Forum Settings
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Gold Saucer. (Speculation Thread)

#1 Dec 03 2012 at 5:50 AM Rating: Default
9,997 posts
My personal opinion is that it isn't a matter of right and wrong and a matter of interpretation. We both present valid cases for both sides of the chip so to speak, but you're unwilling to accept any valid case simply because you know more about the subject? Really? Mmk.

You got it! It IS a matter of interpreting the law! And what I've been trying to tell you all this time is the way that 99% of legal council will interpret it, because it's a pretty big stretch to interpret it any other way when taken with respect to all applicable laws on the books.

Poker is a game of skill, not a game of chance. Regardless of the cards I am dealt, it is possible to outplay Larry and win a hand. Again, up to interpretation, but a clear case can be made against poker being gambling if the law requires the game to be subject to chance.

First of all, legally speaking, it doesn't necessarily matter if it's a game of skill or chance. Also legally speaking, no, poker is a game of chance. I believe this one has even actually been ruled on specifically, but the overarching rule is whether it is PREDOMINANTLY a game of skill or chance. I'm not going to even begin to get into the math that is used to justify these arguments, but suffice it to say that the current determination is that anything one might consider gambling is still considered a game of chance. Fantasy football is very much riding the line, itself.

Oh, and for my example, it doesn't matter if the game is poker or tiddlywinks. We can just assume it's any form of otherwise illegal gambling. The point is, it's legal for the reasons I outlined. Another good example of why virtual goods won't ever be considered honest assets is for the same reason that you can't bequeath a debit card or credit card as an asset. That is, if your rich grandfather gives you his debit card, you still don't own any of the money in the bank. The card itself is nontransferable and has no value. As long as you don't spend it on something which could be counted as a tangible asset (or, strictly speaking, exceed the maximum gift limit), the government cannot recognize the card as an asset. For all intents and purposes, you have been given nothing. And if your grandfather were to ever die or be "shut down" it wouldn't matter how much money was in the account-- the card would be entirely worthless.
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help


Recent Visitors: 133 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (133)