Jump to content

Smoovious Aloix

Resident
  • Content Count

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Smoovious Aloix

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Yeah, operators should have a later deadline than creators... imagine this case... You have a dozen operators, all shelling out the expenses for a lawyer's opinion, affidavit, the application costs to LL... and then end up having the creator's games that all dozen of those operators are using, either end up having their games denied, or the creators decide to close up shop instead of go through the hassle. So you end up having all of the operators end up spending easily up to a couple/few thousand dollars jumping through hoops for no reason, and their cames ended up not being a
  2. I did plenty of gambling as a child... but the reason they want to play SL as a child, isn't any business of ours... as long as they are of qualified age RL, what do I care? -- Smoov
  3. I'm 98% certain, that child avis won't be barred from gaming sims... would be next to impossible to prevent anywways... what they are concerned with is the RL age of the person behind the avatar, not the visible age of the avatar itself. -- Smoov
  4. It would be nice if he got authorization, and made a seperate Greedy Greedy that still accepted payment, but with all the costs involved, it would be cost prohibative to do it. If that version was made, it would be very expensive to recoup costs, as the market for that pay game, would be _extremely_ limited now. The only place it could reside in would be a double-tier gaming sim. Same with the other creators. Jaded has most of their games (if not all) set for L$1200 to get the dummies to set up on your land so Jaded's Operator can set up their games on your land. Before, anyone who wan
  5. PaisleeRose wrote: The site you sent me too is not showing the list of approved skilled games. None have been approved yet. -- Smoov
  6. Before getting a lawyer involved (who, at this point, is going to want clarification like I am wanting) those items are going to need to be defined, or that's what the legal fight is going to be about. The letter of what is written, about what an Operator is, is what matters here, and, as written, I would not qualify as being an Operator for the Jaded games, I would only be the parcel owner. A good attorney would make the same argument. Whenever there is something that is vague, that is a spot where the argument of if it is even applicable, comes into play. If an Operator is consid
  7. Linden Lab wrote: Hi Smoovious, To the extent that your activities would fall within the definition of "Operator", such activities would require a license. For more information on the destinction between a "Region Owner" and "Operator", please review the Skill Gaming Policy. Thank you, Sorry, Linden, but your answer was just as vague as what I was asking clarification on... What specifically, qualifies as an Operator... as, in my case, from my understanding, I would fall somewhere between "Region Owner" and "Operator"... I'll explain. I used to operate a small arcade. Not
  8. Octavia Sorbet wrote: ... Another reason this policy is unfair is because it favors very large game operators over the small independent operator. Many gameroom operations are currently in clubs and only consist of a handful of games. This policy shuts down the casual gameroom operator completely. It seems as if the lindens sat in a room with the good ole boys of skillgaming... like maybe the sushants and a few other creator/operators and came up with a way to establish a monopoly in the sl skillgaming business. ... Not unlike the way the land business went years ago, when the legac
  9. Oh, jeez, yeah, I totally forgot about that... so many creators I knew left because of that... So with that rule in place, I wonder how that affects LL's liability even further? Since they now have the rights to the software and objects, a creative attorney might be able to craft an argument that makes LL a cooperating partner in whatever fraud one of the games might end up being involved with (should it happen), and since LL's endorsement of the game (however they want to call it, they do endorse and approve of the authorized games) it would be very hard for LL to argue about being a disi
  10. It was already argued in that way for the cones (and other systems, like the Meetro) to remain compliant, when LL stamped out "camping" years ago, which was often used to boost traffic. That system, you'd basically stand on a prim... and you could just be sitting, or like in some clubs, dancing... and different camping chairs would sometimes offer a different hourly rate, and you'd just stay in one spot and dance or do whatever other animation, if any at all... one club I went to often to camp at, also had a SLingo game going so many of us would play that while we camped. This was cons
  11. TerryDavidd wrote: Actually thats not quite how the games work , but thank you for your opinion. I think his point was more about how else those rules could be stretched to impact other things... How many times in RL has a law been passed, that we were told was narrow and specific, which turned out to be more vague and broad than expected, that impacted so much more than was ever intended, just because of the specific language that was passed? They think they are defining what qualifies, but there is a lot of room for interpretation still... some of which is what is considered a
  12. One other question comes to mind... who exactly is the Operator, anyways? Most of the games I have (5) are Jaded Kickers games... I don't operate the games, Jaded operates them... all I do is offer space on my land for them to place them on, and in return for letting them have them on my land, they pay me for it. I don't administer the games at all, if there is a problem with one, the customer deals with Jaded, not me. I have no ability to do anything with the games of any substance which would qualify me as being an 'operator' of said game. I'm simply a landlord for Jaded in this
  13. Linden Lab wrote: It appears that our response may have been taken out of context. A game of skill is defined as "a game, implemented through an Inworld object: 1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance; 2) requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play; 3) provides a payout in Linden Dollars; and 4) is legally authorized by applicable United States and international law. " Thank you, "1) whose outcome is determined by skill and is not contingent, in whole or in material part, upon chance" This rule makes all
  14. Aizur Zessinthal wrote: So if I make a game you can pay L$ to for additional items, special power ups, etc, then its a pay to play game? Or not? Does Bloodlines run afoul of this, since you have to pay ongoing costs to the game if you cannot find human to spam-err, bite? That's a pretty vague requirement if paying the game to play can be used as a single point determinator to decide if a game is a Game of Skill or not, since you no longer need to consider if the game pays money back out to participants. Is that what you are telling us, that if a game meets any of the 4 points in the guideli
  15. Sassy Romano wrote: (Suggestion, host the platform in one of many forward thinking countries that doesn't have issues with this pettiness. Excuse me while I depart to turn on the TV for terrestrial broadcasts, not some hidden away cable channel, to watch gambling programmes, not that I have an interest but simply BECAUSE I CAN!) I just know that nobody better be coming around me for a while talking about how we're supposedly the free-est nation on the planet, and our "liberties" and the rest, when we aren't even free to do what we want with our own fake money. -- Smoov
×
×
  • Create New...