Jump to content

Marishka Ixito

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Marishka Ixito

  • Rank
  1. The only thing you could say in defense of sploders is that most aren't run for profit. To the contrary, many sploders see the owner of the device putting in a significant share of the prize money. Nevertheless, I agree that they're illegal (and have been for a long time). LL not having done much to eradicate them from the grid doesn't change that. As for the subject of the thread, although just about all midnight mania boards that require payment in some form or other (non-free groupmembership, parcel access fee, or otherwise) are currently "innocent" (as in: not used to intentionally bypass the "no gambling" rules), these boards will not see much future if LL aims to snuff out possible abuse. However, if the sploder example can serve as a lead, I'd say it's not very likely we'll see a witchhunt to get rid of theoretically offending MM boards unless and until someone builds a true gambling device dressed up as an MM board. .
  2. Phoebe Avro wrote: Actually it is directly related to brain speed, the paragraph was originally taken from an article about the research done at Cambridge University some years ago. No, it's not taken from an article about research at Cambridge University.. For some more reading on the subject of jumbling the letters in words, and the origin of the jumbled text that was widely distributed on the internet I recommend http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/ and http://www.crcummins.com/CRCScrambled.pdf
  3. Spirit, 1. There's no way to prove or disprove who has which alts, nor is that information interesting for anyone with all screws in tightened condition. Whenever you meet someone with the "paranoid" screw untight, hand them a screwdriver. 2. Someone harassing you/your friends: put the person on ignore, and ask your friends to do the same. If some don't, you should ask yourself if they are friends, or more interested in stirring up some silly sl-drama. 3. Nobody can spy on your IM's, unless your computer has been compromised with some spying software, or the person you talked to shares the IM log with someone else (against the TOS). 4. What you say in local chat is "public" anyway, no need to wonder if someone is "listening", if you want privacy, use IM's instead.
  4. Basically, what I get from the "November 1 deadline" Linden Lab blogpost is that from that date forward, LL will actively enforce that: 1. no skill games are operated that are not already approved or subject of an ongoing application review; 2. no skill games are operated by someone that doesn't have a license or an ongoing application review for such license; 3. no skill games are operated by anyone outside a skill gaming region. Conclusion is that those applicants who are waiting to get approved before changing their sim into a skill gaming region have no choice anymore, come November 1, whether license still under consideration or not, they'll need to run their games in a skill gaming region. kind regards, Marishka
  5. Seconded, but to be honest I doubt the suggestion is new. kind regards Marishka
  6. /quote If they find out a country or other states passed a law prohibiting it they'll be added to the list too. /unquote I think it's highly unlikely LL will examine the laws of 200 or so countries. Much more likely seems that LL will include more jurisdictions to their exclusion list only when pressed hard by such jurisdictions. Such pressure is most likely the source of the new games policy also, I don't believe for a second that LL just discovered 2 months ago that some states in the USA have "no online gaming" laws. If LL would approach the issue proactively, for example Italy would have been included in the "no access" list already. Italy requires a permit issued by the Italian State Agency for all providers of online skill games who service Italian citizens. Italian law is apparently deemed a "good guideline" by other european lawmakers, so further down the road this could very well result in another experience similar to the VAT-thing some years ago. kind regards, Marishka
  7. Ellfie, Going by the specs you posted for your current compu, you may have an alternative for buying a completely new one, because your processor isn't all that old/slow. I would suggest finding a local computershop and find out if your current motherboard will allow for more internal memory (you could also download a free little program called Speccy and find out yourself what mobo (motherboard) you have and google it to find out how much memory it supports). If it does (support more memory) ask for a good all in price for: 1. upgrading your internal memory to 16 GB 2. graphics card to a GeForce GTX 750Ti Superclock w/G-SYNC Support 2GB GDDR5 3. new SSD harddisk (Samsung 840 EVO 250GB) with a fresh copy of Win7 installed from your own CD (keep existing harddisk in the case as a data drive) 4. replace power unit with a new 650Watt one if yours is much less than that (probably is). Cooler Master V650 would be a good choice. Estimated total cost: about 350 € (275£). You'd basically have a new compu at half price, blazing fast, and relatively quiet (SSD's don't make noise). If you can get the Graphicscard with a quieter cooler for a bit more money, I'd strongly suggest you do that. With that upgrade, you should be able to run SL at high/ultra, with shadows, fps from 30-ish at a busy sim to 70 or better at a lonely skybox. If however your mobo doesn't support more memory you may not have much choice. Without the memory upgrade I wouldn't go this route. kind regards, Marishka
  8. There's no beating around the bush with this. From the perspective of a games operator, in principle the whole game of chance / game of skill difference is really totally uninteresting. For both goes that they want to make sure they make money from them, whether chance or skill based. Since games of chance have been outlawed in SL back in 2007 or so, the debate centers on games that can be made to pass as games of skill. But because these games of skill are aimed at the same "gambling" enamored crowd (easier to part this group with their money), designers that produced games of skill have been more succesful in selling/leasing them the better they managed to make such games look like they are suited for gambling. I imagine that in order to insure profit from these games a non random element is added to the game's algorythm/settings, for example the operator sets the "score to beat". Once enough data is available (and kept up to date) about the weighted average skill of players, then it's not so hard anymore to make sure that on average they'll still lose, no matter the skill level. The gamblers are still attracted because they prefer to believe that somehow they can beat statistics. All this was pretty easy in the old situation before LL raised the bar with their new policy. But all that's really achieved, apart from covering LL's legal arse, is that the cost of bringing games to market, and the cost to operate them has gone up considerably. Consequently, the "score to beat" will go up also (operators still need to make -more- profit). I'm thinking the market for these gambling skill based games will most likely shrink as a result of the new policy (possibly a lot), but the remaining operators may still be headed for a bright future (because the supply side will shrink more than demand). As an aside, the inevitable conclusion is that the law generally isn't very smart about it, not in the usa, not in many other countries either. If lawmakers wish to restrict gambling they're losing track of the "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck" truth when they refuse to see that many skill based games try their hardest to look and quack like a duck, so they don't qualify for separate regulation.
  9. Innula Zenovka wrote: I have to say that, as a native speaker of British English (and as someone who is used to reading English legal documents), it didn't occur to me to interpret '“Skill Game” refers to any game: 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.' as meaning anything other than that all four requirements must be met, as opposed to any one of them, until I saw your posts on the subject. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course you are right, there's no reasonable option to interprete the given definition in any other way. All four requirements must be met. The only escape I see is in the bit you left out, "game, implemented through an Inworld object:" Unless avatars count as an "in-world object", pay to play games that offer monetary prizes could still be implemented through direct payment to an avatar. I would suggest to LindenLabs to include "and/or bot" in its definition of skill games that are subject to the new regulation if they want to cover their loophole ass a bit more. That said, I doubt we'll see a witch hunt to kill everything with L$ prizes outside gaming regions. I fully expect clubs / venues that accept donations and offer free to play beauty contests / races / whatever with L$ prizes will be left in peace. Moreover, games that use other (virtual or not) currencies than L$ are not a worry for LindenLabs. Stuff like that operates outside of SL and thus is and should be a legal worry for the operator of such games, they can't hide under SL's gaming umbrella. .
  10. Qie, Agreed, LL will still need to police the non "gaming regions" with respect to any gambling / skillgaming there. A few remarks: 1. That doesn't pose anything new really, LL already had to police gambling before this initiative to regulate skillgaming. 2. We all know LL rarely actively engages in this policing job, if at all, it rather prefers to take a reactive stance where things are only investigated when complained about, sooner when done so by a large number of residents. 3. LL's reaction usually only affects the actual object that was complained about, other similar objects that would qualify for identical complaints may go unscathed (to their defense, if stuff is modifiable any alteration, even just a name change, would make it "not the same object", if I understand the asset server ways well).
  11. Having read through most posts in the thread, my impression is that many people think LindenLabs will choose an active role when judging what games qualify to be run in a gaming region, and thus kill off those games that are the most popular now because they resemble "gambling" the most, thus creating an opportunity for more truely skill based games to be operated in sl. I very much doubt LL will take that route. It seems much more likely to me that LL will just check whether the "reasoned legal opinion" from the lawyer and the affidavit are in place, and whether the object for the game is named adequately and shows that the applicant = the object creator, when deciding on a creator license. In other words, if an applicant can convince their lawyer that the game in question qualifies as a game of skill within LL's rules/guidelines, then it seems very unlikely LL will throw out the application. My best guess is that If changes are made to existing games it will be because the lawyer demands those changes, not because of direct demands from LL. That said, I reckon it will not be easy to get games approved, because of the definition given by LL in it's Skill Gaming Policy": “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........" (text borrowed from applicable law I am sure) "Material" means that the subject matter of the statement related to a fact or circumstance which would be significant to the decision to be made, as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail. So, if a game can't rely on chance "in material part", that means the role of chance must be insignificant/trivial. Smart lawyers will of course question their client to make sure this is indeed the case, before offering their "reasoned legal opinion". I dare to say that even 5% chance might make many competent lawyers balk at giving such a "reasoned legal opinion". So yes, it is possible current games will disappear after August 1, either because the creator threw the towel, or because of lawyer demands for change in order to be compliant. The challenge for creators is to design a pure skill game that still attracts the pure gamblers crowd. Not an easy task, even though gamblers love to be misled.
  12. Demonika, The common Sploders are a game of chance, with a pay-out in L$, that require payment in L$ to participate and as such, are not allowed. The relevant wiki page states that LL will enforce the policy on gambling: "Our staff will review, investigate and respond to appropriate notices. When we discover objects or games within Second Life that meet the policy's definition, we will remove them from Second Life." In short, if you encounter a working sploder that pays out L$, then most likely that sploder has not been reported.
  13. Martin, The entire thing, from both sides (lawmakers/gaming industry) isn't about chance or skill, it's about money. The gaming industry only puts up a fight to have some game designated as "game of skill" to stay out of more restrictive legal frameworks for games of chance (with higher financial burden for them). All I am saying is that: a. Italy decided to squash that discussion by making their laws applicable to both chance and skill games. They don't really care which is which, they care about tax income and selling licences. b. Other european countries appear to be attracted to the Italian model, and are following suit with a licences/taxes system of their own.
  14. If it's called a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. I am sure Italian magistrates agree.
  15. Hmm, it's slowly clearing up it seems. My impression sofar is that all non US residents are effectively forced out of the application procedure, since they would need to seek overseas legal council to obtain the necessary documents. With very few exceptions I expect this requirement will be too much for non US based applicants. On a different note, I may have some news for Linden Labs, the current Italian legal framework with regard to offering internet based chance and/or skill games to Italian citizens is gaining a following in other european countries, who are all suffering a rather severe loss of tax income because of the outflow of gambling funds to international online operators. So, what have the Italians done? 1. Without an Italian government license you (and that you includes Linden Labs) may not offer games of skill or chance to Italian residents (license costs 420,000 € including VAT) 2. Applicants need to be based in an E.E.A. jurisdiction, and licences will only allow to offer such games from an italian domain (dot IT). Offering such games to Italian residents from elsewhere is illegal and subject to imprisonment from six months up to three years. source: http://www.gaminglaw.eu/news/i-gaming-global-legal-update-italy/#more-1922 I expect other european countries to adopt similar regulations within 2-3 years. I hope Ebbe either hasn't planned any travel to Italy, or plans on Italy to be added shortly to the list of "banned states/countries" for gaming regions, lest he would want to risk secondlife.com to be added to the Italian list of "banned domains" which Italian ISP's must block for all customers.
  • Create New...