For Gamblers Only

keyword - Chance

"if you pay to play, the winner is decided at random, if it pays out anything of value, it is banned" What part of "if you pay to play" didn't you understand.

jeez, get your head out of the box. Stop trying to find ways around the rules and look for ways to work with them.

What he said - yep.....

and mere weeks ago everyone was saying 'stop crying, adapt, be creative'

I say... go for it... don't listen to all the naysayers here... they ain't Lindens. Light your cigars with rolled up 20 linden bills and blow smoke in their faces. But if you get yourself banned for some reason be sure to come back and let us know.

The nuance that is being missed by many is that the policy itself is specific to games, not access to land. If you want to get all technical, the policy specifically says:
There is no risk for *a game*. There is no purchase of a card. You purchase the right to walk around on the premises. What you do thereafter is your business and the landowners, but it won't cost you squat to play.

As I already said, I had no intention of opening such a place. It was just an idea and I wanted to see what kind of response it would get from people that wouldn't rather eat pie. That response is already pretty telling, although the sample is too small.

It proberbly wont work because LL are being heavy handed about removal of gambling machines and this sounds like trying to put the point of payment for the gambling at a different time to trick the rules.

The spirit of the rules is is to prevent US$ being gambled in SL to comply with the laws and not make all credit card companies and paypal cease payments into SL.
I assume LL will be as heavy handed as they feel they need to, to prevent investigations and keep the money companies able to make payments with them.

If you put US$ in and have a random chance of getting US$ out then its gambling.

The entire casino build like this could be considered to be a single gambling machine.
Your entire visit to the casino from the point you put money in to the point you leave could be likened to a single long game of chance.

This and many other suggestions on forums are ideas how to work with the rules and still make a profit, there's absolutely nothing wrong with this idea if you have a large parcel with variety of games and entertainment. There's one thing i can't stand that is negativity, "we can't do this... we shouldn't do that...that will not work.. etc" ... It's not for us to get out of the box, it's for ppl like you to open your mind and get a SL. Ppl pay for entertainment because they can get something back, either they get back some for of entertainment or some form of materialistic rewards either way they pay to gain something back. If i'm wrong maybe it's unethnical to charge people for land rentals because, out of law of natural attraction you can get bad neighbours so thats bad, that's gambling, that's a scam and that's a ripoff, if i'm wrong maybe cloth makers in sl should just stop charging ppl for clothes because the customer may not feel he/she got what he/she paid for, that's gambling, that's a scam, that's a ripoff... we can go realy far to find areas in wich there is risk the customer may feel ripped off, or having second thoughts, should we try to cover all of those, then you agree land should be free, clothes should be free, and everybody except you should work their ass off to entertain you.
My point is, i don't see anything wrong creating an "ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT" offer in entertainment sector, it's fair becasue everybody pays equal amount for equal amount of entertainment, theres no wagering here, it's just to cover the tier+compensations/salaries.
Try to be more constructive when you criticize, "get your head of of the box" or "when will you get a SL" are completely ridiculous arguments, and cannot be taken seriously.

I agree with Andy Grant, the question is perfectly valid and imo paying to enter a building via a pass is a function of SL.

There is a maze house, you pay L$10 to enter and if you get to the middle and back out you get a prize, which I think is on the border line of 'wagering' too, but I doubt that even if reported that the Lindens would stop it.

If it's made clear from the outset that the entrance fee is for a service, whether it be entertainment or to view pictures in a gallery it's acceptable. If there is also freeplay machines in which you can win money without having to feed the machine, then in theory it shouldn't be a problem.

However, how would this work with the US government in real life? Does anyone know if you paid $250 US to eat in a restaurant and you could play one arm bandits after dessert and win back some of the entrance fee would the government allow this? So if this would possibly be seen as illegal in RL then I guess the Lindens would want to prevent it too.

By the way, it's not an issue with me whether or not gambling is allowed or not.

""get your head out of the box"" I'm very serious. It seems most are trying to figure out some why to put the old gambling machine back up, redesigned to somehow fit in the cracks of the rules; head in a box. Rather then reading the law to see what sort of gambling is legal. I have yet to see anyone propose anything that is definitely a legal way to gamble. Most have been based more on someones interpretation of the rules, which as you can see is not the way everyone interprets those rules.

So by this interpretation "The term “wagering” applies to any covered game or activity (i.e. game of chance, sports betting) in which a user contributes Linden dollars (or real-world money or things of value), whether into a pot, at a table game, at a house game, for purchase of a card (such as Bingo), or in any way risks Linden dollars based on whether an event may or may not occur, such as whether a team will win a sporting event, or whether Barack Obama will win the Democratic primary." Is a house cover charge covered?
"at a house game" the game is in a house I have to pay to enter, so isn't that paying to play? Or is paying to play only applicable if it is pay to play individual games. In that case I could set up a block of slot machine and you pay to play all of these machine in that group, but you are still paying to play.

When it comes right down to it I don't want my ability to buy/sell lindens being threatened by someobe else's misinterpretation of the rules.

Exactly, no one does and the rules as Linden Labs have them are done in such a way that they can be misinterpretated, which is probably how they want it.

how can you both denounce people for searching for loopholes, and also suggest they look for legal means of gaming?
why do you care so much? even if this person sets up a sl tabcorp how does that negatively affect you?

LL is seeking to comply with the letter of the law. The policy as originally stated is a simple regurgitation of the letter of the law. Until you get a court case to interpret what certain terms mean, it's going to remain vague.

As for the spirit of the rule - the spirit of the rule is compliance with the letter of the law. It is not a moral stance on gambling or games of chance. IIRC, the first slot machine was made by Philip Linden himself. If it complies with the law, then the spirit is met. You don't break the law by violating the spirit - you must violate the letter. If people can comply with the letter and still provide a service and maybe even make a profit, I am all for it.

Based on the trend of this poll…I say focus your resources towards opening a Pie Shop

even though gamblers are in favour 3 to 1?
dont go into business mate.

Total number of pie eaters are holding better then 2 to 1 against total number of gamblers. I’m betting on pie.

I voted 'yes', but what is the difference between this and sploders, which are now declared illegal?

if i were opening a gay porn shop would i care about what heteros thought of my merch? no, i would only concern myself with my market; gays.
its the same thing here. 3/4 of gamblers like the idea. i am wanting to appeal to gamblers. the 70% that dont gamble are not an issue.

Sploders are a specific game that you have to pay each round to potentially win. This is paying for access to the land so you could play all you want with no further cost.

Hey I said I’d be betting on pie. That makes me a gambler.

/plops down $10L to walk around casino that’s not a casino

Has to be associated with other keywords technically for it to be banned. Keywords such as "Wager" for example. In the OP's example there is no wager.

They'd never get away with it mind you but it's certainly not in the criteria LL laid out.

As an aside, aren't horse racing and bingo exempt from this law?

This is quite possibly the most ignorant message I've ever seen.

But to address the original message, it's not against the TOS. This is exactly how RL bars get away with offering poker tournaments.

As the sample fills out, it's 2:1 for non-pie eaters. Interesting.

Read the gambling policy as laid out in the newsletter, seems to have stopped mentioning a wager now and only mentions paying out, which is interesting.

If people think this Idea wont work they are misguided.

The only reason it wouldn't work is because there are already plenty of places that offer free entry to play their games with higher pots too.

LL seems to be taking a sensible approach to which games they do and do not delete, I know many places you can play Zyngo, which is actually a skill based game with an element of luck so there is absolutely nothing to worry about.

If you doubt Zyngo requires skill I suggest visiting Wikipedia and reading about Mahjong.