Goodeye8

I told you before I’m not going to get into this moronic conversation where neither of us know what we’re talking about. Not only did you prove that you want to steer the conversation into that idiocracy you also proved that you don’t know what you’re talking about. And that was my point, that you can’t refute the argument presented in the lawsuit because you keep talking out of your ass and there’s no hope of changing your opinion on the matter because you’re not interested in any discussion except the one where you get to talk out of your ass. As far as I’m concerned this conversation is over.

You don’t have to go find it. I think we’ve done enough to prove my point.

First of all, that is not the lawsuit. That’s an article about the lawsuit, something you criticized me for (unfoundedly I might add). And secondly, the lawsuit you referenced was NY v. NoA not whatever lawsuit that article reference because that seems something that was filed in 1999 not 1991 like you claim. Ready to admit your mistake?

Can’t even bother to link the right lawsuit the rest of your arguments hinge on. Good job.

Bro what the actual fuck?

Okay, since you’ve read it, how do you think the Section I-22,23 relate to Steam specifically? I’m asking you to read those words and try to understand them and make a judgement.

Do you even understand what I-22 and 23 mean? There’s nothing to judge, there’s nothing to relate to Steam because those two points establish the definition of gambling and the law that regulates gambling. This is just laying the foundation for which the rest of the suit is built upon. At this point I don’t know if you’re throwing out some sort of a gotcha or if you’re really that stupid to think those two points have anything to do with Steam or whether there’s anything to judge.

I personally feel like Section II is a typical case layout. But I find it strange about the equivalence made in that Section. Your thoughts?

I have no idea what you’re even referencing here. Section II seems to establish who Valve is and I think does that but once again, not a lawyer, so I have no idea why it’s worded the way it is. Clearly there’s some reason to do it that way.

Do you think that Section III is demonstrating a system in which you are presented the opportunity to gamble? I’ll be honest, James’ makes a good case. But that doesn’t matter because 1999 NY v. Nintendo of America had the same groundwork and was dismissed. The issue came into the case that, Pokémon cards did not carry any inherent value, unless you went to a third party and that third party offered money. Thus, insulating Nintendo from a closed loop system. Let’s keep going!

You’re going to have to cite the source for the NY v. Nintendo of America lawsuit. Beyond that I can’t comment on anything else.

Section IV-A-78 seems to me as a stretch to close the loop. It’s the same argument I’ve aforementioned. But my question for you is, when does the system close in this case? And do you think (87) is a fair comparison? At what point does the proof of an economy constitute gambling? Do we need to go after all blind boxes? Your thoughts, since you’ve read the case?

Of course it does seem like a stretch to you and according to you it’s the same argument to the lawsuit that you haven’t cited, so I can’t comment anything about that. As for the rest, once again not a lawyer, so it’s not up to me define when the system closes. I can only give my dumbfuck opinion which is that the system is closed when there’s no official way to get monetary value out of the system. You can only dump money into the system but you can’t get it out. And what is a fair comparison? 87 explains how CS skins are used as an investment, there’s nothing to compare. The rest of what you said is not to me to decide because those are very specific legal points and for the third time, not a lawyer.

Section IV-A-89, at what point is it Valve’s responsibility to go after third party sites who are doing what people do in the real world? Attaching monetary value to cosmetic items in video games, I mean. Do you think the SSA obligates them to? What are the chilling effects of that? I feel like that could give corporations a lot of power, and I don’t like that.

You know, just for the fuck of it let’s say this point shouldn’t be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?

The listing of selected enforcement opens James’ case to a lot of attacks. I think it’s a failure on her part, as it will weaken the case in front of a judge if Valve’s lawyers just immediately rip it to shreds.

You’ve done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?

Section V just feels like TCG all over again.

And? Your grand analysis stops there?

Now the danger to children, again, if we go with this being a danger to children, then ALL TCGs are a danger to children. They open packs looking for rares, right? Same concept. But how are children getting that much access to money? That’s starting to sound like a parent problem. Who is letting their kids spend hundreds of dollars? Like, that’s just bad parenting.

Okay, so you don’t actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.

But hey, I’m just an idiot, right? Just another Dunning-Kruger dingbat? Which is just hilarious that you keep bringing it up, misunderstanding the actual study and flaws of it. What would you say that is?

Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I’m giving up the chance to be smart.

Dunning Kruger in full effect. “How hard could this thing be that takes years to work through by 6 figure professionals? I can totally make those arguments myself.”

And just for your information, I have read the complaint in full. It’s another example of you just assuming you know things.

Yeah, the loop is starting again because you clearly don’t see what is wrong with the “don’t listen to the expert, do your own research” argument. Fucking genius conversation. You, without a law degree, arguing with me, without a law degree, about a very specific legal gray area like we know what the fuck we’re talking about. No, it’s stupid which is why I’m refusing to partake in it. I’m not going to act like I know how to make a legal argument which is why I’m pointing at someone who is supposed to know what the fuck they’re talking about. I don’t get why you want to drag this conversation into something neither of are even remotely qualified to talk about.

Well you’re neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.

No. Despite his knowledge and understanding of medicine, his claims are not credible because there are a lot of documented instances where he’s used his own medical authority for personal gain.

So if you want to go down that route, start proving that the NYAG is not credible.

The fuck kind of an antivaxxer argument is this? If an health expert tells you get the vaccine do you also go “better come to my own conclusion”? Just because I don’t Dunning Kruger myself into believing I know enough about the subject matter to form an opinion doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the case.

Why would I have my own thoughts about this matter? I’m not a lawyer. I’m not even going to pretend to have the competence to understand the legal nuances necessary to analyze this lawsuit. I’m a dumbass so I’m going rely on the expertise of actual experts and the AG isn’t going to file a suit on some easily dismissable grounds. So unless you can find someone credible backing up what you’re saying you’re just talking out of your ass.

Actually I’m sad. I’m sad I’m having a conversation with someone who thinks they know more about the law than the New York Attorney general. I’ve lost, there’s no argument I could make that could get through the Dunning-Kruger.

Oh yeah, strawman the fuck out of my argument, that’ll definitely show me.

That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney’s Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve’s marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.

I don’t see how that matters at this point, you’ve already called it gambling. Are you going to walk that back to defend Valve? After all the only reason to bring up this point is to claim it’s not actually gambling. And to address your point, yes I also consider MTG, Pokemon and most trading card games the physical equivalent of a lootbox and a form of gambling. I also know they’re not gambling in a legal sense but we’ll get to where Valve differs in the next part.

The other thing that Valve has done is, there’s no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it’s really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a “think of the children” issue. It’s yet again, another people are bad parents and can’t be bothered to use parental controls on their children’s electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.

Actually that’s no longer true and that’s why there was a lawsuit filed against Valve at the start of this year. The items now have a value because you sell the things to get Steam credit and then use Steam credit to buy a Steam Deck and then sell the Deck for real money. It’s no longer a closed system, you can get the money out. And once again, this wouldn’t be an issue if Valve either a) stopped their gambling or b) adhere to gambling laws.

Adults like gambling. It’s not Valve’s fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

If adults want to gamble, fine. Let’s enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve’s gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don’t necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.

To bring it back to Gaben, he isn’t avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?