[sldev] A.I. & LL's No Gamble Rules

[Dzonatas]

Nicholaz Beresford wrote:
> Well, this line of thought makes me understand why Daniel Linden
> in one interview said they would not state any clear rules.
>
> I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something like:  If we
> drew a clear line, someone would walk up to it, piss over it and then
> tell us that he didn't cross it.
>
Good point.

I'm still not convinced, however, that there is no distinction that can 
be made to simply exclude mere A.I. from such gamble jurisdiction. The 
discovery of such distinction helps this here and helps avoid the use of 
obscurity and potential piss-holes. One could argue the legality of a 
gamble program based on the traveling salesman, and that would be a 
headache of a court battle with currently no foreseeable end. There are 
others I can think of the would make other gamble programs legit in SL, 
but the best of me says, that instead of the explanation, I assert that 
a distinction on A.I. is more worthwhile. It is not as simple as saying 
something like "oh and A.I. is clearly excluded" for a few reasons 
already pointed out under this topic.


-- 
Power to Change the Void