If AgePlay Is Being Restricted, So Should Gambling...

i'm intrigued by the name 'pan fan'. wasn't 'pan', in greek mythology, famous for seducing shepherds and young teenage boys?

hmm, did somebody say the words 'catholic' and 'church'? =D

I'm astonished to find this thread still going. I note Pan Fan you didn't reply to any of my original comments. I will take it that your crusading missionary zeal must have missed them rather than not having an respone to them.

Anyway could you tell me where in the 10 commandments gambling is prohibited? Apart from a casino opening on the sabbath (you choose whether god meant saturday or sunday) there is no prohibition against gambling. So your religous teachers might not like it but your god doesn't have a problem with it. Who's side are you gonna take? By the way would you like SL to shutdown on one of those 2 days so that you can abide by your scriptures? I repeat myself again; keep the religous arguements out of the ballpark.

Furthermore you keep contending that gambling is illegal in "many" countries. Well let me put it this way and in a more accurate and factual way than you. Gambling is legal in many many many more countries than it is illegal. It is you that is in the minority so why don't you jump on board with the consensus or keep your own counsel.

And finally have you never noticed that land is divided into two categories in SL? PG (which from now on I will call Pro God) and mature. The latter is for adults who have developed a sense of reason, tolerance and openess of mind to new ideas. The former is maybe where you would like to open your church. And I agree with the poster who accused of being hypocrite. Bending the truth and concealing the truth is equivalent to lying in my book and equivalent to "bearing false witness" in your book.

Please someone have mercy and close this thread.

Thank you and have a grand time you all.

Nefarur Krog

I think Pan was a seducer , yes. At the time in Greek History when the myths were widely told; bisexuality in men was pretty much accepted and relatively common. So I suppose he did seduce both.

Interestingly the greeks had a double standard on gay relationships. While there acceptance of men, a tradition even of Mentor and student. Relationships with women were not as well tolerated.

Sappho the greek poet being the main exception and becuase of her wealth was able to live a lesbian version of that tradition. It is believed she had several affairs with young women who shortly after went on to marry.


Odd that today theres a reverse double standard. (sort of)

Porn style Lesbian sex is quite accepted by men. After that Lesbians and their relationships tend to be accepted after being judged on their appearance. Butch and Less attractive lesbians not being very well accepted.

It is quite "fashionable" for a woman to admit shes Bi if under a certain age.

Wheras between men, gay relationships are not as well tolerated.

Luckily in more cosmopolitan settings Acceptance is much more common.


Of course that goes back to the religeon thing since many fundamental religeous groups are against homosexuality.

The religious arguemnt to ban something is stupid. We assume Linden Labs will defend freedom of and from religeon.

I did mention the Catholic Church. Since Bingo night is a huge gambling event for many churches (esp in the US) and it gets ignored by anti gambling legislation.

I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with what law firms say so I'll try to put this another way.

Anything that has an inherent monetary value whether it's L$, poker chips, casino slot coins/tokens, blackjack chips, is legally considered to have their same dollar value. It does not matter if they're in USD or not.

Another thing that is also illegal for LL is that they not only provide the platform for gambling, they do not do any form of age verification, so they're allowing minors to gamble.

Just because they state in their TOS that they cannot be held responsible, doesn't mean they legally can't be. It will be an awakening after they're federally threatened and/or prosecuted.

I'm not a lawyer. I've just been advised by 5 different law firms.

Im not arguing that but game money has no value until someone buys it from you. Case in point they are gambling with something that at the time has no monetary value until you take it outside of SL. For those that arnt verified and cashing out said game money the actual means for them to be prosecuted would be quite difficult as they arnt really gambling in that light they are simply using entirely game money.

What im stating is plain and simple and you miss the point again entirely. LL do not assign L$ a monetary value you and I do im not arguing that they dont have some value just that LL dont asign said value. They have a value in world but at the same time while in world they do hold no actual value aside from being game money at a time when people cash out then that L holds a value but while its actually in world its valueless.

There are more semantics then being cut or dry its not of value or its of value its not clear cut and it never will be unless LL actually put a base monetary value to L and in fact state that 250L = $1 themselves it gets tricky in that light. Also what is being defined as a casino here. Your paying a script if its heads you win if its tails you lose. Are people that say heads i get the last piece of pizza or tails you do going to suddenly be prosecuted in that light? If the law is so broad as people make it look then yes we could all be prosecuted for making silly household bets with each other because they arnt legally sanctioned which you know as well as I do is ridiculous.

In regards to that yes L has a value but LL do not dictate said value which if you read the post thats what im meaning. To LL the L have no monetary value till it leaves the game. Will a Casino owner in SL actually be held to being an actual casino when anyone tries to prosecute them is the big question.

[/B]

Think its not safe to say that-
I think its safe to say qualified people are carefully monitoring it and think they are within the law. That they are not, and have not been putting themself in undue legal risk.

Your first statement is legally false, which led to 4 other paragraphs being false. Again, you are stating things that legal firms say differently. Call me crazy but I'd rather listen to actual legal advice.

As we have. And 4 out of the 5 law firms that we consulted did get a really good laugh out of the TOS.

That's like saying "we not responsible just because our TOS says so, but juuuuust in case we legally are, don't ask us"

DJ really???????

Do you not think I can't walk out my door and find 10 lawyers who will say that your 4 /5 lawyers are wrong, and then find another 20 who will say we are both wrong? Get real!

What about "escorts". Are'nt they just prostitutes? I believe this is illegal in the USA. It is also very offensive to many people. It is sexual, as is ageplay. It is illegal and sexual. Why one and not the other?

Phone sex for money is legal in the US.

What is SL escorting more like - Phone sex for money? Or real sex for money?


Again I dont think Age Play is being removed on legal grounds - Its being removed, and legal grounds were added into the laundry list of excuses why.

Im confident its beign removed becuase of bad press

Actually, what you did is post a link to an article with contained a quote by someone who according to the article works at the Dept of Justice.
Which in the end is about as reliable as "my best friend's borther's former roommate's third cousing is a lawyer and said that SL gamling is illegal."

I'd also like to know how anyone in this thread got legal advice from 5 lawyers about something as pointless as this. Heck, I can only call on ONE for that kind of advice for free (and I see no reason to).


Oh, and I wish to have anyone who doesn't believe in reincarnation banned because my personal spiritual beliefs dictate that I was reincarnated and beliefs contrary to that offend me.



I think this thread is reaching towards the 3rd worst ever in this forum. And for once, it isn't about the "feature" being "suggested."

Thank you DJ,

I was about to post that if a first year law student can't take apart that TOS and show it's worthless in less than, say, 20 minutes, they should find something else to do, like get in marketing or get an MBA or something.

This is already off topic but I hope you will permit me making an important clarification here.

Applying current cultural standards or sensibilities about anything, let alone sexuality, on a society of 2,500 years ago is an exercise in futility and completely erroneous.

Ancient Greek society did not consider sexuality as a personality trait and did not openly discriminate for or against people based on their sexual preferences, like most Western cultures are doing now after the heavy influence of mainly religious authorities of the Middle Ages who considered all sexuality a mental disorder that only sinful people were afflicted with.

The sexual behavior of the Ancient Greeks can be studied and analyzed from an anthropological or sociological point of view but in order to do that one has to abandon familiar preconceived ideas about "gays" or "lesbians" or "bisexuals" who are meaningless labels in an academic or any serious examination of human behavior.

It doesnt matter if you believe it false or true or if a lawyer does that fact remains that it has no value in world. Read up on this stuff its in the TOS itself and is an agreement you sign. It has a value once its bought which is true but while in world it has no monetary value is that a hard concept to grasp? LL dont apply a monetary value to the L people that buy and sell the L do which is what protects LL in the situation but it still does have a monetary value.

For someone in SL since may 06 you seem to forget a large amount of house the Linden Exchange works. Its not LL putting a monetary value to the L which the post which you responded to from me posting was about if you had paid attention to it. The person was trying to claim that LL put monetary value to the L which is a false statement. The TOS statement is in regards to you cant use L for monetary value same as you cant use money from monopoly for monetary means. They allow the free exchange of L > USD but the L itself according to the company that runs it holds no merit of monetary value. In regards to that there are many problems with saying its clear cut.

You dont bother to read the rest of a post cuz you disagree with the first line if you bothered to read it you would actually mabye understand what im saying. You can pick apart the TOS yes but as it stands LL claim L to have no actual value. Its on you to set a monetary value to it by selling it to someone else and until you do it has no value in that regard. But yes it is like poker chips in the sense but it gets a little more complex in that light because poker chips have a set monetary trade out to them. If you have a 500 dollar poker chip its worth 500 dollars If you have 500L its up to you what you sell it for and the person buying to agree to it which is where it gets messy.

Can they really prosecute one for gambling if they never cash out to USD is another thing. Say i gamble to make some extra L to buy a piece of clothing i want how is that really considered gambling in the sense that its illegal?

Exactly please keep any devine entities out of this, they (if existing) will become personally involved it they wish to, same for gambling & prostitution.
Why are you trying to force people to become legally bound before being able to have sex, do we make animals marry to have sex too? As an Athiest who has no Master above telling me I can't gamble, I find this offensive to my beliefs of the non existance of devine entities. please lock this thread.

So where is the line on what is completely offensive, would we not be concerned if some really nasty, vile stuff became condoned. Perhaps babyrapists could use similar arguements to justify their cause too. If someone were to start selling responsive scripted infant dolls or avatars designed for sexual purposes perhaps? Imagine that hitting the international media, but before the statement was issued we are arguing about it was ok to do so. virtual or not everyone has lines I suspect on what shouldn't be public and what just shouldn't happen at all.

Obviously Lina he can't!

DJ, print some Linden Dollars and take them into a RL shop and see how much monetary value they have. Offer them to me in world at a favourable rate and see how much value I apply to them. Do you get it now?

I wasnt applying anything. I was making a comparision. The people in Greece of this period were somehow not human?

I was specifically making a comment becuase another poster asked about the greek god "Pan"




This is an example of heroification. It is one of the primary falicies in the study of History. It is by no means proven they were some super egalitarian society. There is evidence of discrimation on many levels.

Further, discrimination against homosexuals far preceeds the repression on sexuality in the middle ages. In fact that repression wasnt the first, nor the last, repression on sexual behavior that took place.

It is also difficult to compare attitudes then to attitudes today without using contemporay labels for homosexual behaviour. Of course they did not use these labels. That doesnt mean you cant look back and use them to describe what had taken place.

Thank you Gaybot for looking up Ginsu Linden's comments. It seems reasonable that this:

..."Linden Lab does not offer any right of redemption for any sum of money, or any other guarantee of monetary value, for Linden Dollars."

... should kill stone dead any question of whether SL gambling is gambling within the meaning of legislation. Probably. It might be problematical in some American jurisdiction - I don't know.

That any particular set of religious convictions should underpin what's permitted in SL would imply that all such convictions should - which would leave very little out indeed.
Given that the global nature of the SL enterprise is run on physical assets owned by a company physically in the States, LL has taken a fair position so far as I can see. The thread seems to have been launched by an SL resident peeved at not being able to indulge in an activity deemed potentially too risky for some potential SL residents, and for Linden's good standing in the general community. A minor could still circumvent the TOS and take part in the "adult" SL so Linden obviously think further clarification necessary.

A virtual world turns up some interesting questions though: to what extent and in what ways do residents' SL "intimate" (and other) interactions reflect anything in real life?

In the absence of advertising for a bricks-and-mortar casino, and Linden's policy on in-world "currency", a resident's purpose in gambling could only be the action itself - not the thing being gambled. This line of reasoning could be applied by some when it comes to "ageplay"; given the TOS they might argue that there could be no specific victim in any real-world sense. These days campaigns against child abuse focus on the obvious: the victims. Ditto gambling, namely a focus on financial disaster for some people who gamble unwisely. What Pan Fan may have been objecting to was banning one at a level of the entire concept while not the other. I take the gambling and god aspect of their post to be spurious; it would be an odd faith that banned gambling but not the implications of "ageplay" in a sexual context.

Another writer in this thread pointed out that in the societies of the real people behind all SL residents, lines are drawn to define what is permissible behavior and what is not. For practical reasons we're traveling with the liberal end of the American spectrum - and their lines in the sand etc. Well we have to use /someone's/, and Linden is American. This might annoy 16 and 17 year olds in the non-American West but there is nothing practical to be done about it. As I see it, we have agreed standards - the TOS.

You are wrong. L$ are demanded in game and are used for transactions in world. The fact people are willing to accept L$ for a virtual good or service is evidence that the L$ does carry value. We then, to confirm, can trade the L$ for real world currency. It is traded everyday on several exchanges. The fact that L$ are exchanged on a market and are demanded, by definition, means L$ have value.

It does not matter if LL says they will not buy back L$ from you, or that it is a limited license. LL is not saying that the L$ has no value, they are simply saying that they will not buy it back from you, and if they close SL, which would cause the L$ to lose value as it would no longer be demanded, you can't come crying to them.

Something’s value is based on its supply and its demand. Econ 101 here.

For all of you who are still not convinced, please send all of your L$ to my avatar. I'm sure that because the L$ have no value, then you don’t value the L$ and so, they are probably just getting in your way. Please send your worthless L$ to me. Hesitating to send them? Maybe that is because you "value" having them, or you are hoping to trade in their value for its equivalent in USD$. If not, why not simply send them all to me?

It is also funny how many of you are making fun of Pan and her/his religion now that Pan has said he/she won’t be posting here anymore. Before she/he left the thread, Pan was holding her own and taking all of you to school…