Bro what the actual fuck?

What? Didn't expect an actual, quick read through of the case file, you claim to have read?

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.

Dude, if you can't see how it relates, you literally can't even continue this conversation. That's how cases work. You lay out the law and prove how the plaintiff is breaking it. So, how does the law relate to Steam is a valid question that will be asked in court.

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.

Okay, so you have no thoughts of your own. Cool. I'm asking you to use critical thinking skills to deduce why? I asked you about the equivalence. That is the key word. Look for the comparison. If you can't, just say so, like you did, and leave it at that. Don't hide behind, "there's some reason to do it that way". Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. What does that add to the debate other than, you don't know how to debate. And you continue to engage, thus continuing the debate, so I'm a little judgemental about this.

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.

Okay, I admit fault here. I was thinking about a 1991 lawsuit that was NY v. NoA. The 1999 is several cases brought from parents against NoA that went nowhere. Here

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.

So, "You can only dump money into the system but you can't get it out". Where is the limit on can't get it out? At what level of extra steps does it become, "can't get it out"?Because there will always be a way to sell the skins for cash outside the market. That's the whole point here. No, it's not for you to decide, but the people deciding have opinions that may contradict the AG; especially if it gets to jury. So, why have you been acting like James' suit is without fault? I'm pointing out faults and you're hiding behind, I don't know enough and I'm not a lawyer; to prevent having an actual opinion. That's all I'm doing is playing Plaintiff. If you don't want to play Prosecution, then stop playing.

You know, just for the fuck of it let's say this point shouldn't be in the lawsuit, what changes about the lawsuit?

Again, that's the insulating layer protecting Valve. It is literally the crux of the three cause case against Valve. They have to satisfy all three causes to win. Valve just has prove the third one wrong. Because that's the insulating layer. Dude, like, how many times have I made this point?

You've done such a spectacular job referencing everything else? Why is there suddenly no reference here?

Oh, buddy. You said you read the case, so I got tired and thought you could use your intelligence to look it up. Should've been easy. But daddy can do it for you. It won't take a minute. Section IV-A-90. The fact that it was three lines down from my last point is hilarious that you couldn't be bothered. Though, of course, you have no thoughts of your own. You are such a lazybones.

And? Your grand analysis stops there?

I mean, yeah. It's a point I've made multiple times.

Okay, so you don't actually understand why children are brought up. Really showing your expertise here.

And your counter has convinced me. Great job. Why don't you read this study from 2003? It might enlighten you why TCGs are a big point from me. But you won't, because you are a lazybones.

Well then go ahead and educate me. You seem to enjoy sounding smart so I'm giving up the chance to be smart.

"In other words, not only is the Dunning-Kruger effect not merely a statistical artifact at the group level, it also cannot be explained solely by Bayesian shrinkage in the rational estimations of individual participants.” Source That's a recent study from 2021. Feel free to read about it. Or don't, I don't give a shit, mate. I'm just here to have fun.