@General: As far as gambling not being in the ToS, neither is the (up to) 150% fine for receiving funds which Linden Lab, in its sole discretion, considers fraudulent.

Here’s a recent entry on that:
http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/410

It references other uses of this fine.

“The Victims Must Pay!”….

And every time that somebody mis-punctuates “its”, a punctuation fairy dies.

“Ahh, I’m not so sure that it is such a bad idea, you know. There’s a good reason that Linden Lab started using their own currency, rather than using PayPal for transactions: it works better across international boundaries, and works better for very small transactions.

With PayPal, one has to pay them for each and every transaction, and pay further to convert one currency into another. Transaction values are very difficult to calculate internationally when different currencies are involved: think, for example, how comparatively few people purchase goods from eBay from foreign as opposed to domestic sellers, especially for low value items…”

There are issues of extradition, what constitutes fraud in different countries, what constitutes gambling… in short, it isn’t very comprehensive. I say this because at the UN levels (WSIS, et al), virtual worlds don’t even seem to exist yet – partly because virtual world scholars haven’t tried to discuss such matters at those levels.

And I must add that ecommerce – which is the context of that stuff – is not all of national jurisdictions with regard to virtual worlds. Such commerce does not exist in a vacuum.

Oh – and it’s it’s it’s it’s. Common mistake, no one dies. :-)

@7: Benjamin, we don’t know how Linden Lab differentiates between the two and whether they do so consistently. Using the police blotter for guidelines is a lot like using your engine indicator light to see how fast you are going. :-)

@8: that is one of the biggest problems with the broadcasting of information from Linden Lab – information is sporadic, not always consistent and usually ambiguous. And as Benjamin thankfully pointed out here – rules created are not embodied in the Terms of Service in anything other than ‘we can find a reason to ban you’ clause.

The credit card processing issues are pretty well known, and they exist for the same reasons that Linden Lab has banned gambling. It is the same reason that Panama no longer allows US Citizens to open bank accounts. Why? Too much trouble.

@9: Benjamin, that is as good a guess as any. Of course, if I simply said the phrase, “You wanna bet?” I might be soliciting gambling… wanna bet? :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitation

Figure they meant it that way here?

Although as an addendum, today it came to me, and then later on found out that methias cordoux (sp) may have been the first to realize this twist on the whole scenario. (Check the Podcast SL under the radar.) The credit card companies are prohibited from processing payments relating to gambling. If the credit card companies were the ones who actually raised the gambling issue, then the banks wouldn’t be hurt by losing Linden Labs, but Linden Labs would take a big hit if they couldn’t accept credit card payments.

Date: Saturday, August 11, 2007
Violation: Terms of Service: Gambling Solicitation
Region: Shouldice
Description: TOS Gambling
Action taken: Suspended 14 days.

I assume that means that the 11 people on the blotter yesterday were all busted for playing games of chance, while this person was busted for running one. That’s a surprise to me, as I’d just assumed yesterdays were for operators, not players. Targeting players is definitely sending a message, even all they’re doing is issuing warnings.

Can anybody else come up with any other logical divide between “Gambling” and “Gambling Solicitation” than this?

(For those interested on the interaction of international virtual worlds and national jurisdictions, see here.