Opinions needed on a situation

So the spellchecker missed that one. Oh well. It doesn't change my point, and only someone with no valid point to make resorts to speling lames to invalidate a point.

The theory is flawed. Inventory offers made while offline are, in and of themselves, an offline message. If your offline messages are capped, you're not going to get IMs, and you're not going to get notecards. The opposite's also true: If you can get a notecard, an IM would have worked as well.

I think this is overly harsh.

Yes, the ideal is to have a moral compass that keeps us from ever doing something wrong. But sometimes case isn't clear-cut, and the realization doesn't set in right away. It's to the writer's credit that he/she did have those second thoughts.

If your moral compass was working you wouldn't have anything to do with gambling in the first place.

^^^^
|||||||

Yeah, that.

For the moment, until someone "ARs" Linden Lab to their credit card processor(s) and/or the US Attorney's Office for the district LL is in with evidence that gambling is alive and well in SL.

Then you can bet your boots (or whatever critical coverings/body parts you want) that a "refinement" of the rules about what is acceptable or not will be made ex post haste.



Absolutely! However, it matters not how long it has been "approved"; LL can change it in a heartbeat, irrespective of history.

I'm not sure this is true, I get notecards where I don't get the im to tell me I'm getting a notecard inworld, but I do get the offline message. I then check my inventory and find the notecard.

With friend and group requests I get the offline but don't get the request inworld when I login, so I have to ask again.

It's not a theory. I have an alt that I don't log in for periods of time. This alt will get notices and IMs capped.......say if I don't log her in for a month.....the notices will cut off after a week. IM's the same. But if I send her a landmark or a notecard or anything else....it always goes through.

This is not theory, but reality. Notecards are an object. IM's are messages. Completely different animals.

Why even bother sending the notecard if you weren't going to return it?

Me? I would have kept half, sent him the other half along with the notecard telling him he made a mistake and he might want to fix it before someone with less morals than me showed up and drained him.

What makes you think the legal team decides? It's ultimately a business decision. Anyone who has a grasp of the English language and has actually read the published anti-wagering policy can understand that it explicitly includes games of skill if there is an element of chance that can affect the outcome of the game. The presence of skill and level of skill become meaningless. The wording of the policy is extremely broad to give Linden Lab the absolute discretion to prohibit ANY of the various slot machine variants running in Second Life.

I know a former SL resident who used to correspond directly with the Assistant General Counsel of Linden Lab about these games and he made it clear that no one from legal had actually observed these games so it is all second hand information for them. He further stated that the minuscule amount of payment and payout on these machines was another factor although my friend pointed out how that was logically inconsistent with banning low pay traditional slot machines and small blind poker. It was pretty clear he was full of it and making things up as their email dialogue progressed. Eventually he stopped answering all together.

He also implied that ultimately it was within Linden Lab's discretion to revisit the legality of all games under the policy at any time. Sounding familiar? That is the standard Linden Lab fallback policy for everything from Open Space Sims to gambling. Remember all the assurances they gave to casino owners after the UIGEA was passed but what happened when the regulations were about to be published?

Let's not kid ourselves. Credible Linden Lab source is an oxymoron.