Bigred's Video Game Thread

[spoonitnow]

Sure. They denied being the owners, and then after being exposed they kinda went "oops, I guess I'm the owner after all". And then the apologies etc.

Now the FTC is telling them that they should disclose. Behave now, boys. In the future. Slap on the fucking wrist.Hahahaha

But FTC is a part of the gov, correct? *insert line about why we need government etc etc here*

*insert line about how the entire problem could be sorted out by a free market without government intervention*

Tangentially related, that whole thing also gets into a discussion of if the government should protect gambling addicts from themselves through regulatory measures, etc.

[Jack Sawyer]

*insert line about how the entire problem could be sorted out by a free market without government intervention*

Tangentially related, that whole thing also gets into a discussion of if the government should protect gambling addicts from themselves through regulatory measures, etc.

Hmmm, ok ok, let's continue with the mind experiment

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

How would the free market solve this problem without government intervention? Wouldn't you still need the same whistleblowers and the same watchdogs that are paying attention to sound the alarms? Or would it be done in a completely different way that we do not know of but we'd have to trust because it's the free market and it can do no wrong?

So would this particular scam not be a scam in a fully free market?

[spoonitnow]

Hmmm, ok ok, let's continue with the mind experiment

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

How would the free market solve this problem without government intervention? Wouldn't you still need the same whistleblowers and the same watchdogs that are paying attention to sound the alarms? Or would it be done in a completely different way that we do not know of but we'd have to trust because it's the free market and it can do no wrong?

So would this particular scam not be a scam in a fully free market?

One important principle is that you can't keep people from scamming. Create all the rules you want, but someone will always figure out a way to get around them. If the guys in this particular example with the skin gambling site weren't so oblivious and stupid, they would have never gotten caught.

As for how the free market can regulate itself, eCOGRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOGRA) is a good example. They are an independent company that offers certifications to show that online gambling operations are within certain guidelines, and they have a better long-term reputation than any government licensing jurisdiction on the planet. Companies like eCOGRA showed up because there are no international guidelines or regulatory bodies for online gambling, and it's an excellent example of the market providing accountability in an area where government was not.

Another principle is that it's much easier to corrupt government entities than it is to corrupt profit-driven companies due to the incentives and accountability at play, which is driven by the free market. The example of the FTC giving the "slap on the wrist" in the above case is a good example. If the FTC was profit-driven, not adhering to their own rules (which is what happened with the lack of enforcement) hurts their reputation and their bottom line in a major way. If eCOGRA did that once, their entire business model would fall apart.

The point isn't to be without whistleblowers, watchdogs and other forms of accountability. Those are 100 percent needed because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph above, there is no way to 100 percent stop scamming of some type in virtually any industry or sector. The point is that there is no consistent level of accountability with the FTC and other government agencies whatsoever, as you can see in the lack of enforcement of the existing FTC rules in the above scenario (and I'm sure you can think of an almost endless list of other examples).

It's also not that the free market can "do no wrong" or that it's perfect. Instead, the argument is that it's much more efficient and effective than government intervention at these types of things (and at a lot of other things) because of the incentive structures in place.

[Jack Sawyer]

One important principle is that you can't keep people from scamming. Create all the rules you want, but someone will always figure out a way to get around them. If the guys in this particular example with the skin gambling site weren't so oblivious and stupid, they would have never gotten caught.

As for how the free market can regulate itself, eCOGRA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOGRA) is a good example. They are an independent company that offers certifications to show that online gambling operations are within certain guidelines, and they have a better long-term reputation than any government licensing jurisdiction on the planet. Companies like eCOGRA showed up because there are no international guidelines or regulatory bodies for online gambling, and it's an excellent example of the market providing accountability in an area where government was not.

Another principle is that it's much easier to corrupt government entities than it is to corrupt profit-driven companies due to the incentives and accountability at play, which is driven by the free market. The example of the FTC giving the "slap on the wrist" in the above case is a good example. If the FTC was profit-driven, not adhering to their own rules (which is what happened with the lack of enforcement) hurts their reputation and their bottom line in a major way. If eCOGRA did that once, their entire business model would fall apart.

The ESRB fills that role in the gaming landscape. But, of course, it's filled with industry heads with obvious incentives to look the other way as much as possible

The point isn't to be without whistleblowers, watchdogs and other forms of accountability. Those are 100 percent needed because, as I mentioned in my first paragraph above, there is no way to 100 percent stop scamming of some type in virtually any industry or sector. The point is that there is no consistent level of accountability with the FTC and other government agencies whatsoever, as you can see in the lack of enforcement of the existing FTC rules in the above scenario (and I'm sure you can think of an almost endless list of other examples).

It's also not that the free market can "do no wrong" or that it's perfect. Instead, the argument is that it's much more efficient and effective than government intervention at these types of things (and at a lot of other things) because of the incentive structures in place.

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

[BananaStand]

But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

Who ever said this?

Furthermore, why do you think the government could get closer to perfection than a free market? When has that ever happened?

[Jack Sawyer]

Who ever said this?

Furthermore, why do you think the government could get closer to perfection than a free market? When has that ever happened?

Pretty much every single free market advocate ever. All they do is market it as the one approach to fix all problems, like holy water to vampires

[wufwugy]

Indeed, nothing is perfect. But this seems to be the no. 1 argument that free market proponents do have, i.e. its perfection

The free market argument is that the free market more efficiently allocates resources to things people want than government does.

There are possible reasons for why this could be the case that include individuals having a better understanding of their own preferences than government does,* individuals having a greater incentive to address their preferences than government does,** and individuals having more information about how to address their preferences than government does.***


*There's not much way around this one. It's basically that you know how you feel better than somebody else does.

**This is skin-in-the-game. You probably care more about your toilet flushing to your satisfaction than Donald Trump does. You are adjacent to your problems while bureaucrats and politicians are several degrees of separated from them.

***When your toilet isn't flushing, you know your toilet's history (with possible solutions), your finances, your plumber options, etc. better than government does. You have a lot of information about your nuanced situations that the government doesn't have. The same goes for people who produce goods and services; they too have an information advantage over government regarding what works, what doesn't work, the science, the expertise, etc..


That isn't to say that government can't be better than the free market in some ways. If you can find something that government taxing, spending, and regulating would do better than if instead it was up to individuals interacting with each other freely, then you would have found a case for government on that issue.

I personally am a free market advocate because I have yet been unable to reconcile economic principles and theory**** with any particular issues where government is proposed to do better.


****And data, but virtually any case can be made with economic data

[BananaStand]

Technically, isn't the free market in play at all times? Aren't they free to do as they wish? Didn't they out of their free will choose this particular path, with resulted in their ridiculous "reprimand" by the FTC? I mean, it IS a scam after all. If this wasn't a problem with the FTC, why would they stop scamming?

I read up on this a little bit, and the word "scam" feels a little heavy. From what I gather, it was in the fine print that you could just email them and ask for some free betting currency. No one was actually required to spend money. McDonalds does the same thing with their Monopoly game. You get a little game ticket attached to your french fries. But if you don't wanna buy french fries, you can just walk up and ask for a gaming ticket, and they'll give you one.

If we're calling that "gambling", then McDonalds is a casino.

Separate issue seems to be related to non-disclosure of site ownership while advertising for that site. And whether that deserves a slap on the wrist, or a harsh punishment should be a question of intent. From what I gather, this guy claims he was just trying to keep his business separate from his online personality, or something of that sort. Really what he's saying is that "I'm a naive kid, poorly informed on the law, who didn't think he was hurting anyone". That sounds plausible to me. And it certainly demands a different punishment than if there was damning evidence of a savvy industry insider deliberately skirting the rules to enhance profits.

Jack - is it possible for you to just 'not like' some things in the gaming industry? Why do you insist on identifying a sinister evil plot driving everything you hate about video games?

[Jack Sawyer]

I read up on this a little bit, and the word "scam" feels a little heavy. From what I gather, it was in the fine print that you could just email them and ask for some free betting currency. No one was actually required to spend money. McDonalds does the same thing with their Monopoly game. You get a little game ticket attached to your french fries. But if you don't wanna buy french fries, you can just walk up and ask for a gaming ticket, and they'll give you one.

If we're calling that "gambling", then McDonalds is a casino.

Separate issue seems to be related to non-disclosure of site ownership while advertising for that site. And whether that deserves a slap on the wrist, or a harsh punishment should be a question of intent. From what I gather, this guy claims he was just trying to keep his business separate from his online personality, or something of that sort. Really what he's saying is that "I'm a naive kid, poorly informed on the law, who didn't think he was hurting anyone". That sounds plausible to me. And it certainly demands a different punishment than if there was damning evidence of a savvy industry insider deliberately skirting the rules to enhance profits.

Jack - is it possible for you to just 'not like' some things in the gaming industry? Why do you insist on identifying a sinister evil plot driving everything you hate about video games?

So you bought hook line and sinker what their lawyer is saying? As, your words are literally word for word what this article says: https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/18/1...-of-use-tmartn

Just as an example, as you think I "identify sinister evil plots" on a whim. From the article

“Not disclosing you’re an owner is very different than hiding,” Watson said. “To me, hiding is someone asking ‘Are you the owner?’ and you say no.”

Here is what tmartn said back in the day

And we found this new site

No matter how much bullshit, the internet does not forget

[BananaStand]

So you bought hook line and sinker what their lawyer is saying?

Is there a compelling reason not to??

As, your words are literally word for word what this article says: https://www.polygon.com/2017/12/18/1...-of-use-tmartn

Yep, it appears we have the same google machine.

Here is what tmartn said back in the day

No one is disputing the dishonesty. What seems to be in dispute...is the man's intent. You see "sinister villain". I see "idiot".

It seems that law enforcement and the justice system agree with me. So, why are you right and we're all wrong?

They meted out a punishment that was commensurate with a non-nefarious intent. Corrected the behavior, and now it's not a problem anymore. The system worked....so what's your beef?

[Jack Sawyer]

Is there a compelling reason not to??

More than have already been presented?

Yep, it appears we have the same google machine.

Yes, the difference being that I try to understand what I read before putting it in a thread trying to make arguments

No one is disputing the dishonesty. What seems to be in dispute...is the man's intent. You see "sinister villain". I see "idiot".

It seems that law enforcement and the justice system agree with me. So, why are you right and we're all wrong?

OJ did it

hey meted out a punishment that was commensurate with a non-nefarious intent. Corrected the behavior, and now it's not a problem anymore. The system worked....so what's your beef?

I don't really know what my beef is, you know. Maybe it's the fact that he willfully and intentionally tried to deceive the public with something so crucial as ownership of a gambling site (as you know superusers are still a thing [POTRIPPER anyone?]), or that it's gambling (by every definition of the action except current laws apparently simply refuse to recognize this) aimed at kids, or that once caught he deflected, still denying ownership, and then eventually owned up to it with apologies claiming "I didn't know", or the fact that these assholes got off with nary a slap on the wrist whereas if one steals fruit from a store you can go to jail for a long longass time

I just don't know what my beef is with this particular situation. Never really been a CSGO player

[BananaStand]

More than have already been presented?

All that's been presented is a case of a dishonest non-disclosure. I haven't seen any definitive evidence of malice. The dishonesty was caught, punished, and corrected. What should have happened instead?

Yes, the difference being that I try to understand what I read before putting it in a thread trying to make arguments

I understand that according to the letter of the law, it's not gambling. If you have a problem with that, take it up with lawmakers. Explain to them how the McDonalds monopoly game is ruining kids lives, and needs to be stopped. Start a petition. Get a gofund me page to help all of the afflicted underage gamblers out there.

But DON"T stomp your feet and demand a whole new judicial precedent that expands the definition of gambling, just so it can be used to shut down a perfectly legal business practice that you find distasteful. And I'll reiterate, this concern you seem to have for the children feels really really phony. I know for a fact there were some terrible stories of kids losing shitloads at online poker about a dozen years ago. I'll bet anything that no one on this forum gave a shit.

Be honest now Jack...let's say hypothetically you took $1,000 from someone in heads-up cash games online. Then later you got a letter from PokerStars saying "Your opponent was actually underage, and it would be nice if you gave the money back". Are you gonna give the money back?

See, shutting down poker to protect kids would take away something you like. But shutting down skin-gambling takes away something you don't like, so now it's ok to invoke the "what about the children" argument.....why?????

OJ did it

Not relevant. That was one case 25 years ago. As I see it, your problem here stems from the fact that these guys were not prosecuted aggressively enough, and that the 'slap on the wrist' was not a fitting punishment. How is that relevant to OJ? They charged him with two counts of capital murder, and sought a minimum punishment of life in prison.

There are plenty of bad people who get prosecuted and punished with the full power of the law, every single day. Are you really telling me that your faith in the justice system is shaken because they didn't absolutely destroy the life and livelihood of these kids? Like....is it at all possible in your mind that they're actually good people who just got carried away and made a mistake??

If not, then maybe you should run for attorney general and actually DO something about the problem. Or communicate with your own local judicial authorities and let them know of your concern. If enough people do that, then it will be considered in future cases.

But if you're just gonna sit here and say "NAAAAAH, I don't like that....change it!" Then don't get pissy when no one listens or cares.

I don't really know what my beef is, you know. Maybe it's the fact that he willfully and intentionally tried to deceive the public with something so crucial as ownership of a gambling site (as you know superusers are still a thing [POTRIPPER anyone?]),

From what I gather, this isn't the same thing as potripper. The superuser problem in poker resulted in people actually losing money through exploitation. There were actual victims, with measurable damages. This skin-gambling thing seems to be limited to a simple non-disclosure in advertising. Not even close.

Like, if potripper owned the site, and was playing on the site, but was doing so in a way that did not give him an advantage....that's still bad. But it is decidedly LESS bad than if he used his superuser status to cheat.

or that it's gambling (by every definition of the action except current laws apparently simply refuse to recognize this) aimed at kids,

There is obviously a lot of gray area here. Laws can't "refuse" to do something, only people can. If the law is being broken, report it to law enforcement. If it's really a problem, if the law is really being broken, they will do something about it.

But as you are learning....the law is alot more than your own personal narrow understanding of it.

or that once caught he deflected, still denying ownership, and then eventually owned up to it with apologies claiming "I didn't know",

So what? Scrambling, desperate denials are not uncommon when people are caught. His denials were proven false, and the FTC acted. So what's the problem?? If the guy has lost credibility in your eyes because of his dishonesty....so be it. He risked his reputation, he lost, and now it's tarnished. I have no problem if you choose to participate in a market response.

or the fact that these assholes got off with nary a slap on the wrist whereas if one steals fruit from a store you can go to jail for a long longass time

Again, that's a crime with identifiable victims and measurable damages.

Do you really really think that these guys should go to jail for a "long, longass time"?

[Jack Sawyer]

Oh, I didn't really see this one

No one is disputing the dishonesty. What seems to be in dispute...is the man's intent. You see "sinister villain". I see "idiot".

That's a lot of discrepancy there. Not as a comparison obviously, but I just wonder what you think about Bernie Madoff. A misunderstood idiot, perhaps?