Re: Gacha Missing and EMPTY BOXES....

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

that none of us could possibly know what they are or what you're talking about. I spend half my time in sl as a hamster...ftr.

I only discuss what Dinkies and Tinies are because many people, especially with the use of the word "tiny" think that is human child avatars which does make me uncomfortable because Dinkies and Tinies are by Linden Lab Wiki now fully defined as not child avatars, but still sims ban us by stating 'no child-like avatars'.  I only mention it because I don't want any thread veering off topic about child avatars in SL which threads have before at the mention of "tinies", and will leave it at that.

 

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

 I also know that anyone, that is the person behind the avatar, regardless of the type of avatar they choose to have inworld, can have a very large ego at times (whether they realize it or not).

I don't feel I was coming off with a big ego and I think you judge people too harshly sometimes and especially me you are very judgmental about, and come off at times with a halo to others.  I felt Orwar was haloing himself here too in regards to gambling and we should be ashamed of ourselves if we like Gachas type attitude because we are ruining others.  Well, people are addicted to shopping alone, doesn't have to include Gachas at all.  Should we all stop shopping?  Someone really pushed my buttons over the course of several different types of posts and I spoke out about it.  He can speak for himself.  However, he's blocked now.  I aired it and don't want to continue discussing it either.

I will leave the thread to do what it wants to do as far as off topic as I don't feel all that well enough to deal with a thread I started which has no resolution regarding boxes for any kind of perms on MP.  As I said, copy/mod or copy/mod/transfer items can be an empty box also.  All of MP would have to change for there to be no empty boxes.

[Paul Hexem]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

No, they don't.

That very document says nothing whatsoever concerning an actual L$ value that triggers the requirement. It in fact states 

In other words: The L$ balance is not what is being taxed. At all.

In world/MP transactions are done in L$ - even when you choose to use a linked card/PayPal account directly (the USD amount is converted into L$ and that resulting balance is used).

This is what they are talking about when referencing L$ sales values.

So no, the IRS doesn't care about your unconverted tokens - tokens which you cannot actually use anywhere (that matters) in the Real World.

Now, if you'd like to continue to contest it - find an actual Tax Attorney and get their opinion on the matter.

ETA: Yes, I am rather serious on that as the only users that I have seen mention having had to file with the IRS were "cashing out" - using the Lindex system to convert their tokens into USD to be moved elsewhere.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe or what the TOS says. The fact that we can cash L$ out at all and that we can spend real dollars for L$ means that there's value there. Same as any other purchasable game credit. We, and LL, should be as concerned about potential new laws as EA and Activision are.

They have better lawyers, and they're still changing their practices. That's significant.

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "it's just fake money!" over and over again seems like a terrible idea to me. 

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

It doesn't matter what you or I believe or what the TOS says. The fact that we can cash L$ out at all and that we can spend real dollars for L$ means that there's value there. Same as any other purchasable game credit. We, and LL, should be as concerned about potential new laws as EA and Activision are.

They have better lawyers, and they're still changing their practices. That's significant.

Sticking your head in the sand and saying "it's just fake money!" over and over again seems like a terrible idea to me. 

Which is .... not at all what i said or implied.

[Paul Hexem]

7 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Which is .... not at all what i said or implied.

Are you sure? My argument is

2 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

L$ have a cash value of 240 / 1 USD.

According to the "Buy L$" page and that's why we have file taxes when we sell L$- because the IRS sees us selling L$ for money. To which you said,

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

No, they don't.

 

[Solar Legion]

16 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Are you sure? My argument is

According to the "Buy L$" page and that's why we have file taxes when we sell L$- because the IRS sees us selling L$ for money. To which you said,

 

Yes, I am quite sure. Doubly so after reading the linked wiki page which - going by what it directly says - concerns USD amounts resulting from converting L$ to USD, exclusively.

This - under the current systems/regulations - makes L$ themselves worth exactly nothing. No one is presently being taxed over some imaginary value for the L$, they are being taxed exclusively on their USD balances.

Put another way: You are suggesting that the token itself is taxable - based on your wording. Their documentation makes it rather clear that it is not the token that falls under present regulations.

Now I am well aware that some want to change this and quite frankly I am rather against such a change if it is not very carefully crafted.

And yes, I am being incredibly exacting here. The IRS doesn't care what arbitrary value is placed on the L$ by we users or by Linden Lab, they care about the end result.

There is a difference between the "value" we/Linden Lab assigns those tokens and their actual value. Until L$ are used in exactly the same manner as Crypto and other purely electronic "currencies" in a rather vast number of places or the laws regarding such tokens are changed .... They will continue to have exactly no value as far as the IRS is concerned.

For the purposes of discussing taxes, that latter is all that matters.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Solar Legion

[Silent Mistwalker]

Solar is correct. LL doesn't file 1099s on people who do not convert Ls to USD. There's nothing to file on! Now if you have a USD balance sitting there that you can withdraw and go spend on anything, anywhere, including in the real world, that may or may not be taxable, depending on the amount. If it's over $600USD for the year, LL must file a 1099 on you. The info is out there. Look it up.

What this means is, if you cash out more than $600USD within the fiscal year, it is considered income by the IRS and must be reported to the IRS. I don't think your country of origin plays a part in any of it. If you have $600USD or more in the account and don't cash out, LL still has to file a 1099. Anything less than $600USD for the year and you have nothing to worry about.

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

You are suggesting that the token itself is taxable

Therein lies the issue.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that the money we make use when we buy or sell L$ is taxable, and that we wouldn't be able to buy or sell them if they didn't have an agreed upon monetary value- currently 240 per US dollar.

Which means they'll be treated by laws and/or the general public like any game token that can legitimately be bought or sold with real money. 

Therefore, we should be concerned about laws and potential laws that affect said tokens, and LL would be wise to take some action on gachas ahead of time, like EA has.

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Solar is correct. LL doesn't file 1099s on people who do not convert Ls to USD. There's nothing to file on! Now if you have a USD balance sitting there that you can withdraw and go spend on anything, anywhere, including in the real world, that may or may not be taxable, depending on the amount. If it's over $600USD for the year, LL must file a 1099 on you. The info is out there. Look it up.

What this means is, if you cash out more than $600USD within the fiscal year, it is considered income by the IRS and must be reported to the IRS. I don't think your country of origin plays a part in any of it. If you have $600USD or more in the account and don't cash out, LL still has to file a 1099. Anything less than $600USD for the year and you have nothing to worry about.

See my previous reply. It doesn't matter if some people don't cash them out. The fact that we can at all and have agreed on a value that they're worth means they're worth a value. 

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

Therein lies the issue.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that the money we make use when we buy or sell L$ is taxable, and that we wouldn't be able to buy or sell them if they didn't have an agreed upon monetary value- currently 240 per US dollar.

Which means they'll be treated by laws and/or the general public like any game token that can legitimately be bought or sold with real money. 

Therefore, we should be concerned about laws and potential laws that affect said tokens, and LL would be wise to take some action on gachas ahead of time, like EA has.

That value exists at present solely within the confines of Linden Lab's own servers. No where else. Further that value only exists thanks to the efforts of Linden Lab.

No, that "agreed upon value" within their own system does not at all mean that the tokens have any real value.

Their "value" begins and ends within Linden Lab's servers.

Any legislation attempting to change such ought to be fought tooth and nail as well.

[Silent Mistwalker]

19 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

See my previous reply. It doesn't matter if some people don't cash them out. The fact that we can at all and have agreed on a value that they're worth means they're worth a value. 

Where you're jumping the track though is that is not our decision to make. The legislative system makes that determination. It has been determined that under certain conditions Ls do have a monetary value but only where it concerns income.

What it all boils down to is what the IRS says it is or isn't. So far, the IRS says it is taxable once the Ls have been converted. The End. There's nothing to argue with there. Well, ok. You could go argue with the IRS but I don't think they're going to listen.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Silent Mistwalker

[Paul Hexem]

2 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

under certain conditions Ls do have a monetary value

That's what I said, yes.

5 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

That value exists at present solely within the confines of Linden Lab's own servers. No where else. Further that value only exists thanks to the efforts of Linden Lab.

No, that "agreed upon value" within their own system does not at all mean that the tokens have any real value.

Their "value" begins and ends within Linden Lab's servers.

EA can make the same argument about their credits, and they- armed with better lawyers than LL- are worried about potential laws.

Which brings me back to; Sticking our heads in the sand and repeating "L$ have no value" seems like a bad idea. 

[Solar Legion]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

Where your jumping the track though is that is not our decision to make. The legislative system makes that determination. It has been determined that under certain conditions Ls do have a monetary value but only where it concerns income.

What it all boils down to is what they IRS says it is or isn't. So far, the IRS says it is taxable once the Ls have been converted. The End. There's nothing to argue with there. Well, ok. You could go argue with the IRS but I don't think they're going to listen.

Erm, to nitpick a bit: The IRS says the end result (USD) of that conversion is taxable which essentially means that there are no conditions under which L$s have a monetary value as far as they are concerned. That conversion within Linden Lab's systems does not impart any sort of value to the tokens - not any meaningful one as far as taxes are concerned.

General response below:

At this point it is a back and forth over semantics - something which I simply am not interested in. If someone wants to believe L$ have monetary value, that is on them.

If people wish to discuss the "value" of the L$ Token, fine and dandy. Such a discussion should be wholly divested from the issue of taxation outside discussions on potential regulation of such tokens by the IRS and similar bodies.

[Solar Legion]

2 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

That's what I said, yes.

EA can make the same argument about their credits, and they- armed with better lawyers than LL- are worried about potential laws.

Which brings me back to; Sticking our heads in the sand and repeating "L$ have no value" seems like a bad idea. 

Paul, I am talking about what is, not about potential laws.

That is a wholly different discussion - one which seeks to look ahead at What Could Be/Change.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Solar Legion

[Silent Mistwalker]

17 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Erm, to nitpick a bit: The IRS says the end result (USD) of that conversion is taxable which essentially means that there are no conditions under which L$s have a monetary value as far as they are concerned. That conversion within Linden Lab's systems does not impart any sort of value to the tokens - not any meaningful one as far as taxes are concerned.

General response below:

At this point it is a back and forth over semantics - something which I simply am not interested in. If someone wants to believe L$ have monetary value, that is on them.

If people wish to discuss the "value" of the L$ Token, fine and dandy. Such a discussion should be wholly divested from the issue of taxation outside discussions on potential regulation of such tokens by the IRS and similar bodies.

 

That's in there in my posts. Just not as obvious as I thought, apparently.

To sum up, the L itself has no monetary value. Ls converted to USD do have monetary value, in the sense they are no longer Ls and have been replaced with a fiat. The conversion is what makes the difference. If you have Ls sitting in your account, they won't be taxed. If you have USD in your account (Tilia) that is taxable if the amount goes over $600USD at any point within the fiscal year. 

If your Tilia account shows a USD balance and that balance goes over $600USD within the calendar year (01/01 through 12/31) it is taxable under the current laws as income.

 

That is all I have been saying. Nothing more and nothing less. We're saying the same things, I just haven't found what page your on yet. ☺️

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Silent Mistwalker

[Solar Legion]

3 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

That's in there in my posts. Just not as obvious as I thought, apparently.

To sum up, the L itself has no monetary value. Ls converted to USD do have monetary value, in the sense they are no longer Ls and have been replaced with a fiat. The conversion is what makes the difference. If you have Ls sitting in your account, they won't be taxed. If you have USD in your account (Tilia) that is taxable if the amount goes over $600USD at any point within the fiscal year. 

If your Tilia account shows a USD balance and that balance goes over $600USD within the calendar year (01/01 through 12/31) it is taxable under the current laws as income.

 

That is all I have been saying. Nothing more and nothing less. We're saying the same things, I just haven't found what page your on yet. ☺️

 

Same page, just with far less being said in my own explanations.

[Finite]

32 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

That's what I said, yes.

EA can make the same argument about their credits, and they- armed with better lawyers than LL- are worried about potential laws.

Which brings me back to; Sticking our heads in the sand and repeating "L$ have no value" seems like a bad idea. 

Ones an 11Billion dollar company the other is private company. Did they say how much it sold for? Likely a over a billion I'd guess. Trump is barely a billionaire and he can afford lawyers all day. I don't think it's as david vs goliath as you make it out in terms of who can afford better lawyers. They both can afford equally as good lawyers.

[Paul Hexem]

49 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Paul, I am talking about what is, not about potential laws.

That is a wholly different discussion - one which seeks to look ahead at What Could Be/Change.

In that case. We're arguing just to waste each other's time.

Luckily I get paid by the hour. 

6 minutes ago, Finite said:

Ones an 11Billion dollar company the other is private company. Did they say how much it sold for? Likely a over a billion I'd guess. Trump is barely a billionaire and he can afford lawyers all day. I don't think it's as david vs goliath as you make it out in terms of who can afford better lawyers. They both can afford equally as good lawyers.

I think you missed my point.

I can afford health care- doesn't mean I should be less concerned about getting sick than someone that can't afford it. 

Point is, if the big game companies are worried, we should be paying attention. 

[Tari Landar]

2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

I only discuss what Dinkies and Tinies are because many people, especially with the use of the word "tiny" think that is human child avatars

See, this is the problem.... NO many don't actually think that at all. I certainly don't, and I doubt anyone on the forums actually does. The vast majority of tinies are not in human form at all, and NO dinkies are. So, no, that's really you just projecting, and although I'm not sure why, I do hope someday you realize that everyone around you isn't so stupid that we need this explained constantly, lol. I think this might be part of why you get what seems like crabby responses from people, because you harp on this issue a lot and constantly have this need to explain to everyone what a dinkie or a tiny is. I get that you love being a dinkie and I really do love that you love being one and love the community. I am glad you have this awesome experience and love sharing it with others.

But people aren't idiots, so treating us, even in word alone, all like we are and that none of us knows what one is, or what a tiny is, can often be seen in a very negative light when it happens over and over again. I have seen people try to explain this quite subtly, even not so subtly but in a very kind way, but it doesn't seem to register. I'm not trying to make that sounds like I'm denigrating you, but maybe you can see it from others' perspective someday, especially once you're feeling better, and it'll make more sense  

2 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

I don't feel I was coming off with a big ego and I think you judge people too harshly sometimes and especially me you are very judgmental about, and come off at times with a halo to others.

I absolutely do not have a halo, and feel I am far more flawed than most people posting here. I think you're seeing slights against you from everyone because you're not feeling well, or having a bad experience with someone else so you're painting literally everyone with the same brush, even people that agree with you.  I do judge some things some people say harshly, the same as pretty much anyone else here does. I can absolutely admit that and would never deny it. Some commentary deserves harsh judgment. There are very few PEOPLE I would judge harshly, but some commentary, absolutely. There aren't many folks on the forums that can say they don't, and be truthful about it. 

As for the rest, it's irrelevant to me, really, not my business, and I didn't comment on ANY of it, nor would I. 

I still hope you're feeling better soon. 

 

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Tari Landar said:

NO many don't actually think that at all. I certainly don't, and I doubt anyone on the forums actually does. The vast majority of tinies are not in human form at all, and NO dinkies are. So, no, that's really you just projecting, and although I'm not sure why, I do hope someday you realize that everyone around you isn't so stupid that we need this explained constantly, lol. I think this might be part of why you get what seems like crabby responses from people, because you harp on this issue a lot and constantly have this need to explain to everyone what a dinkie or a tiny is. I get that you love being a dinkie and I really do love that you love being one and love the community. I am glad you have this awesome experience and love sharing it with others.

But people aren't idiots, so treating us, even in word alone, all like we are and that none of us knows what one is, or what a tiny is, can often be seen in a very negative light when it happens over and over again. I have seen people try to explain this quite subtly, even not so subtly but in a very kind way, but it doesn't seem to register. I'm not trying to make that sounds like I'm denigrating you, but maybe you can see it from others' perspective someday, especially once you're feeling better, and it'll make more sense  

Quoted because this says it all so well.  

Fairre -- please read the above with an open mind and try to let it sink in.

[FairreLilette]

2 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

See, this is the problem.... NO many don't actually think that at all. I certainly don't, and I doubt anyone on the forums actually does. The vast majority of tinies are not in human form at all, and NO dinkies are. So, no, that's really you just projecting, and although I'm not sure why, I do hope someday you realize that everyone around you isn't so stupid that we need this explained constantly, lol. 

No, it's been said in the forums here and in a bad light re: tinies - it was said by a user something like "and they allow tiny avatars in their description" and I knew right away what she was talking about because I explained to that poster that some sims are family friendly or tiny friendly now and the tinies are not even human but humanimals and there is nothing evil going on there.  I think more people are becoming aware of what tinies are as even with the new ban I've seen on certain sims where in it says "no child-like avatars" and that is new to me at least.  Some sims like us, some sims don't.  But, I let other's know I respect their rules and go to tiny friendly sims only anyways. The last thing I want is to get into threads going off topic into child avatars which most of us have definitely had enough of threads about child avatars and I have too that I never want to be involved at all in a child avatar thread again.  Child avatar threads and Gacha threads in regards to their gambling aspect I've had enough of as they get volatile.

However, I was presenting issues calmly and rationally but then I felt he was attacking my person and my character for liking Gachas and trying to put unnecessary blame on me for another's addition to Gacha.  He started the attacks and that is what a troll does if you read up on trolls.  They don't like that the person is presenting real facts in the debate and then attacks their character out of nowhere.  The person needed to be put on block AND I needed to tell them that this kind of behavior is not right.   There was not a need to attack me.  If so in the previous pages of this thread, show me where.

As far as feeling well, I will eventually, I hope.  I have chronic fatigue syndrome.  I know what it feels like to fight mild flu for years and this CFS could happen to others via COVID.  But, thanks for the well wishes.  You take care too as we are still in the midst of a storm - and - I will think about you and LittleMeJewel said.  

Edited March 4, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Prokofy Neva]

On 3/3/2021 at 2:25 AM, Paul Hexem said:

Am not.

Every Country With Laws Against Loot Boxes (& What The Rules Are) (screenrant.com)

Game studios would be banned from selling loot boxes to minors under new bill - The Verge

Text - S.1629 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): A bill to regulate certain pay-to-win microtransactions and sales of loot boxes in interactive digital entertainment products, and for other purposes. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

How will the video game industry deal with loot box legislation? (businessinsider.com)

Loot Box Update - Lexology

I have to chuckle that you think you've made a case here for your impression that "gatchas are going to be removed from Second Life by legislation".

I mean, do you know How a Bill becomes a Law? (This isn't taught in schools as well as it once was.) Do you know who introduced this law? Do you know it's current status? Obviously you don't.

These are the type of scare stories that the media loves and that give them "dwell" because gamerz click on them.

Not sure if you are in the US or not but the Senator pushing this idea is none other than Sen. Josh Hawley. How should I put this? He was among the people who tried to storm Congress by force in the Insurrection of January 6, but failed, and who are now being arrested, one by one.

Are you in America? Do you understand who he is? I mean, this article helps you understand how this Republican senator from Missouri also, on some issues, has the kind of weird socialist views that people like this can have in America, such that Bernie Sanders cooperates with him. Missouri is one of the poorest states in America. I can vividly visualize the scene in a trucker's cafe in Tightwad, MO. They all wear truckers' hats. Today, all those hats might say MEGA, or might not but MO is a Red state. It's known as a bellwether which has also voted for the president who won, except for 1956. Now you have to add "and 2020" to the wiki. And so forth and so on. I'm not paid to assess the viability of virtual worlds in terms of the state of play at the US Congress, like lobbyists at Facebook or Google paid 6 figures. LL is a small operation, but they may have someone who goes to Washington like once every few years and they would know better. If they needed to turn out the troops for some sort of bill in Congress, which they do in a sort of mild way for something like "Net Neutrality", they will. They haven't for this. Because it's not a thing.

And that's because -- how could I explain this to a non-American if you are not an American? He's not, er. representative. Even of voters in his own party.

Here's the most famous picture of Hawley now, leading the Jan. 6 insurrection. There are operatives things to discuss here, then. Will Sen. Hawley be in his job, so to speak, savaging Second Life this year? Or will he be in jail? It's that stark. If he remains out of stir, will he focus on THIS or maybe other populist things like the stimulus checks or minimum wage that will have more popularity.

Now let's look at your helpful law site. This law site, which is only a site of lawyers paid to interpret law or who lobby for laws but who do not actually make law. Their opinion is interesting, but not definitive, and now completely out of date. It is interesting, but it is dated August 2020. That is, it is dated during the pandemic 7 months ago, and that's useful to know, but even even though this commentator factors in the more important role of virtual worlds, he hasn't perhaps grasped yet (at that time, discussing a workshop the year before) that the pandemic isn't over, and that virtual worlds and virtual platforms and such might get a very different viewing in SL. In fact, he lurches off to discuss related but not identical issues in gaming at the FTC and curiously, never tells us the actual status of that bill even at that time, which is odd, because it was dead at that time. Here's what he says in August 2020, which is why, as Twitter's Net Nanny now asks you to do, you should read articles you link to, all the way down to the end:

Legal conclusions about loot boxes remain challenging, and that is unlikely to change soon

That is, he's like you to remain worried so you will go on hiring him at $400/hour or more. He's not the best source on the actuality of this bill which is not a law.

I don't have time now to study Hawley's motivations in trying to draft a bill of this nature. His religion forbids gambling and he has decided this could be gambling and help him get born-against to vote? His politics involve some sort of populist faux concern for workers that he thinks are losing their wages to one-armed bandits" He's for a minimum wage in his poor state being raised, anyway, that's popular. Does he know that the average loss here in this virtual world is US $4.00, and that the items are sometimes re-sold to regain half, or the same, or a greater amount? I mean what poker chip in Las Vegas lets you do that? Are those people who might have lost US $4.00 on a gatcha machine in Missouri? Did they vote for him? 

So now I invite you to look at dates. This bill was posted in 2019. That is, in pre-historic times. It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (Because draft bills are not self-executing code that immediately stops something.)

That Committee is a little less likely to adopt the programs of born-again populist conservatives wanting to stop some for of business or culture they don't like, and try to find ways to encourage it, especially in a pandemic. Note that this committee also has the helpful word in it of "Science". That means someone will likely get not just Congressional Research Service, which may have "nothing" on virtual worlds in its files (but I bet it does, knowing some of the people there at least from my RL field). It likely won't just be CRS that examines this matter, but some LA will be commissioned to study this and could be studying this now, but somehow...I don't think so.

And then there's this...CST is now headed by a woman congress person, the first time in US history. She is a Democrat, from the state of Washington. That is a state where big tech companies are located, some of which moved from California which was too chaotic. If lootboxes are in the interests of big tech companies to allow, and I think they are, I think Maria will do the right thing here. I don't know. Someone can study it, visit her, talk to her. I know nothing about her and don't have time for an in-depth study, but while she was in the wilderness, beaten by a Republican in the 1990s, she was Vice President of Marketing for RealNetworks. Read that again. That means she will know Philip Rosedale who did the engineering for Real back in the day when its players were on every web site, in the 1990s. I think Philip will grasp that gatchas make up the economy in SL, for better or worse, and while he is no longer here and likely doesn't have that much influence on it, he might be expected to explain to her why she needs to keep that bill in its current DEAD status. You know? I mean, just thinking out loud what paths there might be on this.

It was referred to committee on 5/23/2019, and there it sits. Today is 3/4/2021, nearly two years later. 

Now with bills in Congress, as I know from being interested in them in my field, or when they affect me, you need to look at a variety of tracking sites, first Thomas.loc.gov which is the UR site and the site of Congress itself, then all the others, which can have varying levels of information.

Govtrack is one of the better sorts of these sites, of which there are now a dozen, of varying qualities and ideologies (this was is leftist, so you need to read lots of them in my view, but for the purposes of our current exercise, I think they have definitely described it

And that status is aptly described as DIED IN A PREVIOUS CONGRESS. Introduced WITHOUT A VOTE. So I would say it is "dead in the water" pretty much forever.

What I marvel at is your idea, that so many techies share because they think in terms of "code as law" and look at search-strings, and don't understand how "law as law" is made and more importantly enforced, is that this bill, by this senator, is only a bill. It didn't become a law yet. It didn't attract support. It may never attract support now at all, because 1) the persona of Hawley loathed by many, even some of his fellow GOP member and 2) in a pandemic, people are more friendly to virtual worlds, not less. Remember, LL's sale essentially sailed through the regulatory bodies in record time.

So please, Paul, for your own sake, leave the smugness and savagery at the door. I realize it is particularly forums sport to imagine that external, powerful forces in the real world like "Google" or "Congress" or "the Kremlin" might be deployed to kill whatever you don't like in Second Life, leaving you chortling that you have crushed your enemies because you "saw it coming". Or leave you superior that, if you aren't interested in killing off gatcha, that you were "smart" and "right" because you could Google and paste.

But you have to exercise a little better judgement here on your police work here, Lou.

You and your friends may go and hit the likey-like button on that web site with a "no" -- but that's not Congress itself. You won't budge this from DEAD status.

You might try sending 10 million "nos" to the FTC, which is how techs try to change regulations like "Net Neutrality" which actually is about scarce resources, but in fact neither the FTC or Congress changes that way and there is currently no proposition on the FTC page on this matter because it's not their matter.

Maybe in the world of Second Life, under Oz's reign, voting can be removed entirely from the JIRA, to the applause of hall monitors who liked to get rid of other people's "bills" they didn't like. But in the real world, the JIRA still has a "no vote" still. It hasn't been programmed out. This bill did not get to the senate. Republicans do not control the Congress now. Even if they do in another turn of the wheel, the chance of a populist born-again trying to kill something like this off are probably slim.

The lurid headlines equating lootboxes in games are inaccurate when it comes to what a gatcha is, which is not a lootbox for lots of reasons. It's marked clearly. It has a valuable item of some kind on each pull, not "nothing". It's on transfer, and can be resold. Etc.

No one likes my posts, but this one is fact-filled, with very helpful links, and again, facts. Click and save it. Use it to track this bill or do what you like. Do not try to paste old news links and lawyers' paid opinions are reality again, please.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Prokofy Neva

[Rowan Amore]

Although it might be in the above wordsalad, the bill does say it applies to minors, those under the age of 18.

This bill prohibits the publication or distribution of interactive video games and digital entertainment products that (1) include pay-to-win features and (2) are targeted to minors under the age of 18.

Pay-to-win features include making available for purchase assistance, advantages, or other awards that a reasonable user would perceive provides a competitive advantage in the progression of the game or product over those users who do not make such purchase. Pay-to-play features do not include purchases (1) that alter only the appearance of the game, (2) of game modes that make game-play progression more difficult that without such purchase, or (3) of add-ons that do not assist in the progression of the underlying game or product.

Additionally, game publishers and distributors are prohibited from including pay-to-play features in games and digital entertainment products that are not targeted to minors but where the publisher or distributor reasonably should know that minors use such games or products.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Rowan Amore

[Drayke Newall]

22 hours ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Also, its in the TOS that L$ have no cash value. 

It has been mentioned in these forums before that TOS's mean diddley squat when it comes to laws in other countries. Whilst yes LL is an American company and yes the IRS (or linden lab) don't consider $L that haven't been converted to USD as taxable, that isn't necessarily the same for other countries.

Australia for instance considers both taxable. "The real world value of a transaction may form part of your taxable income, even if it is in Linden dollars, the ATO spokeswoman says." This being the case directly implies that in Australia at least the L$ does indeed have a cash value.

If such regulations on loot boxes comes into play considering gachas just remotely resemble a loot box it would be in LL best interest to ban them just in case they are treated the same. Reading the Legislation @Paul Hexem posted it also mentions things that "adds to or enhances the entertainment value of the product". Considering Second Life isn't a usual game in that there is no progression, I would dare say that the "enhances the entertainment" definition to be very difficult for LL to justify that gacha's are different.

Even if America doesn't pass the law and other countries do it does open up a can of worms for LL considering it is, like other game developers, multi national. This would mean LL having to provide one 'system' for other countries and another for the usa, which would never happen and therefore would mean LL needing to step in and restrict them like skill gaming regions which would diminish the uesrbase accessing them making them non profitable. EA tried this and found it to expensive to have one version of a game for USA and another for other countries so scraped them all together.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Drayke Newall

[Prokofy Neva]

4 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Although it might be in the above wordsalad, the bill does say it applies to minors, those under the age of 18.

This bill prohibits the publication or distribution of interactive video games and digital entertainment products that (1) include pay-to-win features and (2) are targeted to minors under the age of 18.

Pay-to-win features include making available for purchase assistance, advantages, or other awards that a reasonable user would perceive provides a competitive advantage in the progression of the game or product over those users who do not make such purchase. Pay-to-play features do not include purchases (1) that alter only the appearance of the game, (2) of game modes that make game-play progression more difficult that without such purchase, or (3) of add-ons that do not assist in the progression of the underlying game or product.

Additionally, game publishers and distributors are prohibited from including pay-to-play features in games and digital entertainment products that are not targeted to minors but where the publisher or distributor reasonably should know that minors use such games or products.

Um, you might want to just look at the picture, for those who don't want to read what they feel are "word salads" but which carefully refute every misleading and fake claim made in the media and on this thread about this "law" that is supposedly "coming".

So again, it was a bill published in 2019. When it got to committee, it was not put to a vote. It is now declared DEAD from a previous session of Congress. Now, 2 years later.

DEAD.

Read then the other nuanced interpretations of what you think as word salad that explain why it will remain DEAD.

I personally am not willing to turn my mind into a word salad to code and talk to machines, as you and others have. I like to do what I call "read" and "comprehend".

You can read through this field of search strings and ignore a lot of things, and focus on "under age 18" if you like.

But try again and find the word DEAD.

 

[Prokofy Neva]

2 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

It has been mentioned in these forums before that TOS's mean diddley squat when it comes to laws in other countries. Whilst yes LL is an American company and yes the IRS (or linden lab) don't consider $L that haven't been converted to USD as taxable, that isn't necessarily the same for other countries.

Australia for instance considers both taxable. "The real world value of a transaction may form part of your taxable income, even if it is in Linden dollars, the ATO spokeswoman says." This being the case directly implies that in Australia at least the L$ does indeed have a cash value.

If such regulations on loot boxes comes into play considering gachas just remotely resemble a loot box it would be in LL best interest to ban them just in case they are treated the same. Reading the Legislation @Paul Hexem posted it also mentions things that "adds to or enhances the entertainment value of the product". Considering Second Life isn't a usual game in that there is no progression, I would dare say that the "enhances the entertainment" definition to be very difficult for LL to justify that gacha's are different.

Even if America doesn't pass the law and other countries do it does open up a can of worms for LL considering it is, like other game developers, multi national. This would mean LL having to provide one 'system' for other countries and another for the usa, which would never happen and therefore would mean LL needing to step in and restrict them like skill gaming regions which would diminish the uesrbase accessing them making them non profitable. EA tried this and found it to expensive to have one version of a game for USA and another for other countries so scraped them all together.

None of what you say is relevant because LL abolished gambling not because other countries did, and did not create two separate versions of the game with these more restricted skill gaming areas.

Online gambling was restricted in the US, mainly to stop losses from online poker playing.

LL began to roll it up soon after. Not quickly enough, and with some backsliding, and credit card companies told them they would lose their services if they did not remove gambling and banks and stock markets and all unlawful entities. So then they did.

They created "skilled gaming" as a way to accommodate the small but very loud and connected minority that wanted to keep gaming.

I create lists of real life sims in SL with real life languages and countries. From what I can tell going to all these sims overt time, the majority of skill gaming sites are run by avatars who appear to be from Asian and Arabic countries, in some cases, where there are laxer rules about gambling. Not injured American war veterans, which was once the case in SL. But they still conform to the TOS and US law, from what I can tell.

I can't see any likelihood of any 2 games being made here at all -- the law is in the US, LL conforms to it throughout. They created skilled gaming to accommodate some Asian, Arabic and yes, American players.