Yingzi Xue

I stopped by one of the largest gaming operations I've ever seen, yesterday in SL. I couldn't believe the size of this place. It takes up two private regions. 72 Greed (payable Greedy) divided up into 3 locations of 24 30 Stomp the Fox 2 44 Money Vault 58 Bugz 44 4Play 44 Devil Hunt 44 No Devil 44 Reel Wild 58 Reel Wild Progressive 42 Wizard 58 Enchanted Not a gambling operation at all. People stop by for the wholesome environment and to test their skill. At least for another 10 days.

secrets88 wrote: Operators who have applied for an operator licence and that is still not approved or refused can still operate games after the 1st of August as per "you may continue to operate games of skill while your application is being reviewed." But would they still be able to operate on a NOT Skill gaming regions while their application is being reviewed ? That's a good question. You know, it's kind of a paradox if you think about it. Operators want to get games approved, but there are no games to ask to be approved yet, which means waiting on the creators. Operators can apply for games that haven't been approved and risk losing the application fee if the game hasn't even been submitted by the creator. Any way you look at it, a smart operator would wait on game creators to submit their games, then apply when the time is right.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Yingzi Xue wrote: There may be a gray area with the wagering policy which prohibits payout in Lindens or a thing of value. It also talks about chance. Who can argue that racing doesn't have an element of chance? On those two alone one could come to the conclusion that racing may not be allowed if a prize of any kind is awarded. I don't know. I would differentiate, in RL, as does the law (at least in the UK) between a cash prize awarded to the winner of a race or other sporting event and the money people may win by betting on the outcome. If I put up a cash prize for the winner, and the winner doesn't have to pay to enter my event, I can't see how it's gambing. The LL policy forbids wagering on events. What's the wager? I'm organising the event to attract visitors to my sim, and maybe hoping they'll buy whatever items I'm selling that are relevant to the race (motorbikes, maybe), but I can't see how any of that is betting. ETA: Here's what Linden Lab Official: Policy Regarding Wagering in Second Life says: The term "wagering" applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary. The point I was trying to make (albeit in an obscure way) is that, regardless of whether you pay in or not, you're relying on chance or skill to win a prize. The only difference is you're not putting up your own money to do it. The skill gaming policy reads that a game must be pay-in and pay-out to be considered within the scope of the policy. If you look at the wagering policy, it covers chance and sport betting. You're still "betting" on yourself in a race, even if you don't post any money as a bet. You're still trying to win that prize. The fact that pay-in has to be involved (as per the policy) doesn't change the fact that if you lose, you lose the prize, which basically gambling on yourself without paying in; you still lose. Now, again, this isn't pertinent to the discussion at hand, but I thought it should be considered in the grand scheme of things, that prizes in general are won by chance or skill... and the only separator is pay-in (financial loss vs loss of pride and the prize). It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

This is my perspective as an adult sandbox owner: I had a child avatar show up on my sandbox naked. The avatar's display name was "Little P*&&@". I immediately took notice. Next they invited another child avatar (or brought an alt). This child avatar was also naked and was wearing a female genitalia object. What would your first impression be? As an owner of an adult sandbox, I see naked avatars on a regular basis. This time I felt it crossed the line, so I banned and ejected... but not without getting an earful from the avatar about how I was intolerant. Any reasonable person would surmise these child avatars were not wholesome in the least. I own the land, I can choose who I will allow on it. That's what the ban list is for. I also echo what the above reply says, why are they in an adult area anyway?

Innula Zenovka wrote: Regardless of the legal issues Gavin identifies, what would you say is the minimum population of actively gaming (or gambling) avatars needed to make it worth running such games in either of those grids? Innula is right. Go visit those grids, you'll find them empty. I don't think gambler types will leave SL just to visit and play on a vacant grid. They'll seek their fix elsewhere.

Marishka Ixito wrote: Of course you are right, there's no reasonable option to interprete the given definition in any other way. All four requirements must be met. The only escape I see is in the bit you left out, "game, implemented through an Inworld object:" Unless avatars count as an "in-world object", pay to play games that offer monetary prizes could still be implemented through direct payment to an avatar. I would suggest to LindenLabs to include "and/or bot" in its definition of skill games that are subject to the new regulation if they want to cover their loophole ass a bit more.. Since can use llGetObjectDetails on an avatar, to get information about them, I dare say they are considered an object in SL. *grin*

The cap is 200. I have a hovercraft script that will speed across a region in a little over a second when I set it to 200m/s. If you look at the wiki, it's the decay that's capped at 30m/s. EDIT: Correction. I think it's capped at 250m/s, which is as fast as an avatar can travel per the limits. I just tested 250 and it seems to work as expected, although I can't measure the speed due to sim crossings and lack of a long enough straightaway, but it's fast. lol I did test this going up but there is resistance (gravity?) which keeps you from hitting the full 250.

Let's not forget that receiving a prize or dollar amount for a competitive or chance activity is really gambling. In my opinion the wagering policy and the skill gaming policy overlap for a one-two punch. If it feels like gambling or chance and there is a reward for activity it most likely falls under sport, chance or skill.

There may be a gray area with the wagering policy which prohibits payout in Lindens or a thing of value. It also talks about chance. Who can argue that racing doesn't have an element of chance? On those two alone one could come to the conclusion that racing may not be allowed if a prize of any kind is awarded.

OhanaGaming wrote: I sit and question a few issues and things. They are now putting a ban or restriction on those 10 states listed after so long. 1: Does this mean child avatars will not be allowed over to the new gaming sims? 2: Why all of sudden the major change and giving such a short amount of time due to those who own a gaming sim? 3: Why those 10 states that are listed? If the reasoning is due to it is not legal for online gambling in those states then ask yourself is it legal for escorting in certain states as we have that in sl. Putting a restriction on certain people of not beling able to enter the new gaming areas after so long of allowing it for everyone. 1: It is going to make it harder for those who own a gaming sim on making any type of income from it to possibly be able to pay for the fees that are included in this new update. 2: The number of people in the group is going to drop due to the restriction. This all is going to make a major change in sl and out come of those who enter sl now may drop due to this. I know there were several people who made a income from gambling to support RL or to have some type of income to be able to purchase things they want or need in sl. Due to alot of people are not willing to load real cash into the game. This is going to force some to find a new way to get that income or not enter sl no more. This is something that i am sure alot sit and question or ponder on. As i am one of the owners of a gaming sim and with this change i feel it unfair and hopes things change before this becomes final, because we were a family based sim were all were able to come enjoy themselves. So you think it's unfair that LL is finally moving on gambling, despite the fact it was banned in 2007... but you don't think it's unfair to make profits on gambling, a banned activity. LL has done little to enforce the existing policy of wagering and the vetting of games of skill in general. It was only a matter of time before the cash cow ended. If you knowingly went against the gambling ban (which it sounds like you did), then you're getting off pretty easy in my opinion, having to conform instead of being outright banned or worse for gambling activities in SL. The announcement was on July 9th. Twenty two days is a decent time to get your ducks in a row (i.e. close shop, change your business model). If you relied solely on gambling as a source of SL income... well, I guess that's unfortunate, but it isn't LL's fault you made a choice to run a gambling outfit. I do think it's LL's fault they've waited so long to enforce the rules on gaming, but really we have no say in what they do. There's an old saying... If you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler. Hem hawing and hand wringing isn't going to change LL's mind on its new skill gaming policy, which is really just an extension of existing policies laid out in more detail with a vetting process.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: It is a game. Sports are a game also. Football games, Olympic games, etc. Just a little comment here. Something is only a game if it has gameplay. E.g. football has gameplay and is therefore a game. Running (your Olympic games example) has no gameplay and is not a game. It's a sport. Some things are both a sport and a game; e.g. football. Excerpt from the wagering 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: Rely on chance or random number generation to determine a winner,OR Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events, AND provide a payout in Linden Dollars (L$)OR Any real-world currency or thing of value. What does "wagering" mean according to this policy? The term "wagering" applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary. Although this scope may be open to interpretation not to cover in-world sporting events, I think it's a stretch to think they didn't mean any sporting event, in-world or real-world. The very act of adding money to a pot, table game, house game, Bingo (i.e. Zyngo and the countless copycats)... all of these things were banned years ago with the wagering policy.

Sorina Garrigus wrote: It is a game. Sports are a game also. Football games, Olympic games, etc. Additionally it is a video game really comparable to mario cart. I hate it also but this affects a LOT of content in SL and racing is definitely a game of skill. I am somewhat of a semi expert on games as I own a game store in SL and RL and deal with games all day long. Its a big mess. LL needs to get their heads on straight and think things through. Why does money have to be a factor in skill games at all? Shouldn't games be about enjoyment instead of money? I know gambling is a rush, but it was banned in 2007. It's LL's fault that it's gotten this far again. I can see from visiting your business that you are one of the bigger "skill" gaming locations in SL. You have a lot to lose. I've never seen so many games in one place, most of which are based around pay-in/pay-out (gambling). I can't imagine the amount of money you've been raking in over the years. As others have already stated in this thread, the skill gaming policy is most likely to protect LL from liability due to increased scrutiny. This isn't the infancy of internet-based tech/media anymore, things are changing fast and more control and accountability are coming to bear. The skill gaming policy should've been clearly defined and regulated back in 2007 to curtail future gambling game development. I'm surprised it's lasted as long as it has. I fail to see how prolonging it weeks or months would do anything but allow the game operators to make more money on a banned game concept and prolong the inevitable. By the way, I commend you on the design of your casino, it's one of the nicer ones I've seen and it actually feels like a casino. You've captured it well.

Perrie Juran wrote: daisybloomer wrote: secrets88 wrote: A sworn affidavit must be notarized, I believe ? Yes sworn affidavits must be witnessed and notarized. Bullshiat. Stop giving legal advice. The requirements for an affidavit will vary by State in the U.S. and I'd have no idea what it is for other Countries. That is a question that needs answered by LL. I'm sure LL is going to list the affidavit requirements for ever state. lol It's up to YOU to find out what is required in your state for an affidavit to be properly prepared. Now if LL lists one common standard, sure... but that's not likely to happen.

Anabella Mosely wrote: So let me get this straight....If you live in one the prohibited states you won't even be able to get onto a sim that is considered "gaming" Which means even if you don't play the games but work as a host then you are out of a job and can no longer make L's within the realm of SL without doing something else...Like stripping...hosting at a club..and/or dj'ing....At least that is my understanding of it. That those that currently work at gaming places and live in one of those states won't be allowed to get on the sim once it goes into a "gaming region" Correct me if I am wrong on this...Can see how this is going to hurt a lot of the regions that do gaming. I already know of one place that has said they are going to shut their doors for good. There are more jobs in Second Life than just being a host or a DJ at a club. No you don't have to be a stripper or do anything adult. The Wanted and Inworld Employment forums exist for finding jobs.

Are you using SL prims? Converting SL prims to mesh via Mesh Studio? Making them in Blender or other 3D modeling software? Unless they're floor to ceiling, physics shape won't matter. You can reduce prim count in SL prim windows by linking the window prims together, then setting all but the root to CONVEX HULL or NONE using the Features tab drop-down and look at the change in land impact/prims. Note that the root prim cannot be NONE, it has to have a physics shape. You can also link the windows to the build allowing you to make all of your window prims NONE or CONVEX HULL, whichever gives you more prim savings. Another method is Mesh Studio, use it to convert your prims to mesh. Set faces individual colors to separate them from each other. Set inner faces to SL's default transparent texture (I have a script that automates this process; IM me in-world for a copy). The inner faces that are transparent will be negated, maximizing prim savings. Third method, just create the windows in Blender, the description of which is beyond the scope of this forum; plenty of tutorials on YouTube.

Read the wiki, people! It answers most of these repetitive questions. If you're looking for clarity of the language, that's up to you to interpret, which is why LL is intentionally vague and has posted the wiki excerpts a million times. Links are available on page 1 of this thread, first post, but if you're too lazy to click twice, here: Skill Gaming Policy Read it, take it literally, interpret it as it applies to you, move forward. Oh and accept complete responsibility and consequences. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

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.

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

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.

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.

I asked this same question and they reiterated the whole paragraph, so evidently, unless it's pay to play, it's safe... from what I gather. 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?

Thank you for answering my questions. :matte-motes-bashful-cute-2:

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

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

A payout is still a payout, whether you receive it right then and there or have to go to an ATM.