Skilled Gaming Policy - Q & A (RECAP)

[Phil Deakins]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Phil, are you distinguishing between "pay-to-play" with the winner taking a proportion of the entry fees (in effect, at least in your analysis, betting on yourself) and a separate contest whereby interested observers may bet on whether they think you or one of the other contestants will win?   If so, does it matter if the odds in the separate contest are set so that, after paying on all the winning bets, the house comes out ahead no matter who wins? 

I can see why LL would want a lawyer's advice to sort that one out, myself.

---

I haven't made any differentiation, Innula. The examples in my head are table games - bridge, whist, chase the lady, etc. They are games of skill, with a small element of chance when the cards are dealt, and people can effectively bet on themselves to win; i.e. pay in and pay out. That's gambling.

On the one hand LL uses the word 'gambling' when they state categorically that gambling is not allowed. And on the other hand LL says that gaming is allowed under certain conditions. Gaming in this context means gambling, as in the hypothetical example I gave.

But why does it matter if someone says that gambling is allowed provided that it's a game of skill and is licensed with LL? If someone says that gaming is allowed provided that it's a game of skill and is licensed with LL, everyone would understand the same thing.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Phil, are you distinguishing between "pay-to-play" with the winner taking a proportion of the entry fees (in effect, at least in your analysis, betting on yourself) and a separate contest whereby interested observers may bet on whether they think you or one of the other contestants will win?   If so, does it matter if the odds in the separate contest are set so that, after paying on all the winning bets, the house comes out ahead no matter who wins? 

I can see why LL would want a lawyer's advice to sort that one out, myself.

---

I haven't made any differentiation, Innula. The examples in my head are table games - bridge, whist, chase the lady, etc. They are games of skill, with a small element of chance when the cards are dealt, and people can effectively bet on themselves to win; i.e. pay in and pay out. That's gambling.

On the one hand LL uses the word 'gambling' when they state categorically that gambling is not allowed. And on the other hand LL says that gaming is allowed under certain conditions. Gaming in this context means gambling, as in the hypothetical example I gave.

But why does it matter if someone says that gambling is allowed provided that it's a game of skill and is licensed with LL? If someone says that gaming is allowed provided that it's a game of skill and is licensed with LL, everyone would understand the same thing.

---

Thanks, Phil.    That clarifies things a lot.    

I agree that the important thing is that LL have approved the game.   For this reason, though, I think it's potentially misleading to talk about anything they licence being a form of gambling (even though you and I might think it is) because they do explicitly says that gambling games are forbidden.

Things are further complicated by real-life examples, to my mind, and that's maybe why the lawyers' opinions are going to be so important.   While I agree there's no real reason in logic why Texas Hold 'Em should be considered a gambling game and Bridge not, the fact of the matter is that the law in many places does distinguish between the two (I've heard it suggested that this is probably because, historically,  legislators and their wives are more likely to play bridge than poker, at least when in mixed company).   

You ask, what does it matter what something's called, so long as LL approve it?   I agree, it doesn't, except that it's likely to be misleading since, in this context, if LL's approved it, it can't (at least as far as LL is concerned) be a game of chance or a gambling game.   So talking about LL approving gambling games is likely to be misleading, if nothing else, and can only cause confusion in the minds of people less well-informed about LL's policies than are you.

[Phil Deakins]

Alright, Innula. From now on I'll say things like "Gaming is allowed in SL under certain conditions" and not use the word 'gambling' when saying things like that. I still think it will be confusing because anyone reading/hearing it will still think that gambling is allowed under certain conditions, because that's what 'gaming' means in this context. It's LL that's causing any confusion by saying that gambling is not allowed but gaming is. Oh well

Incidentally, a difference between bridge and poker may be seen because, with bridge, the skill is playing the cards to win tricks, whereas, with poker, the skill is out-gambling the other players. In other words, with bridge, the mental skill is in the playing of the cards, but, with poker, the mental skill is in the actual gambling itself. Poker doesn't play the cards, it receives cards and tries to out-gamble (out-bluff) the other players - or fold.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

Isn't it clear from the above that:

• Games of change (pay in/pay out) are considered as gambling in SL.

• Approved skill games (pay in/pay out) are not considered as gambling in SL.

Why do you need to bring any other definitions about gambling in this context?

---

Yes it's clear from that, but LL used the word 'gaming' which, in this context actually means gambling. Why does it matter to you, Coby?

---

Hehehe... sometimes I just want to tease you a bit - and tickle your brain. :matte-motes-evil-grin:

Why does it matter to me? Well, I love when the documents are clear and accurate. If Linden Lab actually allows gambling in SL then why don't they clearly say so? Why to hide it under some other name? If gambling is allowed in SL then LL surely need to reword some documents.

Anyway, it's your interpretation that "Skilled Gaming" would actually mean "Skilled Gambling" in this case.

The way Linden Lab has worded their document, I take it as it reads. Gambling is strictly prohibited in SL. That is a fact what LL says. Therefore "Skilled Gaming" cannot mean "Skilled Gambling" as far as what comes to SL.

 

 

Phil, you are confusing people by saying that gambling is allowed in SL. :smileysurprised:  Stop it. Thanks. :smileywink:

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Alright, Innula. From now on I'll say things like "Gaming is allowed in SL under certain conditions" and not use the word 'gambling' when saying things like that.

---

Thank you Phil. :matte-motes-smile: :heart:

 

[Edit]

Oopss... I forgot the cuddle!

There!  :smileyhappy:

[Phil Deakins]

Hey! That's not a cuddle. Not a proper one. Even though you were only teasing me, you still owe me a cuddle. I am fragile y'know, and a long cuddle from you is the only thing that will get me back to normal

[Coby Foden]

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?"

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"

Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?

"

 

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

 

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

---

Is not considered as gambling by LL, but, in reality, it is gambling - as in gaming.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"

Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?

"

 

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

 

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

---

Is not considered as gambling by LL, but, in reality, it is gambling - as in gaming.

---

You really are fond of the phrase "gambling - as in gaming", aren't you?  :smileyhappy:

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

As to Greedy, the maker, K.R. Engineering, has explained on his Facebook page that, before the end of the month, people will be able to update their Greedy tables to be given a free-to-play version with no cash payout, so they can play for the fun of it without worries.

---

Huh. I've played Greedy before and never even knew it HAD a cash payout version. That option never appeared when I tried it.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"

Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?

"

 

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

 

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

---

Is not considered as gambling by LL, but, in reality, it is gambling - as in gaming.

---

I don't see how you get that.    

All does is reiterate that gambling is banned in Second Life, and confirms -- rather unnessarily, to my mind -- that if something has been llcenced as a gambling game of chance by a state gambling commission, then LL will take their word for it that it is, in fact,  a gambling game of chance, and therefore it's banned in SL.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"

Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?

"

 

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

 

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

---

Is not considered as gambling by LL, but, in reality, it is gambling - as in gaming.

---

You really are fond of the phrase "gambling - as in gaming", aren't you?  :smileyhappy:

---

I think this is a case where the definition of words is still evolving.  If you google for the difference between Gambling and Gaming that becomes pretty obvious.

And we need to remember that dictionary definitions are not always the same as legal defintions.  Often times the laws also provide specific definitions on how a word is used.  For instance, The Kentucky Revised Statutes:

"Gambling" means staking or risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest, game, gaming scheme, or gaming device which is based upon an element of chance, in accord with an agreement or understanding that someone will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. A contest or game in which eligibility to participate is determined by chance and the ultimate winner is determined by skill shall not be considered to be gambling."

528.010 Definitions for chapter.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

Interestingly while digging the Linden Lab documents more thorougly I found this:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ

"

Online gambling (i.e., gambling games of chance such as poker, blackjack and slots) is legal where I live. With this new system in place, can I gamble in Second Life?

"

 

"No. Approved games of skill will be permitted on Skill Gaming Regions, but this does not change our policy forbidding gambling (wagering on games of chance) in Second Life."

 

So, that confirms that approved licensed Skill Gaming is not considered as gambling - in Second Life.

---

Is not considered as gambling by LL, but, in reality, it is gambling - as in gaming.

---

You really are fond of the phrase "gambling - as in gaming", aren't you?  :smileyhappy:

---

Yep. They mean the same thing in this context .

[Phil Deakins]

But dictionary definitions, and the way that words are actually used, are what people in general understand. Not legal definitions. If you talk about gaming in this context, but without it having anything to do with the new SL rules, people will naturally understand you to mean gambling, because that's it does mean. Do a search in Google on the word gaming, and see what comes up - loads of gambling websites, all using the word gaming, as in 'online gaming'.

If there's any confusion, it's LL that has caused it by hanging on to the statement that "gambling is not allowed" when, with the new rules, gambling definitely is allowed as long as it's skillful.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

 

You really are fond of the phrase "gambling - as in gaming", aren't you?  :smileyhappy:

---

Yep. They mean the same thing in this context

.

---

LOL. But not in Second Life - which is the context here. :smileyhappy: :smileytongue:

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

If there's any confusion, it's LL that has caused it by hanging on to the statement that "gambling is not allowed" when, with the new rules, gambling definitely is allowed as long as it's skillful.

---

Hey! You already promised that you will not say that gambling is allowed in SL. :smileymad: Grrr...

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

But dictionary definitions, and the way that words are actually used, are what people in general understand. Not legal definitions. If you talk about gaming in this context, but without it having anything to do with the new SL rules, people will naturally understand you to mean gambling, because that's it does mean. Do a search in Google on the word gaming, and see what comes up - loads of gambling websites, all using the word gaming, as in 'online gaming'.

If there's any confusion, it's LL that has caused it by hanging on to the statement that "gambling is not allowed" when, with the new rules, gambling definitely is allowed as long as it's skillful.

---

Rather than worrying about what's gaming and what's gambling, how about simply saying that the only circumstances in which pay-to-play games that pay out cash prizes are allowed after August 1 is if they've been successfully registered with LL as games of skill, or if the application was submitted before August 1 and is still being considered.    

SL versions of some named RL casino gambling games are banned.  

It's reasonable to suppose that SL versions of other recognisable gambling games are banned, too, but in each case it's up to the individual creator and operator  to read the LL Official pages and FAQ , to decide,  possibly after consultation with their legal advisors, if they think it's worth applying.

I've got a pretty good picture in my mind of what it would be worth applying to register as a game of skill and what certainly wouldn't get through.    

If I were in any doubt, I'd be saying to my legal advisor, "This is how it works.    Would you be prepared to write a reasoned opinion saying it's a game of skill as defined in the LL documents I've shown you?".   I'd be asking my lawyer that in each case, anyway, along with "and how much will the reasoned opinion cost me?"

[Phil Deakins]

I don't worry about it, Innula. I just use the english language as it is normally used. It's someone else who keeps arguing the toss about it

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

If there's any confusion, it's LL that has caused it by hanging on to the statement that "gambling is not allowed" when, with the new rules, gambling definitely is allowed as long as it's skillful.

---

Hey!

You already promised that you will not say that gambling is allowed in SL. :smileymad: Grrr...

---

I did say that but I don;t don't remember promising. It would be foolish of me to make promises that I'm liable to forget about - which is what happened there.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

But dictionary definitions, and the way that words are actually used, are what people in general understand. Not legal definitions. If you talk about gaming in this context, but without it having anything to do with the new SL rules, people will naturally understand you to mean gambling, because that's it does mean. Do a search in Google on the word gaming, and see what comes up - loads of gambling websites, all using the word gaming, as in 'online gaming'.

If there's any confusion, it's LL that has caused it by hanging on to the statement that "gambling is not allowed" when, with the new rules, gambling definitely is allowed as long as it's skillful.

---

Blame it on the Lawyers.

Linden Lab is a Business and as a Business they are wise to stick as best they can to the Legal Definitions.  And if you read the FAQ, they go to great lengths actually to explain things.

Putting things into "Layman's Terms" can be very dangerous for a Business because if you get into a dispute with a company a Court will give precedence to the explanation the Company gave you of those terms. 

This is why people get into trouble when they read legal documents, the TOS included.  I was in a legal dispute with someone trying to get out of a contract who said in court, "I didn't understand when I signed this contract," and the Judge stopped him right there.  WTF?  It was a contract and contracts are legal documents.

I cited the KY Revised statutes.  Here is another statement from the Statutes:

"Gambling shall not mean charitable gaming which is licensed and regulated under the provisions of KRS Chapter 238."

Guess what, Relay For Life, which is a charitable organization, could approach LL and ask to run a gaming operation to raise funds and for all of us in KY we could participate.  KY law says it is not gambling.

The bottom line is that actually it would be more confusing (and dangerous) for LL to not use the legal definitions.  And if you want to blame someone, blame the Lawyers and/or Politicians, not LL. 

[Innula Zenovka]

Presumably that would mean, though, that RFL would need to get itself , and any charitable gaming operation it wished to conduct in SL "licenced and regulated under the provisions of KRS Chapter 238," before it made any such application.

Then, if it did, it still be open to LL to refuse the application on the grounds it was not satisfied the gaming operation in question, charitable or not, met the criteria of "game of skill" as LL understood the term.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Presumably that would mean, though, that RFL would need to get itself , and any charitable gaming operation it wished to conduct in SL "licenced and regulated under the provisions of KRS Chapter 238," before it made any such application.

Then, if it did, it still be open to LL to refuse the application on the grounds it was not satisfied the gaming operation in question, charitable or not, met the criteria of "game of skill" as LL understood the term.

 

---

I didn't search to check but I would be greatly surprised if the American Cancer Society hadn't registered under KRS 238.

The other thing is that under KRS 238, things that are obviously not "skill games" such as raffles are allowed if I recall correctly.  (I do hope that when we do them at the fund raisers I work at that they are legal.  I may need to go double check ).

But yes, LL still would not be obligated to allow it.  Nothing here obligates LL to allow any of these activities at all.

 

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I did say that but I

don;t

don't remember promising.

---

Hrrmm... don't be so pedantic. I'm supposed to be pedantic, not you.  :matte-motes-nerdy: :matte-motes-wink:

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Presumably that would mean, though, that RFL would need to get itself , and any charitable gaming operation it wished to conduct in SL "licenced and regulated under the provisions of KRS Chapter 238," before it made any such application.

Then, if it did, it still be open to LL to refuse the application on the grounds it was not satisfied the gaming operation in question, charitable or not, met the criteria of "game of skill" as LL understood the term.

 

---

I didn't search to check but I would be greatly surprised if the American Cancer Society hadn't registered under KRS 238.

The other thing is that under KRS 238, things that are obviously not "skill games" such as raffles are allowed if I recall correctly.  (I do hope that when we do them at the fund raisers I work at that they are legal.  I may need to go double check

).

But yes, LL still would not be obligated to allow it.  Nothing here obligates LL to allow

any

of these activities at all.

 

---

Depends, I would have thought, whether KRS 238 is to do with charitable organisations registering themselves or whether it's to do with them registering particular fund-raising activities they want to conduct.    Obviously I don't know, but it might be worth checking if this registration, whatever form it takes, imposes any particular requirements on the activity (size of prizes, for example, or accounting and reporting procedures).

Another potential problem area is that, as I understand it, all funds raised in SL have to pass through an account owned by a private individual.   I was discussing this with someone who owns several commercial  businesses in SL and also does a lot of fund-raising for particular charities.   This, it seems, can prove rather confusing for the IRS, since to them it looks as if she herself is earing money from various sources in SL and then donating to the charities in question, rather than simply taking up collections on behalf the charities, even though the charity  money goes through separate banker alts, one for each charity,

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I did say that but I

don;t

don't remember promising.

---

Hrrmm... don't be so pedantic. I'm supposed to be pedantic, not you.  :matte-motes-nerdy: :matte-motes-wink:

---

You see? We are perfectly suited to each other because we are both pedantic. I knew we were meant for each other. It's fate. It really is.