Casinos - dead and gone w/ new policy?

I remember one time donating $100 to charity for a chance to win 15 minutes with Philip Linden. (Too bad I didn't win; I would have had one FABULOUS little piece written that would have entertained everyone!)

Anyway, I didn't win.

OK. What about that? Surely they would still allow that sort of thing.

coco

Surely there is an objective definition that is as easy for you to look up as it is for me?

.

Let's ask Webster.com: "something (as a sum of money) risked on an uncertain event"

Note that while money is used as an example, the wager itself is not limited to money.

No not at all, see where I live there's a beer bus, you're not allowed to buy beer on the bus, but before you get on the bus you buy a raffle ticket, everyone who wins gets a beer, everyone wins.

By the same token, if someone sells tokens somewhere far away from a casino and then these tokens can be used in a gambling machine, are you actually wagering?

I just created a new account a couple of days ago.

Glad this happened now, I was just about ready to buy some Lindens, and create a gaming machine (Split the Pot).

But, after this annoucement, I guess I will be downgrading my account back to basic, or just leave Second Life altogether.

Yes... "pot" based games like raffles and Tringo would now be banned if players are required to contribute to the pot.

However, if the host puts up the entire pot themselves, and then the players play for free, they are legal because there is no wagering.

The stock market question is an intriuging one, though..

Crap and you had a great gambler avatar name and everything...

A good comparison for this may be purchasing $L from Anshe Chung's website and using that for gambling. I would think in that case, Anshe Chung can be cited for allowing electronic transactions to be made to gambling site, much in the same way that Neteller was essentially shutdown for proving a means to fund accounts on gambling sites.

Well, I imagine that quite a few people will be trying to obfuscate the issue in similar ways, but if they don't manage to do better than that example then I'd say the outcome is a near certainty

why else would i be here? To have a house. Get a REAL life.

Wouldn't it be interesting if this eventually shook down something like:

-- SL licenses (or open sources) servers to new offshore company
-- Company deploys its own "red light" district grid
-- Red light grid interoperates with SL grid in very specific ways that conform to gambling laws, something like:
-- Avatars and non-transferable portion of inventory can cross freely between grids
-- L$ balances on two grids are completely separate, no ingame way to transfer between grids.

I'm sure details are wrong, but you get the thought?

You just gave away a million linden idea.

Oh it's a common workaround using tokens not cash, or not paying out cash but paying out tokens that can be redeemed for goods.

LOL...Oh well

Can I point out to all those crying about loss of money/direction/earnings/reason for being here/etc etc.... this has been in the pipe for months....

The better-read amongst you may recall that the FBI themselves have been investigating gambling inside Secondlife for some time now... We have been expecting this for a while...

The Lindens are only complying with rulings enforced on them from above, so we can all carry on enjoying SL without the whole damn place place getting shut down on a technicality... This is not their decision - They are just complying to with the law in the USA - their place of business - with a view to carrying on doing what they do best - providing the best open 3D environment for the rest of us to enjoy..

If all you casino owners have been shut down and are no longer able to prey on the poor suckers with a gambling addiction via this virtual medium.... poo poo you..

This will make SL a better place in MHO

Shoot me down in flames if you like - hey - I don't care - I'm bullet-proof...lol

I was just thinking, their exemplar list does not mention games that are (unless I am mistaken) purely SL-born, such as Sploders.

That omission can't be 'by mistake'. As noted in the blog comments (as well as this thread) lots of people are asking if Sploders et cetera are to be included.

Now the conspiracy theorist in me is wonder, if those SL-born games were intentionally omitted to allow for some grey area? Like, go ahead and run your Sploder, so long as we don't actually 'see' it? (But if we do 'see' it we can go ahead and delete it anyways of course.)

-Atashi

WAIT!

Being Devil's advocate I've completely forgotten a far more important issue, does this mean I can't play strip poker with my tenants anymore?

You must have a very interestingly worded covenant...

What about those without a gambling addiction or do you consider anyone who gambles to have an addiction? A bit like those who consider anyone who uses the internet to have an addiction.

There's a whole lot of economy in gambling, there's a hell of a lot more in sex which is undoubtedly next.

Well this will have very huge implications as lucky chairs and a lot of innocent looking games like sploders are also based on chance and handing out something valuable.

I've asked about this on the blog, and want to know the answer, as I don't believe it would be that clear-cut.

For example, one could say that these are legal as long as people are not REQUIRED to donate to the pot. (Which they often aren't, or even usually aren't.)

Or there's this:

Nobody puts into the pot at all. All the winnings come from the person hosting the event.

BUT - you can't get into the event without paying admission.

You are paying admission to attend an entertainment event, where some people win Linden door prizes from playing parlor games.

Seems to me that would get around it.

Or if THAT isn't good enough, the winners would win sofas and couches. Which they were assured of being able to turn around and sell to the host immediately, for set amounts, before leaving.

"OK we're going to play a round now of Four Corners Bingo, for this fabulous prize of One (1) Couch, worth L175!"

Winner sells couch to host for L175 at the end of the evening.

(I'll be danged if I'm willing to let these games go without a fight! Next thing you know, they'll be banning trivia and captions and game shows!!)

coco

Read back. Lucky chairs don't require a wager so they're unaffected.

@Raymond: Buaahhahahahaha! (whips off mask to reveal herself as insanely successful venture capitalist)

Seriously, as someone mentioned LL has had this on their collective mind for quite some time. I'm sure if mine is a viable idea some member of the FIC already has it well under way!

Do you want to bet?

it's not the linden's choice to enforce this... (insert sarcasm)