Jump to content

BisKreet

Resident
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About BisKreet

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. The River Rock Club is having our very own DJ Battle and we want YOU to come show us your stuff! Thats right, this is the time for you to come stand on the River Rock Stage and wow us with your talent, whether it be lights, toys..whatever you want to use. Stream will be provided. To participate simply come to The River and do the following..... Dj Battle Operating procedures IM- insanesanity resident if any questions 1. Pay 300 L to contest board. 2. Pick a slot on the schedule board thats open 3. show up for Schedule time. 4. Dj your set 5. Have fans vote for you. 6. If u have enough votes you will be notified via im when and where the judges round will be. Where: The River Rock Club Location: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife//65/97/5 12 /13 of Sept Dj's Perform, during the week the voting will be done, the next THURSDAY the final 6 djs will perform for judges. The winner will be anounced FRIDAY THE 19TH OF SEPTEMBER AT 8 PM SLT Our Judges will not consist of anyone that has anything to do with The River. They will be totally unbiased Judges that will be judging on how well YOU DJ and how well YOU work with the audience. If you have ANY questions please IM Josh, aka insanesanity. Good Luck!!! http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife//65/97/5
  2. BisKreet

    Skill Gaming Policy Thread

    Well I have to say a lot of this was just a rehashing of the same old stuff right? I do want to thank you all for your thoughts and input and the passion in reading many of your post. Keep in mind my question where based on the current written Skill Gaming Policy - and not side chats or Wiki pages not found in the TOS or Skill Gaming Policy. Now LL can say and do just about anything it wants, issue is they defer to US law in their Skill Gaming Policy. So in doing so they should clearly define intent in policy. as stated in US law. 8^) Intent is a powerful term and has a clear defining meaning based on ones action and intent of use. The Current police has left a very clear gray area of interruption, as seen in my two questions. I am well aware of side chat and conversation and comments made by LL on wiki pages, but the comments are not in the Skill Gaming Policy this in itself is part of the issue. REF: Sorina Garrigus) I see a lot of comments to Sorina Garrigus, In fact I think Sorina Garrigus sees this gray area vary clearly and has proven its merit based on TOS or Skill Gaming Policy and not other non binding content. @ All @ Yingzi Xue As Phil has laid out clearly in his last two posts, LL has been crystal clear with their responses. In the case of a game having a configurable option for switching between pay-to-play or free-to-play, it was clear in LL's response that it would fall under the skill gaming policy if a game gave the option for both. ME ^^ Then that need to be clerly stated in the Skill Gaming Policy. ^^ Lets pick apart the TOS or Skill Gaming Policy here.. easy to do it comes down to this. and let look at a game that has the capability of being turned on for pay to play but is not. Settings are No pay to play and no pay out. (The Dice game) Keep in mind there is no declaration that you must fit 1,2&3 or otherwise. So you must take each rule /statement on its own merits. RIGHT!? 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance. (Dice game) So random roll of dice game would be ok right. its all about chance and not based off skill.- PASS 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; (Ok now this is clear right) anything you have to pay to play is a no go. However don't get this confused with possible function possible function is not addressed in TOS or Skill Gaming Policy. So the game is not set for Pay to Play we must give it a PASS 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; Not set to pay out so we must give it a PASS ... **BUT what's this we can't give away L$ even? 3 is tied to 4.. and 4 stats this " is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law." US can give away $$ But I think this was miss placed context and meant for pay to play. Just very poorly written/stated. But no matter you have to work based of what is stated. Not what they meant to say. So to, LL are you saying no one can give away L$ or is this suposed to be contenget on rule 1? Now we look at 4 oops 3+4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. “Skill Games” are not intended to include and shall not include “gambling” as defined by applicable United States and international law. Now this one statmenat really clears it up- If you are not making them pay to play well it's clear... Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy. Now remember the question of can be activated is not covered nor defined in the Policy. BUT HANG ON WE HAVE MORE!! the last part of that statment as defined by applicable United States and international law. It should say as we inturpet ... any how, are they saying they know the law in the state you live in and this is what we are telling you? OR they trying to say Go look it up for yourself? Fact is, it has no play in the Policy they set for you/ us. They are clearly stating "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy". Bis
  3. BisKreet

    Skill Gaming Policy Thread

    Folks that have replied up to this point. I thank you all for being open and welling to share your thoughts. @Phil D, Thank you for your input and perhaps my next comments will justify Sorina Garrigus follow for you and other, perhaps not. A good amount of folks have made statements based on prelim reviews and older content. that is not in the Skilled gaming police itself or in the TOS. In a full review of the police provided to end users I found two very clear unknown. (again my question) So I posted 2 questions on the forum, same two question I open tickets for in getting clarification, It was not only to get feedback but to have a matter of record for asking the question. The same question I am asking where reviewed by legal guru in the industry. They came to the same concussion purposed in my question based on the new Tears of Server content (all of it). So I ask you all based on the two question pull out and define your replays so that I may better understand where your view point is coming from. Please only make your assessments on the content found in the TOS and all linked Policy provided in the TOS. Yes so I ask you to re-rearview... @ Perrie Juran, I own a gun and it can do harm in the wrong hands, but it's not illegal... Pleas don't follow up on my threads. I would like comments from readers that can make a well justified argument or view of the matter. Keep in mind the word "Intent" <--- 1st question: REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy ***Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation? 2nd question. I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar. As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process. ------------------------------ @ Phil D - Also you commented on one of your follow up's the following. Nobody is. That's why a game that can be set as pay-to-play and win and also CAN be set as free-to-play, comes under the new rules and can only be used in Skill Gaming sims. Can you link us to where you have seen this? and let me know where on the page as well. ---------------------------------
  4. BisKreet

    Skill Gaming Policy Thread

    Skill Gaming Policy / Intent of item use I am looking for som oclarification on Skill Gaming Policy as intent of a scripted item has not been fully defined. I.e. If a developer offers a traditional Sploder and changes its intent by renaming it club Tip Jar. As you can see the intent of use has completely changed as there is nothing wrong with the owner of the item to give something back in the process. Bis
  5. BisKreet

    Skill Gaming Policy Thread

    I am looking for clarification on the below part of Skill Gaming Policy. REF: Linden Lab Official: Second Life Skill Gaming Policy ***Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy My question go to owning and using items that have the capability of being a skilled game, but not used in that way i.e. If you have a gaming table such as dice game but do not use the pay to play function built in to it. Would this be conceded a validation? This really should be clarified in the Skill Gaming Policy. Bis
×