Question About Zyngo Legality

I recently acquired some land and discovered that there was a Zyngo parlor next to my property. Considering this a gambling establishment, I posted signs (on my property) that I would report gamblers to LL where they would be visible to anyone at that facility.

The owner of the facility arrived shortly after and asserted that Zyngo was considered acceptable on SL. I initially insisted the signs would remain until I had clarification, and asked for any sites that could support her claim. She could provide none. However, I try to be a fair sort of fellow, and while I was waiting for HER to look, I was looking myself, and found enough to suggest she might be correct, so took down the signs. I advised her that until I had feedback from LL, however, that I would file one abuse report per day, hoping to get LL to issue a thumbs-up or thumbs-down on the whole topic. This way I was taking action without visibly causing issues to frighten away her customers.

Can anyone provide information either way to support her claim that Zyngo is an approved game?

Practically speaking, the gambling policy is a sham. Most every conceivable variant of gambling has, at one time or another, been judged "acceptable" by G-Team. Then they change their minds and ban it. Or not.

You can go to a G-Team office hour, or try emailing Harry Linden (head of G-Team) to ask for "official" word on Zyngo, but I suspect you'll be less than satisfied by the response. And, tbh, I think you already have your answer: if they were going to ban the thing (according to the policy interpretation of the moment), they'd have removed it already in response to your ARs.

Which is not to say that the interpretation won't change tomorrow, or next month, or next year...

I've only been doing this for three days now. However, you do raise a good point -- I suppose if the AR's cause no response in a given period of time, I can consider it a de-facto approval.

I think 10 days would be a reasonable duration.

Zyngo is around for a long time now, it is *very* visible, so I'd say that it still is around that much and that visible tells enough about LLs stand on it.

I'm neither a gambler or a casino owner - but I do have a problem with self-claimed police men running amok. You want clarification? AR the place. Once. AR'ing it again and again and even the gamblers in my eyes is griefing.

First statement: It bears weight. This was one of the reasons I was even willing to discuss the issue instead of staying entirely firm on it.

Second statement: With respect, your problems or opinions of my methodology are of no concern to me and have no bearing on the question asked.

Zyngo has been ok'd because it has been determined to involve a "skill factor". I don't buy it, first of all that would assume that you could win every game, if you choose wisely. But this is hardly the case.

My best answer, and it's only mine(flamers), is that you will not see Zyngo going away anytime soon. It creates a huge business for Linden Labs in the form of people having to buy Lindens to play these "games". My only concern is that Zyngo Wyld was hacked once, it'll happen again. Any "game" in Second Life has the ability to be hacked and probably will if the outcome is to win Lindens that can be transferred into real money.

have seen a couple of what you would call regular slot mchines all dress up to look like zyngo

Yep, is it genuine Zyngo or even Zyngo machines with someone elses illegal "extra house friendly" scripts inside?
Unless the scripts were no mod written by someone licenced under a gaming act to do so, I can't see how they could be 100% legal.

Out of curiosity, why does anyone care if playing Zyngo is considered gambling or not? If you're not playing, does it harm you?

You bought land next to the place, now you are complaining about it? Why did you buy a plot next to a Zyngo parlor? I do hope you get slapped down for abusing the AR system and it would be sweet justice for the Zyngo owner to AR you for harassment.

One possible concern for everyone might be that SL goes black one fine Monday morning when DoJ tells the credit card companies and PayPal that SL gambling is in violation of UIGEA.

Yes, but the point is that the Lindens may take a dim view of your methodology, since it basically falls into Harassment. So, you might not get a favorable response to your ARs, and they might return YOUR signs and/or warn/suspend you.

They've done it to other residents for less reasons; to be sure.

Note that I am not suggesting you take the walls down, just pointing out that you could get ganked by the Lindens over using them.

Isn't nice that gambling is not allowed in Second Life?

Paypal will ban an account if it's found selling adult goods. Which is odd that both Paypal and credit card companies will complain to SL about gambling but not prostitution. (Call it escorts if you want... *laughs* Whatever makes folks sleep better at night.) But it is what it is. Gambling is gambling, but I found this thread because I was looking to see if this stuff is legal or not too. Guess I'll just submit a support ticket asking for clairification. Because if it is legal I'm opening my own parlor! *laughs*

Gambling probably got cut out because of:

1. There's a games commission out there. Vegas and other casinos places answer to them about machines and other stuff. (How can they police a virtual world?) And taxes are paid on gambling... Far as I can tell you have to claim your own taxes and file your own W2's for SL.

2. There were probably a lot of charge backs on credit cards just because people spent money they didn't have and then issued a charge back. These hurt merchants. So, LL looked in to why and found gambling to be a big source and issued the ban.

I'm going to find an answer on this though, because I hate to not know one way or the other.

Basically politicians are the biggest thieves operating today and they didn't like the competition. If they had been able to figure out a way to get their cut, internet gambling would still be legal in the US.

That is essentially it. Some will go on about the morality aspect, and protecting people from themselves, but in truth, that's all it is about.

People need to remember that gambling was not banned from SL because LL didn't like it. It was a legal thing. As long as they comply enough so the partyvan doesn't come for a visit they're not going to waste time messing with it further.

The OP is a complete idiot. He buys land next to a Zyngo parlor, then bitches because it's there. How about buying land where there ISNT a parlor PREVIOUSLY STANDING! Why would you expect the owner to provide you with proof? Do a simple web search, hit some Linden's office hours, open your friggin' eyes and look around, there's Zyngo everywhere. Do you think all those people would have parlors up if LL didnt (at least currently) approve of it?

I've seen people with all sorts of neighbor issues, and the answer is always the same. Move. It's that easy, and always solves the problem, but this one takes the cake, the idiot buys land where a parlor pre-exists, then starts what amounts to griefing the owner. WTF?

do you happen to own the zyngo parlor?
I think calling the OP a complete idiot is a bit over the top.

now as for the OP's question, as far as I can tell, zyngo is considered legal in SL, however the only way to know for sure, is to get one of your own, then report yours and see what happens. *shrug*

I have 3 linden pay in/pay out games in my store, and they are skill based games, meaning you HAVE to do something other than just match a number
and they are fun too

Buying land next to a Zyngo parlor then complaining it is there sounds pretty idiotic to me. Just like the idiots from the city who buy acreage in a rural farm area then complain about tractors on the roads.

My favorites are the Airport complainers.> Nice signature, Chris. I fixed it for you a bit.

"Let the investment bankers get real jobs cutting grass and stocking shelves at Wal-Mart, when they get out of Jail. Same for their pals in Washington."

I bit wordy, I know.

Come on now, we both know that's extremely unlikely! The DOJ would almost certainly contact LL first (or, more accurately, contact LL again) and express their concern before going to the CC companies. Let's not exaggerate the situation.

I think this has more to do with certain people trying to play SL-cop.

We're talking about LL here, though. It's not when they get contacted, but when they decide to tell all of us. And based on their track record.........