Jump to content

Madman Magnifico

Resident
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Madman Magnifico

  1. I generally agree with that, and even when I did do this, it was always just one of many checks performed. My suggestion was more of an idea that could help make it easier for those people who have made (or paid other people to make) scripts that do this. It seems it would be doable from your end, and fairly trivial for most people to just direct that reverse lookup to another server. Just throwing ideas out since I'm guessing that quite a few in-world systems will be affected by the change and not everyone is all that capable of implementing alternatives.
  2. Could you set up a name server at a specific address that does nothing but verify the IP was recently used as an HTTP-out proxy, and respond with NXDOMAIN if it was not? I think this would be the simplest solution for people that are just trying to do some source verification on scripts expecting traffic only from SL simulators... Just thought I'd throw that out there. I don't have anything in SL that does this now, but I have used the name servers for a first stage of authenticating the source in the past. It sounds like that is all that is being "broken" here. It wouldn't have to return the "correct" name, in this case. Just return "doesn't exist" if it's not one of the proxies that has been used recently.
  3. I'm seeing a lot of people posting messages about sploders and other "games" which are clearly games of pure chance, haven't been allowed by the TOS for quite some time, still will not be allowed, and therefore are not relevant at all. If they haven't been removed, it may be because the amount that people generally put into them is so insignificant that they simply do not care, or that they just never received an AR on that particular item. We can all talk about how this policy may apply to anything and everything within SL, but it is unlikely to help get the relevant questions answered. It would really be nice if these somewhat off-topic posts could stop so that maybe those questions that actually have something to do with these changes may be answered, and the people involved in all of this can get the facts they need to continue with what they are all doing on this matter. Of course, the new policies can, and most likely will, apply to things like breedables and several RP games within SL, but I think everyone here knows the type of games that are being targeted here. The others will be handled if/when LL receives ARs on them, I would assume. I've been asking questions about actual skill games in SL, and haven't received an answer, while questions about sploders do get attention. I don't know if it is intentional oversight on the part of LL, or that they just have too many questions to answer...
  4. As my previous post seems to have gone completely ignored, I shall ask the most important of the questions once again... Question 1: Under section 4 © of the application, it is stated that "the transactions of an Operator Account shall be limited to transactions with Second Life residents through the approved Skill Games..." And then, below that is an exception (i) which states "Under limited circumstances, the Operator Account will be allowed to make Linden Dollar payments to Second Life residents who provide services to an Operator..." Could you, Linden Lab, please explain what the limits and circumstances are in this instance? It is absolutely vital to know this, in particular, for many of the people involved in all of this... Question 2: Could you, Linden Lab, please provide us with technical details as to how it can be determined whether or not (a sim is classified as gaming, an operator is authorized to purchase/operate games)? Specifically, will there be additions to LSL to provide for this, will we need to download and parse wiki pages (if so, how frequently will they be updated?), or will there be some other API for us to use?
  5. There's a lot about this that seems like a good idea, and even a few things that I have, in the past, wished for as a creator. The idea that the games can be presented to Linden Lab and approved prior to actually implementing them is great. No more guessing, if we have a game idea, just write up some specifications, send them in a supplemental application, make any adjustments to the specifications, get approval, and then start coding... It will save me a lot of time in the end, and you're certainly going to make several attorneys happy as well. Also, there are dozens of unanswered questions raised by the documents released today, many of which have been asked already. Rather than hand them all over at once, I'm just going to ask a couple of them. First off, could we have a link to a copy of the application that we can email and/or print for our attorney, and also to cite in these discussions here in the forum? Now, I have created and marketed a game of skill which runs grid-wide games. The machines are sold to various Operators, and when players pay them the L$ is sent to another avatar which holds the L$ for the duration of the game. At the end of the game, the winner is paid from that avatar, the Operators are all paid a small commission, and the Creator of the game (me) and a business partner are paid another small commission to cover service expenses. I clearly need to apply for a creator's license, but the thing that is unclear at this point is whether or not I need to apply for an operator's license as well. I do not own the games, except when I am designing and/or testing them, and neither does this other avatar of mine which handled the distribution of the L$. Another question I will ask now involves the actual "Operators". Under section 4 © of the application, it is stated that "the transactions of an Operator Account shall be limited to transactions with Second Life residents through the approved Skill Games..." And then, below that is an exception (i) which states "Under limited circumstances, the Operator Account will be allowed to make Linden Dollar payments to Second Life residents who provide services to an Operator..." Is it safe to say that those circumstances do not exclude normal operating costs such as advertising, tiers, and contests as well as paying all in-world employees? Are you specifically and intentionally prohibiting the operators of these games from spending L$ in world, and effectively requiring them all to withdraw the L$, pay the fees involved, wait the minimum 1 week for the USD, and then purchase L$ with that money and paying more fees if they wish to actually use some of their L$ income in Second Life? Many operators are actually a group of people that all share the job of maintaining the sim, all receiving some percentage of periodic net profits, many of which spend much or all of that as L$ without ever selling it for USD. Would places like this still be able to pay other avatars a salary from the designated operator? What exactly is the purpose of this restriction, anyway? The last question is more of a statement. There absolutely must be some way to determine (in LSL) whether or not: A region is allowed to have skill games. An avatar is allowed to own skill games. ...otherwise several of your demands are pretty unreasonable (particularly section 3 (e) (iii)) In addition, it makes it much easier for us to ensure for you that the games are only operated by approved avatars on approved regions. Any technical details on how to do this would be great. As much as I hate to admit it, what would have made a lot more sense would have been to just put it all on us (the creators) and given us an LSL function to just see (1. if a player is eligible to play skill games and 2. if an owner is eligible to own skill games) and then made it a requirement for us to check these things. Anyway, you released all this information yesterday and we have 3 weeks before it goes into effect, but I just figured I'd add that anyway.
  6. I cannot put ANY banner image on my store at all. And the animated one wasn't flashy really. You have to know how to do it right so it looks good instead of annoying. But anyway it isn't really important if it can be animated. It would just be nice to be able to put some image.
  7. Okay, so I tried uploading a store banner image I made for my store. It was the exact dimensions (700x100) specified, and it was GIF format (animated). It didn't display on my store page, but it did on my merchant home page. I found some posts here that said animated banner images were broken because of some file conversion being done somewhere. I converted the image to a static image instead and tried using PNG, GIF, and JPG formats and none of them displayed either. I then thought that maybe the problem was that they had been saved using an indexed palette, so I tried converting them to RGB mode instead, and tried both PNG and JPG formats with that. Neither of them will display on the store page, but they all displayed fine on the merchant home page. So what in the world is going on? Has the option for uploading banner images been completely broken or what? It would be nice to get my store banner to show up...
  8. I created a store. It had some mild profanity in the name of it. I listed an item which was clearly not of mature or adult nature at all, and it was flagged for profanity. I am unable to find a way to rate the store as "mature" just so I can keep the name, so I just changed it. Am I understanding the reason for my only item being flagged correctly? How do I relist the item? Who and/or what is flagging my item like this? I looked through all of the guidelines fairly carefully and saw nothing indicating that what I was doing wasn't okay. It would have been nice to get some kind of explanation if there was a problem so I could correct it. Any help in this matter would be appreciated very much. Thanks in advance.
×
×
  • Create New...