In-game consequences for in-game violations, civil consequences for civil violations, criminal consequences for criminal violations.
In Second Life, one can buy Lindens for real money. One can also sell the Lindens back for real money. Given the rules of Second Life, it is not a one-and-one relationship like a casino chip:
> Second Life "currency" is a limited license right available > for purchase or free distribution at Linden Lab's discretion, > and is not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Lab.
Other parts of the service agreement also say everything is at the discression of Linden Labs. But it is possible to gain intellectual property and even cash and real property by some means.
Scenario 1: Person runs Ponsai scheme. Person collects $1T Lindens through Ponsai. Consequenses: In-game effects only. Linden Labs could seize the $1T Lindens, cancel the account, or ban all the person's accounts, but not sue or procesute. Where are the damages for a lawsuit? Where is the harm to society?
Scenario 2: Person runs Ponsai scheme. Person collects Lindens, but promptly sells all Lindens for USD$10,000 cash. Consequenses: Civil. Linden Labs sues for $10,000 plus legal fees and the cost to recover the funds to players who lost real money. It's an arguable violation of the users agreement. Criminal? It was a fraud committed within game which had real cash consequenses. There is definite harm committed between persons here, but where is the harm to society? If everyone did this, where would we be? Second Life would hit the bit-bucket, that's the worst consequense I can see, denying society of a single game and denying Linden of income (or perhaps all MMORPG's). That's bad, but it's not criminal, it's a problem between the MMORPG operators and the people who play them only.
Scenario 3: Well, I'm trying to think of something that could happen in-game which results in real criminal acts, I think our imaginations can run wild here. I don't know, hit contracts through SL to gain Lindens?
Harm to society for us today is killing and other bodily harm, and damage or theft of each other's property. The yardstick before we pass criminal legislation is, if everyone did this, where would society be? If everyone struck or killed each other to solve disagreements, only physically strong people will get by in life. If everyone steals cars to get a car, then no one would buy cars. If everyone committed ID theft as their main source of income, then money would have no meaning. Sex acts (condoms were once banned) and recreational drugs are something which have change recently in our history, at one time we judged one way, then we judged another, and most of us have recent enough experience to see what is happening.
I highly doubt any DA or prosecutor would touch such a thing.
I was born and raised in Las Vegas. There's a reason why you change cash to chips: They look more playfull and people let 'em go faster.
I had a friend that went nuts at the ATM the first time he went to a strip club. Going to a machine to get money doesn't hold a guy back, heck it might even encourage some kind of primal hunt-stuff-for-the-woman behavior.
One huge disadvantage of using debit or credit cards is loss of control of your finances. Dave Ramsey, is a radio guy trying to convert the whole world from the mortgage / three-car-payment / six-credit-card-payments way of life to living completely debt-free, what he calls financial peace. He likes to say money is 80% behavioral and 20% math, and I've strongly agreed with this even before I'd ever listened to his programs. One of the very first things he advocates in all of his books and courses is, get a budget, spend everying on paper on purpose at the beginning of the month, and pay cash for everything. When you set a realistic budget, then you're both comfortable with the money you're spending in that you don't feel like you're starving, and when the money runs out in your pocket, it's out, so you're in control. No more plasma screen TV's. My whole life, I've always cashed my paycheck or logged my direct-deposit paystub, then gone straight to the ATM to withdraw a healthy sum for the whole week. If I had cash in my pocket for something, I'd get it, if not, I wouldn't. This habit alone has kept me saving money every month, even though I've been a student most of the time from age 18 to 32.
I wouldn't want to just walk through the city and end up with a negative sum in my checking account at the end of the day. If I were to buy into this thing, I would need the ability to declare "wallets". I'd like to open my cell phone, see $132, oh, I have enough for a full tank of gas on Saturday and groceries for the last half of this week, so I can buy this $15 panini sammich. Then I go home and check my home wallet, pay the light, heat, water, garbage bills, and mortgage with that. Then comes my direct deposit, so I refill all my wallets, including the wife's redecorating wallet and my car parts and ammunition wallet.
What specific criticisms? There are none.
Saying the machine is a "gadget" with no "real" PC features? Making fun of the hand crank? You might as well write that in 1337$p34k.
Additionally, Zonk describes being a "good" god as completely boring and the AI as predictably dumb in war.
The point of being good is to stamp out evil. The problem with evil is that it keeps cropping up everywhere when you're not paying attention.
Bring back the D&D elements, where your alignment had something to do with who you attacked.
Bring in World War II elements. Good soldiers had bullets and chocolate. Good soldiers were nice to enemy prisoner soldiers. Good soldiers fought better than evil soldiers in the long run, but easily loose moralle.
The point of being evil is to stamp out good. The problem with good is that it keeps cropping up everywhere...
COME ON!! It isn't that hard to make up challenging good versus evil conflicts!!
The first ten pages of Machiavelli's "The Prince" cites the US's plan for Iraq as a Bad Idea[tm], to the letter, almost 500 years before the war. More precisely, they are a remote nation that is too different than our own, and to change such a thing into a colony like our own is the most expensive thing possible. Machiavelli suggests just setting up a couple of tight bases, and letting the people do whatever.
The Chinese, however, are largely educated, and are more worldly knowledgable than the average American, while the Iraqis are not. They know what Democracy is, so if the world got together and booted the Communists, the people would accept a new Republic. Japanese and Germans after WWII were also largely educated, so a transition from what they had to a Republic was relatively easy. The average Iraqi just sees us as another thug, just like the ones they have had generations past.
You wierdos posting a9 searches without ypLoc arguements are pointing us to YOUR search terms in OUR city. I've never heard of a Cheeburger, there is no such animal in Arizona, and I don't get to see the wonderful wide arses you speak of.
It's not about the appearance: Decision making means you actually have to pick one of the choices.
Why choice must be clearly defined. Case study: The San Francisco bridge and why it doesn't jump around to every block in the city per every driver's wishes.
Why being "conversant" in technology is not enough. The subtle differences between being conversant in and actually knowing a fact. What "getting around to a fact" really means.
How to keep a marketer from changing their minds every five minutes: one-liners, surveillance techniques, biofeedback coercion methods.
The course every marketer should take: Choice, Decision making, and their relevant data structures.
An engineer's guide to making them understand. Hint: They usually stop after the first three words. All the "uh-huh's" they give you are just out of courtesy to "they way you do stuff"
Why every marketer fears writing: It means you actually have to pick words, and they stay there forever. Why, to the rest of the world, this "means" something.
Slashdot Mirror
In-game consequences for in-game violations, civil consequences for civil violations, criminal consequences for criminal violations.
In Second Life, one can buy Lindens for real money. One can also sell the Lindens back for real money. Given the rules of Second Life, it is not a one-and-one relationship like a casino chip:
> Second Life "currency" is a limited license right available
> for purchase or free distribution at Linden Lab's discretion,
> and is not redeemable for monetary value from Linden Lab.
Other parts of the service agreement also say everything is at the discression of Linden Labs. But it is possible to gain intellectual property and even cash and real property by some means.
Scenario 1: Person runs Ponsai scheme. Person collects $1T Lindens through Ponsai.
Consequenses: In-game effects only. Linden Labs could seize the $1T Lindens, cancel the account, or ban all the person's accounts, but not sue or procesute. Where are the damages for a lawsuit? Where is the harm to society?
Scenario 2: Person runs Ponsai scheme. Person collects Lindens, but promptly sells all Lindens for USD$10,000 cash.
Consequenses: Civil. Linden Labs sues for $10,000 plus legal fees and the cost to recover the funds to players who lost real money. It's an arguable violation of the users agreement. Criminal? It was a fraud committed within game which had real cash consequenses. There is definite harm committed between persons here, but where is the harm to society? If everyone did this, where would we be? Second Life would hit the bit-bucket, that's the worst consequense I can see, denying society of a single game and denying Linden of income (or perhaps all MMORPG's). That's bad, but it's not criminal, it's a problem between the MMORPG operators and the people who play them only.
Scenario 3: Well, I'm trying to think of something that could happen in-game which results in real criminal acts, I think our imaginations can run wild here. I don't know, hit contracts through SL to gain Lindens?
Harm to society for us today is killing and other bodily harm, and damage or theft of each other's property. The yardstick before we pass criminal legislation is, if everyone did this, where would society be? If everyone struck or killed each other to solve disagreements, only physically strong people will get by in life. If everyone steals cars to get a car, then no one would buy cars. If everyone committed ID theft as their main source of income, then money would have no meaning. Sex acts (condoms were once banned) and recreational drugs are something which have change recently in our history, at one time we judged one way, then we judged another, and most of us have recent enough experience to see what is happening.
I highly doubt any DA or prosecutor would touch such a thing.
Swipe your card, get paper tokens.
I was born and raised in Las Vegas. There's a reason why you change cash to chips: They look more playfull and people let 'em go faster.
I had a friend that went nuts at the ATM the first time he went to a strip club. Going to a machine to get money doesn't hold a guy back, heck it might even encourage some kind of primal hunt-stuff-for-the-woman behavior.
One huge disadvantage of using debit or credit cards is loss of control of your finances. Dave Ramsey, is a radio guy trying to convert the whole world from the mortgage / three-car-payment / six-credit-card-payments way of life to living completely debt-free, what he calls financial peace. He likes to say money is 80% behavioral and 20% math, and I've strongly agreed with this even before I'd ever listened to his programs. One of the very first things he advocates in all of his books and courses is, get a budget, spend everying on paper on purpose at the beginning of the month, and pay cash for everything. When you set a realistic budget, then you're both comfortable with the money you're spending in that you don't feel like you're starving, and when the money runs out in your pocket, it's out, so you're in control. No more plasma screen TV's. My whole life, I've always cashed my paycheck or logged my direct-deposit paystub, then gone straight to the ATM to withdraw a healthy sum for the whole week. If I had cash in my pocket for something, I'd get it, if not, I wouldn't. This habit alone has kept me saving money every month, even though I've been a student most of the time from age 18 to 32.
I wouldn't want to just walk through the city and end up with a negative sum in my checking account at the end of the day. If I were to buy into this thing, I would need the ability to declare "wallets". I'd like to open my cell phone, see $132, oh, I have enough for a full tank of gas on Saturday and groceries for the last half of this week, so I can buy this $15 panini sammich. Then I go home and check my home wallet, pay the light, heat, water, garbage bills, and mortgage with that. Then comes my direct deposit, so I refill all my wallets, including the wife's redecorating wallet and my car parts and ammunition wallet.
What specific criticisms? There are none. Saying the machine is a "gadget" with no "real" PC features? Making fun of the hand crank? You might as well write that in 1337$p34k.
I'm 32, and I'm sure that sound would drive me away as well. I wouldn't be able to stroll that sidewalk in peace.
Additionally, Zonk describes being a "good" god as completely boring and the AI as predictably dumb in war.
The point of being good is to stamp out evil. The problem with evil is that it keeps cropping up everywhere when you're not paying attention.
Bring back the D&D elements, where your alignment had something to do with who you attacked.
Bring in World War II elements. Good soldiers had bullets and chocolate. Good soldiers were nice to enemy prisoner soldiers. Good soldiers fought better than evil soldiers in the long run, but easily loose moralle.
The point of being evil is to stamp out good. The problem with good is that it keeps cropping up everywhere...
COME ON!! It isn't that hard to make up challenging good versus evil conflicts!!
> Witness our current shining success in Iraq.
Agreed.
The first ten pages of Machiavelli's "The Prince" cites the US's plan for Iraq as a Bad Idea[tm], to the letter, almost 500 years before the war. More precisely, they are a remote nation that is too different than our own, and to change such a thing into a colony like our own is the most expensive thing possible. Machiavelli suggests just setting up a couple of tight bases, and letting the people do whatever.
The Chinese, however, are largely educated, and are more worldly knowledgable than the average American, while the Iraqis are not. They know what Democracy is, so if the world got together and booted the Communists, the people would accept a new Republic. Japanese and Germans after WWII were also largely educated, so a transition from what they had to a Republic was relatively easy. The average Iraqi just sees us as another thug, just like the ones they have had generations past.
You wierdos posting a9 searches without ypLoc arguements are pointing us to YOUR search terms in OUR city. I've never heard of a Cheeburger, there is no such animal in Arizona, and I don't get to see the wonderful wide arses you speak of.
It's not about the appearance: Decision making means you actually have to pick one of the choices.