Sorina Garrigus

Ariaah wrote: Now, for the tenth time...please answer this question plainly and not give me that standard song and dance about gaming policy. I am involved in a fantasy sport....Drag racing.No money is required to play, but we do pay our winners. There is no profit or wagering involved and it is 90% luck, 10% skill to win. I want to know if we are affected. If so, we will all stop racing and putting into the sl economy. A straight and direct yes or no is reqested If there is no money required or permited to race it is not within the scope of the skill game policy. Example 1: a drag race which racers are not required to pay to enter the race AND do not have the option to pay an amount in order to qualify for winning a linden currency prize would not have to worry about the skill game policy at all. "Freeplay" is not within the scope of the policy Example 2: A drag race where racers DO pay to enter the race OR have an optional pay in in order to qualify for winning a linden currency prize would be within the scope of the policy and would have to apply for a skill game operator status and it would be restricted to a gaming region. Really a game or activity can be 100% luck but with no pay in of any kind (ie various loophole attempts) is not within the scope of either the wagering or skill game policy. I am not an attorney but I am 99% certain racing would be allowed with pay to enter and money to win conditions. This would mean such an activity would be restricted to a gaming region and you will still need to apply as a skill game operator. “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean 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. 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. 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.

Invader Dench wrote: This is the most stupidest thing I have ever seen any online game do, and I been around for awhile. MMO's and other things, you basically are now going to cut off alot of those people who are your economy. Hey I live in one of those states, I work my butt off, if I wanna goto a Skill Gaming sim and spend some lindens that I bought with my hard earned money, THAT SHOULD BE MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT! You are doing this while hey look Prostitution and escort services are around, but no lets not target them. Lets target the people who work their butts off to the bone who goto these sims to relax, to spend some of their real life cash into lindens. What burns me up the most about all of this...Arkansas has a lottery that is gambling so either you guys up there didn't do all of your homework, or something else. Heck I can go 15 miles away to West Silaom Springs, Arkansas to a casino. I applore you do a age limit, don't punish those users in those listed states in this. http://myarkansaslottery.com/ https://lottery.az.gov/ http://www.delottery.com/ http://www.flalottery.com/ https://www.kylottery.com/apps/ http://www.louisianalottery.com/ http://www.mdlottery.com/ http://www.sceducationlottery.com/ http://lottery.sd.gov/ http://www.tnlottery.com/ Everyone of those listed states has a lottery, which goes under skilled gaming, so why punish them? I for one play the Arkansas one quite a bit, Please reconcider this, I don't want to lose the ability to goto these sims cause someone up in LL decided to target these states and punish the users in those states from it. Go with a 21 year old Age limit and keep it at that. These sims are a large part of your economy please look at it that way, I goto Ocean view games alot, and I tell you I have NEVER had issues there. The people are friendly. Unfortunately it's not LL you have to talk about on these matters. It's your local state representatives mostly. LL has likely little choice but put these policies in place. Its actually astonishing SL has been able to allow what it has for the last 7 years. Potention your local reps about such laws if you do not agree with them. People tend to think of SL like it is some other planet. Realistically all laws still apply and SL is just software and servers. Various laws definitely still apply. I have to agree it is highly hypocrital of states that have state ran gambling/lotteries but won't even allow games of skill with pay and win conditions. Grown adults over the age of 21 should not have their state dictate how they can or can't spend their entertainment dollar if it isn't hurting someone else. In the end its mostly about special interest from the casino industries that force laws like these into place. the Unitied States is supposed to be the land of the free. It still has a LONG way to go to live up to those ideals. Here is a good source for laws and codes for Arkansas. Oddly Arkansas apparetly refers to games of chance as "games of hazzard" 5-66-113. Games of hazard or skill - Betting. (a) If a person bets any money or any valuable thing on any game of hazard or skill, upon conviction he or she is guilty of a violation and shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00). (b) In prosecuting under subsection (a) of this section it is sufficient for the indictment to charge that the defendant bet money or another valuable thing on a game of hazard or skill, without stating with whom the game was played. 5-66-118. Lottery, etc. - Tickets. (a) Except as authorized under the Charitable Bingo and Raffles Enabling Act, ß 23-114-101 et seq., it is unlawful for a person to: (1) Keep an office, room, or place for the sale or disposition of a lottery ticket or slip, policy ticket or slip, gift concert ticket or slip, or like device; (2) Vend, sell, or otherwise dispose of any lottery ticket or slip, policy ticket or slip, gift concert ticket or slip, or like device; (3) Possess any lottery ticket or slip, policy ticket or slip, or gift concert ticket or slip, or like device, except a lottery ticket issued in another state where a lottery is legal; or (4) Be interested, either directly or indirectly, in the sale or disposition of any lottery ticket or slip, policy ticket or slip, or gift concert ticket or slip, or like device. (b) In any prosecution or investigation under this section, it is no exemption for a witness that his or her testimony may incriminate himself or herself, but no such testimony given by the witness shall be used against him or her in any prosecution except for perjury, and the witness is discharged from liability for any violation of the law upon his or her part disclosed by his or her testimony. © (1) The General Assembly recognizes that: (A) The present laws relating to lotteries are vague in certain areas and, although designed to prohibit the operation of lotteries in the state, may be interpreted to prohibit even the printing of lottery tickets by companies in this state for distribution in other states where lotteries are legal; (B) There are companies in this state that print various types of tickets, stamps, tags, coupon books, and similar devices and that may be interested in printing lottery tickets for states where lotteries are lawful; and © It is the intent and purpose of this subsection to clarify the present law relating to lotteries to specifically permit businesses in Arkansas to print lottery tickets for use in states where lotteries are lawful. (2) (A) The printing or other production of lottery tickets by a business located in Arkansas for use in a state where a lottery is permitted is declared to be lawful. (B) Nothing contained in this section and ß 5-66-119 or any other law shall be construed to make printing or production of lottery tickets described in subdivision ©(2)(A) of this section unlawful. (d) (1) Upon conviction, any person who violates this section is guilty of a violation and shall be fined an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000). (2) A second or subsequent offense is a Class D felony. http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Laws/Arkansas/ Land of the free ..... yah right.

derby Hansome wrote: I have read this forum.I maybe be another one of the so called bigger places .I just shake my head at these posts . I been getting the same comments in world how I am wasting my time talking to some of these people that apparently spend more time on the forums than in SL in some cases. The most comon comment is how some of the more vocal people talking about it are not even involved in games and have little knowledge on the subject let alone have motive to look into the policy. I only post in the attempts to help people with legit questions.

I am trying to not responding to you but I pointed out multiple contradictions but reread the old posts. I pointed out A LOT. I am not wasting my time going through them again to repost them again. You lost all credibility on multiple levels.

Yingzi Xue wrote: 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. I myself asked LL early in the thread about specific game concepts and they responded with the same language found in the wiki; in other words, an assertion of the language. They didn't have to come out and tell me, reasserting the language made it clear. That's called affirmation, directly from LL. Anything else you read into it is just that, you reading more into it than you should. Sorina, I respect the fact that you've been into games since 2004 and heavily since 2007. I am sure you know SL games quite well, having used them for so long. I think we can all acknowledge that and move forward from it. It doesn't apply to interpretation of skill gaming policy, which takes basic reasoning skills and common sense, not experience with games. Everyone is moving forward, the road is clearly bumpy on all sides though for those that are on it and for LL. I site my experiences solely for the first hand experience working with vast variety of types of games and not just solo skill games. Anyone that is similiarly familiar the vast game landscape will know right away that the word "Permit" is far from sufficient to replace the statement of a game capable of being configured to pay to play with money to win being within the scope. So yes knowledge of the game landscape is important at least for LL. I am just combining knowledge, experience, the policy, and some of the eternal laws affecting these policies, and of course common sense. When/if LL opts to destroy a decade worth of content that can be used within the spirit of the policy and makes it clear (which really is not difficult to do AT ALL) then I will adapt. I can only go off the polices and the FAQ. It's not hard for LL to be Crystal clear. They did make it crystal clear freeplay games are not within the scope as are the pay in L$1 to trigger freeplay. Keep in mind it is completely insane for anyone trying to follow the policies to be expected to search through 100s of messages in a forum as part of the policies. When LL posts in the FAQ that games capable of being configured to pay to play with money to win even when set in freeplay status are within the scope then that would be crystal clear. If you think the statement requires or permits payment with money to win is crystal clear in context of the multiple examples of games that payment is not required but PERMITTING payment with money to win is optional, then you need to double check your thinking of what crystal clear means to you. When writing policies and FAQ they have to take in the context and the big picture to avoid misinterpetations. They have been condemed in the past for poorly written policies this could be another example of that.

You win a random Linden Teddy bear

Kenbro Utu wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." yes they said that. A game that is not set to permit paying to play and money within is not. THEY DID NOT clairify if a otherwise. You CLEARLY have very litlte knowledge about games in SL. nor this policy. If the ACTUALLY clairify this, it will be posted in the FAQ. I have not been involved in this squabble, though I have read every post. It finally got to the point that I just had to weigh in. My job is performing quality assurance on medicolegal documents, so I have a fair amount of knowledge about grammar, sentence structure and subject matter. You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the policy. The worst thing though, is your refusal to learn from the instruction of others who do have an understanding. I am talking with people on a daily basis that are dealing with this policy. I have yet to see a single high profile game owner post in this forum. I am hearing responses coming from LL as this mess is being worked out. Actually some of them have seen these posts and they say I am wasting my time given most of the most prolific responses have no real interest in games in SL and are not even really looking into it. But in your alleged expertise, given this question has been raised multiple times why hasn't LL posted in the FAQ or updated the policy wording it something along the lines of "game capable being configured to pay to play and money to win is within the scope of the policy". Freeplay has been addressed in the FAQ including pay to start with immediate refund options which again only happen in pay and win skill games. A game that is currently set to freeplay obviously IS NOT permitting payment play outside the pay and refund scenario. I have worked with literally hundreds of games, in SL going back to 2004 but on a daily basis since 2007. IF LL intended games with that are capable to be set to be within the policy they would say so in a similar fashion. And if they didn't then LL needs to become more litterate of the history of games in SL, how they work, how people used work arounds to "permit" payment into a game in the examples I gave. They may later actually do that. But the fall out is the elmination of countless creations that can and would be used within the policy as freeplay. Also I haven't seen people that disagree, ie Phil the furniture guy, demonstrate any knowledge in which to learn from. He has demonstrated countless contradictions, fabrications. Its not a major squabbel anyway. Phill keeps saying LL clearly clairified which they did not either in the forum and definitely not in the policy or FAQ. It's up to LL to clairify things in the FAQ. Thats all anyone can go off of.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: In the response from LL they only echoed the policy. Asking someone to clairify a point of a policy and just repeating it is not clairifying. It was a cut and paste response. If they clairify that a game which can potentially be set to pay to play and money to win is within the scope. It's not difficult for them to put such specifics in the FAQ which they did for games with a pay and refund option which only happens with solo play games of skill anyway. As it is written freeplay games are clearly not within the scope of the policy. Repeating the policy is not clairifying it. Its like asking a specific question about the instructions on a shampoo bottle and they just repeat what it says on the bottle. That isn't clairification. Thats just them redirecting people back to the policy with a non helpful response. Also a forum response is not clairification in general. It would need to be in the FAQ. Countless people concerned with this policy is not likely going to be reading one post out of thousands. When LL puts it into the FAQ and clearly so then that will be different. They might not want to because it has the potential to create a class action lawsuit for the cost of those products. The problem if they do clairify this to be the case then it destroys a decades worth of content. Things like old combat bumper car games, pool tables, arcade games, and many other games, activities, and amuzements that were never considered to be "skill games" in the SL commercial sense. I don't think it is LL's intent to destroy countless creations that are clearly not within the spirit of this policy. But it is clear games sold currently have to be approved and sold in a gaming region. Wrong. The answer they gave was specific to Phil's question about greedy tables that have the option of pay to play even if they are set that way by the owner. Perhaps English is a second language to you, So here is the definition of permit in Webster's Dictionary per·mit verb \pər- ˈmit\ : to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something) : to allow (someone) to do or have something : to make something possible It is possible to permit a greedy table to be pay to play. Therefore it is not allowed as it stands except on gaming sims. If the maker updates it not to permit pay to play then it's ok to use anywhere. I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds and games. That is why if you live in a state that forbids skill gaming you won't be able to go to gaming sims. Under the circumstances destroying decades of content wouldn't compare to covering there butts against legal liability, particularly if the Treasury dept deemed something as gambling vs skill which is probably why pay to play games have to be approved as skill games. You can interpret things as you please of course, but if you are wrong then you only have yourself to blame if you're AR'd or caught by LL and face disciplinary actions. The response did not reference any game it just gave a general all encompassing echoing of the policy. "to allow (something) to happen : to give permission for (something)" Yes a game set to freeplay is not allowing/permitting payment to play. "I am sure what brought this on is the US Treasury dept stepping up enforcement of laws in virtual worlds" The Treasuring department has nothing to do with enforcing gambling laws. Use of virtual currencies in general it might. Given the interstate nature of the issue it would fall under the Jurisdiction of the FBI most likely. It is also likely it was pressure from individual states. There could have also been a result of a civil suite. which caused these policies. The Treasury Department has more concerns with money laundering issues which has been an issue in virtual worlds for ages. They are concerned with the matter with gambling establishments also but really there are much easier ways to launder money in SL then setting up a game room. They can just sell random prims. If I am wrong then LL needs to update their policies. I am advising everyone to follow them myself and don't even try any of these crazy loophole approaches that people are thinking of. One person I heard was goingto try to have freeplay with a fee to pay to enter the land for example. That definitely won't fly. LL isn't likely going to be wasting their time running around removing freeplay games that are clearly within their own policy. I can only go off what the policy and the FAQ says. People that run around filing ARs on freeplay games should be temporarily suspended for hurrasment and wasting LLs time and resources.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: BisKreet wrote: @ 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. --------------------------------- It's in the polciy itself:- “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean 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. 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. In post #19 on page 2 of this thread, I posted a question to Linden Lab about the game called Greedy Greedy, which can be played freely or it can be set by the owner as pay-to-play and win money. Linden Lab replied on page 3 of this thread, post #29, by saying that, "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." The Greedy Greedy game does permit pay-to-play and so it is subject to the policy. Your first question describes exactly that - the game permits payment, whether it is used or not. That was the exact question you asked, except you didn't name a game, and those places are where the correct answer can be found. Everyone who has posted in this thread, except Sorina, understands that correct answer, as does the Greedy Greedy creator. Sorina cannot show any evidence to support her opinion. It's just her personal opinion. The rest of us in this thread accept the actual evidence as provided by Linden Lab. So the answer to your first question in your first post is, no, it would not be conceded as validation. The game you described is subject to the Skill Gaming Policy, just like Greedy Greedy is. If you fancy reading through this whole thread, you'll come to understand Sorina. If you don't fancy reading it all, you will do well to ignore her so that you don't become confused. ETA: From what I've read, LL does not reply to the sort of questions you asked them. They tell people to consult a lawyer about specific games. From LL's point of view, it has all been stated so, if you want to check on a game, you need to ask a lawyer. The matter really is very simple though. If a game permits payment, and pays out, it is subject to the polcy, whether or not payment is turned on. Just like LL's answer in this thread about Greedy Greedy. "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." yes they said that. A game that is not set pay to permit paying to play and money within is not. THEY DID NOT clairify if a otherwise. You CLEARLY have very litlte knowledge about games in SL. nor this policy. The problem here, I think, is that the two of you are reading the words "the game" in two different ways. Phil is reading it as referring to all instances of a particular game and you're reading it as referring to each particular instance. In your reading, if I properly understand it, if you and I both have copies of a game that can be set to free to play or pay to play, and mine is set to free to play and yours is set to free to play, you have to register as an operator and provide legal opinions and your game can only be played on registered sims, whereas I can rez mine wherever I want, without reference to LL. The creator of the game, obviously, will have to register it, since some instances of the game are capable of being set to pay to play. To my mind, if LL intended to have a situation in which something is clearly a game of skill (since it appears in the list of games of skill they have approved) can be played outside gaming sims, provided it's set to be free to play, they'd have said that, if only to spare themselves a tsunami of ARs concerning games set to free to play that have been seen outside gaming sims. However, the answer is perfectly simple, it seems to me. If someone accepts your reading of the rules, then they can simply leave the free to play game out wherever it is. Someone will doubtless AR it at some point, and if you're right, nothing will happen. If Phil's right (which I think he is, but that's neither here nor there) then the game will doubtless be returned by LL, and then the owner will know. If s/he finds him or herself suspended for a while for following your advice, it's going to be regrettable but hardly the end of the world (probably less annoying than paying for a legal opinion that turns out not to be needed). If the owner is worried about leaving the object out, then I'd suggest first checking with the creator to see if s/he has heard anything from LL and, if that doesn't clarify things, then the prudent course of action would be to take up the games and wait to find out what happens to ones that have been left out. "you are reading the words "the game" in two different ways" No the pivot point is on the word permit and not "the game". As the policy states the a game that is free to play is not within the scope policy and a game set as free to play. A freeplay game does not permit pay to play. There is no mention of capability otherwise. This mostly affects older unsupported games from the last decade though. The policy clearly covers games that are currently supported when it is talking about game distribution. But all the same it is best to update if it is at all possible. Phil is reading into the word permit a lot more than what is there. LL did have a clairification on freeplay 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. People with a wider range of experience with games for any significant amount of time are very aware of games which have optional pay in options. This goes back to 2007 I believe in a multiplayer game called Devil May Care which is the game Zyngo was based off of (DMC of course being based on the game outside of SL called Slingo). In this game players would pay into a tip jar to be part of the pot. They were not required to pay to play though. They did this after 2007 with the casino ban as a loophole attempt when they were more uncertain how LL would view the game. The pay the "tip jar" approach is permitting paying to play but not requiring it but the non tippers are not likely to win much or any at all possibly if they don't. This external optional approach has been used for a long time and up to current times. Karsten Ruteledge's games like Greedy, Simopolis, Cosair etc all had a prize server which could be paid into as opposed to paying the game. I had them set this way myself as an option. But with this policy paying a prize server is permitting paying to play. "... and mine is set to free to play and yours is set to free to play..." I will assume you meant to say one was set pay to play and one was set free to play. But in general a game fixed at freeplay is not within the scope of the policy. But if a game can be set to pay to play is really only is an issue with older unsupported games. Games currently supported will likely have freeplay only versions people can "update" to. There are very very few freeplay only skill games that have been made and most are not on the market anymore such as Ravkom that did this. "To my mind, if LL intended to have a situation in which something is clearly a game of skill (since it appears in the list of games of skill they have approved) can be played outside gaming sims, provided it's set to be free to play, they'd have said that, if only to spare themselves a tsunami of ARs concerning games set to free to play that have been seen outside gaming sims." If they intended it either way you would think they would clairified because people will definitely be putting out games set according to how the policy is written and will possibly be getting a flood of ARs regardless for those going out ARing freeplay games. I am not sure why anyone would waste their time doing that but I imagine LL would not waste their time responding to ARs on freeplay games assuming the person filing mentions it. I doubt LL would suspend people following the policy as it is written. If they meant games that are capable of being set from freeplay to pay and win status were within the scope they would just say that. But as it is written now a freeplay game is not within the scope of the policy. LL is looking for people violating the policy, I doubt they have the man power to enforce a thought police policy. If they did they would ban all games outside game sims across the board because people can just make manual bets. I did potention LL on the their wiki to clairify by the way on the freeplay issue. They haven't changed anything to clairify outside the pay to start and refund option.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Message 19 Phil asked specifically about gaming tables: My question is this: Will that game be allowed to be played for free and without prizes, without it needing to be in a Skill Gaming region? Or will the fact that it can be set to pay-to-play and give cash prizes, even though it isn't being used that way, mean that it can't be used in a non-Skill Gaming region. I.e. will the fact that it CAN be used with money void it from being used without money in non-Skill Gaming Regions? Message 29 Linden Lab answered this question. "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." Intent may matter in a case of RL law, but this is a policy incorporated into the TOS not a law. SL is owned by LL and you have to agree to abide by any rules or policies in the TOS they care to establish, as long as it doesn't break a RL law, if you want to log in. If you don't, it makes no difference what your intent was if you are caught you most likely will receive some sort of disciplinary action from LL. In the response from LL they only echoed the policy. Asking someone to clairify a point of a policy and just repeating it is not clairifying. It was a cut and paste response. If they clairify that a game which can potentially be set to pay to play and money to win is within the scope. It's not difficult for them to put such specifics in the FAQ which they did for games with a pay and refund option which only happens with solo play games of skill anyway. As it is written freeplay games are clearly not within the scope of the policy. Repeating the policy is not clairifying it. Its like asking a specific question about the instructions on a shampoo bottle and they just repeat what it says on the bottle. That isn't clairification. Thats just them redirecting people back to the policy with a non helpful response. Also a forum response is not clairification in general. It would need to be in the FAQ. Countless people concerned with this policy is not likely going to be reading one post out of thousands. When LL puts it into the FAQ and clearly so then that will be different. They might not want to because it has the potential to create a class action lawsuit for the cost of those products. The problem if they do clairify this to be the case then it destroys a decades worth of content. Things like old combat bumper car games, pool tables, arcade games, and many other games, activities, and amuzements that were never considered to be "skill games" in the SL commercial sense. I don't think it is LL's intent to destroy countless creations that are clearly not within the spirit of this policy. But it is clear games sold currently have to be approved and sold in a gaming region.

Perrie Juran wrote: BisKreet wrote: Folks that have replied up to this point. I thank you all for being open and welling to share your thoughts. @ 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" <--- OK, let me be specific here. What you are doing is asking LL to create or state a specific exception to the rules. People who "tip" have a "chance" of getting something back. Whether or not your intent is to try and get people to tip more by paying something back, in other words you are just trying to be nice to the tippers in order to garner more tips, the people who tip are gambling on getting something back. So while I used a little bit of hyperbole, I don't see where "intent" comes in. It's still pay to play and it has a payout. No matter what language you want to dress it up in. Of course my assessment could be wrong, but that is at least how I see it. eta:shpeling This is exactly why LL is using the word permit in the policy to cover these loopholes attempts.

Phil Deakins wrote: BisKreet wrote: @ 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. --------------------------------- It's in the polciy itself:- “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean 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. 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. In post #19 on page 2 of this thread, I posted a question to Linden Lab about the game called Greedy Greedy, which can be played freely or it can be set by the owner as pay-to-play and win money. Linden Lab replied on page 3 of this thread, post #29, by saying that, "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." The Greedy Greedy game does permit pay-to-play and so it is subject to the policy. Your first question describes exactly that - the game permits payment, whether it is used or not. That was the exact question you asked, except you didn't name a game, and those places are where the correct answer can be found. Everyone who has posted in this thread, except Sorina, understands that correct answer, as does the Greedy Greedy creator. Sorina cannot show any evidence to support her opinion. It's just her personal opinion. The rest of us in this thread accept the actual evidence as provided by Linden Lab. So the answer to your first question in your first post is, no, it would not be conceded as validation. The game you described is subject to the Skill Gaming Policy, just like Greedy Greedy is. If you fancy reading through this whole thread, you'll come to understand Sorina. If you don't fancy reading it all, you will do well to ignore her so that you don't become confused. ETA: From what I've read, LL does not reply to the sort of questions you asked them. They tell people to consult a lawyer about specific games. From LL's point of view, it has all been stated so, if you want to check on a game, you need to ask a lawyer. The matter really is very simple though. If a game permits payment, and pays out, it is subject to the polcy, whether or not payment is turned on. Just like LL's answer in this thread about Greedy Greedy. "If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy." yes they said that. A game that is not set to permit paying to play and money within is not. THEY DID NOT clairify if a otherwise. You CLEARLY have very litlte knowledge about games in SL. nor this policy. If the ACTUALLY clairify this, it will be posted in the FAQ.

Durandir Darwin wrote: No Devil was approved as a skill game. *lol Somebody should try an RLO for "Toss a coin". Compared to one of the other games on the list, its practically chess. But to be fair No Devil has much less chance elements than most slingo style games and was one of the first to do so.

I have heard this confirmed from more than one source, one being a high profile attorney and one from Linden Labs themselves. LL made it clear that an operator can submit an older game to be approved. But they would need contact information for the game maker in the form of an email. They would allow them as long as they are compliant. The assumption made by many including myself that a skill game has to be on the approved game list apparently is not correct. This was confirmed by a recent correspondance from LL. Just the game has to be compliant and legal but still will need a reasoned legal opinion. If it the game maker is not active or able to update the game and it is not compliant it would not be approved. I assume if later it is determined not to be compliant for some reason it would also no longer be allowed.

Yingzi Xue wrote: A number of games and operators were approved yesterday. Check it out. I saw those. Solitaire I wasn't suprised were approved. I was most suprised Reel Wild Tournament was approved though. I tried it yesterday and you get 20K in points sometimes under the tiles. It seems games won't change much once this mess clears up for the short term.

Please pay no attention to Phil Deakins, comments. Go off the skill game policies and FAQ. It would be addressed in the FAQ and the policy. He apparently wants to be a "somebody" in SL and does not like it when someone disagrees with him even if its someone that works with the topic being discussed on a daily basis for the last 7 + years. LL has NOT made ANY kind of clairification. In the forum someone asked about a game uses as freeplay. The response was far from specific and they just echoed the policy. It is true the maker of Greedy Greedy has or is in the process of updating all of his games to not accept pay in. He has to if he wants them to be approved. The policy as I mentioned does not allow the sale or distribution of "skill games" outside of gaming regions and they apparently have no intention going through the process.

Coby Foden wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean 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. 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. ..... A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play. One question: If that game set to freeplay has also the option to set it to require or to permit payment, who is going to control that it will remain "set to freeplay" at all times? The owner of the game obviously would. It would be VERY easy for LL to determine if someone was doing that via their transaction records. Anyone that tried to do something so stupid and reported wouldn't have much defense in the matter. There are poker tables in SL that have no money options in or out that are allowed and people if they wanted to could just arrange that all paid manually or by creating a tip jar that pays out. Though the tip jar that actively pays out the winner would be permitting payment. There was a time in some US states that a deck of cards was not allowed to be played in public. I don't think LL has this kind of thought police in mind when it comes to games.

BisKreet wrote: 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 Simply renaming a sploder doesn't change it's intent. If it still pays out then its still a Sploder. A tip jar doesn't pay out randomly to the people it pays into it. If you try to get around the policies simply by renaming a sploder to tip jar it obviously will not fly. Also Sploders were never legal and were pure games of chance. It is unclear why LL allowed them to come back. There have been true skill sploders where you run around clicking on prims it drops to win but the ones that think they are legal because they paid something to everyone never were. If they were then someone would have made slot machines that always paid out a little bit every play long ago.

BisKreet wrote: 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 LL had made no clairification on this matter. Some have responded to you already on this as if they did clairify but they are lying for unknown reasons. One of them has been caught in multiple lies and posts for trolling reasons. But the policy states clearly the following (note how the trolls don't reference source material) “Skill Game” or “Skill Gaming” shall mean 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. 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. A game set to freeplay is not permitting paying to play. Additionally in the skill game FAQ it makes it clear games which have a L$1 pay to start the game but refunds it immediately are not within the scope of the policy 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. The only games in Second Life that have this pay to start and get refunded are games that are solo skill games. There are a few solo skill games that do have menu start options with no pay in option as freeplay but not many. I can only think of one off hand that does this. This FAQ supports that at least older games are not within the scope of the policy when used as freeplay only. HOWEVER. The policy is very clear that skill games can't be sold or distributed outside a skill game region. So in reality this mostly applies towards older games that are not capable of being updated. So until LL says otherwise in the FAQ and policy freeplay used for that purpose should be ok. There are a number of reasons why this would be the case. For one it would wipe out games going back a decade that won't be updated. I gave the example before of a bumper car game where you fire weapons at each other. I know the creator of that game isn't coming back to SL. but it can be set to free play. there are 1000s of examples of this situation. I recommend that you contact the maker of whatever game you have and request a version that has no pay in though. I have personally been trying to contact one of the better board game makers Rifkin Habsburg about his games but with little luck so far. If you do use freeplay to avoid confusion, post signs in your place declaring your intentions. It is not likely you will have problems unless you blatantly violate the policy directly or indirectly. Attempts to get around the skill game policy say like the dice game you mentioned where people pay into a tip jar of some kind and money gets dispensed to the winner of the game would almost certainly be considered "permitting" payment into a game. There are quite a few games that have used such a approach in the past. Given the wide variety of types of games this covers and approaches, until LL says otherwise I personally I am operating under what the policy is actually saying. Trying to create loopholes to get pay and win games to work indirectly is highly unadvisable.

Yingzi Xue wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: It is possible obviously and some do but on freeplay games with pay and win options built in it extra scripting. And the impact on the sim can easily be multiplied by a couple hundred in even a moderately sized game room or arcade. Some games would require menus but most wouldn't. I have one called Galaxy War which is one of my favorites to play that has multiple config options. Players set if its co-op, or competitive, or how many computer opponents there are, the AI difficulty level etc. There are just way too many game mechanics and various other options to say menus are not required at all. Menus aren't required at all if you use notecard configuration or external configuration. There are ways to get around menus and save on memory. I have a product that uses menus, texture cycling and timers. Hundreds rezzed in the same region and still good performance. It's all in the design. Many factors cause lag. Check out Galaxy War at my place. It has a lot of player options and Its a big 10 meter board with planets all above it. It is east of the landing zone. Also Solitaire by Paso Clip is another good example as it is a multi game ie can play a wide variety of solitaire style card games on it. I agree in many if not most cases menus always required are there are plenty of exceptions. Sure you can make something all hud based or have a prim control pannel pop up but that would add prims and scripts. note card configs are mostly only useful when setting a game in a fixed way. Solitaire actually uses both note cards and popup windows.

I have no interest in talking to you about your trolling success. and if your takling about other kinds of success you don't even have a marketplace to sell your lame furniture in. Lastly you have no clue about my degree of success or not. You keep firing off boomarang bullets and they keep flying back and smacking yourself in the head and you respond with LOL and various emotes declaring you won. anyone that does that just looks like a bafoon.

Learn to read. you will be a much more succesful troll in the future if you do. Edited to expose troll comments. Troll Wrote: DerekShane was the one who posted the new addition to the FAQ, and he seems to think that freeplay games that ONLY refund immediately do exist DerekShane wrote "I can't think of any game except Zyngo without that L$1 requirement." NOTE: Zyngo has no freeplay only version. Troll Wrote: you don't know much about scripting... Drop-down menus add very little to a script and have almost no impact on a sim" NOTE: Never claimed scripting knowledge and I never commented on pop up menus being efficient or not. Yingzi did. Yingzi Xue wrote "Yes, the code needed for menus can memory intensive, but menus are not required at all"

Yingzi Xue wrote: It's possible to create a session system without menus by keeping track of the player key and the status of the game. I just wrote an example script (not posted here) which uses around 575 bytes of 16k script memory. At the very minimum, if designed properly, session code is small taters. You could add a timer to expire a session if the player leaves mid-game, which is a few extra lines of code. A timer would be minimal impact, being set for something like 5 minutes. Approximately 685 bytes used. That's with all the code necessary to maintain a session, compiled in LSL2, not MONO. Yes, menus are memory intensive, but not required at all. It is possible obviously and some do but on freeplay games with pay and win options built in it extra scripting. And the impact on the sim can easily be multiplied by a couple hundred in even a moderately sized game room or arcade. Some games would require menus but most wouldn't. I have one called Galaxy War which is one of my favorites to play that has multiple config options. Players set if its co-op, or competitive, or how many computer opponents there are, the AI difficulty level etc. There are just way too many game mechanics and various other options to say menus are not required at all.

Yingzi Xue wrote: Back in 2008, I wanted to store sales data for my stores, so I created a simple in-world server object. I would periodically move the data off to a spreadsheet on my PC with copy/paste. I did that for years with great success, even though the storage space was quite small (16k). In the event memory got low, I would drop old data. I used email and chat history as a backup, so I had two redundancies. Nowadays I use HTTP and an external server. How the pay-in-instant-refund idea got traction with game creators is a mystery, but even in a pre-MONO and HTTP world, there were more robust options. If it were me, I would've complained to the creator for clogging my transaction history with pay spam until they removed it or made it optional. I'm sure free-to-play games still exist, somewhere in obscure corners of the grid, where people still cling to ideas like community and having fun. Actually, KR Engineering games now fit the bill since they don't accept pay in anymore. Yes free to play games exist in SL and they are hardly obscure. They are mostly used for casual attractions or more so for personal use with friends. Hell some games never had money in or out even as a consideration. I have tons of games board and card games myself. I have a SL version of settlers of Catan called Settlers of Second Life. Its rather old, highly primmy and a whole lot of scripts though so I don't really keep it out. some of the best examples are hard to find though. I been going through my inventory and pulling out old games in a adboard support approach. In the arcade department some of the most impressive creatons have been Super Rally and Komikaze. There is a line of working pinball games, Brock Games has a huge line of card and board games, There are a variety of chess and other ancient games out there, There is a game called Warlords which plays in a similar fashion to the civilization type games etc so on. Then there are a few shooting type games out there like a zombie/monster shooting game more sim based though. There are a couple CCG type games in SL etc so on. There are a LOT of games in SL. Not just slingos and a couple recently updated games formerly with pay in options. "How the pay-in-instant-refund idea got traction with game creators is a mystery" It is hardly a mystery for people with any experience with games but those that don't probably wonder why but it makes sense when applying a little common sense. The pay and win games already have a pay to start feature in place. They have to check amounts and as part of those routines they tend to refund incorrect amounts. They don't have to I suppose. the only incorrect amounts are from those using "hacked" viewers trying to steal. The alternative would be to create an entirely separate click to start or menu driven to start taking up extra script, memory and possibly using up extra script time. Not a big deal with one or two games but depending on the game it could be close on script memory but more importantly they tend to think and consider game rooms with more than a handful of games present and all those scripts add up adding to lag. Games that never had a pay in feature of any kind have never had a pay to start feature. Karstens games use to be configurable to pay OR click to start. Same thing with Riffkin's games. But the primary purpose and design wasn't for commercial use and those types of games typically don't have a whole bunch of duplicates in the same sim so script time etc isn't as much of a concern.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: Additionally it should be noted there is no point for a game that is set strictly set to freeplay to have a pay in of L$1 to triger the game to start. The only reason games do this is if they can be set to pay and win. The reason this is in the FAQ is because of games set to freeplay are not within the scope of the skill game policy including games that could potentially be used otherwise such as older games. The policy isn't like what some have said in this thread where essentially all game since the begining of SL are restricted to skill game regions even if set to be within this new skill game policy. Let's be absolutely clear about this. If a 'freeplay game' CAN be set by the operator to pay-to-play and win, with no immediate refund, then it does come under the new policy. As long as a pay-to-play and win option is contained in the game, it falls under the new policy, whether the option is used or not. I'm not entirely sure that you wrote anything different in the paragraph that I've quoted, but I wanted to make it clear. Then the pay to start for freeplay was 100% pointless to even mention. There is nor ever has been a game made that is strictly freeplay that pays out money that had a pay to start the game feature. This only happens in games where paying to play is an option. For you to say otherwise demonstrates you have no clue about how games operate in SL. Furniture sure but clearly nothing about games. LL has made it clear in multiple places games that are freeplay are not in the scope of the policy. That FAQ on pay to start makes it even more clear until they clearly state otherwise.