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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Credibility does not imply infallibility.
Well you’re neither credible nor infallible so why should I even care about your opinion.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Bro what the actual fuck?
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 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.
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.
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.
You know, just for the fuck of it let’s say this point shouldn’t be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?
You’ve done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?
And? Your grand analysis stops there?
Okay, so you don’t actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.
Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I’m giving up the chance to be smart.