Jump to content

Guy Gossamer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Guy Gossamer

  • Rank
  1. "This has not been clairified at. As the policy is written "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy." There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in. " There you go again Sorina with your twisted take on things. You have taken one line from the definition of Skill Games/Skill Gaming to suite your backward agenda. It has been clarified. Here is the full definition for anyone looking for clarity. “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determin
  2. "In world" there has been discussion and confusion on the Federal wire act." - I can only assume someone like you is involved. The opinion from the US department of Justice nearly 3 years ago was that the federal wire act only applies towards sporting events or contests and other similar events one might bet upon say like the Oscars etc where the better is not a participant. When it says "sporting event or contest" it is speaking of events such as the Oscar example I gave. This has no baring on the skill game policy directly but it might based on how payment into games operate such as games w
  3. Fabulous post Yingzi. Credit where it's due. Welcome to the "we", although, you may be the founder. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:
  4. "The we you are refering to was someone defending an alleged SL attorney that refused to give credentials unless you paid them L$800 first and sending out incomplete RLOs with no opinions about specific games" I assume that you are referring to me as I haven't seen you discuss Monday Beam with anyone else, however, I would really like for you to illustrate where and exactly how I was defending the "alleged SL attorney" Monday Beam. I am 100% certain you cannot, but go ahead, give it a try and convince everyone here how you are right on that claim. You really are a silly girl. If you are clai
  5. Sorina, I feel sorry so for you. I really do. The only reason I am on here is to try and guide people away from listening to your very ill-informed advice.. You assume that because I said "Even your rant at Monday Beam in the Skill Games Help group was completely unnecessary and down right rude at times, irrespective of whether there was a laugh or two among your snide and cutting remarks. " that I am backing Monday Beam, or that I am a client of his! This is where you should shut up, as you are publically suggesting/disclosing information that suggests I am a client of his, cheapskating,
  6. Hey Sorina, such a lovely day outside today. Anyway, just to clarify some of the nonsense you have been talking about. 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; This is not open to interpretation in any way, as it means two (2) things, and two things only. It means 1. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) has a requirement to pay it L$, it falls under the Skill Gaming Policy, and 2. that if a game (in conjunction with the other conditions of the skill game/gaming definition) permits the payment of L$ it falls under
  7. There are 4 conditions and 1 pre-condition that must be met for your game to come under the skill gaming policy. The pre-condition is that the game is implemented through an in-world object and the conditions are, skill determination, requires or permits payment, payout in L$, and is a legal skill game. Your game does not meet the pre-condition of being implemented through an inworld object, and further, does not meet the condition of requiring/permitting a payment (via the in-world object). Therefore, in my humble opinion, your game is not subject to the skill gaming policy.
  8. Tut Tut (tt) Sorina, don't be such a hypocrit - "Payment Info on file is common term of course. The abbreviation is not. Common terms in SL in general are things like Sim, port, TP, etc. Payment info on file is something that comes up often in my circles but I don't think a term that might be used a couple times a year that in SL business circles is in need of a abbreviation. Its a common internet thing to do among some to abbreviate a term even one that is not often used at the expense of clarity in order to reduce having to type." ‎08-02-2014 08:02 PM - Sorina Garrigus Like I said previous
  9. I have to admit, having posted only posted 19 times on these forums, even I know what PIOF means :matte-motes-big-grin:
  10. I feel a retreat coming on!! Ok, so, you say "An algorithm is the design of a programme". You also say "An algorithm is the design of piece of programming that does a specific thing and nothing else." and "An algorithm is a part of a programme, although it may constitute the whole programme". It appears to me, you have fully endorsed with your definition my assertion. The most important thing you have said in our discussion is, "but, imo, it's still wrong to refer...". I have stated all along that I belive an alogorithm to be a piece of programming that calculates, automates, reasons, proces
  11. That might be true if you are speaking about a very specific alogorithm that does "a specific thing and nothing else". Most of the definitions of an alogorithm I have read (I don't need to reference as you seem intelligent enough to do a little google search all of your own) suggest that an alogoithm is a piece of programming that is used for calculating, processing, automating or reasoning something. I believe it is fair to say, it is an alogorithm (not defining specifically which one) that is responsible for processing, calculating, reasoning and automating the moves of a computer based ches
  12. Never heard of PIOF before until this thread either.
  13. How about we go 50/50 on this :matte-motes-nerdy: I would say the calculation, processing and reasoning done by the alogorithm is what you are playing against, and that the programme is what is delivering the result visually, or similar.
  14. If the Bingo object does not require or permit L$ to play, it does not come under the Skill Gaming Policy. Outside of that, it doesn't matter whether it is a game of chance or not.
  15. While I understand the endevour of your point, you point suggests that it is a game of skill when the gaming operator is losing money on it, and is then not a game of skill if the operator is making money on it. Profit doesn't enter into the equation in determining whether a game is a game of skill or chance. In case you think I am defending any of the games with the stoploss feature, I am not. I'm merely making the point, that profit doesn't and shouldn't enter the equation in the determination of skill over chance. Modest profit is subjective. If every operator is operating to the exact s
  • Create New...