The Skill Gaming applications for Second Life seem to be involved in some sort of skill game of themselves as operators try and seek approval for their game. At this stage I wouldn’t be surprised if the deadline is pushed back again because this is turning into a challenging experience for applicants and Linden Lab.
Let’s just rewind a little, Inara Pey recently covered the Second Life Bar Association discussion on the new TOS and the skill gaming policy. I’ve looked at the TOS discussion but not the skill gaming discussion, so let’s take a look at the skill gaming discussion.
The presentation was headed once again byAgenda Faromet. The discussion is a little bit muddied at times due to the fact that gaming and gambling seem to intermingle, but they do get to the differences about gaming and gambling early on :
- Gambling – betting, wagering something of value, money, on a contest, sporting event, game of chance.
- Gaming – playing skilled games that require skill or a player’s control of the game.
There are some areas of the discussion that border on being a little bit wrong, for example :
So gachas, breakables, stuff like that? They’re not gambling. I’ve answered so many questions about that. Not affected by the policy because they don’t have a pay-out in Linden dollars. If it doesn’t have a pay-out in Linden dollars, not gambling.
It doesn’t matter what the rick versus reward is, it doesn’t matter that you can sell your rare breakables for a gazillion dollars; they’re not [gambling].
Stock exchange: not gambling. Contest boards … depends on how they’re set-up, but if it costs Linden dollars to play, and it has a pay-out in Linden dollars, it’s gambling. If it doesn’t, not gambling.
The part about not having a pay-out in Linden Dollars meaning it’s not gambling isn’t actually 100% correct. The wagering policy actually states that the pay-out can’t be Linden Dollars or any real world currency or thing of value. The thing of value issue is where people ponder whether certain activities fall foul of the wagering policy, it’s a vague statement. However I suspect it applies to real world things of value, rather than inworld things of value, but I wouldn’t bet on that!
Then there’s a discussion on where attorneys are required to be licensed to practice law :
Comment – If you are from Europe It is rather difficult to hire an attorney who is licensed both in your country and the USA.
Reply – You don’t need an attorney that is licensed in the USA. You need an attorney who can write a letter that says what you are doing is permitted in your country.
However the FAQ does indeed state that the reasoned legal opinion should be provided by an attorney licensed to practice law in the United States. Initially that wasn’t mentioned as a requirement, the goalposts have been moving on these applications.
However it’s interesting that the presentation viewed stock exchanges as not gambling because SL Capex, who bill themselves as the number one stock market simulation in Second Life, are currently in the middle of a skill gaming application and they seem to be having a few difficulties in completing the process.
Skip Oceanlane, in a post dated August 7th said :
Many of you have been contacting me almost daily about updates to our Skill Gaming Application. Honestly I don’t have much new information to share with you. We are currently working on submitting all the required information to Linden Lab, and unfortunately they keep adding to the list of things they are looking for.
It’s also interesting that the Skill Gaming FAQ was last updated on August 7th, I don’t know what was updated on that date but I have noticed that Linden Lab have added some guidance regarding what a reasoned legal opinion should include. This now includes a request for a video or screen capture. This is what has delayed the SL Capex application, as Skip explains :
The latest addition is that they want screen shots and a step by step explanation with legal opinions on how each thing a person does is not part of a game of chance. For a skill-based “slot machine” this can be quite easy to do, but much more difficult for Capital Exchange. Regardless I am in the process of giving a long-winded breakdown of each step, and our attorneys will add the necessary legal wording before being submitted to Linden Lab.
So this has delayed their application and I would imagine the applications of some others too. Which brings us back to Agenda’s presentation from the SLBA :
The deadline for submitting these applications was supposed to be August 1st, it just got pushed back to September 1st, mostly because Linden Lab hasn’t been able to provide things like a list of permitted games, or a list of regions or the things that Linden Lab is supposed to provide to all of its potential game operators and game creators. So right now there’s a little bit of chaos going on. I don’t even know if they’re going to make the September 1st deadline. We’ll see.
I’m firmly in the camp that believes that this deadline will need to be pushed back again, but that in itself is no bad thing because we can see that this is a learning curve for Linden Lab and applicants. The important thing to do is to get this right. However one big concern is the lack of any mention of what exactly the quarterly fee would cost and this was raised in the discussion :
Question: Is it legal for them to take $100USD from us for application fee when they haven’t yet to divulge to us what the quarterly license fees will be. What’s to stop them from approving us then saying …. btw the quarterly license fee will be 90% of your profit or even $1000USD every 3 months later on?
Reply: So yes, they’re talking about quarterly fees, and I have seen that; that is problematic. I don’t like the fact they’re not disclosing the amount of quarterly fees they’re going to be charging. That bothers me too. That they can have you sign-up for a contract and just announce they’ll be charging some nebulous quarterly fee. and not tell you what it is.
Comment: To me it’s like buying a car & signing the contract & telling the salesman to fill in the price later as he sees fit.
Reply: Yeah, that bothers me a lot. What I would normally advise you to do is not sign-up for that contract, because that sounds like a really bad deal. And I know that doesn’t help anybody a lot.
The quarterly fee is initially waived through to December 31st, that hasn’t been put back a month as of yet, despite the date for applications being put back a month. That’s another thing Linden Lab might want to look at.
There are currently no approved game creators or operators listed in the public wiki. This emphasises the point that this is taking longer to get right than was initially envisaged, but as I said earlier, the important thing is to get this policy and application process right, if this means it has to be pushed back again, then that’s no bad thing.
Who will cross the winning line first? Will operators and game creators appear before the end of August? Will this turn into a much longer race? Who knows, I’m sure we’ll find out soon! Good luck to all involved parties.
The whole skill gaming thing is definitely cart before horse. I’ve been meaning to post a follow-up to the SLBA presentation to address some of the points you raise, but have also been holding firing to see what else comes out of the Lab.
I’ve not idea why the Lab couldn’t have waited until they actually had all of their ducks in a row before going ahead and annnoucing something they don’t appear to have properly thought through and which still contains huge amounts of confusion despite recent updates (which themselves suggest the Lab still doesn’t have its own head around things).
That the legal representation issue, for example. It seems senseless that European (or Canadian or Australian or Japanese or Brazilian) would need US legal representation. The RLO is related to what is allowable by way of games of skill in a person’s own country, that’s something a US attorney is unlikely to be versed in (just as a Californian attorney probably isn’t versed in the gaming laws of New Hampshire; to say nothing of whether an US attorney can actually issue a legal argument pertaining to the laws of another nation).
Then, as you say – and was raised at the meeting – why aren’t the quarterly fees mentioned anywhere?
The idea that it is somehow dependent on anything doesn’t make sense: the Lab is has already covered the cost of processing applications, and they’ve increased the tier on SG regions to cover the admin of those regions. By not being up front with the quarterly fees, all the Lab has done is created a potentially circular situation, vis:
LL won’t disclose the fee because they’re (potentially) waiting to see how many apply, but people won’t apply until LL reveal the likely quarterly fee, which LL won’t reveal until they’ve seen how many apply. but people aren’t applying because …
To summarise: It’s a mess.
I can recall you making a comment along the lines of you wanting to see the FAQ completed before commenting too much, it looks like you made a wise choice due to the dynamic nature of the FAQ.
I think the part about those outside the US needing US representation is why Agenda answered that they wouldn’t, because generally that’s probably not a requirement so it made no sense. However that is what the Lab are insisting on. Additionally the point about states is also a good one because LL are in California, so are they really looking for people who know California law?
The quarterly fees just seems to be odd, even an indication would help. Some people are speculating that LL will base the fee on a varying basis dependent upon income to a venue. Speculation really isn’t helpful at this time.
Sorry, missed this reply earlier.
“Additionally the point about states is also a good one because LL are in California, so are they really looking for people who know California law?”
No. The RLO must address the gaming laws as they stand in the US state in which the applicant resides and operates. Ergo, if you’re in Mayland, you need a Maryland attorney versed in the Maryland state gaming laws who can put forward RLO that the games you create / operate are legally viewed in Maryland as skill games.
Your comment on international users requiring a US attorney underlines my point: the FAQ statement is senseless. People outside of the US do not require a US attorney to provide their RLO – they need an attorney versed in the laws of their land of residency (which is also what Agenda is saying).
That Altberg character does not have a clue what he is doing. He is very very bad for Second Life and should resign or get fired asap. Yet again these Lindens are f*cking up as usual and everyone involved and investing in this gambling garbage on Linden their grid will be paying the bill for this rediculous attempt to circumvent real life laws regarding online gambling.
When Linden Lab would indeed succeed to let average Bob set up an online gambling institution hidden under games of skill do you know what kind of effect this would have on the entire online games industry. Do you realize Linden Lab would have opened a door worth billions and billions of Dollars with this. Linden Lab of all companies out there would have discovered how to abuse international laws and regulations what thousands of others have tried over the past century and invested tons of money in trying to accomplish just this very thing.
Any idea how extremely strict and professional things are in the online gaming industry? How much money is involved just to comply? And suddenly everybody paying 100$ to some fruitcake lawyer would be in the online skill gaming business?
Linden Lab is trying to extract money from the poor by letting them play on rigged gambling machines and they will not get away with it which is GOOD
Linden Lab are trying to regulate the market, one of my first thoughts when I saw this news was that a professional gaming company were interested in utilising Second Life for their business. Any such company would not touch an unregulated market as we have had in Second Life so far, with bargepole.
However that’s just me speculating, time will tell how things turn out but you’re very much correct in saying that Linden Lab can’t flout the law of the land.
Golly, Ebbe “The Skipper” Eggbert strikes again.
How many more pratfalls from the no-nothing CEO before the cheerleaders put away their pom poms?
This will stop you from overspending on items that you don’t require.
As you say – and was raised at the meeting – why aren’t the quarterly fees mentioned anywhere?