Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Good, sound and valid points.
This is where I believe the debate is misconstrued surrounding the loot box and Regulation.
It isn't about controlling your personal liberty as many like to paint the picture.
The debate is whether the business practice is predatory and if so, should restrictions be placed on the practice of *selling* the loot boxes.
So... do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized?
EXACTLY!
which is why it is IMPERATIVE to find out exactly WHO is buying the lootboxes and are they complaining about it.
if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the moral authority to tell them that they are actually in denial
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
well comparing a video game (which is addictive) to heroin aside for the moment, what you are getting at is exactly right.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
Problem with heroin is that it does effect others unless you going to supply it to them for free. Once addicted to heroin your body can not go without it without other medications. That means to get it you will need the cash to buy it however you can. If you are a long time users you probably do not have a job, so crime is the most likely route or using your body to get it. Those create health and security risks for others. Now as I said you can provide it for free, but then you are forcing others to pay for your habit so that is effecting others also. Marijuana atleast you do not die if you can not get your fix.
The problem is not comparing gambling with heorin or turning the conversation into about heroin.
I have been stating often this position: I dont have a well thought out opinion on gambling, I do have a well thought out opinion on prostitution (which I think should be legal) but for me the jury is still out on gambling because I dont have the data. so....convince me. Like rock solid you would give to a judge convince me that it should be restricted, why and compare it to other things that should not be restricted.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It's hilarious to watch people be so flippant to damaging addiction. Perfect little unique snowflakes living the perfect life in their trailer home Lawnmower Man bubble.
The fact is people are susceptible to negative addiction. Not everybody but a lot of people. Humans are creatures of habit. Companies in a position to exploit these addictions should be accountable, responsible and be regulated as such.
Negative addictions maybe some SJW issue the resident edge lords want to scoff at but that doesn't mean it should be exploited by corporations. It's nefarious business practice.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Again missing the point.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
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?
Breathing air alters the way your brain functions.
I'm sorry, but the Looney Tunes didn't turn baby boomers into serial killers, no matter how much scientific evidence they come up with to support it.
And lest we forget, the stores are selling blind boxes to kids... how many of those damn things have they had to buy just to get the one character they are after? Why not just sell them the one they want? Because they make more money the other way! Government allows that. In game antics are no different.
There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money.
Do you think law making is static? do you think laws don't change?
The law books sure haven't gotten thinner over time.
"There is no law that says you can't waste your time or money"
Maybe not, but their are laws that protect you from being preyed upon.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
There certainly is a line and I don't believe that it is a simple straight one.
When it comes to the debate over loot boxes, many believe them to be predatory. If you hold stock in a company that sells them, you have a conflict of interest, which would invalidate your opinion.
IMHO of course.
What if most people have the opinion that violent video games desensitize children to violence and that is considered a bad thing...should be stop those games from being available. While you might believe they are predatory I just do not want the government coming in and deciding to protect me from myself. If the product is found to have harm to others related from my choice to use the product in a meaningful way then we can talk about that, but I do not want the government protecting me from bad choices. As I said above make a warning. Like for cigarettes. Then let people choose.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Good, sound and valid points.
This is where I believe the debate is misconstrued surrounding the loot box and Regulation.
It isn't about controlling your personal liberty as many like to paint the picture.
The debate is whether the business practice is predatory and if so, should restrictions be placed on the practice of *selling* the loot boxes.
So... do you believe that Marijuana should be legalized?
EXACTLY!
which is why it is IMPERATIVE to find out exactly WHO is buying the lootboxes and are they complaining about it.
if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the moral authority to tell them that they are actually in denial
Well I'm sure the heroin addict is enjoying themselves when they are high too.
well comparing a video game (which is addictive) to heroin aside for the moment, what you are getting at is exactly right.
if the use of heroin is not endangering other people then yes, its being a moral asshole to tell people they cant use it
but you know what else kills? fast food
Problem with heroin is that it does effect others unless you going to supply it to them for free. Once addicted to heroin your body can not go without it without other medications. That means to get it you will need the cash to buy it however you can. If you are a long time users you probably do not have a job, so crime is the most likely route or using your body to get it. Those create health and security risks for others. Now as I said you can provide it for free, but then you are forcing others to pay for your habit so that is effecting others also. Marijuana atleast you do not die if you can not get your fix.
The problem is not comparing gambling with heorin or turning the conversation into about heroin.
I have been stating often this position: I dont have a well thought out opinion on gambling, I do have a well thought out opinion on prostitution (which I think should be legal) but for me the jury is still out on gambling because I dont have the data. so....convince me. Like rock solid you would give to a judge convince me that it should be restricted, why and compare it to other things that should not be restricted.
your point was
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Again missing the point.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
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?
and fast food, which would be far more deadly the gambling
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
video games feeds addictive personalities smoking feeds addictive personalities TV feeds addictive personalites
what people do not understand about addiction is that its not external..its INTERNAL. its the person that needs to be helped and removing all sources of domaine will only kill them.
what is ridiculous is this assumption without good evidence that gambling is a special problem in someway, that your gambling experiece in a game is tied to fucking childern having access, that your gambling experience in a game is something you cant have the self displine to avoid.
that is what is ridiculous
Again missing the point.
You are comparing addictions that are not destructive to addictions that are destructive.
Your point is that a gambling addiction is not destructive?
So you are okay with companies exposing kids to gambling for loot in their games? I guess the fault is of the kid if he gets addictive to gamble for loot crates, or maybe blame the parents, everyone but the company who is exploiting that, right?!
Look at it this way.
If I want to shoot myself in the foot, what right do you have to 'help me' by preventing me from doing so despite me telling you directly to your face 'I am happy, I am well, I just want to shoot my foot'
You dont have the right to tell someone that they cant be foolish with their money with the all deep caring and love for your fellow man. That is wrong, THAT is a problem, THAT is people who are far to controlling over other peoples choices.
The purchase does not exist in a vacuum. If their falling to predatory monetization schemes means the entire industry moves further towards those schemes, it's in my personal interest to help prevent folks from falling for those schemes. That's self-interest.
That is what's happening in the industry. As more and more predatory schemes go under the radar and accepted, more and more predatory schemes are adopted. It directly affects me.
If my employer's group health insurance stood to increase premiums because my co-workers eat fast food every day and are morbidly obese, you're damn right I would be all for more regulations on their diets if they wished to continue participating in that group plan, because being a healthy adult, I'm subsidizing their poor choices.
Your rights end at your neighbor's doorstep. As soon as your choices begin affecting others, regulations and restrictions do and should apply. In this case, as @Iselin has demonstrated and the general evolution of microtransaction systems have further provided evidence for, the predatory schemes and their success directly affects the direction of the industry as a whole. As such, I do have a vested interest in helping point out and eliminate such predatory schemes.
Unless you are on a tredmill using the computer your costing others with your higher risks from immobility.....maybe you should be regulated....your rights stop at my doorstep it seems.
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.
I have a question though. Does anybody prefer RNG to purchasing exactly what they want with cash? If so, why?
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
Which is why I do not have the moral authority to tell you that you are not allowed to eat fast food despite the fact that it will make you die younger.
What I need is evidence that gambling is more damaging to society as a whole then fast food.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I have a question though. Does anybody prefer RNG to purchasing exactly what they want with cash? If so, why?
it appears people do. Vegas would not be as successful otherwise
I am talking about video games. My question is specific, not general mate.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
Which is why I do not have the moral authority to tell you that you are not allowed to eat fast food despite the fact that it will make you die younger.
As I've already mentioned, once those choices begin affecting health insurance premiums for others (something that's absolutely true, even if the poor health person has no insurance), your argument no longer applies.
And there are laws that control people like a dictatorship. Where is the line between protecting and controlling?
The moment it's abusive.
What we see here is playing with the gambling factor, that is something proven to lead to addictions is where they need to impose some limits.
Monetization of videogames has been pushing a lot on the "getting inside your head factor", while that is a standard everywhere in many industries it still is regulated on how far can they take it, regulations that haven't catch up with digital gaming yet.
Violent video games are proven to desensitize people to violence making violent behavior more acceptable. While not a direct cause of it, it is shown to not be great. Now there are studies saying it contributes to autism in those under the age of 8 that play games. Should video games not be banned or limited to those of a certain age and can pass a psych exam.
There are lots of addictions out there we going to regulate them all? Or should the individual actual be responsible for their choices? Cigarettes, over eating, sex, etc...all have addictions should all be banned? Marijuana in smoked form is horrible for you. Are the people fighting to legalize it evil? It is addictive.
Violence in video games is already regulated, it is why we have age ratings on games and it is why it is illegal to sell video games to people who don't meet the age requirements.
Also, whilst on-screen violence has been proven to desensitise people to violence, it has been debunked that on-screen violence leads to increase violence in real life. i.e. it has been "proven" that watching violence on-screen does not cause people to be violent in real life.
However, repeated gambling has been proven to change the way our brain works. I mean physically altering the structure and chemical balance of our brains in an entirely negative way. Repeated gambling causes the same changes as repeated drug use!
I don't know how anyone can defend that in general, let alone in video games that children have access to! Do we really want to breed a new generation of gamers with fucked up dopamine levels? Do we really want to alter their brains so they have more addictive personalities?
so what are you saying exactly? That the solution to your grief of lootboxes in video games is to make sure 'the childern' dont play it. How does that help your experience?
The 'think about the children!' is a meme for a reason, people use that excuse to push their moral agenda on everyone.
so...ok fine...people under 15 cant use lootboxes..consider it done.
now what?
1) Paying for lootboxes (gambling) is officially recognised as harmful
How.
nobody yet has explained HOW...offically ? ok link maybe? I am asking for links that show me that evidence you are talking about.
I have been asking for it for 2 days now
'officially'????????????
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Something else to consider is that all this is meaningless in the end. By trying to fix all our problems too well we will likely just end up collapsing due to overpopulation due to lack of violence or unhealthy habits. People will end up fighting over food and many will die of starvation. Then again maybe someone will invent the first food replicator and everyone will be able to have healthy food available to them.
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.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
Which is why I do not have the moral authority to tell you that you are not allowed to eat fast food despite the fact that it will make you die younger.
What I need is evidence that gambling is more damaging to society as a whole then fast food.
It's regulated more heavily than fast food, which is why the effect is narrower in scope. That's... Pretty obvious.
Your counterpoint is akin to trying to compare murder to alcohol to try and determine which is more damaging to society as a whole.. One is actively punished and prevented wholesale, so the scope of it's damage is much narrower than of alcohol. That doesn't mean murder or alcohol should not be regulated.
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.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
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?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
I have been stating often this position:
I dont have a well thought out opinion on gambling, I do have a well thought out opinion on prostitution (which I think should be legal) but for me the jury is still out on gambling because I dont have the data. so....convince me. Like rock solid you would give to a judge convince me that it should be restricted, why and compare it to other things that should not be restricted.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The fact is people are susceptible to negative addiction. Not everybody but a lot of people. Humans are creatures of habit. Companies in a position to exploit these addictions should be accountable, responsible and be regulated as such.
Negative addictions maybe some SJW issue the resident edge lords want to scoff at but that doesn't mean it should be exploited by corporations. It's nefarious business practice.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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?
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
----------------
"if someone is enjoying themselves and it doesnt directly affect anyone else other than them you do not have the *moral authority* to tell them that they are actually in denial"
Read more at http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/469790/authorities-looking-at-regulating-rng-as-gambling/p11#tbSlylYww6TpzzQz.99
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Which is why I do not have the moral authority to tell you that you are not allowed to eat fast food despite the fact that it will make you die younger.
What I need is evidence that gambling is more damaging to society as a whole then fast food.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
nobody yet has explained HOW...offically ? ok link maybe? I am asking for links that show me that evidence you are talking about.
I have been asking for it for 2 days now
'officially'????????????
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your counterpoint is akin to trying to compare murder to alcohol to try and determine which is more damaging to society as a whole.. One is actively punished and prevented wholesale, so the scope of it's damage is much narrower than of alcohol. That doesn't mean murder or alcohol should not be regulated.
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.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
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.
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?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
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.
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
----------------
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