Goodeye8

You can't ban car crashes. You can regulate car manufacturers to install seatbelts to minimize injury.

If only I could be this naive. First of all this isn't going to do much to prevent kids from getting online unless the measures to prevent it become absolutely oppressive. And secondly the bare minimum check requires you to give even me information to the social media companies. And I guarantee they won't be held accountable if kids find a way to bypass whatever measures get put in place. And of course adults are just as addicted to it as kids but I guess they don't matter.

If the goal was to reduce the amount of people addicted to social media the solution would be to regulate how social media functions not regulate access to social media. What is being suggested is stupid. You can't ban things on the internet.

Okay, so your arguments are "I pull random shit I won't explain out of my ass" and "CONSPIRACY". Alrighty, bye. Don't let the chem trails throw you off the edge of the flat earth.

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.

if you can’t see how hurting valve is a direct benefit to epic or ubi we’re wasting my time

irrelevant point? lol that’s not at all how business works

Did you even read what I said? Valve losing it's gambling money is going to have no impact on their market share in the PC storefront market space because Valve is already making boatloads of money even without the gambling money. Valve doesn't need to do anything to make up for the loss because they don't need to be greedy. They can eat "the loss" and continue business as usual which means there is no direct benefit for any competing storefront. If anything it might end up being a net negative because (while it probably won't directly impact Epic or Ubisoft) some big studios still use lootboxes and this ruling would further push getting them banned. There's an indirect benefit to Epic of Ubisoft in the form of Valve making less money but when you make insane amounts of money making slightly less insane amounts of money isn't anything Epic of Ubisoft will feel. So yeah, I'd like to see you explain how the gambling lawsuit would directly benefit Epic of Ubisoft.

if she actually gave a damn about gambling we’d be seeing her go after sports betting first by sheer volume

So she shouldn't go after Valve where there's a legitimate case to be made? Because she should be going after some other nondescript entity that she may not even have a case against? Yeah, makes total sense.

if you think morality is involved in the american legal system you live a charmed life

So according to you SKG movement isn't driven by the moral point that we should own the things we buy? So who is funding that initiative? Who gains to benefit from it? Come on, give me the juice. Let me suckle on that conspiracy teat. It's all conspiracies, no good guys ever exists. Ross Scott is a paid actor.

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.