Timeline for Awarding the Top Players of a Video Game
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | Putvi | Well defines a "gambling machine" as that would be accurate. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:44 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Putvi You just keep missing the point made in Com v. Irwin. I'll leave it at that with you because otherwise you'll go on and on. What matters (to me) is that now the OP has access to case law whereby a court identifies gambling on the basis of whether or not the prize can exceed the money a player spends on the game. Good bye. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:36 | comment | added | Putvi | You have to read the whole thing. That was stated in reference to this "Thus a gambling device is that which is utilized to facilitate the play for excess value."' They are saying that is what a gambling device is so that justifies the machines being taken. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:34 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Putvi "To cite the case, it has to be directly about the issue at hand". Great! Now go tell the judges in Com. v. Irwin that their mention of "prize worth less than the amount he has played" has to be directly about the issue at hand because, according to you, their rationale is unrelated to "seizing illegal gambling machines". | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:26 | comment | added | Putvi | To cite the case, it has to be directly about the issue at hand. Like you would need to find a case about awards to the top players of something. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:25 | comment | added | Putvi | The PA case is also about seizing illegal gambling machines. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:23 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Putvi You are missing the point. A Missouri court could decide the OP's controversy by adopting the Pennsylvania court's rationale in Com. v. Irwin to discern whether or not the $100 reward amounts to gambling. After all, these jurisdictions' prima facie elements of gambling are consistent. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:16 | comment | added | Putvi | The MO case there is about having illegal gambling machines, not what is being discussed here. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 20:11 | comment | added | Iñaki Viggers | @Putvi So what? Other states have similar definitions of gambling, and yet their courts apply the criterion of "prize [being] worth less than the amount he has played". Particular to Missouri, the three elements of gambling listed in Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Missouri Gaming Commission, 260 S.W.3d 388, 391 (2008) strikingly resemble the ones listed in Com. v. Irwin, 535 Pa. 524, 527 (1993). | |
| May 16, 2019 at 18:27 | history | edited | Iñaki Viggers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 7 characters in body
|
| May 16, 2019 at 18:19 | comment | added | Putvi | He is in MO, and the MO law says nothing about the fees exceeding the prize. | |
| May 16, 2019 at 18:13 | history | answered | Iñaki Viggers | CC BY-SA 4.0 |