Zyngo, is it gambling or not?

Well, see, that's the problem. There IS *NO* "official" avenue for "approval" of games under the gambling policy. Literally, LL (I think it was Zara herself) said that the best way to go about it was to build it, put it out publicly, and then AR it. If it got returned, then you knew it wasn't "compliant". If it didn't, you still couldn't assume that it was. More or less, the comments boiled down to "we don't officially approve any games".

..which is, of course, why the fact that Zyngo got "approved" is so strange.

More info...

Skimming this thread...

http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/virtual-business/14502-gambling-still-trying-come-back.html

...reminded me that Aargle was involved in that z-bucks scheme where you'd buy z-bucks, gamble with them, then cash out to linden dollars. That scheme was apparently approved, as evidenced by Zara and Kaylee Linden saying so in an office hours chat log, and then LL later reversed itself. So Aargle has managed to get both zyngo and a complete gambling loophole approved, though the latter was retracted.

I'm in complete agreement. While it looks like enforcement is currently lax, it's still noteworthy that zyngo has been approved under a policy where approval isn't supposed to be possible. LL could fix this bit of cronyism by saying the approval happened before the policy prohibiting approval (if that's the case), and that the approval is no longer any more valid than no word at all, and that it wouldn't happen now if it was requested.

Curious. Did you ever try for an approval?

I don't know how long you spend developing furniture, but let me tell you how much effort went into some scripted objects I've created...

The first infoplasma device...

http://vengeancestudio.com/sl/docs/ipa/InfoplasmaAvatar.html

...took three months of full-time effort. Some of that was flight assist and the update server and other first-product concerns, which didn't have to be re-done for future products, so other major products took about a month. But for an entry into a new field, figure three months for something of Vengeance Studio quality. That's how long I project it'd take for me to enter the gambling machines market.

Who in their right mind will spend three months of full-time effort developing something for approval under a policy where no approval will be given?

The problem is that Aargle was given what the rest of us have been told we can't have.

No, I didn't, but a number of other scripters did. They were told what I just said. They did the same thing. Sometimes, their products get returned under the policy, sometimes they don't. They have nowhere near the installed base as Zyngo does.

They were told by the Lindens that they don't "approve" games under that policy. They are operating under the assumption that, at any minute, anyone can AR their games, and some G-Team Linden may return them.

Interesting. So are you saying that some of those games are OK? For now? And sitting out in SL?



Why do you suppose that is? Were they short of "gumption" in the marketing phase?



So how long have they been able to operate under that assumption, and make profits? 6 months? a year? is another 6 months possible? Seems like one month's worth of sales would be worth it. If they used "gumption" during that marketing phase. Some of us operate under the assumption that the entire grid could be gone next week.

I am confused. Are we accepting that life isn't fair and moving on or are we getting enough "gumption" to do something about it?

How do you know? Have you sold any gambling machines? Do you know how long it takes to get a start in that business? Do you have sales figures for any gambling devices?



Can you point to one of your own marketing campaigns so we can evaluate your marketing expertise?

Operating under the assumption that the grid might not be there in a month....or that the entire conditions that you operate under could change drastically within a month....policy changes....rule changes....tool changes....scripting changes....etc.....it's kind of hard to place a risk-free guarantee on anything. Some people will go ahead and develop, and take the risk.

The risk is different for each creator/business. Although one creator's product may not take as long to create....the selling setting that they have to create and invest in to sell it, could involve just as much time or effort or money or risk as a game maker.



What does evaluating my marketing campaigns and expertise have to do with anything?

You've suggested that the risk of being in the gambling machine business is worth it because there's a one-month payoff, if only you have enough "gumption" in your marketing. It sounds like you have experience, so I'm hoping you'll share.

No, I said no such thing. I am not in any position to say those games are "OK". I am not Linden Lab.

Sure, they are sitting out in SL, just like the illegal slot machines, blackjack tables, roulette wheels, etc are also sitting out somewhere in SL. Anyone can rez anything. The trouble is KEEPING it rezzed, and avoiding getting warnings/suspensions as a result of putting it out repeatedly when the Lindens return it.



No, their customers are short of "gumption" in the "deciding to purchase" phase, since they can't get any official word from LL that their machines are "OK", unlike a certain other game.



You're sounding like an adfarmer more and more, ya know. "Hey, I am just makin' hay whilst the sun shines! " The sun, of course, being "not getting caught and banned".

I guess I misunderstood this comment then. Thought you implied that "sometimes they don't" means that those machines were acceptable.



There are quite a few machines that have been sitting out forever. That Ocean Hunt game that I have, is very popular, and made by a different creator than the one you are referring to. I could go find some others that have been out for some time.



When I went on the game run with my alt for a few weeks (I didn't want anyone to know that Mickey had an addiction problem).......I played all kinds of machines. The game club owners were purchasing them for some reason. Just asking if your scriptor friends busted out the marketing, and are continuing to do so. The guy you don't like has a huge store, where you can play the games and test them all out, and even win. Cool. There are some game resellers out there, too....who have some nice set-ups as far as their store goes. Appears that they are busting out an effort.



I asked you Questions. That comment is out of line.
What I was asking was, and pardon if I did not make that clear in my wording.....evidently....for them to keep the product out, and assume some risk....it must be profitable? That was a question. How long have they had those games out? Another part of that question would be....if they have had them out for a year...without an AR....perhaps they have come to the conclusion that they are "acceptable?" I have no idea - that's why I asked you.

That's not exactly what I was suggesting. I asked several questions:



I didn't word the question perfectly. But seems to me, that a successful entrepreneur in SL would probably want to count on a product paying off within a month, considering the variables that change pretty quickly....particularly something of that nature. And the questions were just to ask....how long have they had the machines out? and are they still out, at risk, because they are making profits? and also...is there a possibility that machines are still out, because the creators might assume that they are OK if they have not been returned?

And yes, I've had very good success in both lives with marketing campaigns.

No, it means that the Linden G-Team is less consistent than the weather. If they get ARed enough, they'll be returned.



I am sure you could; you can also find other obvious gambling devices that wantonly violate the policy all over the grid if you looked around enough. They are just an AR or two (or ten) away from removal.



Since some of my "scripter friends" are likely those people with the stores you visited, I guess they did. That doesn't change the fact that their games are just an AR away from being returned, whilst Zyngo enjoys some "protected" status where no amount of ARs will have any effect on it.

If you talk to those "other" game creators, I bet you will find that they HAVE had their games returned by LL; something Zyngo and its creator doesn't have to worry about since it is "officially approved" via a policy which doesn't have an "official approval" process. I'll also stipulate that Zyngo may not be the only "preferred" game or its creator the only "preferred" game developer out there, either. It is only the one with which I am most familiar.



Looks like you were making rhetoric to me. You answered your own questions after you asked them.



Profit doesn't mean much if you get banned, now does it? Profit doesn't mean much if your CUSTOMERS get warned/suspended for putting your product out, does it?

When someone says to me "Yeah, I know it is possible it is against the rules, but hell, if I can profit from it for a month/6 months/a year, why not?", it reeks of a justification for doing wrong, which is where the adfarmer reference comes from, because it is the exact SAME justification those parasites made to do what they did. If you didn't mean that, then I apologize, but it suuuuure came off sounding just like that, especially in light of your previous comments.

Maybe they are "unofficially" acceptable, or maybe LL doesn't care about enforcing its own policy anymore. Who knows? It still doesn't resolve the policy situation and how LL handled it by playing favorites. It still doesn't mean that anyone looking to break into that market can just jump right in and do it. Hell, it is even possible for the "established ones" to use ARs to stifle new competition, which may have already happened.

So you are positive that they think they are only an AR away....or is there a possibility that they think their machine is "accepted." Or is there the possibility that they have made enough profit, and anticipate enough profit to make it all worthwhile. Did you ask them this....specifically. You said you "guess."



I can send notecards tomorrow, and ask. Would you like for me to verify that? one way or another?



oh good. I'm glad you made this clarification, because it sounded sort of like you were singling someone out. Over and over again.



I'm not clear on "who" said that. Me? or your Scriptor friends? I didn't say that. Did your Scriptor friends?

And hey....don't worry about the consistent references to adfarms and adfarmers in all your posts, several times. Used to it. Maybe it came off sounding like that, because you wanted it to sound like that.



Maybe? Who Knows? Interesting. "Maybe" you should go back through some of your threads and add "maybe" to some things you have implied are facts. Who knows.

From the ones I am aware of specifically, they don't KNOW that their games are accepted, because there is no "official" acceptance by LL. As for the rest? I don't know; you're the one that came up with them. If you want me to comment on them, you'll have to provide the names so I can obtain information on/about/from them.



Sure! Go right ahead. Have them CC their responses to me as well.



I have been using one creator/game as an example, because he himself makes that claim and LL doesn't dispute it.

http://sites.google.com/site/aarglezymurgy/aboutaarglezymurgy



There are a number of game creators who have tried to get LL to look at their games and give them the same nod that Zyngo et al received, but reported the same stonewalled response which has been the hallmark of this policy: "We don't approve any games under this policy".



Words are funny things, ya know. When one uses "ends justifies the means" kinds of examples, others tend to believe one means such. If one doesn't mean such, perhaps one shouldn't use such examples.



I've never claimed absolute knowledge, despite your MIScharacterization of what I have said. There are some things that are HARD FACTS, there are some things which are LOGICAL INDUCTIONS, and some that are LOGICAL DEDUCTIONS. Finally, there are things which are Unknowns. Where possible, word choice identifies the difference.

If you want, we can start over and I can highlight them for you.

ok, but you still haven't answered my questions. I don't debate for sport. I debate to learn, or to present another view. My view about the value of leaving the games alone, and letting LL take care of it....has been presented. And I've also presented a case that they ARE games of skill. I still don't see a definition here, as to what defines a game of skill for this venue, and there doesn't appear to be one, so I can only relate that to the games of skill that I play in RL, and they are very similar.

What I am trying to learn, here....and I am genuinely curious, now....as I will probably purchase some more machines.....are the points that you brought up about your Scriptor Friends. And this is bugging me a bit, too. Is it spelled Scriptor or Scripter. Pardon me, but I prefer to use the word Scriptor. You seem to have some inside knowledge on these game makers, and I'm interested in that. Perhaps someone else is.

I'm understanding that you, yourself, will not create a game because there is no guarantee that it will be allowed to stay out, and that there is a huge amount of time involved in creating, and you do not want to spend the time with no guarantees. Is that correct?

Again....my questions were about your Scriptor friends. They have the machines set out, and some of them do not get AR'd. Why is that? It's a legitimate question, as some of us may want to purchase those specific machines, to avoid having to remove them, at some point. I asked you.....is it because your Scriptor friends think that the game has passed the "skill" test? It seems that you are saying they don't know. Is that correct?

Other question that has not been answered....is how long have those machines been out in SL? If you in fact, have some inside knowledge about game makers....can you answer this question? Can you find out? Surely the answer to that question will provide some insight, here.

Next question (again).....you have some concerns about amount of time invested in creating the games, and the risk involved.....did they make enough profits, (up to today), on the games that are still out, to pay for their time investment? Part two of that question was.....if they did not....could it be possible that they did not market their product as effectively as the other game creators? If that is so.....then the theory that they are getting shafted (and I see this theory often in SL)....may not be the appropriate theory, here. Perhaps your concern that they have not made profit to cover their time investment, has to do with lack of effective marketing.....and really doesn't have a place in a discussion about supposed "corruption." Is that possible?
I ask that....because I see it happen in many commerce discussions, here. A person who simply did not market their product, screams foul play towards those who made a success through effective marketing.

Now....if they made enough profits to cover their initial time investment....that should also blow your theory about someone getting special treatment over others. Shouldn't it?

On Timing.....if in fact, there was a time frame in which someone could get a machine approved.....were your Scriptor friends in LL's face, to get approved? Did they make that attempt? Was there a time frame when that was possible? If there was a time frame in which approvals were being handed out.....and your Scriptor friends were not making an attempt during that time frame.....that does not exactly indicate foul play. Does it?



Part of your argument is that there is preferential treatment to one game maker. But it appears that you have not researched the other games and their creators. Is that correct? If you have not researched the other games and their creators.....how can you argue preferential treatment? I ask this because this comes up often in an SL discussion. Human nature is interesting. Even if there were preferential treatment, and you have yet to determine that for fact, here.....(imo).....that happens all day long in any business. It does not indicate "corruption." I have a hard time acknowledging preferential treatment, as I have been to many places with machines....and there are other machines that are just as popular, that appear to be made by other creators. These machines have been out for some time, and are included in just about every location that has more than half a dozen machines.



I don't recall giving that type of example, that would warrant a personal insult from you. I believe that you are referring to this comment.:



In no way did I mean to imply that you set out an illegal device, and scam people for a month....then walk. No way. I have explained the intent of that question several times. In no way, was it necessary to compare me to an ad farmer in your response, based on that paragraph. I saw your apology, but in the sentence preceding it, you used the word "parasite".....so it more or less canceled it out.



I believe that I have asked enough questions to try to avoid "mischaracterization." If the questions remain unanswered...or you simply don't know.....then it is hard to make a determination on some of your observations. I can't really trust your "logical inductions and logical deductions".....as my logic says something entirely different. And you are very correct in pointing out that word choice makes a difference. If you use the word "corruption".....perhaps you should base it on fact. It was very late in discussion, when you clarified the Maybe's and Who knows...your "guesses" and "I don't know."



Not necessary. The Maybe's and Who knows and guesses and I don't knows.....clarifies it now.

Which is completely irrelevant as any game that involves a wager and has an element of chance equivalent to random number generation that can affect the outcome of the game violates the wagering policy. Zyngo meets these criteria so it doesn't matter whether it is a game of skill or not. This is not a matter of it complying with the policy, it is simply a matter of Linden Lab choosing not to enforce the policy against a particular set of games. I repeat, THERE IS NO SKILLS EXEMPTION UNDER THE WAGERING POLICY and Linden Lab will never publish a skills exemption in the policy because it would render it useless for the purposes of UIGEA compliance.

I have yet to see you or anyone else blabbering on about marketing ever point me to a successful SL marketing campaign. Frankly, I don't think you could possibly sell enough gambling machines in a month (or even a year) to cover a real-world wage for their development. Not that I think that speaks badly of you: I couldn't do it, either.

But since you are a marketing genius, perhaps you could suggest a way everyone who is not Aargle can overcome this disadvantage:

What better marketing point is there for gambling machines than "this machine has been approved by LL and won't be deleted and won't get you banned" ?

Anya - I don't believe that a discussion of SL marketing is necessary. But you will not stop pressing me on it.

I have given MANY suggestions for marketing ideas scattered throughout both forums. They are often totally Poo-Poo'd which is fine. But they worked for me. I slowed down on giving marketing advice, here....because it was a pain to offer up suggestions that worked, then have to deal with a ton of criticism and negativity. For goodness sake....when one offers up proven methods....seems that it would be appropriate to say "thank you" and not "screw you." Which is often what happens.




As I said earlier....that was not the intent of that paragraph. I have tried to explain that several times.

I never said that I was a "marketing genius." Marketing is my specialty in RL. I've tried to work on it here, and am by no means a genius on it. I am not consistent on it, because I am starting 2 RL businesses right now. Some things are different here....and still experimenting. I've had an opportunity to experiment with a number of methods....and some do work very well. Not every technique will work - - in either life - - you experiment, and you tweak.

I don't have the knowledge base on game machines to make any suggestions on effective marketing in that area. I can give general suggestions, that might work across the board.....but is this the thread for that?

My point on that was.....that I often hear people scream foul play on lack of success in their business, because they did not market effectively.... or work hard enough. I asked if that was a possibility.



That's a pretty darn good marketing tool! I will not disagree with you on that. But as I said....there are other machines that sit right next to those machines, in a number of places. That indicates that perhaps some others might be working harder to get their product out, or using better marketing. Just a suggestion to ponder - - not a fact, and I do believe that I asked that in question form.

And also, on that point....when I purchased a machine, that tid-bit did not sway me in purchasing a machine. I don't think that I even read about that. I purchased because I enjoyed playing, and I saw that others enjoyed playing. Surely I am not the only one who purchases for reasons like that. If that is the case for a certain percentage of people....then someone could use that to their advantage in marketing.

Dagmar, I believe that I offered that up when people were discussing games of skill. If not, pardon. It was simply a viewpoint and personal opinion. I assumed that's what people were offering up.....viewpoints and opinions.

In the comment that you highlighted, that was referring to an explanation of "why" I was continuing discussion with Talarus. And it referred to a discussion very early in the thread. Since that discussion....I "think" that I understand that it is not relevant. But I was not trying to make it relevant in the recent comment that you highlighted. The relevancy of it in that context.....was to explain "why" I was continuing to discuss with Talarus. (or anyone else, for that matter)

Yes, it is. If not here, then point to somewhere I can find your good advice.

You've claimed expertise you've given no indication you actually have.

I'm sick of hearing "do better marketing" from people who don't do marketing themselves, and "try harder" from people who put pictures of furniture on prims.



Uhuh.

Anya....I actually dropped off a very complete and detailed Marketing 101 in one of your threads. I'm not sure how to find it. It was VERY basic. It was basically Day One to Day 30, to get started your first month. It was by no means spectacular. But....it is how I got the business off the ground. As I recall.....there was no acknowledgment from you that I dropped it into your thread. That's OK, and I might have missed it.

I have said that my marketing has been good success in both lives. I don't think that it has anything to do with this discussion, other than you are hung up on something, here.

I think we are dealing with a personal issue here, now....is that correct? I interpret it that way, because you sort of dissed my stuff, if I read that correctly, and because you and I have butted heads on this topic before, I do believe. If you want to bust that out, right here, right now....I'm game! But it will take time away from me flirting with Talarus.

I very clearly remember titling that post Marketing 101 - but when I type that into a search...everything with "marketing" shows up. But I'm pretty sure it was one of your threads....perhaps I can find it that way. I didn't keep a copy - it was kind off the cuff and tossed out....but there were a few times when I wish I had saved it.

I also dropped off a thread, recently, over in the merchant's roundtable disccusion area over on the blog thing. You need to sell on Xstreet to join that discussion, but it was titled something like 10 ways to increase sales this week. It was a list of things that work very well for me. Might not work for you, but I think some of those things should work, across the board. The People in that thread seemed to be appreciative of the tips, and there was no major negativity.....so I might reserve my marketing trials and errors for that forum. If you don't have access to that forum - I can copy and paste for you.

I have answered your questions. You just either don't like the answers, or you've asked the wrong questions.



Then you should stick to the subject, rather than running off-course early on into sport.



..and my view about LL NOT "taking care of it", but instead using preferential treatment of one resident over another, failing to enforce a policy they themselves created, has been presented. The damage they have caused with this policy even THEY admit has happened is significant. If they are going to continue to operate under this policy the way they have, then they deserve every bit of grief over it they get, just like every other ill-considered and/or ill-implemented policy they have created and imposed (or lack thereof).



Irrelevant. The policy does NOT have ANY exemption for "games of skill". The ONLY phrase in which the word "skill" may be found is in the policy *FAQ*:



"Games of PURE intellectual or physical skill", WITHOUT "an element of chance". Zyngo, among others, are not.



RL doesn't MATTER to a policy imposed on the virtual world of SL by the world's originator and custodian: LL. The fact that the policy itself does not make such an exemption, coupled with the inapplicable example used in the policy FAQ, are the only things that are important to this discussion. How your RL local/state government handles it, and what your RL casino game parlors do to deal with it is IRRELEVANT.



One point I should bring up, because you apparently missed it, is that I *NEVER* said they were my "scripter friends". I parroted your words specifically in quotes to indicate that it was YOUR take on it, not mine. The people I know who have been negatively impacted by this policy aren't literally "my friends", and I never claimed they were.



I don't care what spelling you use; I'm not nitpicking your word selection.



For the most part, my "knowledge" comes from their public statements in forums, blogs, office hours, and any private conversations I or others have had with them. It's not a matter of "inside knowledge"; it is a matter of paying attention to what is said on the subject in multiple venues. Anyone else could have done the same (and quite a few people here have). You said you wanted to send out notecards to some of them and ask them their thoughts and feelings on the issue. I told you to go right ahead and do so. Don't take my word for it, get it direct from the source(s), and share it with the rest of us. The more information, the better.



Not exactly, no. Until Linden Lab resolves the conflict between the letter (and spirit) of their policy, and its actual enforcement, I find I have no desire to waste my time on something that I have hard evidence will be denied haphazardly by LL. It isn't a matter of a guarantee, it is a matter of having a manageable risk. The risk, at present, is not manageable. It, in itself, is a "gambling game".

With rare exceptions, I follow the rules. If the rules say "no wagering games involving an element of chance that take wagers and pay out in L$, something convertible to L$, or something of value which is convertible to L$", then guess what I am going to do? I am NOT going to make such games. It's not hard. My "adjusting" to it is to make other things instead. HOWEVER, if other people are going to be allowed to get around the rule, that is something which is not fair to the greater bulk of residents (for many reasons), and should be fixed. Either enforce the rules, or change the rules so that the exemptions that are allowed for the preferred few are allowed for anyone.

I am not going to participate where the playing field is not level.



The people who are currently selling games are not able to get LL or LL's "lawyers" to "look at them" and "give the nod", unlike a certain someone. As a result, they are not on the "super sekrit safe list" that the G-Team apparently uses to determine whether or not a game should be returned or not. Some G-Team members have returned their games without an AR, even. Not every time their games are ARed do they get returned, either. As for why, ask LL. No one knows why LL chooses to return a game or not. Apparently, one variable seems to depend on who is responding to the AR. It is, by far, not the only variable, because there are instances of the same G-Team member returning one game at one time, and not returning it another time. The one thing that does NOT vary, however, is that one particular game maker's games apparently aren't subject to the whimsy of LL's G-Team, since they were "approved" by a nonexistent approval process.

There is no "skill test". There is NO TEST AT ALL. Any game maker outside of one (for sure) is ALWAYS at risk of having his/her games returned under the policy.

Something else that you should also consider is that it is not against the policy to MAKE games which violate the policy, it is against the policy to PRESENT them for others to use. However, I won't pretend for a minute that making something which has a primary use that violates policy won't be noticed and recorded by LL "for future reference" and used against the creator if/when the creator of said device DOES violate a policy.



What difference does it make? Different ones have been out different times. There's no insight to be gained from the length of time a game which violates a policy has been available. Some have been available since the gambling policy was announced. Some are relatively new. It doesn't change the fact that they still violate the letter/spirit of the gambling policy, and are subject to ARs and being returned by ARandomGTeam Linden.



You'll have to ask them; I am not privy to their profits, just the trials and tribulations they have stated in dealing with the policy and LL. Do they think it is worth the gamble? The ones I know about certainly aren't very happy about it. Some of them don't, and have either gotten out of the "gambling game" business, or quit SL altogether over it.

How do you "market your game effectively" in an environment where using the very product of your labor is ILLEGAL and subject to penalties and destruction? Hmm? WHY anyone would bother in that kind of environment is beyond me, but some people are gluttons for punishment. I know there are people who like to play "black market seller", living fast and loose with the rules, like the guy who makes that IP infringing viewer. If/when such people get ganked, I won't shed any crocodile tears for them. They knew what they were doing was against the rules when they did it.



As I have said a number of times, such a consideration does not apply. The "gambling game" market is not an open market. The issue has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with the legitimacy of the use of the products themselves. The issue is with the unlevel playing field that LL has created through its bungling/poor application of its own policies. It isn't improper to scream "foul play" at something which ACTUALLY IS "foul play".



No, because profiting off sales of illegal items in a "grey market" doesn't change the fact that people have been improperly treated by LL to the point that they have either been forced out of the market, or have lost sales because of an inordinate amount of G-Team activity focused on their products (likely because of competitors ARing them).



Some of the people who still sell games did make a concerted effort to get LL to look at their games. They begged LL in email and at office hours and were all declined. They were all told the same thing that LL tells everyone: "We don't do approvals for games" and "AR it and see".



What part of "LL doesn't do approvals for games" do you NOT understand? There never was ANY "time frame" for "approvals". Even if there were, HOW would that even be remotely fair?



I only know about the ones who either have publicly stated their trials and tribulations with the policy, or those who I have had direct contact with otherwise. No one else is claiming their game "got approved by LL's lawyers", which is strange if they had received such approval, since it would be a MAJOR marketing point, don't you think? The logical deduction is that, since no one else is making that claim, they likely didn't get approval. Now, there have been those who have claimed "approval", but when their claims have been examined, they have turned out to be false or exaggerated.



Because all the evidence available points to it happening. One creator's games don't get returned if ARed. Others do. One creator claims that he got LL's lawyers to approve his games, and LL doesn't dispute it. Others haven't. Further, there is NO "approval process". None! Nada! Zilch! How do you go about getting approved if there is NO process for it?



I've determined it satisfactorily for myself. That's all I need.

What happens all day long in any business? Preferential treatment? In what context? Between LL and the residents? It better not, or LL will have hell to pay, and rightfully so. That's part and parcel of providing a platform. In this respect, it is similar to the RL government. There is no doubt that even the government gives preferential treatment to some of its Citizens, but that doesn't make it right, or even legal, and why good governments have methods of redress for grievances brought by their citizenry, and their citizenry can resort to mass civil disobedience when such redress is fully justified, yet continually denied.

Between Citizens/Residents and businesses, who cares? Sure, I can prefer some customers over others as a business; I can sell to whomever I want for any price I want. The only consideration is that, if my preferential treatment to others is undue enough, I will lose customers over it. That's nothing more than fair balance of trade, though. It is a COMPLETELY different situation than that between LL and its residents/businesses.



It DOES indicate corruption if there is evidence of underhandedness going on. Getting "approvals" when there is no "approval process" is indicative of such. There is also evidence that there was personal RL familiarity between the creator of Zyngo and several Lindens, including Zara Linden; something which screams impropriety. That there may be other gambling devices in existence doesn't change anything, despite how long they have been around. Unless and until there is evidence presented that there IS an approval process, and that ANYone can subject their products to it, the policy is changed, or all game creators are treated the same by LL, there is more than enough evidence of corruption.



Yet, that is actually what you were suggesting, as far as I can tell. Zyngo and any game that accepts wagers in L$, uses an element of chance to determine winners, and pays out in something of value, IS IN VIOLATION OF THE POLICY AS WRITTEN. Thus, creating and selling something which is in violation of a policy just to "play the fringe" of the rules or enforcement is really no more ethical than someone buying and cutting up mainland for the purposes of harassment and extortion. Regardless of whether or not someone can "make a profit" in some limited amount of time, the fact that it is STILL in violation of a written policy doesn't make it any more ethical. Case in point: The whole Zorkmids end-run around the rules, something in which the Zyngo creator was heavily involved, by the way. There was no doubt in anyone's mind who looked at it that it was nothing more than a scam to end-run around the gambling ban, yet, somehow, it magically passed muster with Zara Linden and the G-Team! Well, for a month, until someone without a certain person's lips glued to their nether regions woke up and said "HELL NO!".



Adfarmers are also people who use unethical means to "make a profit", skirting the rules any which way they can, playing every angle they can think of to continue their attempts to "make a profit". If it is wrong and unethical to make something which is banned and preys on LL's own incompetence with respect to policies and enforcement, I have no qualms pointing it out.

If that isn't what you are saying, then I think you should pick different words to express it, because that is EXACTLY how what you said (and keep saying) sounds to me.

The word "parasite" had nothing to do with the apology; you can tie it together if you want, but I certainly didn't say it that way.



They weren't unanswered. They aren't unanswered here in this post. You may not LIKE the answers, but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE INDEED ANSWERS.

I did base the choice of the word "corruption" on facts. Whether you choose to accept them as such or not is your own problem.

As for the uncertainties and unknowns, I have been clarifying them since my first post.



Well, thankfully, at least I have a clearer picture of the situation than you apparently do.