Sorina Garrigus

DerekShane wrote: 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! Quite of few if not all of the Ravkom, PI games, and Cookies all have a menu start option for freeplay but they also worked with the pay L$1 approach as well. Of all of those Cookies is the only one on the freeplay version that doesn't have a pay L$1 option. I believe game creators were trying to save on extra scripting and memory usage. Games check for amount paid in to see if its correct so refunding when its not is usually done so a menu driven game start is extra. This was especially the case with older games back when 30ish scripts for a game was common. Even without LL clairifying the L$1 pay in and refund was ok for freeplay, it was clearly within the spirit of what the new policy is about. 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. But to avoid confusion it is probably best to request a game maker assuming they are currently active for an update with fixed freeplay games if they are going to be used as such. appropriately. I for one have quite a few games that it won't be likely or possible to be updated.

Yingzi Xue wrote: It would be interesting to know what allowed them to pay a wrong amount. If you can't keep fraudulent payments from happening, at least you can prevent a person's account from being drained with debit permission by not allowing it at all. Also, keep in mind (Phil) that your script is only going to pay out when it's designed to do so, which means if your script is set for split profits, for instance, the script most likely won't be exploited as they're paying in more than they're getting back. It's all in the script design and not all scripts are created equal. You'd like to think that scripters consider these things, but I don't think that's the case most of the time. With scripting comes great responsibility. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink: Being able to attempt to pay a false amount is a VERY VERY old exploit. It is usually done with "hacked" viewers or customer viewers none of which are legal to use in SL. I believe (I never seen such a viewer in action) the pay window with the fill in your own amount block pops up and they put in a different amount. There was also reports of a viewer that was able to pay L$0 somehow. Scripters need to ALWAYS check pay in amounts for anything that accepts money

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. Thank you LL for finally clairifying this very clearly. It was clear to me all the long when the big picture is looked at. The fall out would have been horrendous otherwise killing content going back a full decade And thanks to the trolls and pointless arguers for all the post saying this was not the case and claiming, or in my book lying (responses completely from ones buttocks is still a lie in my book), Hopefully those individuals can now try to have productive posts. Please try not to flood the forum with arguments purely for self entertainment. This is a complex issue and people need to see the big picture and the "sit back and eating popcorn" mentality in the forums is not helping anyone. If people are that bored go explore SL. Its a heck of a lot more fun and interesting than any forum.

the entire post was about the wire act and relaying those opinions to peoples respective attorneys. At this point if you say the sky is blue I will have to doubt it without seeing the sky for myself. I won't be responding to trolls anymore so go have fun on youtube or something.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: "Aha. You've changed your tune. " They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy. Again what the hell is wrong with you "What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'" "I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion" Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it. Someone will doubtless correct me if I'm mistaken, but, at least as I recall, people got rather excited at the time (2011) about this Federal Wire Act business, until it transpired that what the Department of Justice had actually said was that they didn't intend to use the Wire Act any longer to prosecute certain behaviours because it had always been debatable about whether they were, in fact, caught by that legislation (though the D of J maintained they were) but because the D of J had take the policy decision that, in future, they would use more recent legislation that certainly did cover whatever it was the D of J had hitherto been going after under the Wire Act. In any case, presumably since even I'd heard of this -- they got excited about in SLU at the time, and probably here, too -- I'm sure LL's lawyers are fully aware of it, as should be (or so I would hope) any competent attorneys retained by people wanting to create or operate games of skill in SL. I recall the same when that statement came out. I suspect that might been in part why some games in SL may have started to see where the line was of what was within TOS. I recall some movement of some states allowing online poker but restricted to that specific state that it was legal as a result of the wire act. But State laws are another matter. Though the wire act may not consider to apply towards anything other than sports and similar event betting state laws are likely to have effect. But I learned a long time ago to do your own research but in cases like this give that research over to your attorney. There are not a lot of attorneys that specialize in gaming laws and the ones that do are probably in Vegas and have considerably high fees. So it doesn't hurt to give your attorney a direction to look.

" You were wrong that creators/sellers and operators need to know the relevant laws, and that's all that we are discussing here." "It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy" "RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal," "Users don't need any understanding of any laws." HOLY BLEEP. You should start replying to your own posts. You will be in a never ending conversation.

"Again, you've had difficulty understanding what's written before your eyes. You quote LL as saying that LL requires "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing", which they do. They don't require anything like that from operators or creators, so it isn't necessary for operators and creators to understand all the laws. That's the job of the lawyers. Get it?" Yes reasoned legal opinions come from lawyers. Your not making any kind of point. But they do require game operators and owners to supply those opinions from their respetive attorneys. This is all in the no friggin duh catagory. Its not like random lawers are filing RLOs for no particular reason. Game owners and operators will be the ones supplying that information to the attorney Lastly that whole post CLEARLY STATED, to relay that information to your respective attorney on the chance they are not aware. CLEARLY you are arguing to argue and your making a fool out of yourself with most of your posts. you keep attacking from the position of a troll and I keep quoting actual policy, statements, news sources and in general the actual facts.

"Aha. You've changed your tune. " They did quote part of it back. It was not completely cut and pasted but it echoed what the policy I actually cut and pasted EXACTLY what they stated when I said they just quoted policy back..They did not give any further helpful information. Just echoed the policy. Again what the hell is wrong with you "What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'" "I didn't question why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion" Please again refer to my above last statement and go back to troll school. Your bloody awful at it.

"RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't." FALSE. The whole point to policy is some states do not allow their citizens to play games of skill with pay and win conditions such as a chess or backgammon tournament for example. The policy DOES allow things that are illegal in some states. Really LL has allowed things to go on in SL that have been illegal in SL for years but only no ware taking the time to address that. BUT the policy creates the situation where players have to have their identity verified which include their residence. If playing a game of skill is not legal in their state or country, then then that individual would not be able to access those gaming regions. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS POLICY FOR CRYING OUTLOUD!

Guy Gossamer wrote: "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 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. As you can see (well most of us can, Sorina is obviously blind or just plain stupid) it clearly states at 2) requires of permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play. So, "There is nothing that addresses capability of paying in." is plain and simply a complete lie. Like I've said time and again, do not take any advice from Sorina Garrigus. Please seek legal opinion from an attorney. You can clearly see she is ranting about older games..yadda yadda. Just ignore her. I totally agree. Seek a legal opinion from a verified attorney willing to provide credentials without hesitation. BUT As it was stated by others including another attorney, an attorney that is unwilling from the very start to present their credentials without a retainer first is and should be considered "shady as hell". I am not sure why anyone should listen to you who wanted to do nothing but squash a MAJOR red flag concern. That is not only a noob thing to do in Second Life, it's a noob thing to do in First Life. Yes I am primarily talking about older games because once this policy goes into effect, newer games with pay and win conditions will not be able to be distributed outside skill game sites. 1) I don't think LL is interested in censoring games say a bumper car game made 7 years ago by an inactive game creator that is operating legally according to the skill game policy. 2) This policy IS NOT only affecting solo play games of skill. It has a much wider impact than what your tunnel visison allows you to see. 3) "requires or permits the payment of Linden Dollars to play". A Game set to freeplay obviously does not currently require or permit the payment of Linden Dollars to play. 4) Permit can easily be refering to tip jar style pay and win games to omit the possiblity of loophole attempts. 5) "Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy" 6) A game set with pay AND win options currently active outside a gaming sim could and should be removed.

Phil Deakins wrote: This is a reply to your previous post (#976) as well as the one I'm replying to (#977). It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy. It's silly to suppose they do. All than anyone needs to know is LL's Skill Gaming Policy. Everything that anyone needs to know is written there. RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal, which they don't. It is, of course, necessary for the lawyers of the creators and operators to know the relevant laws, and it makes no difference whatsoever whether or not the creators and operators themselves know the relevant laws. They still need their lawyers to know them. I wondered why you'd posted about the laws. I really didn't expect it to be because you thought that creators and operators needed to know them. I thought it may a 'just out of interest' thing, or maybe you were wanting to change LL's policy in some way, or maybe you posted them to show the reasons for LL's policy. So I asked you. "It isn't necessary for creators and operators to know the laws that concern the Skill Gaming Policy" "RL laws have no effect on it, unless the policy allows things that are illegal," What? Seriously stop commenting in this forum. Clearly you have some obfuscation agenda. Linden Labs is REQUIRING both game owners and creators to offer... ... "A reasoned legal opinion from a credible attorney in good standing (the "Reasoned Legal Opinion"), which describes in detail the operatoin and LEGALITY of the Skill Games, in accordance with the requirements further described ...." https://secure.echosign.com/public/hostedForm?formid=9EX6XU7I3J32XJ This is a complex situation and your not helping.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Games that cannot accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play do come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not. 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. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying. It has absolutely been clarified both in the policy document and by Linden Lab in this thread. You're the only one who refuses to accept it, and you're the only who seeks to cause confusion about it (and other things). @everyone. I'll repeat what I and others have said in this thread. Ignore Sorina's posts. She doesn't understand things and she only causes confusion. What the hell is wrong with you. I quoted the actual response they just paraphrased the policy back. They did not clairify anything. I am not going to waste the time to search and quote exactly what they said again. Please feel free to post the link and exact post. You were questioning why the Federal Wire act was relevant in this discussion. CLEARLY you don't understand this policy and the ramifications AT ALL. Why are you commenting on it.

native Bigbear wrote: Thanks for the reply phil i just hope your right about that im more concerned about the rodeo rides ive sold to my customers in the past so fingers crossed all will be ok. I doubt you will have issues on older games that you created. Just be sure to have updates perhaps on games that might have been pay to play and money to win. I can't imagine LL creating problems with a game creator's older builds that might be floating out there. If they did that would mean they intend the policy to be retroactive to 2004 and they would have to ban Phillip Linden for creating an old fairy tale slot machine.

Phil Deakins wrote: Games that cannot accept money to play don't come under the new rules. Game that are able to accept money to play do come under the new rules if there is also a payout, whether the pay-to-play facility is in use or not. 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. However it does make it clear elsewhere pay and win skill games can not be distrubuted outside of a skill game region and are not approved. There is nothing that addresses older games set to not permit paying to play in the policy or the FAQ. Let LL clairify their own policy rather than assuming something is true that it is not saying.

"Games in which Second Life residents do not pay to play are not within the scope of this Skill Gaming Policy" If your making a game and players DO NOT pay directly or indirectly but does pay out, they are not within the scope of the policy such as a free to play game with a pay out assuming your not working a system to attempt to bypass the policy. Since your making games just don't have a pay in option in the game at all. I wouldn't advise work arounds either. If you send me a landmark in world I would be happy to take a look. LL won't give straight answers it seems. They have just been telling people when they have to talk to an attorney. It is a major mess. I been trying to make game makers that are not in the skill game loop aware of these issues but some I have not been able to contact and may have issues given the short messy nature of how this has all been handled.

Phil Deakins wrote: I'd never heard of the Wire Act either, but it makes no difference to me or anyone else. We have the policy now, and that's what we have to live by. If someone disagrees with the policy, then they should lobby LL about it. Posting it in this thread is no good. But I don't know if the post is trying to say that the policy is wrong because of the Wire Act, or is showing why the policy is right. It was addressed to Linden Lab as well as to game makers and operators, so I don't know the purpose of it. If you have any plans on owning or creating games you HAVE to be aware of the laws that relate to games with pay and win options. If you are familiar with this and the related operator/creator policies you should completely understand the relevance of the wire act and any laws relating to games. If you don't I really am not sure why you are commenting so much on this topic. The specific reason though is some in world discussion and possibly LL internally these updated legal opinions by the US department of justice on the Federal Wire act. The federal wire act prohibits betting communication lines to place bets on sporting events. Originally it was talking about phonelines (preinternet) but was interpreted include internet as well. The older general opinion prior to 2011 was that it could apply towards online casinos and skill games. It speaks. For SL specifically puts into question % to pot features on local and grid wide games sometimes called a progressive pot because the amount of pay out increases with each play. But in 2011 it was made clear that the act was specifically for sports betting. Some alleged legal opinions floating about the wire act as it relates to SL was not addressing the 2011 court of appeals ruling and the US Department of Justice's legal opinions put out in a public statement. I wouldn't dream of offering legal advice to anyone but I would suggest any attorney used when offering legal opinions on creating or operating games should be made very aware of those facts. Other laws may enter into it though but not the wire act.

Phil Deakins wrote: What I'm curious about is this: what relevance does it have to the topic of this thread, which is LL's Skill Gaming Policy'? Do you think the policy should be changed because of it? (you did address the post the LL as well as others). If you're thinking that LL came up with the policy because of some laws or whatever, and that what you quoted should make a difference to the policy, then what you quoted doesn't make any difference. The policy exists now, and that's all that concerns us. Are you kidding? The skill game policy requires both game owners and operators to aquire reasoned legal opinions to apply as operators. Yes LL is looking at legal status at each proposed skill game. Not sure why your posting this should all be very basic on this policy to those looking into it.

Not worth responding to. There are way too many false and innaccurate statements to address, but good luck.

Guy Gossamer wrote: "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 with a percent to the pot on local or grid wide games." Please don't post such stupid opinion unless you are prepared to reference exactly where you have pulled this information from. Referencing wikipedia and three news websites while admirable and a clear demonstration of how credible your basis for argument is, proves nothing more than any idiot with access to a pc posted the information on wikipedia, and any idiot with a editorial policy posted something on their news website. Outside of that the links you posted are worthless. "The opinion from the US department of Justice nearly 3 years ago was that the federal wire act only applies towards..." - give the exact US Department of Justice reference for this, the link, document, page, lines exactly where it can be found, or don't post this type of crap at all. If you cannot post the link to said document etc, it is nobodies opinion but your own, and we all know what to do with your opinion. By the way, just because you read something on a news website or on wikipedia doesn't make it fact. 'Yes your Honor the legal basis for my opinion is wikipedia, reuters, cnn and fox!!' Sorina Said "Laywers for Linden Labs, Game creators, and game operators should be aware...." like all good trolls you ignore what was actually stated. These are important elements all legal parties should be aware of as I was suggesting and all parties to make their legal council aware of these updated (three years ago) views. This isn't really news to people in SL that keeps tract of such relevant news that may relate to gaming in SL. I am not offering any opinions other than the context of their statement made it clear it only addressed sports and other similar events. And thats not even an opinion of mine its just kind of already there in the statement. If you have a problem with that, then take it up with the US Department of Justice. Also REALLY? Three major news networks reporting the same story isn't good enough information to have your attorney research it?? REALLY? Not even the US Department of Justice?????? Fox news I could understand if it was political news. Definitely not Wiki either. They just had a clean paragraph that was short and encapsulated this old news. Your REALLY stretching now. Here are some other sources you to troll about. http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml "The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) has analyzed the scope of the Wire Act, 18 U.S.c § 1084, and concluded that it is limited only to sports betting,” U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote in a letter on Friday" If your just going to troll then just keep quiet. If your actually interested I gave enough source material and I am not interested in holding your hand the whole way. Even a half ass attorney should be able to find out and look up the rest.

Innula Zenovka wrote: People might be interested to read the following, via Inara Pey's Living In The Modem World. On Saturday August 2nd, 2014, Agenda Faromet, an attorney specialising in privacy and Internet law operating out of San Francisco, and a member of the SL Bar Association, gave a dual presentation on the recent (July 2014) changes to Section 2.3 of Linden Lab’s Terms of Service and on the changes to the Lab’s policy on Skill Gaming in Second Life, which are due to come into effect from September 1st. An edited recording and transcript of the section on Skill Gaming, which makes very interesting reading indeed, and seems to clear up a lot of points, is to be found here. I really would suggest that people at least read the edited transcript for clarification of several issues that have arisen in this thread. Thanks for posting this. I was there and was waiting for this to be put up to send to others. There was a first part also on copyright policies that was interesting also.

Attention game developers, operators, and Linden Labs. "In world" there has been discussion and confusion on the Federal wire act. 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 with a percent to the pot on local or grid wide games. Both the US Department of Justice and the US Fith circuit court of appeals agree the Federal Wire act does not include "onling gambling" and online skill games are not mentioned but clealry they are not an issue with various online skill game sites that exist outside SL. Laywers for Linden Labs, Game creators, and game operators should be aware of this information when looking at games of skill and their operation. Various sources and at the end of this post The Interstate Wire Act of 1961, often called the Federal Wire Act, is a United States federal law prohibiting the operation of certain types of betting businesses in the United States. It begins with the text: Whoever being engaged in the business of betting or wagering knowingly uses a wire communication facility for the transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or wagers or information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest, or for the transmission of a wire communication which entitles the recipient to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers, or for information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.[1] In September 2011, the US Department of Justice released to the public a formal legal opinion on the scope of the Act concluding, "interstate transmissions of wire communications that do not relate to a 'sporting event or contest' fall outside the reach of the Wire Act."[2] The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act prohibition on the transmission of wagers applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling.[3] The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/27/tech/web/online-gambling-legalization-likely/ http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/26/us-internet-gambling-idUSTRE7BO0HA20111226 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/26/legal-experts-see-states-wagering-on-online-gambling/

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 The other was a someone with all the signs of an alt has game sim in his picks that does not exist. The other was someone that apparently hates games and game operators, and blames them for encouraging addiction while also stating that they also tried to make a skill game before I suppose so they could blame themselves for encouraging addiction. Then of course there is you who is hung up on a punctuation comment. Not exactly a credible we. CLEARLY you are here to disrupt things as most trolls are. So have a good day and have fun making cheap furniture.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this. LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling? I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:- I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "permits" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it? Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it. I found your question and the response on Greedy Greedy. LL just quoted the policy but did not define permit in any kind of context or reference the game or situation. They do this because they are not offering legal advice AT ALL. "Hi Phil, If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy. best regards," PS: On Greedy just update it anyway if you are intending to play for no money in or out. Karsten has been updating al lhis games. He has to since he has no intention on applying his games as being skill games or have a skill game sim to sell them on. Just click the game and hit update. He didn't "just quote the policy". He phrased it in a different way, so that even you could understand. Between the policy and the LL post that you quoted, there is no abiguity, and nothing is open to interpetation. Actually, the LL reply that you quoted is even more clear about it that the policy is. It's blatantly clear. I've no doubt that it's blatantly clear to you too, and that it's your pride that won't let you back down and be seen to have been wrong about it - just like you were seen by everyone to be wrong about the semi-colons.. I know all about the Greedy Greedy update. I even know that there was a bug in the first update which was fixed in the second one. I got it a while back, but thank you for mentioning it, anyway I am not backing down, I am not interested replying to an obvious troll.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this. LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling? I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:- I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "permits" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it? Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it. I found your question and the response on Greedy Greedy. LL just quoted the policy but did not define permit in any kind of context or reference the game or situation. They do this because they are not offering legal advice AT ALL. "Hi Phil, If the game permits pay-to-play, it would be subject to the Skill Gaming Policy. best regards," PS: On Greedy just update it anyway if you are intending to play for no money in or out. Karsten has been updating al lhis games. He has to since he has no intention on applying his games as being skill games or have a skill game sim to sell them on. Just click the game and hit update.

Phil Deakins wrote: Sorina Garrigus wrote: A game set to freeplay is not actively permitting pay to play. AT ALL. Again if they meant a game that was capable of being set to pay to play they would have and need to say so in the policy. It's not even addressed in the FAQ. There should be little room for interpretation in a policy like this. LL already clarified it for us so that there is no room for interpretation. How many more times do you want telling? I'm not going to let you avoid this, and I'll repeat it in reply to your posts until you answer it. So for the second time:- I have a question for you. Just suppose that the part of the policy sentence that includes the word "permits" does need clarification, as you insist it does. Since Linden Lab has already clarified it right here in this thread, who are you trying to help when telling people that it's open to interpretation? Of course, you can insist that the policy needs to be clearer in that respect, but why are you telling people that it's open to interpretation when Linden Lab has already clarified it? Do you see where we are coming from? By all means, lobby LL to rewrite that bit so that it's clearer, if that's what you feel is needed, but don't go telling people that something is open to interpretation when it's already been clarified by Linden lab themselves. All that achieves is getting yourself shot down in flames, and the embarrassment that goes with it. The ONLY way it is clarified YET AGAIN is if its in the policy or in the FAQ. Not because we have to take your word you got a random response. If they contradicted the policy in the forums then they need to address that. And why would a furniture builder ask about skill games anyway? "Do you see where we are coming from?" What we are you refering to? I understand this is a common tactic among passive aggressives trying to create a split where its one against the majority. Also I am not being shot down in flames at all. I am pointing to the actual policies. But I am done talking with you. You have nothing constructive to offer at all. If I have a furniture question I will be sure to ask you about it.