Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Linden Lab

Skill Gaming Policy Thread

Recommended Posts


Drake1 Nightfire wrote:


 

 

It states....

Gaming Residents

Should you wish to participate in Skill Gaming in Second Life, you represent and agree that you: (i) are at least
nineteen (19)
years of age;

Isn't the legal age to gamble 18 in the US? Where did you guys come up with 19?

 

I think it varies not just by state but perhaps by even smaller jurisdictions, like counties or cities. I was pretty sure I remembered it was 21 in Vegas (where everyone from the area I grew up in couldn't wait to visit, and drink in the glamor and excitement) and I just checked and confirmed that is still true, not just for Las Vegas but for all of Nevada. People under 21 are not even allowed inside casinos in Nevada. The same is true in California (where we have a ton of 'tribal' casinos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Aizur Zessinthal wrote:

Skill Game....this is such a strange area for your above average SL resident, let alone the average one.

 

What is an example of a skill game here, please LL?

 

A lot of mention is being made of some very common things that actually appear to be wagering rather than skill games.

Sploders: Pay in, timer is up, money is redistributed to all players in differing portions according to an algorithm. Apparently random, any programmer knows there is no such thing as true chance/randomness in programmed systems. But the players have no input, there is no skill, no action they can take. Not truly random, but no skill required. Its a wealth redistributor is all. Not even a game as there is no activity but pay to join, wait for payout.essentially its a Lottery, which makes it against the TOS already.

 

Zyngo: I admit i have no familiarity with this game at all. I am told its like Bingo with some little extra junk thrown in. Bingo is a game of chance, not skill. The player cannot affect the outcome, he merely sits there and dots each number as it comes up and if he is lucky he gets the Bingo first. That's pure chance that the numbers that come up correspond to the numbers on his bingo sheet. Not a skill game, this is wagering and against the TOS.

Greedy Greedy: Call it waht you will, Greedy has some skill, but is still heavily reliant upon chance. In fact the skill in Gredy is pushing chance as far as you can without taking too many failures. Game of chance, not game of skill.

 

So if these are all games of chance, what exactly is being regulated here? RL examples of games of skill are Darts, Billiards, Bowling, Horseshoes, Pool, Snooker, Chess, Checkers, Magic the Gathering, Trivial Pursuit/Pub Games, and many other things that may have some element of chance involved but mostly rely upon the skill, mental, physical or both, of the players involved.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but if this is the case there is very very little that will actually be affected by any of this new Games of Skill policy and either everyone is spazzing out about the wrong thing, or LL hideously missed the mark in trying to wrangle money from Gaming in SL.

Well.... some things that are going to be profoundly affected by this new policy are many of the games you mention --- Zyngo, and so on.   For a long time, these games have been operating under the cover of being "games of skill" in that there's supposedly an element of skill involved.

LL has taken them at their word, and said, right... since you say you're running games of skill, get a statement from a competent attorney that this is the case and give us a sworn affidavit describing how they work.

If they don't, or can't, obtain such an opinion from an attorney to the effect that they're primarily games of skill and any element of chance is negligible, then they must be games of chance, which can't be played for money.

So I think one important effect of this is going to be to clear out all the gambling games masquerading as skill games.  Something like Greedy will be OK if it's made available in a no-pay version (I understand it's no-pay in a lot of places anyway, and people play it just for fun) and sploders will have to become free to enter.   I don't see that as a big issue, myself, since every spolder I see always seems to have most of the prize money put in by the owners anyway.  

So I think this change means we're finally going to see the end of gambling games in SL and see them replaced by pay-to-play games of skill, which I think will be much more interesting.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Octavia Sorbet wrote:

.

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't think the attorney is asked to give an opinion about the code, any more than, in RL, your attorney would need to know anything about the code of your online game (or Android app) to be able to tell you if it's a game of skill or game of chance according to local law and your description of the game.   All the attorney needs is an explanation of the game, its rules and how it pays out. 

If it doesn't do what you say it does in the affidavit you've sworn, then LL can take a look at the code and see what's going on.     

 

 

Hi Innula.

 

This is a virual environment.. The code -is- the game.

 

If that was the case, why involve the attorney at all? Why not just a sworn affidavit from me that to the best of my knowledge, the game works as the creator described?

 

Personal liability. Lindens are trying to make operators personally liable and culpable in San Francisco court.

 

Well I am not willing to take on that personal liability, I did not create the game, I dont know how it works, or if it works as described. As a game owner I rely 100% on the creator to make that affirmation. No credible attorney should base a legal opinion upon the unproven statements of others. Wether its a facebook app, or an android app. Or a SL game. Attorneys have to base thier opinions on law and facts

 

 

I can affirm by affidavit that I have not altered the game, in any way. Beyond that, its between lindens and the game crator as far as I'm concerned.  So I won't be applying, and potentially making myself personally liable for the work and affermations made by others. That would be incredibly stupid.

I don't see that an attorney, or anyone else, would find it difficult to say whether, for example, a game in which you paid to shoot at a variety of targets, your score was recorded and, every 24 hours, 90% of the takings were paid to the person with the highest score (or divided equally between the winners if two or more people scored the winning score) was a game of skill or not.    The attorney is not being asked to comment how the game is coded.   She is being asked to say whether, in her professional opinion, the game, as described in the sworn affidavit, is a game of skill, or at least one in which chance plays a negligable role, or a game of chance.    

Certainly I would expect my RL solicitor here in the UK to be able to tell me if I needed a licence from our Gambling Commission to run a pay-to-play online chess game, with a cash prize for the winner,  without having to look at the code.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem I see with this is the fact that LL is in a way taking the ability of small gaming establishments to exist (the walmart effect) giving only those with a lot of capital the opertunity to suceed in the gaming sales and operating industry.I hate to see when big business forces out the little guy who is just trying to increase his capital base a bit. I for one used to be a top used game seller until all the red tape of LL got to hectic therefore I closed my business in SL and basically stopped playing inworld now I really have no reason at all to ever log into the world Im solely involved in capx and if it ever faulters I will abandon SL all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:

Well.... some things that are going to be profoundly affected by this new policy are many of the games you mention --- Zyngo, and so on.   For a long time, these games have been operating under the cover of being "games of skill" in that there's supposedly an element of skill involved.

LL has taken them at their word, and said, right... since you say you're running games of skill, get a statement from a competent attorney that this is the case and give us a sworn affidavit describing how they work.

If they don't, or can't, obtain such an opinion from an attorney to the effect that they're primarily games of skill and any element of chance is negligible, then they must be games of chance, which can't be played for money.

So I think one important effect of this is going to be to clear out all the gambling games masquerading as skill games.  Something like Greedy will be OK if it's made available in a no-pay version (I understand it's no-pay in a lot of places anyway, and people play it just for fun) and sploders will have to become free to enter.   I don't see that as a big issue, myself, since every spolder I see always seems to have most of the prize money put in by the owners anyway.  

So I think this change means we're finally going to see the end of gambling games in SL and see them replaced by pay-to-play games of skill, which I think will be much more interesting.   

This is by far the best post in this thread so far.  I totally agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


sorbitan Nightfire wrote:

The only problem I see with this is the fact that LL is in a way taking the ability of small gaming establishments to exist (the walmart effect) giving only those with a lot of capital the opertunity to suceed in the gaming sales and operating industry.I hate to see when big business forces out the little guy who is just trying to increase his capital base a bit. I for one used to be a top used game seller until all the red tape of LL got to hectic therefore I closed my business in SL and basically stopped playing inworld now I really have no reason at all to ever log into the world Im solely involved in capx and if it ever faulters I will abandon SL all together.

Maybe this would open up a new market for parcel rental in Skill Game regions.  If you rent a parcel within your means, then pay the costs to be an operator, it wouldn't be as expensive necessarily.  Not sure if they require you own the Skill Game region, just be in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Octavia Sorbet wrote:

.

Innula Zenovka wrote:

I don't think the attorney is asked to give an opinion about the code, any more than, in RL, your attorney would need to know anything about the code of your online game (or Android app) to be able to tell you if it's a game of skill or game of chance according to local law and your description of the game.   All the attorney needs is an explanation of the game, its rules and how it pays out. 

If it doesn't do what you say it does in the affidavit you've sworn, then LL can take a look at the code and see what's going on.     

 

 

Hi Innula.

 

This is a virual environment.. The code -is- the game.

 

If that was the case, why involve the attorney at all? Why not just a sworn affidavit from me that to the best of my knowledge, the game works as the creator described?

 

Personal liability. Lindens are trying to make operators personally liable and culpable in San Francisco court.

 

Well I am not willing to take on that personal liability, I did not create the game, I dont know how it works, or if it works as described. As a game owner I rely 100% on the creator to make that affirmation. No credible attorney should base a legal opinion upon the unproven statements of others. Wether its a facebook app, or an android app. Or a SL game. Attorneys have to base thier opinions on law and facts

 

 

I can affirm by affidavit that I have not altered the game, in any way. Beyond that, its between lindens and the game crator as far as I'm concerned.  So I won't be applying, and potentially making myself personally liable for the work and affermations made by others. That would be incredibly stupid.

I don't see that an attorney, or anyone else, would find it difficult to say whether, for example, a game in which you paid to shoot at a variety of targets, your score was recorded and, every 24 hours, 90% of the takings were paid to the person with the highest score (or divided equally between the winners if two or more people scored the winning score) was a game of skill or not.    The attorney is not being asked to comment how the game is coded.   She is being asked to say whether, in her professional opinion, the game, as described in the sworn affidavit, is a game of skill, or at least one in which chance plays a negligable role, or a game of chance.    

Certainly I would expect my RL solicitor here in the UK to be able to tell me if I needed a licence from our Gambling Commission to run a pay-to-play online chess game, with a cash prize for the winner,  without having to look at the code.

 

 

Well this is not really about shooting galleries or chess games, so I don't know what your on about.

As has been pointed out by others, this is more about wether the game play has "a material part" depending on chance. Making apples to oranges comparisons is not helping, If you want to talk about Fire Ball, RWP, No Devil, or any other of the popular skillgames that are present in the gamerooms then I will look forward to your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the games (most of which seem to have the same game mechanic with slight variations).  Who can say how much skill vs chance is involved if we can't see the script code?  It's a pointless discussion IMHO.  Only your lawyer can decide with an educated guess, which will most likely be inaccurate.  I wonder... What lawyer is going to want to stick out their neck and validate games that, by design, have 50 shades of gray? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Octavia Sorbet wrote:

Well this is not really about shooting galleries or chess games, so I don't know what your on about.

As has been pointed out by others, this is more about wether the game play has "a material part" depending on chance. Making apples to oranges comparisons is not helping, If you want to talk about Fire Ball, RWP, No Devil, or any other of the popular skillgames that are present in the gamerooms then I will look forward to your input.

 On the contrary, I think this really is about shooting galleries and chess games.

Do you seriously suggest that No Devil and the rest are games whose outcome is "not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance"?     Go on -- try to describe how to play one of them without suggesting chance plays a material role in the outcome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks to me like another way to reap up some extra charges, as if they were not high enough already. Where is the logic in this whole nonsense? If yu have to be in an area where gambling is legal, to use the games, so why aren;t they reguiklar gambling then since they are legal there? Can't get rid of the feeling that LL is trying to make SL less and less attractive in order to promote their new world soon. Already during the mass-bannings I said , next will be gambling again, and right I was sooner than expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Innula Zenovka wrote:


Octavia Sorbet wrote:

Well this is not really about shooting galleries or chess games, so I don't know what your on about.

As has been pointed out by others, this is more about wether the game play has "a material part" depending on chance. Making apples to oranges comparisons is not helping, If you want to talk about Fire Ball, RWP, No Devil, or any other of the popular skillgames that are present in the gamerooms then I will look forward to your input.

 On the contrary, I think this really is about shooting galleries and chess games.

Do you seriously suggest that No Devil and the rest are games 
whose outcome is "not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance"?     Go on -- try to describe how to play one of them without suggesting chance plays a material role in the outcome.

 

Well you just made my point for me, Nobody can tell for sure one way or the other without seeing the code. Linden lab can see the code, all they need to do is look, why make 'operators' jump thru hoops?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read the creator of the greedy table created it as a game of chance. You never know what dice are going to pop up and it is not a game of skill. So my question is since the creator made it a game of chance is LL going to tell the creator that it is considered a skills game in their eyes. I have yet to see a list of games that are considered skilled games. Greedy player play on their own money and win their own money back on a game of chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PaisleeRose wrote:

From what I read the creator of the greedy table created it as a game of chance. You never know what dice are going to pop up and it is not a game of skill. So my question is since the creator made it a game of chance is LL going to tell the creator that it is considered a skills game in their eyes. I have yet to see a list of games that are considered skilled games. Greedy player play on their own money and win their own money back on a game of chance.

Check out the creator's Facebook page, he answers those questions.  He's going to make non-pay to play versions of his games to comply and is considering making a pay to play version of Greedy.  The jackpot is not affected by the TOS changes.  I'm just paraphrasing, I would check the Facebook page (K.R. Engineering) for more detailed info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh the biggest gamble of all is investing anything into second life to see it crushed later by their ever changing user unfriendly polices. I'm not a game creator but it happened to me in other ways in the past -  so I stopped putting effort into creating or even investing any more monet than I have already.  SL is the real gamble and LL should ban it..I';m really getting pissed at this all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Tex Monday wrote:

Ok...Looking at the new policy, I'm slightly confused...or maybe it's just me...

One part states that a skill game "
requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play
"

and another part of the rule states
"“[g]ames in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy.”

Now, if a game like Greedy/Greedy permits the payment of Linden Dollars but the owner of the game does not have the players pay, is it or is it not within the scope of the policy?

If the game allows pay-to-play, it can't be used without jumping through the hoops, regardless of whether or not it's being used without pay-to-play. He's answered that twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Mackenzie Ariel wrote:

I'm sure the creators of Greedy and contest boards will be given the opportunity to make an updated version of their products that don't allow pay in.
  Since Lindens Labs won't be able to police all of this.........I'm sure we have time to use what we have until updates are provided.

And I'm sure that plenty of us have already contacted the maker of greedy to ask for an exchange to a compliant table. No reply yet, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PaisleeRose wrote:

From what I read the creator of the greedy table created it as a game of chance. You never know what dice are going to pop up and it is not a game of skill. So my question is since the creator made it a game of chance is LL going to tell the creator that it is considered a skills game in their eyes. I have yet to see a list of games that are considered skilled games. Greedy player play on their own money and win their own money back on a game of chance.

Greedy is a game of chance. Any dice game is a game of chance. Unfortunately, it has the option to set it as pay-to-play and money to be paid out. So, as of Augusr 1st, it won't be allowed in its current form (except by jumping through hoops), which is why I, and I'm sure many others, have contacted the creator to ask for a version without the pay-to-play option, and to exchange the table for anyone who wants it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yingzi Xue wrote:


PaisleeRose wrote:

From what I read the creator of the greedy table created it as a game of chance. You never know what dice are going to pop up and it is not a game of skill. So my question is since the creator made it a game of chance is LL going to tell the creator that it is considered a skills game in their eyes. I have yet to see a list of games that are considered skilled games. Greedy player play on their own money and win their own money back on a game of chance.

Check out the creator's Facebook page, he answers those questions.  He's going to make non-pay to play versions of his games to comply and is considering making a pay to play version of Greedy.  The jackpot is not affected by the TOS changes.  I'm just paraphrasing, I would check the Facebook page (K.R. Engineering) for more detailed info.

I don't use facebook so i can't see for myself, but did he say that he would do a free swap when he's got the new version ready?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...