Gambling Returns to Second Life?

Take the tin foil hat off.

LL made a TOS entry about gambling. These guys were smart enough to look at creative ways to make a gaming system and make a profit and stay within the guidelines.

Because you or others were not doing the same thing does not mean LL took these guys to secret hideaways and whispered secrets on how to get away with it.

The creators were open.. anyone that bothered to go to office hours such as Ima already knew about it.

Seriously.. keep digging. You may find something to hold on to here.

If the Lindens wanted there to be a gambling industry in SL, why didn't they post the loophole on the blog as soon as they approved it, so that the industry would be as big as possible, and would thus buy the largest amount of resources and make profit for LL?

Sorry.. ninja edits to keep up with on that post.

This is not a civilized Country. It is a virtual world platform that encompasses MANY Countries participating that allow laws that the US does not follow. Some the US does and they do not. LL has a fine line to balance there. Now, LL did not make the law about gambling. LL seen EXACTLY what they had to do to keep Credit Card payments flowing and not get in trouble. They spelled that out clearly in the TOS. There were NO secret meetings.. it was put in the freaking TOS when it happened and there was a blog post about it.

Now, the second part there.. wtf? Who would not be told and about what? The TOS is already there.. they can read. This CLEARLY meets the TOS requirement as LL has worked with them. If you are trying to pull a "What if" out of your ass.. good luck. You can't debate the facts of what is VS the maybes of what could be.

I find myself in the unusual position of having to defend my competition. SLNN is, in general, a very competent and trustworthy news source. I read the story in question and found it to be entirely accurate as concerns the present situation.

P2

Yumi, are you really not following this.

Why the hell would LL seek out the loopholes? They specify a TOS entry. If someone else comes along and finds a way to comply.. that is for them to do. It is up to LL to say "nope, that will not fly" but they didn't.

They are not responsible for posting loopholes. People NOW know things are going on with it and they can make their own games if they want.

This is OK with the TOS and LL. Sorry it is not ok with Yumi Murakami but you will not resolve that here in a forum. Seek out an office hour with the G team and see if you can make a change there.

Again.... according to you, at some point these people went to LL and presented their loophole, and LL gave it the OK.

Now, the moment that happens, the Lindens know about the loophole and could post it on the blog. Doing so would seem to be to their advantage, as it would ensure a large number of participants in the industry, and more money for them.

Also, as I mentioned, in reality interpretations of the law are required to be public (and this means public public public, not a "right place at the right time" thing).

As for "not ok with me", I hope it's not ok with ANYONE to interpret the TOS this way. If something can be "secretly" permitted for a year, then something else can be "secretly" banned for a year too, and your account could be banned tomorrow for doing it, even though you had no idea. Ok, this is an extreme example but the point is, it's critical that everyone should know exactly what rules they're operating under.

LL does nothing in their best interest as far as what most of us think is in their best interest. They do things their way and it is sooooo not their way to make blog posts saying "X is making X object and here is how it is OK with the TOS". This is a free market. If I made a product that was before not legal but I found a way to make it so and I went to the Government (this is not real life, but I am going with you on your Country analogy) and said.. I am making this, will it be legal? Do they have a responsibilty to make newscasts, newspaper articles, etc etc showing how I found out about it? No, that would not be fair to me. It was my idea.. I get first crack at profiting from it.

These guys had the idea. They took the honorable route and asked if it would be OK.. got the OK and went about making a product. LL has NO responsibility to jump on the blog and tip off everyone to go make the same product. That would be completely unfair to the maker. Now, when the product comes out someone like SNLL breaks the story. Now everyone knows there is a way. Does LL have to tell them the way? Do the makers have to tell? No, it is up to me if I want to make one to find out how to make it fit. That is a free market.

I dunno.. I am not going to debate this more. It comes down to LL's responsibilities and what you think they should be. The only people you can change that with is LL but I think you will find yourself not likely to get much out of it on their end.

I don't like gambling, I don't gamble.. but I will not say others can't. That is up to them to make the choice. I can't make them stop. We got enough laws in Real Life telling people what to do without trying to be couch cops in SL.

Take care..

My statement was a little off topic, in reference to post #17. As for the subject of this thread, meh. I have always hated gambling and casinos in Second Life. There were eye-sores, lag fests and noise polluters. (not to mention rip-offs) I won't exactly be welcoming them back with open arms, if it does happen.

Then the government wouldn't answer, because in a real country, the government doesn't interpret the law; the judiciary does that.

And if you went to the judiciary, they would say: "We don't just issue legal precedents for fun because someone asks, it would need to be part of a court case."

And if it was part of a court case, the case would be published afterwards.



If it was an original idea that was based on technical limitations or just an entirely new field, then that's fine. But this isn't that, it's an idea relevant to _the law_, which is basically a social agreement between people. It hasn't pushed back any boundaries of innovation, it's just found a niche in a social agreement. And for a social agreement to remain social, everyone involved in it has to know what it is.

When CopyBot was created, did you applaud people for finding a "loophole" in SL's DRM system?



For an original idea, yes. For an interpretation of the law? No.



Except that Z$ are a natural monopoly and these people have had a year's head-start. Not very free.

Just for the record, the Governance Team doesn't make the rules. They are simply the police, and it is their job to (try and) enforce them. Their record has been a bit spotty in that department, and they've been shown clear ToS violations in the past at their office hours and have not done anything about the problem, so consistency is not their long suit.

That said, the only people who can change the rules are the upper management policy makers, driven, in this case, by the Legal department. I severely doubt anyone from either group of Lindens has been shown and/or agreed that these games are OK. Now, given the propensity for the former group to shoot from the hip when prodded into action from any direction (and especially from the latter group), I would expect that, eventually, the loophole will be closed rather unceremoniously, since it has the power to get them into SERIOUSLY hot water fast. The Feds and credit card companies take UIGEA pretty seriously, and even a policy laggard like Linden Lab will eventually cave to the necessity of protecting their own financial and legal liability interests.

Personally, I don't care about what people do with their money; they can give it to the GinkoPonziGuys of the world, gamble it away on rigged games, participate in pyramid scams, etc. However, if it is against the rules, there is a probably a good reason why, and it puts everyone at risk if LL continues to allow the activity to grossly violate the spirit of the rules, let alone the letter. Not to mention that it is particularly unfair to allow people to ride the line, while more honest folks stay clear of it.

Actually there are already a couple places that mirror the Zorkmid idea. Two places that I know of that have been open prior to Zorkmid also. I don't know who first exploited the loophole in the TOS...but to say Z$ has a monopoly now is wrong. It's getting more attention because of Zymurgy IMO.

If my memory serves me correctly ----Sapphire Moon's was the 1st to have something similiar to what the OP has written about , Sapphire's were also the last casino to shut down if it really ever did and they have had this type of playing there for months now. In Fact I have seen a few casino's operating with games like this in the past month , so I'm not seeing any monopoly atleast not now that the word is out.

For the sake of accuracy, Slingo is a game in RL. Dominus Skye brought it into SL and created a whole subculture around the game. Aargle's original version was a copy of Dominus's both in form and gameplay. Having said that, I agree that Aargle is extremely talented and has done a lot of great work since then, both in improving his version of slingo and in other games.

Lamorna is also amazing with the games she creates and her artwork. And she does it all with her feet. She is truly inspiring.

The Linden legal department has been involved in the process to get Aargle's and Lamorna's game system approved. I haven't talked to anyone else about similar systems. As long as the Linden legal department is ok with the system, we'll have the classic casino games in SL. I would not be surprised to see this get overturned as more people on the outside find out about it, but in the meantime the games will go on. My big fear is that the extra scrutiny that will come down because of these systems will result in the re-banning of the games that are currently allowed to be played with Lindens.

Are you sure? There are some pretty major rules against giving legal advice to those outside the company.

The probably wouldn't be giving legal advice to the creators of the game. But what they could very well be doing is looking at the proposal from the game creators, and advising Linden Lab as to what legal risks may come with approving the game.

The lawyers wouldn't be giving the game creator legal advice with respect to the real world laws. The lawyers would be giving the game creator a decision about whether the game was allowed under the LL rules. The lawyers wouldn't give approval to something if they thought it would get LL in trouble.

Very curious where you get your information from.. How do you know this? Who told you?

I think games like Zyngo survived only because they aren't understood outside of SL. But when you offer Blackjack, Poker, Roulette, etc., that's understood by all concerned as gambling, loophole or not. Looking at the loophole as I understand it, I have a few concerns:

- The skill game is designed to collect one for one in Linden what you win in Zorkmids on the gambling games. For example, if you win 5000 Zorkmids at the Blackjack game, you get 5000L when you complete the skill game. That makes the Zorkmids nothing more than a redeemable casino token.

- Even if you lose the skill game, you don't lose your collected Zorkmids. You can play the skill game again until successfully complete it and than collect your gambling winnings. It's a mere formality to complete the skill game. The only time you can lose winnings is if you play the gambling games. If the skill game was difficult or imposed true risk of losing one's banked gambling winnings, nobody would play the game. So the loophole of 'skill' is questionable at best.

- When you lose at the gambling games, you don't get to play the skill game to recover the gambling loses. If you lose 5000 Zorkmids, you lost 5000 Linden and the casino is pocketing that Linden as gambling revenue. That revenue was gained purely from gambling and none from the skill game. Doubt the tax authorities or the governments will buy the loophole.

As I see it, the Zorkmids are virtual casino tokens which you can redeem for Linden cash at any time & the skill game is a clever ruse. While I'm opposed to the gambling ban, one can pretty much predict what's going to happen with this system. Interpreting Linden silence on the matter as approval, people get excited; buy lots of land (Linden smiles at that part) and machines, open up casinos and it's party time. Six months later, Linden wakes up from it's self-imposed fog and shuts them all down.

It's common knowledge that there are leaks in LL that make the New Orleans Levies look like pebbles (too soon for a katrina joke?), The best example of this was LKV (can't use his name of course) of a certain World Exchange getting a heads up on the banking ban before it happened and being able to take steps that ultimately have allowed him to grab his loot and run as it were.

I have my own hunches if not who the leaks are then which department(s) of LL they works for and I'm pretty sure many other people have their own hunches (if they don't know outright) although I doubt anyone is talking since they'd then be giving up their valuable source.

I've seen no evidence of this, and specific management Lindens queried on the subject have given contrary answers, so I would have to say that, if it is so, it better damn well be on Linden Lab Legal Department letterhead PAPER.

The last time I recall when this question was asked (I can't remember if it was Jeska or Robin responding.. have to dig), they said that Linden Lab will not "approve" any specific game or device as being "certified by Linden Lab as within the ToS". Again, since I have yet to see a copy of any legitimate correspondence to the contrary, I would have to say that it is nothing more than "wishful thinking" on the part of the game creators. Maybe they have been led along, too. The Lindens aren't particularly well-known for their consistency in policy until it bites them square on their collective rump, and sans that piece of paper from LLLD, they are "gambling" (heh) with their livelihood.

I've talked with Aargle and someone else that works with him.

Internet gambling is not illegal, not before and not now. The Act only outlawed the transfer of money intended to be used for gambling or to purchase tokens for gambling.

Free-rolling and free play gambling is allowed. Witness the non-demise of online poker rooms.

From what I've read and seen of the new games they don't break the money transfer law.

And Fish is a game of pure skill which is what many of these games are based on. There's zero chance involved as anyone who has been beaten by a 7 year old can tell us

ummmm.... it's partial chance. you might or might not ask for a card the other player is holding. the only way it could be pure skill is to know all the cards in the other person's hand and ask for one that positively matches yours. that skill would be called memory. so if you get asked for a card, and don't have it, but later pick it up, you wil then rely on your memory to then ask that person back for same card. obviously, you don't know all the cards everytime, so it stands to reason that it obviously cannot be fully reliant on skill. in fact, the beginning of the game it totally chance. Fish is not a game of skill. it is a game of chance and partial skill.

It isn't gambling unless you wager something of value and there is significant risk of losing what you wager. If you aren't wagering, then you're just playing a game. However, the moment you pay to play, and the game is such that you can pull more out than you put in (though unlikely), regardless of how many intermediate steps it takes to get it out, THEN you are gambling.



Uhh.. the part about wagering L$ quite handily breaks it, actually. If you buy L$, then pay it into a system which is, by definition, gambling (ie, there is significant risk of loss with a small chance of receiving more money than you wagered), you run afoul of it. Just because the system is divided up into a couple of parts which seemingly get around the letter of the rule doesn't magically make it "not gambling".



Fish is a guessing game which has a significant random factor involved: the luck of the draw, thus, it cannot be "pure skill". "Tic tac toe" is pure skill. Chess is pure skill. Checkers is pure skill. Backgammon is not. The vast majority of card games are not.

Of course, this isn't about what is pure skill and what is not, but rather a rather obvious attempt at end-running the rules to allow gambling. Money is paid, money is lost. A few cash out their "winnings tokens" via a sham game of "pure skill".