If AgePlay Is Being Restricted, So Should Gambling...

I am not knowledgeable about much of SL. But I can read English, which is all it takes. In view of both points I try not to sound too dogmatic about how SL works. I didn't bother entering a birthdate so where you get 30th Nov I don't know. It's also incorrect anyway.

While thats true Casino's chips are usually regulated by the state gaming board L$ isnt. The casino chips actually have a real world value tied to them directly. If you paid the casino for 1000 dollars worth of chips and lost say a 100 dollar chip that 100 dollar chip is for sure worth 100 dollars. If you say lost L due to a bug your not actually losing any real world equivalent of that money unless you purchased the money in which case the only value the money actually has is what you paid for it. Not what a government or the state gaming board says its worth. If they want to tie in a true monetary value to L they would need to make it reflect back to a USD equivalent that doesnt fluxcuate on such a marginal basis. You cant have money that's value depends on what people are willing to pay for it become a way they dictate money because if it works with this then i could go sell my 100 dollar poker chip for 200 dollars which doesnt logically make sense for someone to go do.

DJ Your lawyers can say that L$ itself has value outside of SL that doesnt make it true or mabye you are misreading or confusing what they said with what your thinking. Once the L is converted to USD yes it has value but the L itself has no pertinant value on its own until its sold and or bought in which case its value is determined by two parties in agreement that that is what the L$ itself is worth. How actual gambling works is you have poker chips they say 100 250 500 1000 etc on the chips. You can go trade them in on their face value as what they are worth. You arnt going to take back your poker chips a day later and find that all of a sudden they are only worth 75 dollars instead of 100 or 150 instead of 250. To put a monetary legal value on L as a currency it needs to have a regulated real world return which it doesnt.

The structure of SL makes that impossible. If everyone had to sell at the same exact value the mass line of L waiting to be sold would make Lindex impossible to use if you wanted to cash out the L you earned in a timely fashion. Im not a lawyer but i know the court system well enough to know that for them to successfully prosecute someone in SL they'd need to prove certain things as a formality. I also notice now that you change from 4/5 lawyers advice to a total of 5 lawyers which puts a few holes in your actually contacting them. I find it hard pressed to label a casino in SL a internet casino go look sometime.

By the way to everyone who doesnt realize with as broad as the posters saying its actually illegal are paitning the law (without actual facts all we have here is heresay and a quote from a "spokesperson" This would encompass all and any forms of gaming in SL. This would include tringo, slingo, pizzaria and any other game where you can pay in a pot and win some L. Any real contest that involves some sort of game of skill or anything would quickly need to be ousted as broad as they claim this law to be and where would that leave hundreds of places in SL really hmmm? Not all places that have slingo etc are casinos but as soon as you start up with this type of thing they are going to be painted the same as they are a game of chance.

So why dont we just do away with all and any form of gaming all together in SL or for that matter anything that might be morally objectional in real life or have some real life laws based on it because for shock it might promiote shooting at people in real life or nudity in public. (that was sarcasm by the way) I just dont see how you can take this law as it is without looking at it yourself.

As it stands the law itself is far to broad to be taken at face value of saying anything other then it May be illegal. Which may be and Is are two totally difference things. DJ you say your lawyers are disputing that L has a value in real life. I'd like to meet this team of crackpots seriously. Just because something can be transfered into a real world currency by selling it to someone else doesnt mean that thing itself has a monetary value in real life. Your misrepresenting what you were told in all likely hood or you dont understand it. Above statements and previous statements i've made show that L has a value once its purchased and or sold but that value is based on what the two parties feel the L is worth. The L itself before that has no value aside from being in world currency.

So your statement is half true but not entirely true. It does equal out to having a real world value at some point. The key difference is disputing that while in SL it has monetary value in the real world is mooted by the point that you cant use L anywhere in real life. By your same logic (or your lawyers logic) one could sell coffe beans to another person and that would make the coffee beans there for have monetary value. Thats not how things work though is it. I cant go to a store with coffee beans and start buying things can i? There isnt a dispute as to wether L can be traded to a real life currency they can. But disputing that L themselves have monetary value as is is a illogical and incorrect statement.

I do apologize for the absurdly long post here but ...... it needed to be stated and the reasons why needed to be also. I hope people will try their hardest to overturn any law like this esepcially those that use SL just because of the impact it could have if the court system does find it can be applied so broadly as the US justice department wishes it could be.

Show what? We prepared paperwork, sent it to them, and they all called us back. I did not record the conversation.



Yes, it does. It can be converted to USD. Unless you're a lawyer don't bother interpreting what you believe is the law as if it is the law.

I'm not. LAWYERS ARE. Do you understand that yet?

We're following the legal advice of 5 different law firms instead of the legal advice from forum members. Call me crazy.

like I said - it depends on how much the guarantee of value matters.

If thats a requirement - then no the Linden has no value.

If the requirement is only you need is the reasonable ability to exchange it for cash then, yes it has value.

It depends on the actual laws, I dont know them. But I think that if the guarantee is required it is a loop hole through which a gambling site could game the system.

----------------------
Example -

Simply start "www.yeahthisalegalcasino.com" web site
-claim you are a virtual world.
-Technically your chips have no real value becuase you say so.
-Have a bunch of ficticious buyers who will buy the chips off the winners so they get their pay outs.

If your outside the US how will anyone know your ficticious buyers are ficticious?


----------
Thus if gambling is legal now (the lawyer Linden seemed to think so) I doubt it will stay legal forever.

Were only now at the begining of the crackdown on Internet gambling. I imagine Second Life isnt on the first round of sites the people are looking at. But thats just me guestimating.

What religion "bans" gambling?

So how could they possibly regulate what lindens were purchased for gambling, and what ones were purchased for other in world activities, and what lindens came to them from within SL? It can't be.

This is the one and only loophole that makes gambling here a legal activity. The fact that you do NOT have to purchase lindens in order to purchase chips to play. There are way too many other ways to get them.

Try clicking on your name in the forums.

Lauro Nemeth
Registered User

Last Activity: Today 09:34 AM
Offline
Add Lauro Nemeth to Your Buddy List Add Lauro Nemeth to Your Ignore List

Forum Info Contact Info
Join Date: 03-04-2007
Posts
Total Posts: 6 (0.69 posts per day)
Find all posts by Lauro Nemeth
Find all threads started by Lauro Nemeth

Email:
Send a message via email to Lauro Nemeth
Additional Information Group Memberships
Birthday:
November 30

Lauro Nemeth is not a member of any public groups

LOL do people actually use their real date of birth on forums?

My views on all of this can be found over here /13/d7/171001/1.html in my thread about censorship.

Come over, give your opinion on _that_ subject, and then let's all use the voting feature and vote on what we find the most offensive about SL!

If you like something do it, if you don't avoid it. Why is this so hard to grasp? People keep wishing to inflict their selective morals on others in ways that make *them* feel good.

Public displaying of sexually related ageplay is no longer permitted as officially as it gets.

What people do in private should not concern you or anyone if it it's between consenting adults.

What joy it must be for certain people on this forum to be "without sin". I personally am not without sin insofar as my thoughts are concerned and consequently I do not judge others.

The time for trolling the ageplay issue has come to end. SL has spoken in a way designed to be as fair as possible and still be enforceable.

Unless you or others who enjoy wearing the "Thought police" tag over their heads want to add SL monitoring IM converstations to it's "Future Features" ( I would vote no on that, who would vote yes I wonder? ) private communications should *not* concern you.

What possible good is derived from pushing people away and making them feel even further separated from society? How does this help anyone? Sexual ageplayers are today's lepers and while it would be wonderful for them to be healed, that is a miracle that has yet to happen.

Not thinking about something doesn't make it go away, is simply pops up somewhere else.

Judge not lest ye be judged....

My guess is you didnt read the thread he put in his post -

Jamey Satyr is actually on the defense of freedom side of the ageplay arguement. Basically sounds like your side of the arguement.

*chuckles* lashing out at someone and calling them a troll without giving the benefit of the doubt to read the other thread.

Ironic.

In case you get further confused this is direct to you.

Somehow you think your views supersede all others, you in fact suggest people ignore thoughts that don't match yours in another thread.

Care to comment on what I actually posted in the thread above, if you can stop chuckling of course.

I do not think my veiws supercede others. I Do sometimes think other people are wrong and Ill say so.

Sometimes Ill merely disagree. I attempt to be fair about it.

I may call someones post irrelevant - that isnt me telling people to ignore it. Its just calling it irrelvant. If you have an example of me actively telling others to ignore someone else Id like to see it.


The reson I chuckled is becuase you quoted someone who is all about freedom of thought or else the Lindens should put it directly in the TOS, then went into a discussion against thought police, while using language that directly read like you disagreed with him.

If you instead had a problem with something I said, then you shoulda quoted me and called me thought police.

Actively participating in a discussion is not trolling. Disagreeing isnt trolling. Even stating someone is wrong isnt trolling. Trolling involves deliberately disagreeing for the sake of heating up a debate or else cuasing someone to look bad.

If you think Im a troll. Thats fine. Dont bother me.

I think the community opinion line is a smoke screen. Ask enough people in the community and eventually youll find a bunch that will agree with you on any subject. Just ignore the ones that dont.

This is 100% false. L$ has a currency value, whether it's in-world or converted to USD. That is what makes casinos whether web-based, or in a virtual world (with the servers hosted in the US), in fact, illegal. Even if online casinos, poker rooms, etc, were legal for US players, there are still things that make it illegal. 1, the servers processing the transactions are located inside the US. And 2, it illegal to offer gambling without a gambling license.

We were looking at building an SL casino and sought legal advice from 5 different law firms. They all said this.

You typed this yesterday...is your memory so flawed?



Isn't that the word *ignore* in your last sentence?

You are a troll. A self righteous one at that.

Telling people what to think is the definition of "thought police", that's you too.

You might want to think before you strike your keyboard and spew your hate mongering text.

No one is forcing you to play a particular way. Leave people who are not harming you alone.

Bad Karma awaits you on the path you've chosen, but I forgive you, for what that's worth.

I think the community opinion line (by Linden Labs) is a smoke screen. Ask enough people in the community and eventually youll find a bunch that will agree with you on any subject. Just ignore the ones that dont. (that way youll seem 100% right)

You typed this yesterday...is your memory so flawed?



Isn't that the word *ignore* in your last sentence?

You are a troll. A self righteous one at that.

Telling people what to think is the definition of "thought police", that's you too.

You might want to think before you strike your keyboard and spew your hate mongering text.

No one is forcing you to play a particular way. Leave people who are not harming you alone.

Bad Karma awaits you on the path you've chosen, but I forgive you, for what that's worth.

Reguardless of my personal dislike of sexual age play with child avs - I was always of the "just hope I dont have to see it" becuase I didnt beleive I had a right to impose stuff on Adults. I always felt it shouldnt have been advertized becuase its so distasteful.

I have opinions on it of course. Made those pretty clear in these threads.

The fact that the outside world's going to judge SL based on Age Play being allowed or not changes things a great deal.

Its simply not worth Second Life potentially failing on the priniciple of virtual first ammendment rights in all cases. Since its not the governement - Its a business.

Ahhh - you missed the point of my that post entirely.

I wasnt telling anyone to ignore anybody.

I was saying that Linden Lab using the "community opinion" line was not a good arguement on their part.

If I for example only liked red cars I could ask enough people and eventually find 100 people who agreed only red cars were good. Then I could conviently forget the ones who said they prefered blue cars. See then all my community opionion would agree that red cars are best.

The Lindens obviously could find a lot of people that are anti age play - thats easy enough. The they can conveintly IGNORE the ones who either participate in age play and have an opinion or the ones who are for freedom of thought on the subject and have an opinion.

The people I was refering to ignoring anyone was the lindens - and the people who I was saying they were ignoring is those on your side of the issue.



The ignore part was me being sarcastic about their motives.

Linden Labs banned the age play becuase of bad press. The Community Opinion line was added after the fact.

Like If they banned Blue cars. They could ask enough people and get "community opinion " they did the right thing - and just pretend like the ones who disagreed didnt exist.

Although this threads about gambling - I figured Id repost my comment from yesterday on the other threads in response to me being a thought police.



It is also ironic on another thread im being debated for thinking someday there will be a virtual world that completly supports 1st ammendment rights.

I still think that - but second life isnt it, they cant afford to be.

Sorry????? "You" prepared and sent them paperwork and all 5 law firms responded by phone????? Now that really is BS!

Poker chips at casinos can be exchanged for money between yourself and the casino. But as I say, walk in to McDonalds and try and buy a Big Mac with them. This is not too hard to understand. And I'm sorry but I have to bother when you keep making incorrect statements and then quote legal advice that you can't substantiate and is highly dubious.

We have no evidence that it is in fact illegal either what we have is heresay that DJ contacted 5 lawyers and they all said it was (note he said 4/5 lawyers in an earlier post as well so 1 disagreed and now changes it to all 5 agreeing...)