Are you disputing a lawsuit even existed? What specifically about my 1999 NYT article verifying my claim of a lawsuit in 1999 against NoA with allegations of gambling. I think it was RICO specifically in that case, but like that’s just law stuff.

You keep saying I’m talking out of my ass, but you haven’t disproven my points. You’re continuing to reply, which means you definitely are invested in this, because you are refusing to admit that you got in too deep with someone who knew too much. So now, the only thing you can do is say we both know nothing. So that way, we are equal. Why are you doing that? I’m sure there are plenty of things you have more knowledge than me in. Just because I’m not a lawyer, does not inherently mean I do not know law. You do realize anybody can pick up textbooks, case studies, and e-mail professors with questions? Like, I don’t have to have a degree to know what I’m talking about. I just need knowledge.

You’re just not good at this, are you?

There it is. Trying to exit the debate without addressing the topics. Your relationships in life must be difficult ;)

The mistake was calling it NY v NoA. It was a civil suit brought by parents. One of many, that ultimately went nowhere. That’s the only proof I have to attest to my actual memory of those events happening. Sorry, I don’t have the individual case files. I’ll go looking for them. But dismissed cases are hard to find without knowing the docket info.

Did you read the link? Did you try at all? I’m willing to admit a mistake, can you not?

Bro what the actual fuck?

What? Didn’t expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?

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.

Dude, if you can’t see how it relates, you literally can’t even continue this conversation. That’s how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.

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.

Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I’m asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can’t, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don’t hide behind, “there’s some reason to do it that way”. Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don’t know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I’m a little judgemental about this.

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.

Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here

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.

So, “You can only dump money into the system but you can’t get it out”. Where is the limit on can’t get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, “can’t get it out”?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That’s the whole point here. No, it’s not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James’ suit is without fault? I’m pointing out faults and you’re hiding behind, I don’t know enough and I’m not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That’s all I’m doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don’t want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.

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

Again, that’s the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that’s the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?

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

Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should’ve been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won’t take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn’t be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.

And? Your grand analysis stops there?

I mean, yeah. It’s a point I’ve made multiple times.

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

And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don’t you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won’t, because you are a lazybones.

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

"In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That’s a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don’t, I don’t give a shit, mate. I’m just here to have fun.

Okay, let’s get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn’t, it is gambling. But that’s not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you’re welcome to continue this debate with me.

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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

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.

Section V just feels like TCG all over again.

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.

The Causes won’t hold water. They’re not air tight and are very vulnerable to attacks. 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?

Play game. Get loot box. purchase key. get skin…fuck how do I get actual money. Got it, I’ll sell it on the market. DAMN, I got steam wallet funds. Okay, if I get $750 worth of items on the store. Okay, that took forever. Now I can purchase a Steam Deck and then I can sell it when it gets here. But let’s try to use a different method. There’s some third party sites that buy directly, cool. I’ll just go through this shady as fuck trade to a random Steam not and get some money in my PayPal.

At which point in either of these processes are you getting USD cash for the items, directly from Valve?

Why are you acting like legal arguments are so convoluted? They’re usually straightforward and boring. Because they have to be. You’re just choosing to not put in effort and instead look at articles. If you want James’ actual opinion, read the case.

Y-yes. So, you should read the case for yourself, so you can make an estimation. The case is a rough outline of how the State is going to attack. You can then, try your best to think of any legal explanation against it. Then judge for yourself if Valve is in the wrong. But I already said that and I feel the looping starting. whoaaaaaa

Credibility does not imply infallibility.

Do you listen to Dr. Oz? He’s a surgeon. Practiced. Does that make his medical opinion gospel?

Jeez dude, didn’t realize you weren’t interested in this case. If so, then why are you so passionate about something of which you know so little?

You are willing to put utter faith in articles and people rather than reading the case, looking into it, and coming to a conclusion? And then vehemently defending those opinions of of others. Why?

If it’s gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?

The fact that you aren’t answering is an answer in and of itself. You can reduce yourself to insults, but it only harms your arguement.

It is gambling, but only as much as Pokémon and Disney’s Lorcana. And that’s perfectly legal. You would need to go after those practices too. But I think you’d find a hard time with that. You know why? Cause it was dismissed in 1999 in New York v Nintendo of America. Gotta change the law for what you want, friend.

You’re right, we are far from the point. At what step in the loot box/gambling process is money exchanged. Then tell me how gambling works. Then tell me if they are the same.

That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don’t dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn’t care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve’s problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it’s no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.

Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that’s just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?

You’re right, I just gave you my personal experiences about parenting children. I even brought up my brother in recovery, distinctly because you brought up addicts. I still stand by it being a parental issue. Don’t have kids if you don’t want that responsibility. This kind of argument has the same vibes as, “we need age verification on websites”. No, we don’t. Parents need to be better. I’m a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router. The tools are there. Just be a parent. How many children do you have?

Ugh, fine. The lawsuit is gonna bust because there’s too many steps to exchange the wallet into cash. Most notably, selling the Deck. So, there is no real gambling danger. Those extra steps are what keeps it removed from being considered gambling legally. There, you happy?

Holy fuck, didn’t realize so many kids were buying and selling steam decks. Damn, got me. I admit defeat. Later, friend.

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.

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.