Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

(updated!) Authorities looking at regulating RNG as gambling

1111214161720

Comments

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:
    Horusra said:

    That risk is eliminated by the fact that I exercise 5-6 times a week.

    Work environment isn't really an excuse, because simply doing cardio 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week has been shown to significantly blunt the effect of such sedentary work environments.

    EDIT- I should say it's also an attempt at deflection.  If I didn't set aside appropriate amounts of time to stay active and this caused group health premiums to increase due to my poor health, I absolutely would have the personal responsibility for causing their premiums to increase.

    Your actions can have an indirect effect on others, something that's widely recognized.  The evolution of microtransactions, lootboxes, and game development has shown that consumers inability to resist or avoid predatory schemes is causing widespread change within the industry.  That indirectly affects me, which, again, means there's a vested interest in eliminating those schemes.


    I don't think that loot boxes are any more predatory than many other systems that we, as a society, have deemed acceptable. What about insurance? How about warranties? Both are examples of systems which prey on your concern over loss. "You'll be sorry if you don't get this and something goes wrong!" Furthermore, they both write in absurd legalese and then attempt to duck out of their responsibility whenever anyone attempts to claim anything. Don't even get me started on retail. 

    What we are seeing is an evolution of that norm. Right now there are battles being fought as to what's acceptable and what isn't. However, mobile games are actually the ones pushing forward a lot of this change. Console and PC game developers are much less aggressive at this point, and this might be one of the more aggressive attempts, although Warframe is much more P2W, but overtly P2W, so I guess that's ok. This is already accepted as the norm in Asian markets, but the North American market is much more difficult because everyone wants something for nothing here. It's just a cultural thing. 

    So where's your line? Are you taking issue with the RNG loot boxes? Or are you taking issue with the selling of anything in the game? 


    Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm.  Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home.  It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.

    The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons.  I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes.  Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs.  Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market.  As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.

    The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.

    Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry.  That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.

    Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks. 
    Gdemami

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'


    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,479
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'

    How do you equate regulation to mean illegal?

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited November 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Horusra said:

    That risk is eliminated by the fact that I exercise 5-6 times a week.

    Work environment isn't really an excuse, because simply doing cardio 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week has been shown to significantly blunt the effect of such sedentary work environments.

    EDIT- I should say it's also an attempt at deflection.  If I didn't set aside appropriate amounts of time to stay active and this caused group health premiums to increase due to my poor health, I absolutely would have the personal responsibility for causing their premiums to increase.

    Your actions can have an indirect effect on others, something that's widely recognized.  The evolution of microtransactions, lootboxes, and game development has shown that consumers inability to resist or avoid predatory schemes is causing widespread change within the industry.  That indirectly affects me, which, again, means there's a vested interest in eliminating those schemes.


    I don't think that loot boxes are any more predatory than many other systems that we, as a society, have deemed acceptable. What about insurance? How about warranties? Both are examples of systems which prey on your concern over loss. "You'll be sorry if you don't get this and something goes wrong!" Furthermore, they both write in absurd legalese and then attempt to duck out of their responsibility whenever anyone attempts to claim anything. Don't even get me started on retail. 

    What we are seeing is an evolution of that norm. Right now there are battles being fought as to what's acceptable and what isn't. However, mobile games are actually the ones pushing forward a lot of this change. Console and PC game developers are much less aggressive at this point, and this might be one of the more aggressive attempts, although Warframe is much more P2W, but overtly P2W, so I guess that's ok. This is already accepted as the norm in Asian markets, but the North American market is much more difficult because everyone wants something for nothing here. It's just a cultural thing. 

    So where's your line? Are you taking issue with the RNG loot boxes? Or are you taking issue with the selling of anything in the game? 


    Insurance is most assuredly not in the same realm.  Homeowners insurance is required when a mortgage is in effect because, if not, homeowners would leave mortgage companies with a shithole of a repossessed home.  It happens even with these policies, which is why there's requirements at every company to include mortgage companies on a check that's over a certain amount.

    The loopholes you mentioned aren't nearly as bad as you think they are and exist for specific reasons.  I'll let you in on a little known secret about insurance: the state governments must review and approve any policy form an insurance company attempts to use to avoid such arbitrary loopholes.  Any exclusion in your policy was reviewed and deemed to cause an unacceptable increase in overall risk that would be too much for the market to reasonably bear vis a vis premium prices needed to cover costs.  Removing exclusions for, say, latent defects would cause a wild swings in total loss costs, destabilizing the market.  As such, you'll find that no company covers latent defects, and governments have accepted this is reasonable.

    The vast majority of horror stories about insurance stem not from a systemic issue within the system, but with the aberrant behavior of individual adjusters.

    Lootboxes aren't indicative of the aberrant behavior of entities within the industry.  That's the entire reason it's become such an issue that the idea of regulation is being discussed.

    Interesting.... so what you're saying is the outward appearance of something that seems extremely bad isn't as bad as it seems and actually affects a very small percentage of people. Huh... cool. Thanks. 
    And that's precisely because there's regulations in place that prevents it from being that way.

    Imagine if there weren't.  Would you, for example, enjoy having your otherwise perfectly sudden water loss denied because it was between a 70-80F degree high in your area that day?  No?  Be glad the government checks that stuff for such arbitrary exclusions, then.

    But hey, keep pushing that narrative.  It'll work.  Somehow.

    EDIT- And again, I'll add that your counterpoint seemed to be deflection.  In the instance of insurance, the regulations also apply to aberrant behavior by employees.  If this is proven, there are real fines and punishments.  Not only that, but you're conflating aberrant behavior of perpetrators (insurance companies and employees) with aberrant behavior of what would more appropriately be  considered victims (those who fall for predatory monetization schemes in the current gaming industry).  It's an important distinction.
    Gdemami

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'


    The debate is officially over.  You can't prove yourself right in the previous case, so you've moved the goalposts to a more extreme case to try and prove yourself right.  You have failed.
    Gdemami

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'


    The debate is officially over.  You can't prove yourself right in the previous case, so you've moved the goalposts to a more extreme case to try and prove yourself right.  You have failed.
    lol...yeah it doesnt work that way

    ASSERTION: 'Gambling should be illegal'
    ME: 'Why'

    I am not the one making the original assertion my friend.

    That said, I ABSOLUTLY encourage you to leave the debate. I think that is a wonderful idea

    cameltosis

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Member EpicPosts: 7,383
    edited November 2017
    Who is saying gambling should be illegal?

    At least what I've seen is in favour of its regulation (that already is, and is even stronger in the US than it is in EU I think), but in the digital world where games are doing their own takes at profitability via gambling and do so with details that are excluding them from gambling laws (except in several Asian countries).

    “Americans are falling so far behind what other countries are doing, and it’s all about profit,” Young said. “You have gaming lobbyists who don’t want us to talk about this. We just haven’t had it come to a head yet.”

    “In the long run . . . I believe companies will continue to see how far they can push the envelope,”
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'


    The debate is officially over.  You can't prove yourself right in the previous case, so you've moved the goalposts to a more extreme case to try and prove yourself right.  You have failed.
    lol...yeah it doesnt work that way

    ASSERTION: 'Gambling should be illegal'
    ME: 'Why'

    I am not the one making the original assertion my friend.

    That said, I ABSOLUTLY encourage you to leave the debate. I think that is a wonderful idea

    Lol you've changed the assertion about as often as folks have responded.  Check the post I quoted.  You attach all kinds of extraneous bullshit to try and prove yourself the victor.

    This isn't new for you, Sean.  It still fails just as hard as every other asinine "debate" you attempt to govern here.
    Gdemami

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    MaxBacon said:
    Who is saying gambling should be illegal?

    At least what I've seen is in favour of its regulation (that already is, and is even stronger in the US than it is in EU I think), but in the digital world where games are doing their own takes at profitability via gambling and do so with details that are excluding them from gambling laws (except in several Asian countries).

    I think we're going to see the day where Korean MMOs will have loot boxes in the west versions and not in Korea cause it's getting regulated there and make use of the lack of regulations in the west for moar profit... lots and lots and lots of money.
    Shhhh..  You'll make Sean's mind explode.  He can only be right when he gets to determine what both his AND your position on the topic is.  And it's more important he think himself right than engage in reality.

    image
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    Wrong again.  We're not afraid you might get sad, we're afraid you might get fat, clog your arteries, have a heart attack, and cause our health insurance premiums to go up.
    right...special snowflake.

    let me change it for you

    ME: advocate for freedom of choice and personal responsiblity
    YOU: want to ban Taco Bell from everyone list of choices because people might get fat

    the snowflake is the one who wants to shut taco bell down, not the one advocating for personal freedom and personal responsibility.


    its not going to work, its a non-starter
    I mentioned this already: your freedom stops at my doorstep.

    As soon as you guarantee me you'll quietly pass away in your own home instead of letting anyone rush you to the hospital when you have that heart attack, I'll quietly allow you to eat as much Taco Hell as you like.  THAT would be you ensuring your personal responsibility for eating too much Taco Hell doesn't encroach on my rights not to have to pay for your poor decisions.
    yes I understand that you feel fast food restaurants should be restricted for everyone and that gambling is toxic to society because of reasons but I am not buying it. I call that a lie

    The arguement is currently at 'gambling should be illegal because fast food should be illegal'

    and somehow I am not winning the debate by like a friggin landslide?
    Well, for one, you keep inserting red herrings like you're fishing with two rods, so there's that.
    lets dial it up a notch since nobody has really provided evidence that gambling specifically is a problem.

    This debate is now offically at this level

    'lootboxes in games should be made illegal and for the same reasons it should be a law that every person is required to walk a min of 10,000 steps a day to maintain health'


    The debate is officially over.  You can't prove yourself right in the previous case, so you've moved the goalposts to a more extreme case to try and prove yourself right.  You have failed.
    lol...yeah it doesnt work that way

    ASSERTION: 'Gambling should be illegal'
    ME: 'Why'

    I am not the one making the original assertion my friend.

    That said, I ABSOLUTLY encourage you to leave the debate. I think that is a wonderful idea

    Lol you've changed the assertion about as often as folks have responded.  Check the post I quoted.  You attach all kinds of extraneous bullshit to try and prove yourself the victor.

    This isn't new for you, Sean.  It still fails just as hard as every other asinine "debate" you attempt to govern here.
    So at the core the topic is NOT about making lootboxes go away by legal means. really?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited November 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    You don't follow a lot, and you make up things even when information is provided to you in digestible morsels. Maybe you're confused because you have a lot on your plate?
    • I never once spoke on peoples freedom to choose things. YOU DID. You likened yourself and others to advocates for personal freedoms even.
    • I spoke on companies/corporations exploiting negative impact vices, and that they should be responsible and regulated as such.
    According to you companies should be able to market and peddle any vice anywhere because people have choices. Right or wrong?

    Reads like a delusional single hermit, with no family, friends, or much human interaction beyond the internet to me. 

    Many people suffer from depression, anxieties, have problems, sicknesses and other weaknesses. Not everyone is a personal freedom hero with bent up trucker hats and VR headsets, impervious to exploit. That's just not the world we live in.

    But go ahead, type more about your freedoms and how people are trying to restrict you and others from being mavericks who get runny butt eating Taco Bell. =\


    cameltosis
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    MaxBacon said:
    Who is saying gambling should be illegal?

    At least what I've seen is in favour of its regulation (that already is, and is even stronger in the US than it is in EU I think), but in the digital world where games are doing their own takes at profitability via gambling and do so with details that are excluding them from gambling laws (except in several Asian countries).

    “Americans are falling so far behind what other countries are doing, and it’s all about profit,” Young said. “You have gaming lobbyists who don’t want us to talk about this. We just haven’t had it come to a head yet.”

    “In the long run . . . I believe companies will continue to see how far they can push the envelope,”
    ok then lets talk about that shall we?

    what kind of regulation you think should happen? because clearly those exact specifics wouldnt change my core point anyway but lets talk about them all the same.

    you start

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes .....
    people who advocate personal freedom of choice instead of telling people they cant eat at Taco Bell is now being a 'special snowflake'? that flip doesnt really work well
    You're such a maverick. You probably imagined yourself yelling "freedom" like the movie Braveheart when you typed this.

    Advocating on behalf of corporations who profit from negative compulsive behaviors is totally advocating personal freedom. Totally the same. You should have a poster for being such a hero.


    sorry I dont follow that.

    regardless

    Me: People should have rights to choose (snowflakism to you)
    YOU: People should not have the right to choose a taco from taco bell (not snowflakism to you)

    yeah...ummm..its actually the exact opposite. Snowflakes are the ones who want to restrict everyones actions because they are afraid that if you get sick from taco bell you might get sad.
    You don't follow a lot, and you make up things even when information is provided to you in digestible morsels. Maybe you're confused because you have a lot on your plate?
    • I never once spoke on peoples freedom to choose things. YOU DID. You likened yourself and others to advocates for personal freedoms even.
    • I spoke on companies/corporations exploiting negative impact vices, and that they should be responsible and regulated as such.
    According to you companies should be able to market and peddle any vice anywhere because people have choices. Right or wrong?

    Reads like a delusional single hermit, with no family, friends, or much human interaction beyond the internet to me. 

    Many people suffer from depression, anxieties, have problems, sicknesses and other weaknesses. Not everyone is a personal freedom hero with bent up trucker hats and VR headsets, impervious to exploit. That's just not the world we live in.

    But go ahead, type more about your freedoms and how people are trying to restrict you and others from being mavericks who get runny butt eating Taco Bell. =\


    your post is random and hard to follow but to your question of what I am advocating for the billiontih time I have said

    I
    am
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    gambling

    I am asking people to provide strong evidence to support their position and not in a vacum becasue I dont have a position either way, I am literally undecided. 
    for the billionith time I have stated that I am undecided. convince me.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    Here is an example of what I am asking and stating

    1. I personally am on the fence to the question of gambling. I do not know well enough if it is bad for society or not. Taking a casual look at the subject it appears that it is not any worse then lets say fast food.

    2.
    QUESTION: 'why is driving drunk illegal'
    ANSWER: 'Because the chance of you killing or injuring another person is considerably higher'

    QUESTION: 'Why is prositution illegal?'
    ANSWER: 'because right wing christians got the laws that way because of their moral view on the subject'

    QUESTION: 'why should gambling be illegal (oh i mean highly regulated, i mean not in a video game, what the fuck ever)'
    ANSWER: [fill your answer in here]

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,479
    Sean whats the title of this topic?

    answer =  Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling

    You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.

    All those things are regulated.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    you
    are
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    common
    sense,
    reading
    comprehension,
    and
    straw
    man
    arguments.

    cameltosis
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,479
    Regulating something does not make it illegal.

    Regulation = rules

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    you
    are
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    common
    sense,
    reading
    comprehension,
    and
    straw
    man
    arguments.

    so lets see if I get this right

    ME: 'Why should gambling be highly regulated'
    You: 'because its common sense'


    I do not accept that as an answer, if you are displeased with that then stop responding.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    laserit said:
    Sean whats the title of this topic?

    answer =  Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling

    You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.

    All those things are regulated.
    yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.

    So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.

    that is what I have been asking for two days now.

    Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,479
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    Sean whats the title of this topic?

    answer =  Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling

    You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.

    All those things are regulated.
    yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.

    So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.

    that is what I have been asking for two days now.

    Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
    One of the reasons debated is that Loot boxes are very similar to gambling, raffles etc. so they should be similarly regulated.
    GdemamiIselin

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    laserit said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    Sean whats the title of this topic?

    answer =  Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling

    You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.

    All those things are regulated.
    yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.

    So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.

    that is what I have been asking for two days now.

    Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
    One of the reasons debated is that Loot boxes are very similar to gambling, raffles etc. so they should be similarly regulated.
    and how is gambling regulated and why is it regulated as such?

    that is how gambling got into the conversation you missed out on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited November 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    you
    are
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    common
    sense,
    reading
    comprehension,
    and
    straw
    man
    arguments.

    so lets see if I get this right

    ME: 'Why should gambling be highly regulated'
    You: 'because its common sense'


    I do not accept that as an answer, if you are displeased with that then stop responding.
    You: I make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread I participate in.

    Me: You make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread you participate in.


    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited November 2017
    SEANMCAD said:
    you
    are
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    common
    sense,
    reading
    comprehension,
    and
    straw
    man
    arguments.

    so lets see if I get this right

    ME: 'Why should gambling be highly regulated'
    You: 'because its common sense'


    I do not accept that as an answer, if you are displeased with that then stop responding.
    You: I make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread I participate in.

    Me: You make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread you participate in.


    if you do not want to answer the question of 'why should gambling be highly regulated' then you should likely not try to answer it by replying to said question. But I still want to know the answer, you dont have to answer it though.

    thanks for stopping by

    and 'why' is almost never a 'strawman'

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    SEANMCAD said:
    laserit said:
    Sean whats the title of this topic?

    answer =  Authorities looking at regulating rng as gambling

    You keep spouting off on Gambling, Fast Food etc. etc.

    All those things are regulated.
    yes they are...and the regulations have specific reasons.

    So...can someone fucking please tell me what regulations are being suggested and specificaly why they are as they are.

    that is what I have been asking for two days now.

    Regulations exist for a reason, if your going to advocate a regulation you need to have a reason. what is that reason please for the love of god someone answer that question
    Gambling is regulated due to the detrimental social and financial effects and intentionally (not incidentally) predatory, addictive nature of the transaction.  Lootboxes utilize the same predatory psychological techniques that casinos use to entice consumers to spend money.  Studies have shown the availability of gambling contributes to problem gambling: 

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3004711/&ved=0ahUKEwiD-4aPrtDXAhUp5YMKHTWPDO4QFgh2MA0&usg=AOvVaw2sZSyuzVR8HnALnw0VMQdF

    "Availability of gambling and type of game are features that are strongly 
    associated with problem gambling."

    It also affects more than just the gambler:

    "For obvious reasons problem gamblers are very likely to suffer financial problems. The British study of casino patrons found that 87% of the severe problem gamblers and 65% of the problem players had been forced to turn to others to relieve a desperate financial situation caused by gambling, whereas none of the social players had done this (Fisher 1996). Forty percent of the severe and 52% of the problem gamblers had sold their possessions to pay gambling debts, compared with 2% of social gamblers. Forty six percent of the severe and 25% of the problem Gamblers had committed illegal acts to gamble and/or pay gambling debts, compared with only 1% of social gamblers. In the U.K., the average level of debt of problem gamblers receiving treatment from GamCare in 2003 was £28,000"
    Gdemami

    image
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    you
    are
    on
    the
    fence
    about
    common
    sense,
    reading
    comprehension,
    and
    straw
    man
    arguments.

    so lets see if I get this right

    ME: 'Why should gambling be highly regulated'
    You: 'because its common sense'


    I do not accept that as an answer, if you are displeased with that then stop responding.
    You: I make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread I participate in.

    Me: You make asinine informational requests as straw man arguments in nearly every single thread you participate in.


    if you do not want to answer the question of 'why should gambling be highly regulated' then you should likely not try to answer it by replying to said question. But I still want to know the answer, you dont have to answer it though.

    thanks for stopping by

    and 'why' is almost never a 'strawman'
    This is a hyperlink. It will lead you to the answer in your quest for knowledge on MMORPG forums. Go forth. [+100 Experience Points]
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sign In or Register to comment.