Ok, so I go to McDonald's. I would like to buy a hamburger. I place my money (for an outcome which is not certain). The game of chance here is whether my hamburger would be of value. There is no guaranteed outcome.
Perhaps my hamburger is bad and makes me sick. You're saying this is gambling?
Your hyperbole is really just that, hyperbole. You're grasping at straws. Lawmakers decide what the definition of gambling is and is not for your country/state/county/city. You can argue that all you like. But, law supports my statement.
For example, in my state, ORS 167.108 to 167.164 and 464.270 to 464.530, section 7b, subsection C and D specifically allow this type of game. However, other states may not. You don't know until you look it up. Legal teams have to do the same for Cryptic.
Your hyperbole is really just that, hyperbole. You're grasping at straws. Lawmakers decide what the definition of gambling is and is not for your country/state/county/city. You can argue that all you like. But, law supports my statement.
For example, in my state, ORS 167.108 to 167.164 and 464.270 to 464.530, section 7b, subsection C and D specifically allow this type of game. However, other states may not. You don't know until you look it up. Legal teams have to do the same for Cryptic.
How is this hyperbolic in the least? I'm making this as simple and unexaggerated as I possibly can.
You are making a purchase. You are not playing a game. Cryptic sells you 10 Doffs exactly the same way that McDonald's sells you a hamburger. The value to you personally of what is inside that pack of 10 DOffs or inside that hamburger is not a game of chance.
If I play the lottery, I am not purchasing the lottery ticket. I am purchasing a chance to win something with that lottery ticket.
If I purchase 10 DOffs, I am purchasing 10 DOffs. I man not purchasing a chance at something else.
How is this hyperbolic in the least? I'm making this as simple and unexaggerated as I possibly can.
You're comparing an event which is a purchase and not what is by any state, by any legal definition of the word, gambling. You're trying to exaggerate a point to the furthest conclusion to prove your statement. Cite legal precedent in all 50 states to prove your point with regards to this (the C-Store DOff issue) being or not being gambling (or otherwise illegal), as well as any and all localities and countries outside of the US which Cryptic serves, and I'll certainly agree at that point.
Until then, you're just flamebaiting and I've got better things to do. (I fully realize you're not capable of this - because it requires a lot more time and resources than you provide. Indeed, Cryptic's Legal team has to do this.)
You're comparing an event which is a purchase and not what is by any state, by any legal definition of the word, gambling. You're trying to exaggerate a point to the furthest conclusion trying to prove your statement. Cite legal precedent in all 50 states to prove your point with regards to this (the C-Store DOff issue) being or not being gambling and I'll certainly agree at that point.
Until then, you're just flamebaiting and I've got better things to do.
It's too bad you're taking things personally. I'm uncertain how my stating my point is any more flamebaiting than you stating your point. I apologize if I somehow upset you, AuntKathy.
I've read every law that's been posted. I cannot see anywhere this activity is defined as gambling.
It's too bad you're taking things personally. I'm uncertain how my stating my point is any more flamebaiting than you stating your point. I apologize if I somehow upset you, AuntKathy.
You're doing exactly what I said you were. Good to know you're confirming it.
I've read every law that's been posted. I cannot see anywhere this activity is defined as gambling.
You've read the ones we posted. Did you do any research of your own? Of course not. That was rhetorical. You're sitting here arguing points to which you have no reference material. The point is that the scope of this project is above your head. You don't like that, so you prefer to argue with me instead and claim personal affront on my part. How.. expected.
You're doing exactly what I said you were. Good to know you're confirming it.
You've read the ones we posted. Did you do any research of your own? Of course not. That was rhetorical. You're sitting here arguing points to which you have no reference material. The point is that the scope of this project is above your head. You don't like that, so you prefer to argue with me instead and claim personal affront on my part. How.. expected.
AuntKathy is right about this. i can see her explaining points. for example, the Laws around some Areas might or not Affect Areas of Diffrent States. instead of flaming her on some really nonexplaining posts of yours own. still i agree with her.
Ok, so I go to McDonald's. I would like to buy a hamburger. I place my money (for an outcome which is not certain). The game of chance here is whether my hamburger would be of value. There is no guaranteed outcome.
Perhaps my hamburger is bad and makes me sick. You're saying this is gambling?
I'm not sure what I did to **** you off... Truth be told, I don't even know who you are.
Im not ****ed Just someone who has played since the beginning, reads the forums a lot, makes very few posts and doesn't agree with 99% of the things you post here, except this issue. Nothing personal
Comments
Your hyperbole is really just that, hyperbole. You're grasping at straws. Lawmakers decide what the definition of gambling is and is not for your country/state/county/city. You can argue that all you like. But, law supports my statement.
For example, in my state, ORS 167.108 to 167.164 and 464.270 to 464.530, section 7b, subsection C and D specifically allow this type of game. However, other states may not. You don't know until you look it up. Legal teams have to do the same for Cryptic.
How is this hyperbolic in the least? I'm making this as simple and unexaggerated as I possibly can.
You are making a purchase. You are not playing a game. Cryptic sells you 10 Doffs exactly the same way that McDonald's sells you a hamburger. The value to you personally of what is inside that pack of 10 DOffs or inside that hamburger is not a game of chance.
If I play the lottery, I am not purchasing the lottery ticket. I am purchasing a chance to win something with that lottery ticket.
If I purchase 10 DOffs, I am purchasing 10 DOffs. I man not purchasing a chance at something else.
You're comparing an event which is a purchase and not what is by any state, by any legal definition of the word, gambling. You're trying to exaggerate a point to the furthest conclusion to prove your statement. Cite legal precedent in all 50 states to prove your point with regards to this (the C-Store DOff issue) being or not being gambling (or otherwise illegal), as well as any and all localities and countries outside of the US which Cryptic serves, and I'll certainly agree at that point.
Until then, you're just flamebaiting and I've got better things to do. (I fully realize you're not capable of this - because it requires a lot more time and resources than you provide. Indeed, Cryptic's Legal team has to do this.)
It's too bad you're taking things personally. I'm uncertain how my stating my point is any more flamebaiting than you stating your point. I apologize if I somehow upset you, AuntKathy.
I've read every law that's been posted. I cannot see anywhere this activity is defined as gambling.
You're doing exactly what I said you were. Good to know you're confirming it.
You've read the ones we posted. Did you do any research of your own? Of course not. That was rhetorical. You're sitting here arguing points to which you have no reference material. The point is that the scope of this project is above your head. You don't like that, so you prefer to argue with me instead and claim personal affront on my part. How.. expected.
AuntKathy is right about this. i can see her explaining points. for example, the Laws around some Areas might or not Affect Areas of Diffrent States. instead of flaming her on some really nonexplaining posts of yours own. still i agree with her.
That was horrible and you should feel horrible.
I'm not sure what I did to **** you off... Truth be told, I don't even know who you are.
Im not ****ed