Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Gaming issue in SL- a solution?

Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
08-10-2007 16:02
From: Rusty Satyr
I made the snarky comment mostly in response to the line quoted below... which made me chuckle, considering there wasn't much offered to learn from except opinions. :)

Honestly though, LL gets it from so many sides and so many people that they'd have to staff up and abandon doing anything else just to seriously listen to a fraction of the feedback they get. At some point they HAVE to ignore us as individuals and treat us as a collective entity of dissenting opinions. Or they'd get nothing else done.

He he....Ok. But mine still stands. :)
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.

http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
Joker Opus
Registered Usimibober
Join date: 9 May 2006
Posts: 363
08-10-2007 17:02
Why is everyone making a big deal about this gambling issue. Every other thread is about gambling...
The train has left the station, it is illegal to permit gambling in secondlife, aslong as the Linden Dollar has Real Life value.
Its done
Its done
Its not going to change
_____________________
Jøkêr Øpüs
PLEASE FIX THE WEAPON TESTING SANDBOX - AN OLD SECONDLIFE HANGOUT!
Andy Grant
Registered User
Join date: 20 May 2005
Posts: 140
08-10-2007 18:06
From: Joker Opus
Why is everyone making a big deal about this gambling issue. Every other thread is about gambling...


Because some people will keep asking stupid questions,
actualy the reason is prety simple for most people to understand, one of them why ginko ran out of cash, another why the "usd spent inworld last 24 hours is 1million usd lower", another one the land auctions are sinking everyday currently at 1700 for a sim, another one because a lot of people lost their jobs, another one because alot of people are forced to sell their land, another one is because inworld advertising companies are suffering huge loss in revenues, another one because... i can realy go on how many people this instantly affected, in general any business inworld is affected. But ofcourse some people dont see that, they only see threads on forums, just like in rl. Some people dont see inflation they just see the text on the front of newspapers and aslong as that text is "black-on-white" the inflation doesnt exist.
GypsyAngel Desmoulins
Registered User
Join date: 8 Nov 2005
Posts: 25
08-10-2007 18:28
From: Rusty Satyr


Legally in SL, Linden Lab has declared it illegal. Period. Their world, their perogative.


Funny....'
I could have swore i read somewhere this is OUR world OUR imagination...................
Inyur Orbit
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
08-10-2007 18:55
From: Rusty Satyr
Ramo-

Don't neglect the bit of the ToS that warns that any part of the service or ToS may change at anytime, without much notice, and is considered binding and accepted by the customer should they continue to use the service. blah blah blah.


If I took a gun and shot someone in the head several times, it is murder.

If I give someone else a gun, and pay them to shoot someone in the head several times... it's still murder.

If I put cash on a spot on a roulette table in Vegas, it's gambling.

If I buy L$, and my avatar puts them on a spot on a virtual roulette table in SecondLife, with the understanding that I might win more L$ which I could sell off to someone later, it's still 'gambling', at least semantically, if not legally.

Of course, I still think of buying L$ and hoping they'll increase in value as 'gambling' as well... but I'm crazy that way.

Legally in RL, adult, paying customers don't get to decide. That's up to the lawyers, judges and law enforcement to make a case for or against.

Legally in SL, Linden Lab has declared it illegal. Period. Their world, their perogative.

Whether RL law forced or pursuaded LL to ban gambling is between "The Law" and "LL", we can bark until our jaws fall off it is obviously something that is done, and unlikely to be undone.

We've 'learned' your 'opinion'. Time for you to learn that your opinion is one of many and counts as little as the rest of ours :D


It could be UNDONE very easily.

Court says "no" to changing terms of service without notification


"Indeed, a party can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party's consent before doing so... This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until accepted." Wrote the judges of the Ninth District court

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070729-court-says-no-to-changing-terms-of-service-without-notification.html
Inyur Orbit
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
08-10-2007 18:56
From: GypsyAngel Desmoulins
Funny....'
I could have swore i read somewhere this is OUR world OUR imagination...................


It should say OUR broken world YOUR imagination if we fix it.
Gisela Vale
Registered User
Join date: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Lots of reasons
08-11-2007 10:34
From: Joker Opus
Why is everyone making a big deal about this gambling issue. Every other thread is about gambling...
The train has left the station, it is illegal to permit gambling in secondlife, aslong as the Linden Dollar has Real Life value.
Its done
Its done
Its not going to change

/53/eb/200299/2.html#post1629284
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
08-11-2007 10:39
From: GypsyAngel Desmoulins
Funny....'
I could have swore i read somewhere this is OUR world OUR imagination...................

But we still lease the World from The Lindens.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.

http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
Rusty Satyr
Meadow Mythfit
Join date: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 610
08-11-2007 16:47
From: Inyur Orbit
It could be UNDONE very easily.

Court says "no" to changing terms of service without notification


"Indeed, a party can't unilaterally change the terms of a contract; it must obtain the other party's consent before doing so... This is because a revised contract is merely an offer and does not bind the parties until accepted." Wrote the judges of the Ninth District court

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070729-court-says-no-to-changing-terms-of-service-without-notification.html


The last paragraph of the page you linked to is a very telling clarification:

"[...] It's clear from the Ninth Circuit's decision that the judges feel that users need to be notified whenever a change is made to an agreement, and there are some sites that already do this by e-mail or via a notice on the web site. Some site operators even go so far as to require users to agree all over again every time a change is made by forcing them to read the new agreement when they log in."

And LL does seem to abide by the practice of popping up the ToS agreement confirmation window when we log in after they've making changes.
Morgaine Dinova
Active Carbon Unit
Join date: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 968
It's not about gambling, it's about turning SL into FL/USA.
08-12-2007 05:24
The problem here has nothing to do with gambling, per se. It's just an instance of something wider.

The real problem is LL's unilateral pulling of the carpet out from under the feet of residents, after proclaiming for years that "it's your world". That was a remarkable vision. "Imagine, create and own your 3D online digital world", they said, and they called it Second Life to make the distinction from First Life clear.

Creating your own world distinct from First Life is very much a matter of leaving behind the restrictions of FL. After all, if you're not going to change anything significant, the tag "second life" has no meaning whatsoever. The original vision was even stronger, effectively a lead-in to that hypothetical metaverse that everyone always talks about.

Well that vision was well and good, and greatly applauded. But it doesn't work when the host makes sudden, dramatic, and extremely hostile changes to the universe, effectively shutting down whole parts of the "virtual galaxy" that developed because residents "imagined, created and owned" the place as they wanted it.

And it works even less when those changes are in response to local laws and politics in the USA, because the world was most definitely not presented as a "Second USA". When residents around the world visit SL, they certainly don't do it to visit the USA by proxy.

So, the problem here is Linden's clear abandonment of the vision of a real second life, and downgrading it to "first life in pixellated 3D, all USA restrictions apply".

Which is very, very sad, from a futurist's standpoint.

Morg.
_____________________
-- General Mousebutton API, proposal for interactive gaming
-- Mouselook camera continuity, basic UI camera improvements
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
08-12-2007 06:35
It wasn't presented as Second Germany, or Second France earlier this year when LL had to deal with legal issues there. Second Life is breaking new ground, ground where laws have not been written yet to deal with it. Until then applicable laws drom many countries are what LL has to cope with. They ARE failing miserably in communicating, and implementing policy changes. In the end, it's really THEIR World, and they a re going to with it as they seem fit. SL is not the Free Open 3D internet that many here seem to dream of. That's still a ways off, and when it happens LL may be a small part of that.

but don't let me get in the way of some good old America Bashing.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.

http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
08-12-2007 06:56
From: Brenda Connolly
It wasn't presented as Second Germany, or Second France earlier this year when LL had to deal with legal issues there. Second Life is breaking new ground, ground where laws have not been written yet to deal with it. Until then applicable laws drom many countries are what LL has to cope with. They ARE failing miserably in communicating, and implementing policy changes. In the end, it's really THEIR World, and they a re going to with it as they seem fit. SL is not the Free Open 3D internet that many here seem to dream of. That's still a ways off, and when it happens LL may be a small part of that.

but don't let me get in the way of some good old America Bashing.


Some of the same people think LL/SL should abide by European Laws, but ignore US laws.
Kascha Matova
Bus Bench Supermodel
Join date: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 342
08-12-2007 12:23
From: Colette Meiji
Some of the same people think LL/SL should abide by European Laws, but ignore US laws.


I personally have found Muppet Laws far more effective and just. So much so in fact that I packed up and moved to Fraggle Rock the same day I read the charter :D
Rusty Satyr
Meadow Mythfit
Join date: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 610
08-12-2007 14:28
SecondLife is not just a virtual world... it is a medium that exists in the real world which allows real people to communicate with each other, and subject to the (complex, contradictory & conditional) laws that govern interactions between real people.

It was only a matter of time before real-world restrictions began interfering with the freedoms we had become accustomed to in SecondLife.

As time goes on, things will become more restrictive. Any serious competitor to SecondLife will likewise be bound by those restrictions as well.

Like it or not, this frontier is being 'civilized'.

If you want absolute freedom, move to Mars, that should last a while longer. :)
Gisela Vale
Registered User
Join date: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 114
We have a responsibility
08-12-2007 14:54
The demonstration may have begun as a response to LL's ban on gaming, but it has come to represent much more than that in my opinion.

The ban on gaming created a devastating ripple effect on SL's economy, affecting every single industry from land prices to fashion sales. It's not just about bringing gaming back, its about whether SL will continue to exist for any of us.

Land prices are less than half their value prior to the ban. I've heard so many insist this is the best thing to happen, but those values are an integral part of SL's economy. You may be able to afford cheap land at this very moment, but it will serve no purpose if SL dies.

The primary problem with the ban is that LL is allowing governmental regulations to get a foot in the door. This has far reaching implications which are, in my mind, much more serious. It opens the door to regulation of the internet. There isn't a government in the world who isn't chomping at the bit to accomplish that feat because of its incredible revenue potential.

Yes LL does have liability because of the UIGEA and most people believe that is why the ban was implemented. It is a little more complicated than that though. This is a virtual world and the things in it exist in cyberspace. It is only by virtue of the grid staying open that any of it is possible. Once the plug is pulled, SL and everything in it disappears, including EVERYTHING you obtained with real currency, whether it be land or lindens or whatever. And if it disappears you have no recourse whatsoever.

LL's liability is not tied to any RL laws because they don't apply to virtual reality. Not yet anyway. Their liability is the result of a single action on their part - the launch of the LindeX whereby they themselves encourage and facilitate the exchange of $L for USD.

If they didn't do that one thing, their liability would be zero and RL law simply would not apply to SL. There will always be activities conducted here in which individual players may have liability from their local laws such as pornography or failing to pay sales taxes, and yes gambling too among others, but individual player liability doesn't challenge the existence of the game itself or pose any danger to SL's economy.

Cue the *gasps* of all those who fear losing the ability to exchange their $L for USD.

Simple fact is that it would still be traded. SL got along fine without the LindeX before it came into existence and $L was traded for real currency quite well. There are many outlets already available and any number of players in-game willing to make trades via Paypal or Ebay. There are also third parties who regularly trade in game items, not just SL but many other games as well. They aren't prolific in SL now because it simply isn't lucrative to compete with the LindeX (LL owns the LindeX.) If the LindeX didn't exist, then third party trading would become lucrative again. It would be highly competitive.

Gaming or gambling in SL, whichever you prefer to call it, is not the only industry which stands to lose in SL because of the liability LL has from owning the LindeX. The intrusion of RL laws in a virtual reality game is a loss to everyone, because then you suddenly become subject to RL regulation no matter what you do. If you think that's a plus, then in my mind you are part of the problem because you support that philosophy.

Cue the *huffing* of the whiners who demand regulation in SL because they have been ripped off by Ginko, or that builder, or that fashion designer, or that scriptor, or that shoe shop owner, or that land seller, or that escort, or that casino owner, or any number of ripoff artists that exist both in RL and virtual worlds. We could even argue that LL has ripped off people left and right because they aren't well known for treating their customer base with anything resembling respect. (Please note, I do believe individual Lindens do their damnedest to help us - but they are ham-strung by company policy)

The fact that SL is an extension of the internet is lost on many. You have to use common sense here as you would anywhere else and unfortunately the learning curve for that is just as high as the game itself.

Basically LL's philosophy, which I agree with wholeheartedly, is to not interfere and allow us to govern ourselves. Self-governing is already done in SL in lots of ways, albeit on a very small scale. We have yet to reach a point of being able to do it on a large scale, but then the game doesn't really facilitate that, as it's difficult to disseminate information and large gatherings are fairly impossible.

We do have a philosophy as a consumer base though at least I think most of us do. We are all here for a reason. It isn't a matter of whether it's a good or bad reason, just whether we can reasonably expect to remain here based on it.

That said, it goes without saying we all have some interest in preserving the game. I think we have a responsibility to take some kind of action if we see its existence is in danger. That is my reason for protest and demonstration. It should be yours as well if you choose to become involved. Some of you don't care to, but those who do should not be subjected to ridicule or castigation.

Protests about the stability of the grid as opposed to introducing new features is a prime example of how most of us demonstrate. We want the game to work like it should. This protest (which LL responds to btw) makes the game better for all, thus ensuring we don't evacuate in droves, and it ultimately preserves the game.

I see the gaming protest as serving the same purpose because of the fear the economical fallout from the ban will result in the death of SL. You can make fun and flame all you want about "the sky is falling" but the numbers are there to support that fear. Yes, LL owns the game and can make any decision they want concerning it, but that doesn't absolve you or me of any responsibility to do or say what we can to help preserve both LL and the game. My suggestion to that end is to call for LL to ditch the LindeX. I'm not anyone special and they won't listen to me. But if I can help enough other people to understand why, they may join in and demonstrate too or perhaps offer an even better solution to what I see is a very real danger to the game. As individuals, little can be accomplished. But as a group we have considerable power to effect change as long as we are reasonable.

Although it's really convenient to buy or sell $L through the LindeX, I believe it's a mistake to have it and its existence may ultimately be the reason SL dies. LL's ownership of the LindeX gives them liability because THEY are giving $L value. If someone else was doing it, it wouldn't affect SL.

LL assumes much more liability by virtue of the LindeX, than just being subject to US Federal gaming laws. If USD wasn't involved, the gambling laws wouldn't apply to them at all. BUT . . .

It is quite possible the whole concept of LL issuing $L is completely illegal itself. Under US Federal Securities law, it could be construed as issuing an unregistered security. Because the $L is traded for USD on the LindeX, are they in fact issuing securities for USD? If so, that IS DEFINITELY illegal under federal securities law - virtual or not. Technically securities, for all intents and purposes, are virtual anyway because you just don't see actual stock certificates anymore. $L is no different because if you buy $L, basically you are hoping someone will pay more for it, or that you can exchange it for something with value, so it appears they are acting like a company issuing stock, i.e. selling virtual securities. ALL BECAUSE THEY OWN THE LINDEX.

If this is the case, it stands to reason, LL banned gaming in SL because they fear that they are facilitating an online gaming operation and can't hide behind the "we are nothing but a chat room really" argument. Not to mention they are going directly against their own TOS in which they state $L has no value. LL cannot legally sell $L and maintain an exchange, virtual or not, in their own corporation, which may be exactly why they have made a point they are only acting as agent, but in fact they are not (because they issue more $L).

An investigation by the US Department of Justice or the Attorneys General would most likely result in closure of the grid long before the issue was decided in a court action.

It doesn't really make sense to me that LL would roll over as the result of the UIGEA and create such economic hardship for themselves as well as their customer base in-world. Yes, if the economy in SL suffers, so does LL. The UIGEA in its current form has no teeth really and LL could easily position themselves for protection from it. The question is why wouldn't they want to?


I invite anyone to read the securities laws themselves here:
http://www.sec.gov.

I hope to invite discussion as well as pertinent comment, not flames.
Discussion and sharing information with others is important. My friend Ramo told me about the unregistered securities issue, and after reading the law myself I agree.

There are links to the UIGEA as well as the Barney Frank bill being introduced this year in a couple of other posts found here:
post #s 1 and 32,
/341/61/200636/6.html

Many other comments in that thread include interesting links as well.

Most assume that internet gambling is illegal, but there is no federal law, as yet anyway, that outlaws it. The UIGEA just makes it illegal to fund it with USD. The Barney Frank bill intends to correct that and place additional restrictions on the gaming industry. If you do even a little reading on these issues, it's a real eye-opener on how deceptive the politicians are at getting laws passed and how the government is taking steps towards regulating the internet.
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
08-12-2007 17:31
Must you keep dragging poor Barney Frank into this?
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.

http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
Gisela Vale
Registered User
Join date: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 114
I'd hardly call him poor.
08-12-2007 18:50
From: Brenda Connolly
Must you keep dragging poor Barney Frank into this?



In 2005, Congressman Barney Frank's personal financial disclosure puts his net worth at $472,021 to $1,256,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pfds.asp?CID=N00000275
Guido Columbia
Registered User
Join date: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 102
08-13-2007 01:42
From: Gisela Vale
In 2005, Congressman Barney Frank's personal financial disclosure puts his net worth at $472,021 to $1,256,000.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pfds.asp?CID=N00000275



Dick Cheney's net worth is between $30 - $100 million..

How much money is that?

Enough that you can shoot a man in the face and have him apologise! :P

George W. Bush's Net Worth: $20 Million
Mitt Romney's Net Worth: $250 million
Rudy Giuliani: $18+ Million made in 2006
John Edwards Net Worth: $30 Million
Chilly Charlton
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 483
Sex is next
08-13-2007 13:34
Sex is next.

Since the L$ is now real money

And

PayPal + Sex = NO NO

Then

The writing is on the wall. We know who pulls LL's strings now. The L$ HAS become real, it is no longer our world our imagination, the motto needs to be changed (I have some suggestions).

I'm only sorry I wasn't vocal when others before were GOMed. I would cite a famous german poem but it's been cited enough and I'm just as guilty.

Say goodbye to escorts and cam shows and stripper clubs and snap on toys ... ok say good bye to any of the forementioned that are not FREE. no I'm not into any of that sex stuff but many were not into simulated games of chance and they didn't care. People only care about thier own particular interests and it's easy to pick off one group at a time when no one supports each other.

L$ will be divorced from sex and sex will be free and all those whose interest in sex and L$ or have invested in it will be left holding the bag. LL does not care about it's residents nor it's groups and as an idividual cares NOTHING. LL only cares about LL.

I understand the changes, I disagree with the execution of the changes. LL doesn't have any respect for it's own community otherwise LL would be more graceful in how it chose to grow up.


I give it less then a year.
TrackDay Kidd
Registered User
Join date: 18 Apr 2007
Posts: 32
08-13-2007 23:32
Spammer !!!
_____________________
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Craigavon/47/11/41
Rusty Satyr
Meadow Mythfit
Join date: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 610
08-14-2007 09:37
From: Chilly Charlton
Sex is next.

PayPal + Sex = NO NO


Paying someone in L$ for real-world sexual favors would likely be treated the same as pandering/prostitution.

I, personally, would pay for tickets to see 'pixel bumping' brought up in a real court.
Bad Bobbysocks
Registered User
Join date: 7 Jul 2005
Posts: 99
08-15-2007 01:11
sorry guys ....a moral crusade? "we don't see $L as real money" and the solution offered has anyone flown this past qualified scrutiny I'd be interested to know the conclusions.
Casinos were businesses not welfare cut the moral crap you were making money, was it cashed out? of course it was ...so..............
1. give us a qualified opinion not your own
2. be honest you lost good businesses
I may be wrong but from what I've read so far losing the lindX would solve nothing any 3rd party would quite probably be liable to the same law LL tried to avoid and nobody mentioned the threat to LL income from the withdrawel of cc support. Think you guys need a professional assessment.
wish you luck though I liked slingo
Inyur Orbit
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
08-15-2007 02:24
From: Rusty Satyr
The last paragraph of the page you linked to is a very telling clarification:

"[...] It's clear from the Ninth Circuit's decision that the judges feel that users need to be notified whenever a change is made to an agreement, and there are some sites that already do this by e-mail or via a notice on the web site. Some site operators even go so far as to require users to agree all over again every time a change is made by forcing them to read the new agreement when they log in."

And LL does seem to abide by the practice of popping up the ToS agreement confirmation window when we log in after they've making changes.


Right..now we got that clear..let's me bring this up. The new ANTI Gambling thing, is not in the TOS to begin with, its in a BLOG...so when people now get popped for having games..they are not in violation of the TOS, but in violation of the "BUSINESS DECISSION BLOG..where in the TOS that one must submit to and anhere to a BLOG? PFFFFFFTTTTT!
Rusty Satyr
Meadow Mythfit
Join date: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 610
08-15-2007 09:33
From: Inyur Orbit
Right..now we got that clear..let's me bring this up. The new ANTI Gambling thing, is not in the TOS to begin with, its in a BLOG...so when people now get popped for having games..they are not in violation of the TOS, but in violation of the "BUSINESS DECISSION BLOG..where in the TOS that one must submit to and anhere to a BLOG? PFFFFFFTTTTT!


The ToS is so vague they don't really need to change it to crack down on gambling in SL. They've kept it deliberately vague so they can forbid, or ignore what they choose to when it's convenient for them. If I were in their shoes I'd do the same. Get too specific and you basically hand SecondLife over to the lawyers to bat around like cats with a mouse.
Gisela Vale
Registered User
Join date: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 114
08-15-2007 16:10
From: Rusty Satyr
The ToS is so vague they don't really need to change it to crack down on gambling in SL. They've kept it deliberately vague so they can forbid, or ignore what they choose to when it's convenient for them. If I were in their shoes I'd do the same. Get too specific and you basically hand SecondLife over to the lawyers to bat around like cats with a mouse.


The precedent is already established in a court of law.

They cannot change the TOS arbitrarily and have to give notice.

The blog means nothing as far as TOS is concerned
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8