Some questions from a returning old timer regarding the Gambling Ban as it is now

I have been gone from SL for a few months and have lost track of so many issues its unreal. I did however the other night run into something That has me wondering.

Pay to play games are for the most part banned as gambling. I get that no problem.

Voluntary paying into a pot whos winner is not determined by pure chance is not Gambling (Tringo as an example is pretty universally ok'd by the Lindens).

Where does that put establiments that REQUIRE a winner to pay 20% of thier winnings back in to the next pot? That certainly is not Voluntary

Or for that matter establishments that take a cut of every pot. Wouldn't every game in this case in effect be pay to play?

I personally have always put 20% back in going back to the beginning of tringo. But that has been my choice and not a decision based on the fact that a business told me I would be BANNED if I did not. These are not questions aimed at weather its wrong or right to put 20% back in. But more of and Establishment requiring a cut or a put back making this gambling under the ban.

Le's be a bit more precise. Pay to play games that return Lindens or other items of value are banned. Paying to play a game with no prizes is perfectly ok.


That doesn't seem meaningful. It's the equivalent of simply taking it out first.


Do you mean in general or tringo specifically? I'm not familiar with tringo, but in general, taking a cut isn't relevant. A slot machine that pays back 100% of intake is just as banned as one that only pays back 80%.

I don' think it's relevant to the question of whether or not the activity is a form of gambling banned by LL.

I think we are semi on the same track of thought here but getting derailed somewhere.



agreed.

I am referring to a couple of establiments that I have run in to since I have been back that specifically say that putting 20% of all winnings back in the next pot is mandatory or you will be banned from the establishment. One of these places also takes a Cut of the pot Automatically before it is awarded. ie the pot shows on the board as 100L but the winner only recieves 75L.



Thast what I tend to think. Either taking part of the pot or requiring a pay back in makes the game Pay to Play and therefore gambling.



You are right my commentary on my putting back voluntarily was simply my way of saying lets not send this thread down the long sorry road of people dont put enough into pots.

I've been to a couple of those establishments, and one in particular makes you click on an I AGREE statement saying that you understand that you are TIPPING the establishment and not paying to play. I think it's just a sneaky way of trying to get around the ban.

Heya Darkness!! Welcome back!

The rules are pretty murky, probably by design to give Liasons the most latitude possible with enforcement, and keep 'gaming' of the rule to a minimum. While I don't personally agree that murky rules are a good thing, I'm offering this as a possible reason why things are the way they are.

IMHO - about the only thing you can do is take a look at it, and ask yourself whether a Liason would follow up adversely to an abuse report filed on the subject.

If you think the chances are low that they'd take action on something like this - its probably fine. If you think otherwise - it might save a bunch of hassle in advance to modify how it works.

If this is someone else's establishment you're talking about - I suppose you could file an abuse report & see what becomes of it. Or if you don't care either way - just shake your head & move on

Ponderings of a returnee that has had a number of "shocks" over the years policy wise. No it isnt my establishment. We never required pay in or took a cut when we did run games. We pretty much dont run them now. I think I am more trying to get a guage on how this thing is playing out more than anything. When I left the ban had just gone in place and everyone was clueless and in a tizzy LOL. The establishments I am referring to seem to be in my opinion skirting the line very closely if not crossing it. Just wondering if I am hypersensitive about it or if others agree.

If you have to pay money into something = gambling. Pretty much.

And damned good riddance to it all.

But I happen to like Tringo and SLingo from time to time.. although I hate being told I have to put back into the pot and then tip the host/ess. Drove me bonkers to the point where I don't visit those kinds of places any more. I used to like doing the putting back into the pot of my own free will and I usually put half back when not forced.

I never played the silly games for the pot. I played them because, to me, they were a challenge and quite fun with the right crowd. And the online versions I've found of SLingo just aren't the same without the horrible lag.

incorrect
paying a game or object that the outcome is based on a randomly generated number thus resulting in winning L's or something else of value is considered illegal

games that you pay to play that require skill are not considered illegal

from http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/08/09/anti-gambling-policy-update-faq/#more-1137

"What does “wagering” mean according to this policy?
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."

and

"Does this policy apply to “skill contests”?
This policy only applies to wagering games that involve an element of chance. This includes, for instance, any game involving random number generation, simulated dice, cards, poker, lotteries, bingo, or any other “chance” game. Games of pure intellectual or physical skill, such as puzzles or other skill contests, may not fall under this definition.

If your game or contest does not meet the above criteria, it is not restricted under this policy, but other applicable laws and local practice may apply, and you are expected to conduct your activities in Second Life in a legal way.

Please note that this policy does not give you guidance on what your legal obligations are — as noted above, that is your responsibility to determine."

Hope this helps (there is a lot more info on the blog link I provided)

No, it doesn't.

If I walk into an establishment, spend nothing, and five minutes later win a random gift-giver that just happens to give me 80% of what other people put into it, then that's not gambling.

If I spend nothing, win, but I'm required to give back 20% otherwise I won't be allowed back, it's still not gambling (but it is dumb).

The reason is that winning isn't really contingent on spending money. Sure there's a bit of a grey area, but I think these are ok. They might still be a sleazy way of treating customers, but that's a different story.

if you are not paying in to win the money, then you are not gambling

as for the must pay after you win, well that is up to you, no matter what they threaten, if they ban you so what, go visit another place

eventually they will have no one visiting such establishments

personally if I visited a store, and won some random L pot, and did not pay to enter it, I would not feel obligated to put any back in the pot.

and if they threatened to ban me, I would just leave and make a note to not return there, banned or not

They haven't banned gambling. They've banned gambling on games of chance and real life sporting events. There are a lot of games that have been specifically approved by Lindens as skill games (although many Lindens aren't aware of this). Tringo was one of the first that they said was skill based. The slingo games Zyngo and DMC have both been approved. Streetz is another popular one that has been approved. There's several others, but I don't have a complete list. When the policy first came out, they were erring on the side of banning any game with any random component. Now they are allowing most games that have any skill component. The main exceptions that I can think of would be blackjack and poker. You could argue that skill is involved in those, but since they are specifically illegal on the internet outside of SL, they can't be allowed inside SL until the law changes. The game creators have been very active about getting their games approved. If you want to know whether a specific game has been approved and who approved it, just track down the creator.

The way I see it, timing of payment is important. First you pay. Then you play. If you have to put back 20% (or it's automatically done for you), then you're playing for 80% of the pot, not paying to play after the fact.



It would be nice if everyone who played knew the unwritten rules and played fair. By that I mean it used to be, and probably still is in some places, that people were just expected to know that they were supposed to put some amount of their winnings (20% or more recommended) back into the pot. Not so surprisingly, some people didn't know this and got a rude awakening whenever they won what they thought was going to be the entire pot.

Because of that, I think it's better to make the payment rules known upfront. Even better than that, script the rules into the game (i.e., instead of requiring people to pay back 20%, just give them 80% for their winnings and keep the rest in the pot). If you find the rules acceptable you play. If not, you don't.

--Hugsy

I do agree that choosing to play under the rules of a particular establishment are a personal choice. No argument there.

Fact is the 2 places I am thinking about do not tell you the pot will be reduced (part to the owner and part to the next pot). You kinda find out afterwards.

true if you did not pay and won the 80% you did not gamble. But if you play the next game you have because your 20% is in hte pot so thats not an Iron clad saftey net. You were forced to pay it, THEN you play.

I do think its a pretty unpleasant way to do business but thats the establishments choice. I am just not sure that it isnt falling ever so slightly to the wrong side of the ban.

That's definately a legitimate gripe.


If you're talking about a situation where the player is new and unaware of the 20% payback policy, the policy is not made readily available (or at all) before the game starts, and they don't automatically keep 20% but rather give you all the money and demand you payback 20%, then I can see how that seems like you're paying to play the next game.

However, once you become aware of the policy and agree to it, there's no after the fact paying. You won 80%, not lost 20%. You know you're not going to be able to keep the 20% so it wasn't *really* yours to lose.


I completely agree that that's a shitty way to run the game.

--Hugsy

Thats exactly what I mean.

BTW If I remember way back you have played games at our places back when we ran them on Dragon Isle and I think before that in Jouppi. Good to hear from you again.