Money stolen

I believe you. I think that they are doing new things all the time. It was only a matter of time before this happened. Contact Linden immediately, even if they cant get you the money back there is no way this can be tolerated.

Elinah

Or security systems, eject you and take all your money!!

/me looks for my tinfoil hat.

It doesn't matter that Zyngo involves a measure of skill. Read the wagering policy. Skill is not determinative of whether a game violates the wagering policy. The existence of an element of chance which can affect the outcome of the game is what determines that a game violates the wagering policy. A mix of skill and chance in any ratio is not going to pass muster under the actual wording and logical interpretation of the wagering policy. If it were then Texas Hold'Em would still be allowed in SL. The fact that Linden Lab arbitrarily decides to ignore this doesn't change that fact. Zyngo operations exist solely on the whim and discretion of Linden Lab and if Linden Lab chose to do so it could ban all Zyngo machines today under the wagering policy in its present form.

http://support.secondlife.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=4417

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.

Thank you Aargle Zymurgy for your statistical proof. Thank you Zara Linden and the Linden legal team for your findings from it.

Your reading interpretation skills are lacking if you posted that in support of Zyngo not violating the wagering policy.

Let me break it down for you:

1. It clearly states that wagering games that involve an element of chance fall under the policy.

2. It provides no language exempting games that involve an element of chance that also involve skill.

3. It confirms that games involving a mix of chance and skill violate the policy by listing poker as an example of a game that falls under the policy.

4. It states that games of PURE intellectual or physical skill, such as puzzles MAY not fall under this definition.

5. Games of PURE intellectual or physical skill are the ONLY exception suggested in that FAQ posting and it was even further qualified by using the word "may" instead of a far more definitive statement which could of easily been made if that was the intent of the policy.

6. Zyngo is not a game of pure intellectual or physical skill. It involves chance in determining the outcome.

There you have it. From your own reference, Zyngo violates the wagering policy.

People really need to stop kidding themselves by pretending that there is some kind of skills exception for games under the wagering policy by engaging in flawed interpretations of what is very clear and explicit in what LL has published. It doesn't really help dispel this misconception when LL personnel like Zara Linden and her team perpetuate it by giving the same false logic as to why certain wagering games get a free pass but I guess the bottom line is that they are trying to facilitate wagering game creation that is safe from scrutiny under the UIGEA and they have to provide some kind of pseudo-logic to give it a sense of propriety under the wagering policy.

Personally I like Zyngo and DMC so I'm perfectly happy with Linden Lab ignoring its own wagering policy to allow at least some games involving chance and money to operate in SL. I understand completely why the wagering policy is in effect, why it is as broad and reaching as it is in its wording, and why it is only selectively enforced. I'm perfectly content to play poker online elsewhere to ensure that SL doesn't risk a shut down because a bunch of banks get wind that people can play traditional slots, blackjack, roulette and poker and cutoff all means for LL to receive money from its residents and customers under the UIGEA. But I don't kid myself by pretending that the selective enforcement is logically reconcilable with the published wagering policy.