StarGateWars Forums

I tried reading for this suggestion but found nothing...

How about we get a Galactic Casino going!! i mean Blackjack PHP scripts, and simple roulette, maybe some sort race betting too, like horse races, but obviously more Stragate like.

overlord elz wrote:I tried reading for this suggestion but found nothing...

How about we get a Galactic Casino going!! i mean Blackjack PHP scripts, and simple roulette, maybe some sort race betting too, like horse races, but obviously more Stragate like.

the point of this would be?



Dave

overlord elz wrote:How about we get a Galactic Casino going...Blackjack PHP scripts, and simple roulette, maybe some sort race betting too, like horse races, but obviously more Stragate like.

Not all players are of legal age to gamble, bet, or anything similar. It might become a legal nightmare for admin to work out, and would focus the game to a greater extent from shadowing the movie/show to something that is focused on bling bling and doesn't have something to do with the events in said movie/show.

I vote no.

i'd actually like to see a casino where you can bet UU and naq.

Spacey:

the game is already primarily focused on "bling" and UP. it's a primarily text-based war and economy strat game.

virtually no aspect of roleplaying.

nothing wrong with that. i'm just saying, it hardly shadows stargate aside from the mention of race names and a few other minor decriptive details.

the main focus of the game is to farm and beat the ever living crap out of other armies.

this game shadows stargate as much as it shadows any movie involving some sort of organized warfare where economy is involved. with a few name changes it could even shadow a lemonade stand business.

again, nothin wrong with that. love the game. love stargate.



and it would NOT be a legal nightmare.

example:

"Casino"
I click on the casino button.

New page.

"Are you 18 years of age or older?"
I click the no button.
It doesn't let me in.

That is very inefficient, and some parents would appreciate more efficient methods.

But that would be the minimum required by law to relinquish the site of liability.




I can understand and relate to you wanting the game to be LESS focused on naq and more about plot, if that is what you meant, but i really dont see that happening anytime soon. not here, anyway.

Would it really be against the law to bet goods from a game? LOL

some place have laws against minors even fake gambling.

severely outdated laws, but laws nonetheless.

it doesnt help things that you can use real $$ to buy fake money to gamble with.

the site would still be protected.

but, yes, in certain places if a minor gambled fake money f or fake money, and in most places if a minor gambled real $$ for fake money, the minor would be violating the law. with minimal steps as mentioned in my above post, the site would be relinquished but the parents could still be held accounteable.

Hells__Angel wrote:Would it really be against the law to bet goods from a game? LOL

ZenHouseOfShoes wrote:and it would NOT be a legal nightmare.
"Are you 18 years of age or older?"
I click the no button.
It doesn't let me in.

When I say bling I mean $$, where UU and other resources are traded for actual dollars. Not UP or naq. I'm speaking bling as it exists outside of the game. I'm trying to consider the bigger picture(perhaps too big), with recent changes to US law about online gambling. Since there is already moving $$ from ingame resources, I was trying to think of possible implications in light of this new bill. Another article is found here. Selected quotes from the first article say,

"...a federal ban on banking institutions knowingly transferring funds to businesses or individuals that may conduct gambling operations in states and areas where gambling is prohibited...If a European-based gambling firm or agency wanted to conduct online business legally under the new US law, it would need to implement the electronic protections yet to be devised, which would protect them from transacting with someone within a US state or territory where gambling is prohibited."

There already is a lottery ingame, but a full on "Casino" might be pushing it, esp. when people trade ingame resources for real dollars. I'm trying to look out for Forum/Jason, and the game. I think the servers are in BC, Canada(Forum too), but many of the players are in the US and funds are in USD. I think the confusion was with was I was calling bling bling, and how it was interpreted.

I don't know if the 18 years of age or older thing would really cut it. I'm not a law student or anything like that, but I don't know if it would be ethically and legally ok to have underage people gambling, even if they clicked a button. Consider the historical trouble MySpace and Facebook has had with age verification. My point is that it isn't as easy at just clicking a button, esp. when there is significant attention with age issues online.

I think it's great that overlord elz has shared this idea with everyone, but in my opinion it seems to be something that doesn't really fit into the SGW/TGW[game as it exists now, show(s), or movie], thus not really having anything to do with the show/movie/etc.(not really shadowing). Even though the game now has a lot that doesn't have to do with the show/movie, that does not mean that anything else could be added, right?

Spacey wrote:

Hells__Angel wrote:Would it really be against the law to bet goods from a game? LOL

ZenHouseOfShoes wrote:and it would NOT be a legal nightmare.
"Are you 18 years of age or older?"
I click the no button.
It doesn't let me in.

When I say bling I mean $$, where UU and other resources are traded for actual dollars. Not UP or naq. I'm speaking bling as it exists outside of the game. I'm trying to consider the bigger picture(perhaps too big), with recent changes to US law about online gambling. Since there is already moving $$ from ingame resources, I was trying to think of possible implications in light of this new bill. Another article is found here. Selected quotes from the first article say,

"...a federal ban on banking institutions knowingly transferring funds to businesses or individuals that may conduct gambling operations in states and areas where gambling is prohibited...If a European-based gambling firm or agency wanted to conduct online business legally under the new US law, it would need to implement the electronic protections yet to be devised, which would protect them from transacting with someone within a US state or territory where gambling is prohibited."

There already is a lottery ingame, but a full on "Casino" might be pushing it, esp. when people trade ingame resources for real dollars. I'm trying to look out for Forum/Jason, and the game. I think the servers are in BC, Canada(Forum too), but many of the players are in the US and funds are in USD. I think the confusion was with was I was calling bling bling, and how it was interpreted.

I don't know if the 18 years of age or older thing would really cut it. I'm not a law student or anything like that, but I don't know if it would be ethically and legally ok to have underage people gambling, even if they clicked a button. Consider the historical trouble MySpace and Facebook has had with age verification. My point is that it isn't as easy at just clicking a button, esp. when there is significant attention with age issues online.

I think it's great that overlord elz has shared this idea with everyone, but in my opinion it seems to be something that doesn't really fit into the SGW/TGW[game as it exists now, show(s), or movie], thus not really having anything to do with the show/movie/etc.(not really shadowing). Even though the game now has a lot that doesn't have to do with the show/movie, that does not mean that anything else could be added, right?

I believe it is located in Macau, actually

Oh, well, ethically, sure, I agree with you. Gambling addictions are serious problems, and I wouldn't want a minor's gambling addiction weighted on my conscience.

I was just getting caught up in semantics, really.

Because as much as I would enjoy a Casino, I don't think it would be worth the trouble.

However, from a legal standpoint, as long as the site did not buy back the naq and UU and whathaveyou, and kept it where when you "donate" a certain amount you get the benefit of predetermined whatehaveyou, it isn't considered gambling.

It isn't even something where it's a an overly complicated loophole or anything like that.

If anything were to come of it, it would never see court time.

In layman's terms, the basic logic of it is this:



example 1:

I purchase poker chips from you for real $$. I play against others at your establishment with said poker chips, betting for others' poker chips they have recieved in the same manner. I eventually stop playing, and turn in whatever poker chips I have (if any) in exchange for the monetary equivalent.

In the eyes of the law, this is gambling. This description is a general consensus and is the main theme for all gambling laws in the world. The only way it gets any simpler is if you are actually gambling with real currency at time of bidding.


example 2:

I have a hot dog stand. I give hot dogs away for free and make money off of the little advertising space I can sell. I let people have 1 packet of mustard with each free hotdog, and only allow one hotdog per person. Those who donate to support my future purchase of tastier hot dogs get extra packs of mustard. I have set up a small ring for people to play "Mustard War", a gambling game for mustard, where the winner gets all mustard packets that have been bet.

This is also considered gambling in many places, because even though currency is not used, the mustard packets are considered property, and thus worth some monetary value. In the places that this is considered gambling, however, some of these places would not consider such gambling IF the total possible value of any given game were worth under a certain amount.


example 3:

Person A offers their services to the public for free. Their services being that anyone can come up to them and ask for a random number. Person A then will tell them a random number. Person A keeps track of the random numbers, and has even decided to make up rules for a game involving the random numbers. Each person can have one random number per week, and play against others. Anyone can donate to Person A, and for being so kind, Person A will grant them an extra random number that week. In the game Person A has made, there are extra rules if two or more people wish to play betting games against for each others random numbers.

No where in the world is this considered gambling.

There are loopholes that could be manipulated to reflect that in-game Naq actually has monetary value and the loss of such could be the grounds for a suit.

But the few lawyers in the world good enough to actually win a case like that would also be able to sue because the Mr. Green emoticon appears smaller than the other emoticons.

So for all intents and purposes, it would be no more of a legal nightmare than taking an innocent walk in the park.

ETHICALLY, I agree with you.

But legally, no.

Now, as far as MySpace goes, they set themselves up because

A. Tom is a moron.
and
B. Tom is a moron.

There were several things about MySpace that were designed with good intention, but were counterproductive and caused security risks.

The legal standpoint of the law virtually everywhere is that in the physical world, an I.D. must be shown to verify age where minor participation is illegal.

However, it is an entirely different story on the internet.

Think of it this way.

How does one go about purchasing adult movies on satellite?

Must one show I.D.?

Rhetorical.

Must one enter their social security number and fax a copy of their thumbprint?

Rhetorical.

Must one but only enter a simple 4-8 digit password, if any at all, and then view, view, view?

Yep.



Combine the fact that one MUST signify to PayPal by signing in that they are authorized to use the account for purchases with the fact that there could easily be a simple "yes/no" question asking for age and the legal issue would be completely out of SGW's hands.

Now, I may have made the mistake of assuming that Overlord was talking about betting for in-game resources.

If what the original post was about involved actually procuring real money from such, then yes, obviously, internet gambling laws would apply.

But this would have more to do with if gambling were outlawed in the state for all, not just minors.

The parts of the world where minors are not allowed to participate in gambling would, again, but require simple verification, much of which would have to be done through their choice of payment, e.g., PayPal. The rest could be ensured with the simple "yes/no" question.

But again, at current set-up, SGW would be excluded from internet gambling laws.

If SGW decided to award cash prizes for those in the top ten, this would drastically change their business model and then would set them up for liability.

But right now, no. They've got free reign.


And the links you've provided are basically about Bush signing a bill stating that within the next nine months banks must organize and be prepared to deny funds to certain businesses on blacklists. The blacklists are basically known gambling businesses, and the only time the funds would be denied would be when the primary cardholder's (or equivalanet) billing address is within a state or area prohibiting gambling.

It isn't even making online gambling illegal.

You could essentially get a Visa still and have the billing address in Las Vegas and then go anywhere in the world, hop online, and gamble. And it would be perfectly legal, unless you falsified the address, hich would then be an issue of credit card fraud between you and Visa, and not a matter of illegal online gambling.

But either way, all of that is the government's concern and the concern of all banking institutions. SGW would simply not be able to get donations from certain states, IF SGW was set up in a manner that classified SGW as a gambling business. Which it is not.

Finarfin, I stand corrected. Thanks.

Good posts Zen. As I said I'm not a law student or anything like that, so I can't really say much about most of it. I think we could talk for days and days lost in the possibilities and legal red tape, so perhaps we should wait for overlord elz to develop the idea more?

ZenHouseOfShoes wrote:It isn't even making online gambling illegal.

I tried to be careful not to say that online gambling was illegal, as I knew that wasn't the case. The quote I listed was to illustrate the restrictions with online gambling, certain states, the ban, and banking institutions.

Im not going to bother reading those posts....

I quite like the idea of gambling, at the moment all the competition is between/within alliances. This would bring a more individual theme into the picture.

we already have lotterys thats like gambling. mayb we should do a thing where u can bet on wars between alliances

ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz...Haven't read all, too much to read but I say NO, I mean every1 could say that he's adult and in some countries you have to be 18 years old to be adult, in some 21 years old, but this game is about strategies and attacking other players, not about gambling...

i like the idea but u should be required to have FSS to bet