Zyngo, is it gambling or not?

I see that you are finally answering some below. Cool. It wasn't that I disliked the answers, they just seemed very incomplete, and raised more questions. I'm just asking the questions that came to mind. Is there a right and a wrong question?



These forum conversations generally run a bit off course. That is not something out of the ordinary. If you didn't like an angle that I was requesting information on, or an angle that I veered off into, myself......you could have simply said so, from the get-go, rather than continuing to respond. I've tried my best to keep the "marketing" discussion out of this thread....but keep getting pushed into it. No biggie - that happens. But I don't think that requiring me to "stick to the subject" is necessary, unless you require it of everyone.

Asking questions to learn in the middle of a discussion, that may veer off course.....is still not debating for the sake of debating.....or debating for sport. Which is more or less where we have arrived here. I'm very familiar with your style of discussion. I will address a few of your comments in the post above, when I get a chance....but we're going around in circles on some things, and I would rather spend my time on something else this afternoon.

Rhetorical questions, and questions asking for something which you aren't really wanting to know, maybe? Asking questions for which no answer will progress your knowledge or understanding, at all, or in the direction you want to go?



I dunno, the moment someone starts into deliberately deprecatory "attacks" on me or others, I figure they are just saying "let's play". *shrug* Wordplay, ad hominem or no, is no stranger to me, and I am no stranger to it or its use.

I suppose I could just respond with "you're veering off into ad hominem and I refuse to participate any further", but what would be the fun in that? Apparently, you feel similarly, or you wouldn't have resorted to it initially. *shrug*



I don't know what you are talking about; I've not said anything about staying "on course" until you mentioned it. Veer off all you want; makes no never-mind to me.



Thanks for the admission.



My "style" of discussion typically mirrors whatever else passes for discussion in the current thread. You'll find just as many threads with me having nice, happy, fun discussions full of fluff and sunshine as you will find otherwise. I'm very flexible.

..and yes, I have some work I need to focus on, too, so feel free to take your time. I'll still be back later, unless I get hit by a rogue comet or something. <.<

Talarus.....could you please let me catch up, one post at a time? I'm still trying to cover the last one. It was rather lengthy.

I'm still not buying your argument on preferential treatment, since you recently clarified that you simply do not know about some angles involved. Particularly, information on what the other popular game makers have dealt with, and are dealing with. Would be nice, if one of them came along, and gave some info, first hand. I'm certainly open to changing my perspective on this.

I'm not a crusader against LL policy. I enjoy SL, and I have no huge problems with how it is run. Occasionally, one creeps in. But not concerning this topic.



Please note my explanation on this, to Dagmar above.



I'm not sure if I can explain this correctly, but will give a stab. The reason I thought that had some "relevance" is that, as I stated a while back.....the qualification for "games of skill" in RL varies from state to state. There are also some rather "forced" accommodations made in order to fly some of those games under the definition for approval. I wish a could give an example of how they do it, in my state - you would laugh your ass off. As the definitions vary in RL....they would probably vary here. As you can see back in that discussion of games of skill. I think that was what I was trying to point out, but that was a few days ago.




Thank you for clarifying that you were "parroting." I was not aware of that. Perhaps you should indicate that sooner in a thread, as I thought that you had inside knowledge there. That certainly explains the inability to answer a few of my questions, straightforward.



I've not paid attention to the other forums, blogs, and office hours concerning this topic, until this thread. I'm up to speed on commerce discussions. If one of us wants to learn during the course of a thread, about a topic that we have not had a chance to study.....is that not what a forum discussion is for? Is this not the opportunity to ask questions? I had second thoughts on sending out the notecards. If a game maker is so inclined to come into this discussion, and share their info....that would be awesome. But I don't think that I should ask for the info, then relay it second hand here, even if they say it is OK.

If your knowledge came from public statements....would you be able to mention some of the creators' names, along with their comments? Perhaps they are the creators of the other machines that I see widely used....and that would clear up those questions about the other creators being successful in getting their games into most of the game locations.



ok....so you base some of your business decisions on "manageable" risk. Seems kind of hard to do in this venue....but ok....clear.



Have you ever thought about making your game....but just scripting it to make sure that no wagering is involved? I don't have scripting knowledge....but I'm sure you can answer this with a Yes or No....and I meant to bring it up earlier. Quite a few people offer the games as Free to Play. Then they pay out once or twice a day, with an amount that is determined by the game owner. Can you adjust the scripting, so that there is not an option to take more than 0 or 1L? The 1L is set to bet returned on one of my games. The other game will take 0L for payment. I would think there would be a market for this.



Gee Whiz. I must have entered all the wrong business fields, because I haven't found one yet, where you can enter into a level playing field. You have some suggestions?



So you've done extensive research on this? On ALL the games? Still curious as to why some of the other popular games are scattered across the grid. This question might not be answered in this thread.....but if it can't be answered, than there is a bit of a hole in the "certain someone" theory. Is there not?



I'm clear on that. The confusion is why there are so many games out there.



Just trying to clarify if some are considered more "acceptable" than others. As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to purchase some more.



With the profit question, I was basically asking if they thought it was worth the gamble. I understand now, that you cannot answer that question.



I just haven't got to the point on determining Illegal yet. Can't say that I won't budge on that, though....leaving it open. Just not there, yet. I wouldn't enter into a conversation on marketing Illegal devices.

Talarus, I really don't think that you are in a position to counsel me on this, based on some of your previous comments to me.

Not worth continuing to try to discuss, if you refuse to acknowledge your own behavior concerning the above. I'm making an effort to tone the above down.

I didn't get finished responding to your other post, when I came across this. As much as I would like to get a grip on the whole picture, and as much as I would like to challenge you on some of your concepts....I think that between you and Anya.....I will stop now. No longer productive. It appears that I'm the only one with questions, anyway. And if I read the above, correctly....sounds like you are admitting that you are in it for sport only. Not your play toy for the day.

Zyngo has a random number generator in it that risks L$ on the outcome.

Under the official rules, that makes it illegal.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Wagering_Games_FAQ

Edit:

That being said, they could make some areas IP restricted so that countries where it is legal could still gamble. It might be a way around all of this.

Wasn't attempting to "counsel" you on anything. They were observations and responses to your concerns. You're an adult. You're quite capable of dealing with these things without any help from me.



Not really doing very well in the "toning down" department if you keep dwelling on it. I'm well aware of my own behavior and take responsibility for it. Perhaps you might consider doing likewise?



*shrug* Your choice, really. There are always all those other game makers out there you can query if you don't think you are getting anywhere here.



Nope, but I am game if you are. If not, then stop trying to make it into sport.

Annoying how a post like that, which was third from the top gets smothered to the bottom. Do these threads keep pushing the number of posts per page up or something?

I don't really care if you buy it or not. I am MORE than comfortable with the evidence, and I know more than enough of the "angles involved" to make that determination, and act on it accordingly.

It's fine if you don't want to take my word on it. I've already told you several times to go and get your own information if you want.



That's fine. It's your choice to either lie down and take it, leave, or challenge it. I happen to choose to challenge bad policies, decisions, and status quos. Just my nature, I guess *shrug*.



Well, you keep bringing it up, even though this has been said for almost 10 pages, by various people.



I'm not sure if I can explain this correctly, but will give a stab.

I DON'T EFFIN' CARE ABOUT YOUR RL GAMBLING SITUATION. IT HAS ZERO (AS IN NONE, NADA, ZILCH) RELEVANCE TO THE SL GAMBLING POLICY OR ITS IMPLEMENTATION.

There is NO GAMES OF SKILL EXCEPTION in the SL POLICY, EXPRESS *OR* IMPLIED.



That's what quotation marks are often used for.. quoting.

There is no need for "inside knowledge" to know what is going on. Most of this is not some kind of "secret", only available to the FIC or some stupid thing.

Again, your questions were answered. Either you don't like the answers, or you're asking the wrong questions. I'll leave you to figure out which it is.



That's not really my problem.



Then pose questions and try to at least pretend like you care. Before you asked questions, you made a lot of ad hominem assertions about "gumption", "sour grapes", and capabilities. You accused before you asked.

If you really are interested in the search for the truth, listen to what everyone here (and elsewhere, too!) is saying. We all didn't just get together in our little clubhouse and agree on some conspiratorial "smear campaign" against Zyngo and its creator. There's PROBABLY a reason why different people (who have even argued against each other in the past over different subjects) say similar things.



Then ask questions and stop dragging personality issues into it. Attack the posts, not the poster. Well, do either, if you want, I don't care either way, really; just quit trying to cast your tact as something other than what it is.



First, you criticize me for not having other game makers as my best friends in the whole world as my sources, and not knowing everything with 100% certainty. Now, you won't even bother to find out for yourself from the horse's mouth. I don't get it. Are you even interested in learning the truth, or are you comfortable in your denial of it because it benefits you the most? As I said, I don't care either way, but make up your mind. It's hard to debate with a waffle.



Sure, if I can locate them again, I'll be happy to point you to them. However, you're just as capable as finding them as I am. For the ones who I know that haven't posted public statements and/or left SL altogether, I doubt I will be able to source what they said in a form you'll likely find acceptable.



Every business worth its revenues bases sound decisions on manageable risk. If the risk is unmanageable, you can't make sound business decisions on it, other than not taking the risk. SL is no exception to this. This stuff is like Business 101.

Why is it harder to base sound decisions on manageable risk in SL than it is in RL? I'd really like to hear that explanation.



*snoutpalms*

You're. Missing. The. Point.

Sure, I can make such games, and have made such games. They don't run afoul of the gambling policy, though. Free-to-play non-gambling games are out of the scope of the discussion. They are in a completely different market.



Sure! Just about every possible business out there that is not against the rules in some way is a level playing field in SL. The barriers to entry are the same; the growth potential is the same; and the market potential is the same.

Want to make RPCS games? Level playing field.
Want to make sex beds? Level playing field.
Want to make avatars? Level playing field.
Want to make shoes? Level playing field.
Want to be a famous land baron? Level playing field.
Even the business you are in... making prim furniture.. guess what? Level playing field.

I could go on and on for days listing all manner of businesses that have a level playing field, not affected by any preferential treatment, either support or hindrance, from LL.



Do I have to do extensive, exhaustive research on all this? When is enough evidence enough? Do I have to get sworn affidavits from every possible person involved and their dog, even if only on the fringe, before it is enough? I've uncovered enough evidence to convince myself. Apparently, I am not alone, either.



Well, if you find someone who can claim that LL "approved" their game with some level of evidence that they actually had, by all means, do so. It won't poke any holes in the "preferential treatment" theory, because there are plenty of game makers who could NOT get approval, and their games are no less gambling and in violation of the policy as written as Zyngo.



How many games are out there? What percentage of them are not Zyngo or made by its creator? I'm talking about gambling games here, so don't drag a bunch of "free to play only" games into this; their existence isn't relevant to the discussion at all.



Unless a game creator has been able to wrest a preferred "approval" from Linden "We don't do game approvals" Lab, no one game is more "acceptable" than any other. It is likely that if someone ARs it, it will have the same chance to get returned as any other gambling game, except Zyngo et al.

So, you purchase at your own risk.



..and yet, I did.



Well, unfortunately, Zyngo and all other games like it violate the gambling policy as written. LL has given Zyngo and some of the other gambling games by the same creator a preferential "approved" status. As such, despite the obvious conflict with Zyngo, all other games like it are basically "illegal" in SL.

If Talarus and I agree on something you have to seriously ask if an opposing view is even remotely tenable

I'd add that LL has done some questionable things to promote individual residents in most of those fields, but nothing that comes close to okaying one maker in each of those fields while refusing to say that using the products of the others won't get you banned.

I once quipped that I wished LL would declare all my competitor's products illegal. It was Aargle I was referring to, of course, and as ridiculous as it sounds to even joke that LL would do that for me, that's precisely what they did for Aargle.

I don't see anything wrong in tossing out an opposing view in this forum. The views of a handful of people in forum, are not necessarily the views of the majority of the population that spend time inworld. But you are correct....it is difficult, some days, and requires a lot of time. I don't think that I can hang with you and Talarus on the amount of time that is required....(two against one, here).....but I would like to. Have a nice night.

It was a joke, silly.



On post count, and particularly word count, I don't think I'm even in the game

Sorry. I guess I lost my sense of humor when you dissed what I do, here, as part of a discussion. You and I have had some discussions before, and you never did that before. It was a surprise.

Sorry about that, I was out of line. I have, however, listened to you and others say success is a matter of trying harder. I let that go a lot of times before I lost my cool. For the record (again) I've put in two years of full-time effort. I'm not anxious to hear again that I should try harder. I can guarantee you that you are not trying harder than I did. Visit my web pages and then try to convince me you put that much effort into your products.

I told you what it would take for me to enter the gaming market and heard you say it's okay because there's a one-month payoff. I don't think you're being realistic, and I don't think you have the experience to make such claims. In fact I find it insulting to have three months of real-world effort so easily dismissed.

ok then, don't sweat it. I lose my cool, too.

Anya - most of my items are less than 200L. I have to put a huge amount of effort into making the numbers work, with those amounts. The majority of the effort doesn't necessarily go into the product, but into running the store. Most days....it's not any kind of fancy marketing or some spectacular marketing campaign, that no one else in SL has ever tried.....it's just coming in and doing very simple steps, that to most would seem quite mundane and boring. I'm sort of into mundane these days.....so it works for me, but might not work for you. Even as mundane as it is....it is still fun to be logged into SL, while you're doing it. But marketing works here. It works pretty similar to how it works in RL. Sort of. You have been very resistant to any discussion where marketing is concerned....you just buckle up on it, and come out punching....so it's really hard to approach that with you.

I didn't word that paragraph on the one month payoff, as I would have liked to. I explained that several times, and still can't make it clear. Sorry about that. Your time was not dismissed, and it was not intended as an insult. I KNOW about the time. Just from a different angle.

I'll put my thoughts down tomorrow, and send it to you privately. I don't want another lecture from Talarus, on veering off topic.

So, how do we go about getting this explanation for preferential treatment?

You don't. There is no explanation that is reconcilable with the published policy or Linden Lab's failure to enforce it.

You could always consult the magic eight ball....

You don't. That info is going to cause a lot of trouble. It won't come just for the asking.

Wouldn't it be better if they sort it out now? What if something official happens? Say they close SL down for an audit or something worse?