What about creators?

So with this new ban and the Lindens once again not being clear at all on what is considered a no, no. For example Sploders. I am wonder about creators? Say for example I sell Sploders but do not use them. Say somebody buys it, say the Lindens catch them using it... Who gets nailed? The person using it and thats it or the creator as well? How far are they taking this?

Anyone know?

Interesting question. I've not yet seen anything regarding the creation of such things, though I suspect it will become slightly less lucrative now.

.

Nobody knows. The lack of a notice period has caused a mess and as much as I admire Robin Linden (and I really really do admire her) they've caused chaos by not managing this properly and it's not something new that they don't manage things properly.

I still don't understand why anyone believes that LL not providing a notice period is "not managing things properly". They've explicitly stated that doing so wasn't even an available option.


.

All I know is, if they are going to set laws they need to be very detailed on them and it seems they never are and end up leaving eveyone guessing.

One could look at other items which, when used, are against the TOS.....spy gadgets that can remotely listen in on conversations for one. I still see those for sale.

How about products used for griefing?

Just a thought.

Oh rubbish, do you really think they got into work yesterday and were told it was all illegal? Absolute codswallop, come on.

I think that's intentional. I don't think it's in their best interests to try to get as explicit as people seem to want them to be, and it certainly wouldn't make things easier for them.



.

Nope, sure don't, and that's not at all what I said either. I suppose it is quite possible that they did in fact get a call from PayPal that said something to the effect of "fix this problem or we won't do business with you", but that would be pure speculation and not worth much.

But I don't think that they can say "this is now against the rules, but we won't enforce these new rules for a month", either, and I've read something that a Linden said to that effect as well.


.

They could have said that, even governments do things that way. They should have annouced all gambling was being banned when they banned the adverts. It would have still caused a stink but at least then they wouldn't have looked like dodgy private estate owner who rips people off by selling them land and then reclaiming it. It's extremely shoddy how they've done this.

The very least they could have done was to tell big casino sims they were going to close them down, the way they've implemented this is unprofessional to say the least, yet another example of how they haven't got a clue about customer service and they've left an impression that they will take the money and run. To anyone who intends to invest big here, this isn't very encouraging.

Would it have made a difference if they got into work the day BEFORE yesterday and were told it was all illegal?

There is only one way to announce a change of policy, and that is to announce a change of policy. You don't do so by posting on Monday that "a change of policy is forthcoming, unfortunately we can't tell you about it just yet."

I don't for a minute believe this was taken lightly, or done off the cuff. It was probably weeks, if not longer, in the making, with meetings happening at all levels of management, involving their legal counsel.

When the time comes to make the announcement, you do so. In a case where the company has determined that to continue to allow the practice of wager based gaming in Second Life could put the company in a position of legal liability, you don't offer a grace period, you don't offer amnesty, you simply state the new policy, effective immediately. The content of the internal deliberations are none of our business, only the outcome, which takes form as the new policy.

Exactly, which is why I say they should have annoucned a ban was coming when they banned the ads. To allow it to continue whilst they were investigating it and then ban it overnight is shoddy. They had weeks to consider this, yet they've taken the money from sim owners for tier and then stuck a carving knife through the heart of their business model whilst still taking their money. It's bad customer service.

Change your Sploders to trivia games, everyone throws into the Pot, the First One who answers Five/seven/ten Questions Correctly gets the Pot, OR the Top Three people answering correctly out of a pool of 25 questions Divide the Pot.
Games of Chance are Banned, Games of SKILL are Not.

Angel.

Those who continued to operate casinos after the ad ban were simply acting in folly.

That obvious tidbit said..

Linden didn't announce that a ban was coming because at the time, there was no policy decision which determined that a ban was coming. You don't announce policy until the policy is established.

Linden Lab are not lawyers, and they are not obligated to provide legal or general cautionary counsel to their customers. Those customers who chose to continue to invest money into their gaming operations after the advertising policy was established did so at their own risk. (see my opening statement in this post)

So sure maybe not providing notice doesnt mean its been handled improperly.

But leaving huge grey areas regarding splooders and slingo etc certainly is.

It's extremely poor customer service no matter how you put it. Taking money from a business owner and then shutting him down overnight is poor customer service. Taking tier payment from a business model you know is dodgy and could be shut down any minute, is almost fleecing that business. If you know damn well they're on shaky ground you shouldn't be encouraging them to continue and by not annoucning a future ban, LL encouraged them to continue.

You can come out with all the "Writing was on the wall" comments you like, but nobody with an ounce of common sense is going to invest big in a business who are quite prepared overnight to put a knife through your business model when they know damn well there's a problem with it.

You're assuming that Linden knew these "business owners" were operating casinos on the land they were paying tier for. The fact is, they most probably didn't. They were taking tier payment from people who for all they knew were residents in good standing.

Even if they did know of a few, again, they were not in a position to advise the residents of a policy which did not yet exist. To advise them that such a policy was on the horizon would have been hugely inappropriate.

If you operate on the fringe, you accept the accompanying risk. It's as simple as that. I've no sympathy for anyone who "lost" anything through this policy change. They all knew, or should have known, the risk they were taking. It's called "diligence" in the real world. It's called "diligence" here as well.

Amen, brother

.




ok then ... so is it remotely possible that

every time you spend money to pay for a premium membership,
buy land, pay tier fees, buy clothing and gadgets,
or buy and sell Lindens etc

arent you gambling with SL's asset servers? ...

these probably fall under the catagory of "grey areas",
so are they gonna ban them too?


.

Dangit Zap...........hate when I agree so whole heartedly with you.

Oh, and as a side on the customer service part of this ban..........it's more customer service from LL than I've seen in a long time. They stated a new policy, brief background information, and told when it would take place. I'm waiting for the "bomb" to drop on the age verification now

These things are a very poor example of gambling in the context of this new policy change. When Second Life's asset servers (or any other servers) fail, it is not due to random chance. As indeterministic as it appears to be, there are concrete reasons for such failures, and there are no "winnings" paid out due to chance.

.

.

course they are (poor examples) ...



i dont take any of this too seriously 0.o

sl can do anything they want or need to do ... or are compelled to do


.

I'm of two minds. I generally agree with you, Zaphod, but I think Cirian has a point. The original posts on the advertising policy, tough as they were on ads, didn't suggest that anything was in store for the actual activity.

###QUOTE###
We have recently received an increasing number of questions about simulated casinos in Second Life. Despite reports to the contrary, we know of no law enforcement agency that has opened an investigation into gambling in Second Life.

It has been a basic tenet of Second Life that all Residents are legally responsible for their own activities and for complying with the laws of the local jurisdiction in which they reside. However, given the ambiguities of the issues, Linden Lab has decided that we will not accept any classified ads, place listings, or event listings that appear to relate to simulated casino activity.

Linden Lab is committed to keeping Second Life a place of openness and opportunity. We plan to implement features that will enable Residents to optionally confirm aspects of each other’s identity, including age and jurisdictions. Hopefully, these features will help Residents as they conform to their own local laws. For our part, we will continue to evaluate these issues, including where appropriate by reaching out to law enforcement, and by working toward solutions that keep our Residents’ experiences safe and legal.
###END QUOTE###

The implication was that residents would be responsible for obeying the laws that apply to them. Obviously something happened in the intervening months that changed their minds. It may be that their hope for tools that would allow the casino owner to say 'you live in a place where this is illegal so I can't allow you to gamble here', which is what it sounds like they were going for, didn't work out. Who knows?

I am not at all sympathetic to the people who act as if SL will have no value to them if they can't plug their $L into a virtual slot machine ... if that's the limit of your imagination, then "your world, your imagination" is pretty limited for you. Virtual gambling is about the least imaginative thing you can do in Second Life.

And I doubt I will miss the casinos ... I dabbled a few times early on, got bored and then later came to see them as mostly unattractive, uncreative places.

BUT, that said... some people had sunk significant money into buying land and equipment with the assumption that the carpet wouldn't be pulled out from under them overnight, and I think those people do have a valid reason to be ticked.

I actually agree with you a little bit there, but only a little. Second Life is an *EXTREMELY* high-risk platform for business or investment, and anyone sinking significant money into SL is doing themselves a huge disservice if they don't carefully consider that before going forward with the full knowledge that it can all blow away at any instant.


.

Well, except for US citizens, no one was operating on the fringe here. It's perfectly possible to invest into SL and know nothing about some odd regional laws in the USA.

Even with the knowledge that online gambling for real money is illegal now in the USA, and with the knowledge that LL's servers are located in the USA and the whole grid therefore subject to US laws (quite odd for the glorified 3D internet of the future, I'd say), no one could have foreseen that the Linden Dollar turns into an RL currency over night. LL keeps ownership of all digital items in SL including the monopoly money, and doesn't guarantee an exchange of L$ into US$. They don't exchange money at all, all they do is helping residents to sell L$ to other residents.

Imho, no one could foresee the sudden change from LL's previous "we kinda dislike the word casino, please spell it with k" policy to "L$ is an official currency and you are all US citizens now".