Jump to content

Where is the official Gacha Policy?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 92 days.

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

Recommended Posts

So, I apologize for yet another topic on the Gacha ban, but all of them seem to veer off topic, and I want to ask a very specific question, and arrive at a somewhat specific answer:

It's September First. Where in the Terms of Service (ToS) or Policy guidelines does it now say that Gacha machines are banned?

The only official thing I've seen is the blog post. Are blog posts to be taken as official Linden Lab policy? if so, how is one expected to parse the normative from the non-normative posts to arrive at an understanding of the rules they're expected to adhere to?

 

The main reason I ask is because "[Gacha] is defined by a chance-based outcome as a result of a payment." Which by my reading disallows conveyors, (the next item to be sold is a chance-based outcome as a result of the payment, even if the item you receive is not.) is inconsistent with "We will continue to allow any sales where a payment is given for a known item" which explicitly allows them.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i found it. This is from a link at the bottom of the tos page.

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

Policy

It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second Life® environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games: 

  1. Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quistess Alpha said:

The main reason I ask is because "[Gacha] is defined by a chance-based outcome as a result of a payment

It probably could be worded better.  It should say if you receive a chance-based (random) item when you buy it,  that is not allowed.   Your interpretation is wrong.

The TOS is not updated - it's only Sept 1st.  I think their attorneys are still figuring out how to handle special/limited edition breedables.

 

Edited by Jaylinbridges
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Quistess Alpha said:

So, I apologize for yet another topic on the Gacha ban, but all of them seem to veer off topic, and I want to ask a very specific question, and arrive at a somewhat specific answer:

It's September First. Where in the Terms of Service (ToS) or Policy guidelines does it now say that Gacha machines are banned?

The only official thing I've seen is the blog post. Are blog posts to be taken as official Linden Lab policy? if so, how is one expected to parse the normative from the non-normative posts to arrive at an understanding of the rules they're expected to adhere to?

 

The main reason I ask is because "[Gacha] is defined by a chance-based outcome as a result of a payment." Which by my reading disallows conveyors, (the next item to be sold is a chance-based outcome as a result of the payment, even if the item you receive is not.) is inconsistent with "We will continue to allow any sales where a payment is given for a known item" which explicitly allows them.

 

Let's go over it again.

"Chance-based outcome as a result of a payment" obviously has a sequence: 1) first a payment 2) then a random drop of an item that you can't see. That is what is banned.

Conveyors have randomness, but no blind purchase. On a conveyor, the sequence is 1) FIRST the item displays -- hello! 2) THEN you decide to buy it, if you want that one.

On some of them 3 of them display at once, so you might see a rare in the queue. You can see everything coming up. You can then decide to purchase the two before a rare, or wait for someone else to purchase it, or way for it to move, if it works that way. 

There is NO "chance-based outcome" on a conveyor as you can *see what there is to buy first, before buying it*.

If you can use a term like "normative," surely you can see the sequencing and logic here.

I also have to wonder what your interest is in pestering the Lindens on this issue and why you need to police your fellow residents. Let the Lindens do the policing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

If you can use a term like "normative," surely you can see the sequencing and logic here.

On a conveyor: 1) I pay the vendor 2) the vendor gives me the thing on display. 3) The vendor changes its internal state via a random or pseudorandom process such that it now vends a different item.

Pray explain to me how 3 is not an outcome of 1.

Edited by Quistess Alpha
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

On a conveyor: 1) I pay the vendor 2) the vendor gives me the thing on display. 3) The vendor changes its internal state via a random or pseudorandom process such that it now vends a different item.

Pray explain to me how 3 is not an outcome of 1.

The 'outcome' is what you have bought, not what you haven't bought which is what shows up next.  You don't have to purchase the next random item.  It's the random 'random purchase' that is disallowed.

Edited by Rowan Amore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

On a conveyor: 1) I pay the vendor 2) the vendor gives me the thing on display. 3) The vendor changes its internal state via a random or pseudorandom process such that it now vends a different item.

Pray explain to me how 3 is not an outcome of 1.

Um, it doesn't matter, because I have purchased an item that I saw before purchasing. That is the only relevant state here.

That the next item comes randomly to be seen by me or anyone else ahead of time, before a purchase DOES NOT MATTER. Again, that is all that is relevant if WHETHER I CAN SEE IT IN ADVANCE OF PURCHASE.

Um, what is "pseudo-random"? Random is random. If it is random based on a percentage of chance still in terms of rares (and I'm not certain it is), again, it DOES NOT MATTER as the issue with lootboxes and all the known lawsuits about them is that children -- children -- were buying without seeing what they were getting and spending a lot of money on the way to getting that item, *which was needed for gameplay advance*.

SL has no children nor game needed to advance in -- unless you mean the forums and its achievements awards.

But most relevantly, there is no blind purchase. And that's the issue.

Again, WHAT is your interest in policing this matter against your fellow residents?! 

Edited by Prokofy Neva
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

The 'outcome' is what you have bought

I do a thing, and something changes. If I buy the last piece of candy from a store, then an outcome of that is that the kid behind me can not buy that piece of candy.

Quote

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outcome

something that follows as a result or consequence

perhaps LL has a different dictionary?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Quistess Alpha said:

 

I do a thing, and something changes. If I buy the last piece of candy from a store, then an outcome of that is that the kid behind me can not buy that piece of candy.

perhaps LL has a different dictionary?

It's still the purchase of a random 'unknown' item that is banned.  Anyone can put up a vendor of regular items.  Instead of using the arrow to advance the vendor to the item you want to purchase, these new vendors remove that choice.  You can still purchase the item seen if you like it.  The next item, although a random item, is still known so you can choose to purchase or not.  There is no chance of purchasing something unknown.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

pseudo-random

off topic, but as a point of information, a random thing is unpredictable, like nuclear decay. pseudorandom is completely predictable if you have access to hidden information, but very hard to predict otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudorandom_number_generators

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

It's still the purchase of a random 'unknown' item that is banned. 

My point is that I have yet to see that said directly by Linden Lab. do you have a quote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Quistess Alpha said:

 

I do a thing, and something changes. If I buy the last piece of candy from a store, then an outcome of that is that the kid behind me can not buy that piece of candy.

perhaps LL has a different dictionary?

If you're going to play 0/1 thinking, then do it all the way and consistently.

The outcome of my purchase of the thing I saw ahead of time is that the item I saw goes into my inventory. THAT is the outcome. The outcome is NOT the next thing in the sequence, that another random thing comes down the chute.

You're grasping at straws, but the more important question is, again: why do you feel the need to police your fellow residents and goad LL about a police that they already stated on their web site, with which merchants have complied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

 why do you feel the need to police your fellow residents

...because 3% of people can't control themselves even though 65-70% of people find it moral.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

why do you feel the need to police your fellow residents

I just stumbled into this thread, so pardon me if I missed reading something.... I haven't seen anything that suggests Tessa is policing anyone.  She's just asking where the policy is written down.  As far as I know, it's not, yet.  It was laid out in the blog post and explained in some conversations, but it's not in the TOS or a written policy yet, AFAIK.  Until it is, as Bree says, the Gambling policy is our best reference.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to start another topic - but Kittycats, a breedable, just announced how they are exempt from the Gacha ban:

As long as you know two features for what you are buying, it passes as a known item you are buying.  Here is their example:

LL clarified when they state ‘root level’ this means user must know minimum of 2 characteristics they are getting With purchase.
Examples:
– it’s boy cat. (Boy + cat=2)
– cat with genesis ears and apple eyes. (Ears + eye color  + cat =3)
– a cat with a curious tail and natural shade. (Tail + shade + cat =3)

So if a Gacha was selling silver statues, and it is a statue (1) and silver (2), that would pass, as a known item.  The actual shape, design, size, or other features would not be important.  Of course this breedable rule is only for breedables.  A boy cat is enough, other features, such as fur, color, size, costume etc,  are not needed to pass.  This is the cat as purchased, and has nothing to do with the hidden traits or kittens, which are already exempt because you are not buying those directly.

Edited by Jaylinbridges
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

LL clarified when they state ‘root level’ this means user must know minimum of 2 characteristics they are getting With purchase.

i get the idea behind this rule

as if it wasn't a minimum of 2 then some people will no doubt start complaining about not every fatpack color being displayed on the vendor and therefore I had to buy a fatpack with some colors I never knew about before I bought it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the Gacha is for a woman and is a dress, that is two.  Color not important.  Woman + Dress = 2.

Anyway a clever pass for Kittycats.  There is no way to tell the gender of a kittycat - you have to rely on what it claims on it's packing box.

 

 

Edited by Jaylinbridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quistess Alpha said:

off topic, but as a point of information, a random thing is unpredictable, like nuclear decay. pseudorandom is completely predictable if you have access to hidden information, but very hard to predict otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_number_generator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudorandom_number_generators

My point is that I have yet to see that said directly by Linden Lab. do you have a quote?

Q:  Could a “conveyor belt” system work?  

Example:  The vendor board selects an item at random and displays it for purchase.  That item remains on display and available for purchase until a buyer touches the vendor which locks it to them for purchase.  This allowed the buyer to purchase the item and deliver it.  The vendor unlocks and then selects another item at random and displays it for purchase and the cycle repeats.

Example image here and credit to Nadi Vemo for the approved vendor design.

A:  Yes, as long as the item currently being purchased is known. Note however that you should discontinue the use of the “gacha” term for these sales. 

Note bolded part in answer.  What you are.purchasing is known.  That is ALL that matters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I just stumbled into this thread, so pardon me if I missed reading something.... I haven't seen anything that suggests Tessa is policing anyone.  She's just asking where the policy is written down.  As far as I know, it's not, yet.  It was laid out in the blog post and explained in some conversations, but it's not in the TOS or a written policy yet, AFAIK.  Until it is, as Bree says, the Gambling policy is our best reference.

She's not merely asking where the policy is written down, Rolig, as you can see above. She is drilling over and over on how the conveyor script can possibly comply with the policy and scouting for reasons why it should be disqualified -- and putting not just a literalist construction on the notion of randomness but a specious one.

I don't see that she's in any business relevant to any of this, so it can only be seen as part of the overall mob here on the forums keen to stamp out "gambling" and root out any possible sin of their fellow resident. You can surely see by the constant parsing of terms here that are obvious that she is looking for trouble. I totally get that you default to seeing your fellow coder in a positive light and acting in good faith. I don't see any good faith here whatsoever. Since when do residents get busy trying to pressure Lindens to add even more restrictions to their TOS?! Why harass and harry someone trying to find a way to salvage their business? Isn't it enough that the Lindens set restrictions without the hollering of the mob here doing even more? 

And it's a mob that's unavailable for any other moral crusading on other topics that are far more worrisome such as slavery and capture roleplay. 

Edited by Prokofy Neva
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I totally get that you default to seeing your fellow coder in a positive light and acting in good faith.

Oh, pooh.  She's trying to write scripts for vendors that will be in compliance, so she just wants to be sure she knows what the rules are, Prok.  I have no interest in doing that myself, but if I did, I wouldn't want to waste all my time coding something that will be against the rules.  It's an innocent question, definitely in good faith.  She's in business and wants to create products that will be legal in the changing marketplace.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Since when do residents get busy trying to pressure Lindens to add even more restrictions to their TOS?! 

When the rules change, it is expected that they are clearly codified in the ToS and AuP.

That is the reference document for acceptable content going forward.

This is for the avoidance of doubt and not requiring people to know about long lost blog posts or forum threads.

It's literally the least we can expect.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Q:  Could a “conveyor belt” system work?  

Example:  The vendor board selects an item at random and displays it for purchase.  That item remains on display and available for purchase until a buyer touches the vendor which locks it to them for purchase.  This allowed the buyer to purchase the item and deliver it.  The vendor unlocks and then selects another item at random and displays it for purchase and the cycle repeats.

Example image here and credit to Nadi Vemo for the approved vendor design.

A:  Yes, as long as the item currently being purchased is known. Note however that you should discontinue the use of the “gacha” term for these sales. 

Note bolded part in answer.  What you are.purchasing is known.  That is ALL that matters.

Parsing "pseudorandom" and "random" here is a distraction when randomness of any kind is not the issue.

"As long as the item currently being purchased is known". The end". How it came to be known does not matter. Start a side discussion on Shannon entropy; discuss turbulence and sun spots -- it doesn't matter. And PS when there is a key of 8 or 10 items in front of you, it's  not really all that random to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

When the rules change, it is expected that they are clearly codified in the ToS and AuP.

That is the reference document for acceptable content going forward.

This is for the avoidance of doubt and not requiring people to know about long lost blog posts or forum threads.

It's literally the least we can expect.

Do you run a store with vendors and are you trying to make the transition from gatcha machines to other style of vendors?

Does Quistess?

I don't see that either of you do. Therefore your agitation here appears to be vigilantism and the usual forums "aggressively obedient minority" at work. I marvel that you can pretend it is in good faith, merely seeking information. 

Who is the "we" that is expecting this? Not the target population of the policy, surely. They have all read the policy, copied it, seen the updates, and complied with it. If they haven't, no doubt some of you will be out with script radars and flashlights to round up the usual suspects. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 92 days.

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...