DerekShane

Hi Yingzi, Exactly, debit permissions are granted by the object owner just when a game is rezzed; in the case of most games, that's for Freeplay or regular payin mode so perhaps the L$1 represents Freeplay when the game is expecting some sort of payment. I can't think of any game except Zyngo without that L$1 requirement. For 99% of games that currently exist, if they were covered by the Policy just because of the L$1 payin issue, Linden's now clarified that doesn't invalidate their Freeplay status. And yes about the clog, but that's how it's been forever. However, the new Transaction History window is more prone to crash with 20,000+ transactions per day than the old version and that's why the "Show L$1 Transactions" box to uncheck would be really helpful. Point was the reply from Linden is good news for a lot of players because more places will be able to have Freeplay games since they aren't covered by the Policy. There's been lots of progress, we're all working directly with Linden in our cases and not posting here much. Have a great weekend!

Hi Phil, Maybe a Creator can jump in with the why, but most games have always required the L$1 payment. It's immediately refunded and that can't be changed, it's the setting for Freeplay. Maybe there was some technical requirement way back when. Aargle made Zyngo's Freeplay mode where you just click it but players get confused because everyone is used to the L$1 payin. If our friends at Linden are still reading, on Transaction History, we wish there was a box to uncheck for "Show L$1 Transactions" the way it currently has it for "Show L$0 Transactions" because they take up tons of space and slow the engine down. Of course you're right, if the Skill Game definition is met, it's part of the Policy. Our point was Freeplay games really are Freeplay, just with a technical requirement. Linden kindly clarified with exactly the definition of how most Freeplay games operate in Second Life.

As Operators, we're getting a lot of information that's helpful. One thing we've gotten clarified and the FAQ has been newly updated is about Freeplay games. On most games, even Freeplay requires a L$1 payment that comes right back to the player, so is that still within the scope of the policy? Answer is No. We asked hoping other places in SL would be able to benefit as well (we've done that with several things that are now in the FAQ). Are “freeplay” games in Second Life subject to the Skill Gaming Policy? Freeplay games, in which the sole payment required or permitted is a nominal Linden Dollar payment for the sole purpose of triggering gameplay and is immediately and automatically refunded without conditions of any kind, are not within the scope of the Skill Gaming Policy. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Second_Life_Skill_Gaming_FAQ#Are_.E2.80.9Cfreeplay.E2.80.9D_games_in_Second_Life_subject_to_the_Skill_Gaming_Policy.3F Considering that most plays are L$25 or L$50, we're talking about US $0.10 or US $0.20 so a lot has gotten blown out of proportion. We find most people just want to have some fun and relax and play some games and hope this process will continue to go smoothly and Residents who enjoy playing will be able to continue to have fun.

Slot machines in some states like Florida weren't really slot machines, they were Class II bingo machines. http://www.casinocenter.com/class-ii-is-it-fair/ The classification was established to allow tribes to hold bingo games on their reservations, but it stipulated that “electronic aids” could be used to simulate bingo. That stipulation led to electronic versions of the game of bingo, which eventually took the form of Class II-style slot machines, known as Bingo Games. Now Class III are allowed, but there have always been workarounds. People just want to relax and have some fun, most games are L$50 which is $0.20 cents. Every game has a notecard that talks about the skill needed, player decisions at each round, strategy to beat the high score, which sometimes means skipping a round or taking a different type of points, etc. Skilled players win more. Like every game, they should look attractive, but under the hood many of today's Skill Games will be approved because they are under the definitions.

Hi, We support Linden's efforts to help Creators and Operators and the replies have been helpful, thank you. The timetable is really aggressive here. We have a few questions please: 1. Will there be any type of "white list" for key employees who live in prohibited jurisdictions? Can Operators, associated avatars or employees receive access to skill gaming regions to do their work? Perhaps these service providers can be considered as part of the 4.©(1) Exceptions list? 2. Can an existing non-mainland sim be converted into a gaming region? It appears to be yes in 5(a). For sims that are mixed use (with a mall or club or skyboxes), can part of the sim be parceled off for non-gaming activities? We're hopeful about the parceling because of 5.(b) "...the full Region fee will apply even in Skill Gaming is not operated in the entire Skill Gaming Region." This will affect a lot of places. Can a skill gaming region be placed immediately next to a non-skill gaming region? 3. With respect to the paragraph with the defined terms "Skill Game" and "Skill Gaming", it's stated: "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not subject to the requirements of these Terms." Freeplay games are free to play, but Linden's technology requires a L$1 payment that is immediately refunded. Are Freeplay games considered, "pay to play"? And/or would Linden consider making it possible to eliminate those L$1 payments? Players and our transaction reports will thank you. 4. Is it an error in Paragraph 4 of the Application? Operators won't have the data mentioned in 4(a)(iii): "A Reasoned Legal Opinion that describes each Skill Game (including detailed operational descriptions) and provides a detailed analysis of its compliance with applicable United States and international law:" If the game's creator must provide a legal opinion about a particular game for it to be approved, why must Operators also provide an opinion? A Operator's opinion, legal or otherwise, won't be sufficient for an approval determination. Our plan has been to complete the Operator application, then to look at which games have been approved and those are what will run. 4(a)(iii) is difficult because Linden's asking for legal review of games or creators that may not even be approved and therefore moot. This is sort of chicken and egg: Until Operators know what games are approved they're at a stop point, and if Creators don't have customers there's no incentive to create. Can you please help us understand how you'd like to see this process move forward since the timing is so short? JP Linden used to be the contact on these matters, is there someone assigned to this project that can be contacted? Again, thank you for a lot of effort Linden's put into this and for reading and considering the comments in this thread.