot to ask for the amount of requirements and documentations asked for . I also believe that creators and operators should be allowed to start their applications now and as the other requirements requested are available, they can add to their application request. Its hard for anyone, creator or operator to start and finish an application when some of the requirements asked for aren't even present at this time. 

If LL would take a look at all these problems and answer them all in one replay then maybe we won't have so may repeat questions and concerns . We all should work together to better SL and not do the them against us battle, . If LL runs off all the creators and operators .. the regions become empty and returned and the players will follow where ever the creators and operators land ( and they will land some where that they feel their voices are at least heard and have a part in the building process of a Internet world) without operators creators would have nobody to sell to . without creators operators would have no games for their players .. without players well .. there is no gaming industry. 

BASIC ECONOMICS 101... WITHOUT THE PARTS THERE IS NO WHOLE!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

I've read the application form, though, and while it's clear -- for perfectly understandable legal reasons, I would think -- that LL want to have on file a record of the fact I'm relying on a reasoned opinion by a lawyer that the game is a game of skill, it's by no means clear to me that I can't ask the Creator for a copy of
his
attorney's Opinion and attach that.   After all, I'm relying on his description of how it works.

LL, surely, are concerned to establish that I've satisfied myself the game I want to operate is a game of skill and not relied on the fact they've already permitted it to be sold in the the Marketplace or to be placed in-world.   I don't see that it matters if I've obtained an independent legal opinion or relied on the one supplied to the Creator.   

But I can see that I may have misinterpreted this, which is why I seek clarification, since obviously the authoritative  answer makes a great deal of difference to the cost of setting up a gaming parlour. 

This is also why my suggestion about a separate category in the Market Place for cames that have 'survived' the certification process is a good one.

If a game is found to be illegal it should be removed from the MP.  No different than what the Lab already does with other illegal content, for example child porn.

It just makes it easier for everyone involved from LL to the End User of these games to keep track of and know the status.

 

Having looked again at the Wiki I have now struck out this statement.  I believe under the new terms none of these devices, even so called "legal sploders," can be sold on the Market Place.

4.2.iii 

Each Creator shall:

Verify that each purchaser of its approved Skill Games has been approved by Linden Lab as an Operator through the Skill Gaming application process. Linden Lab will maintain a list of Operators.

There is no practical way I can see that they can be left up for sale on the Market Place and a creator control who buys them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello As I not understand English very well I need a little more explanation:

  • - If i make a competition (contest from build photo or mesh) does not pay (free contest ), I can do it anywhere in Second Life even if the gains can be winning participants are L$?
  • - Issue even more complicated but interesting: If the contest is not paid by an object in Second Life but a group?

 

Bonjour Comme je comprend pas tres bien l'anglais j'ai besoin d'un peu plus d'explication :

  • - Si je fais un concours de build qui n'a besoin d'aucun objet et qui n'est pas payant, je peux le faire n'importe ou dans Second Life même si les gains pouvant être gagner les participants sont des L$ ?
  • - Question encore plus compliqué mais interessante : Si le contest n'est pas payant par un objet dans second life mais par un groupe ?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to know who will be policing these games that are not on a gaming sim or operators that have no permits?  Do we police ourselves or does Lindens have a way to find violators on their own?  If we have to police ourselves this is all futile.  It would be a witch hunt and Lindens would be flooded with Abuse Reports and no maning to cover all the complaints.  Nothing will be done to the abusers and the honest people will be the ones to suffer for loss of income (i.e. percentage of sploder income).

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the blog post it states:  "Skill games that offer Linden Dollar payouts will be allowed in Skill Gaming Regions only."... which would tend to make a person think any skill based game that offers Linden Dollar payouts is considered a Skill Game, then it states on the wiki:  "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy."  Which is it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Aizur,

 

Thanks for your question. In the situation which you have oulined, there would not be an additional application fee for an update to your original Creator or Operator application. 

There's no limit to the number of skill games that you disclose on the application. If additional space is needed, you can attach the additional details to the Salesforce case that was or will be associated with your application,

Thanks!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no comments about this new rule. But as usual I am very worried about, if all people in sl understands what it means. I am thinking about all of us residents where English is not our main language.

In my dictionary, which is the best in my country, just the word "skill" is translated into "being clever at something"...nothing about gaming.

I really hope, the involved residents will get a personal notice in their mail, so all get a chance to learn what to do now, after August the 1....so nobody  will continue doing anything prohibited, because of not understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if skill games that don't require money to pay but pay out Linden dollars are still allowed on the mainland, I think you need to consider adding a clause that any game that adversely affects land owner access to their parcels (i.e. overcrowding/unfair use of region resources) on mainland should be restricted to Skill Game regions or at least private regions.  Any game that pays handouts is going to draw a large crowd and have a detrimental effect on mainland, hitting the mainland owners the most.  It's been happening for years, this needs addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greedy games, shooting ranges, bumper cars. contest boards etc etc regularly used at events and for group entertainment all now become against the TOS in normal regions, unless we pay additional costs and jump through hoops to be designated as if we were setting up for gambling.

Is this money grab\party pooping really justified and necessary?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Muletta wrote:

In my dictionary, which is the best in my country, just the word "skill" is translated into "being clever at something"...nothing about gaming.

 

That's exactly what it means in English.  Skill based games that are won by being good at it instead of just luck which would be won purely based upon random chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Sassy Romano wrote:


Muletta wrote:

In my dictionary, which is the best in my country, just the word "skill" is translated into "being clever at something"...nothing about gaming.

 

That's exactly what it means in English.  Skill based games that are won by being good at it instead of just luck which would be won purely based upon random chance.

So, at least as I understand it, "skill based games" in this context might mean pay-to-play race courses, speed trials, or shooting galleries, where the winner (or highest score in a day) wins all the entry money, less a pecentage for the owner's overheads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1451 days.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...