|
Please stop bringing country or state-bashing into this discussion. |
On February 12 2015 15:31 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 15:24 ROOTiaguz wrote:
What a strange country. And by strange I mean fucking idiotic. The philosophy behind it is that each administrative region can customize its legal code to service its citizens' principles, but in practice, it kind of just adds to the bureaucracy and fuels a weird fantasy that some states are being held back by the others.
Very well said.
State's rights only comes up when one state wants to unfairly discriminate on people based on sex, race, wealth, ect... then eventually the Supreme Court settles it, and said state pretends they never discriminated.
|
I don't understand why the North Dakota state law applies for competitions outside of North Dakota. If Puck went to Vegas and won a ton of money, would he be breaking the law in North Dakota? No, he won the money in Vegas. So as long as WCS doesn't host it's competition in North Dakota he should be fine.
|
On February 12 2015 21:47 TBO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 19:54 m4ini wrote:On February 12 2015 19:47 Phaenoman wrote:
How is pro gaming gambling? Not even a card game or betting. I think it's because the participation-fee. You pay in, you might or might not get money back. As far as i understand it, a tournament not sponsored(!) by Blizzard and without entry-fee would be totally fine. edit: it might even be fine if the starter-edition (the free2play) edition would be enough to participate in the tournament (tournaments are custom games, which are free), which it isn't (you need masters-rating to be able to participate). That's something i read though, so not entirely sure. edit2: doesn't make the law less retarded in this case though. WCS Handbook states the following: Show nested quote +Qualifiers will be open to players that fulfill the residency requirements and are Master-level
or above on the official qualifier region’s StarCraft II ladder (preceding or current season).
Individual regions may lower the Master-level requirement with Blizzard approval. Nowhere does it say Master in 1v1 , playing Ranked 2v2 with a free account is possible. So it is entirely possible to play in WCS without buying the game.
I beg to disagree : from http://wcs.battle.net/sc2/en/articles/announcing-the-wcs-2015-am-qualifiers
You must be ranked Master or above on America in the current season.
Ok, it does not precise "in 1v1", but I guess it is implied considering it's a 1v1 competition. But well, it is not the first time Blizzard contradicts itself >.>
|
On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote:
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal
for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is
responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?),
you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
|
On February 13 2015 00:29 Cazimirbzh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 00:15 Skirmjan wrote:On February 12 2015 22:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
LOL this thread derailed quickly
On topic, surely SC2 is not gambling. Looking at that law mentioned in the thread, I don't see how buying Starcraft 2 is paying a WCS entry fee. A starcraft account is just a tool used to compete not an entry fee. It's like buying your own football shoes to participate in a football match. Seriously, how can this law apply to a case like this, you're not directly paying money to play in a tournament, you've bought a piece of software probably a long time ago and are using it to participate in a tournament; Such an interpretation of this law would outlaw, among other things, any kind of console tournament sponsored by Sony or Microsoft (!), and any kind of tournament where a specific object/tool required to partecipate is produced by a monopolistic company that also happens to sponsor the event; for istance, if tomorrow Intel were to become the sole CPU manifacturer, BYOC Lan tournaments sponsored by Intel in North Dakota would automatically be illegal due to your pc's CPU.... The point could even be made for the Operating System! (noooo Microsoft, pleaseee don't sponsor us xD) yes, you're paying to play in wcs by buying sc2(full account required) and if Intel try to be "the sole CPU manifacturer", i'll bet on the antitrust laws.
A requirement is a very different thing from an entry fee, or "pay the sponsor money as a condition of awarding the person a prize", in this case there's just a requirement to compete and enter a tournament, NOT receiving the prize (which, when considering the likelihood of a random competitor receiving money in the average non-WCS esports tournament, is actually unlikely)
Besides, what if your StarCraft 2 copy was gifted or actually awarded free of charge by Blizzard in a contest or what not? You can't prove that! If i win a Razer mouse at a Lan, does that mean i'm barred to play in a Razer sponsored competition that requires (for whatever reason) to bring a Razer mouse, or am i the only one able to compete since i give Razer any money?!
on the off topic of Intel
+ Show Spoiler +If AMD goes bankrupt tomorrow, Intel is automatically a monopolist, and there is nothing against the antitrust law in that
All these arguments are hypotethical of course, and they have to be since nobody has been arrested yet for competing in an esports tournament as far as i'm aware ^^
|
On February 13 2015 01:14 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote:
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal
for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is
responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?),
you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this.
Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
|
Wait... Is puCK trying to dodge THE LAW? Ungrateful!!! The gov wants to protect him.
|
53-11-04. Exemptions.
1. This chapter does not create liability for acts by the publisher, owner, agent, or
employee of an advertising agency, a newspaper, periodical, radio station, television
station, cable television system, or other advertising medium arising out of the
publication or dissemination of a solicitation, notice, or promotion governed by this
chapter, unless the publisher, owner, agent, or employee had knowledge that the
solicitation, notice, or promotion violated the requirements of this chapter, or had a
financial interest in the solicitation, notice, or promotion.
2. This chapter does not apply to solicitations or representations, in connection with:
a. The sale or purchase of books, recordings, videocassettes, periodicals, and
similar goods through a membership group or club that is regulated by the federal
trade commission under title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, part 425.1,
concerning use of negative option plans by sellers in commerce.
b. The sale or purchase of goods ordered through a contractual plan or
arrangement such as a continuity plan, subscription arrangement, or a single sale
or purchase series arrangement under which the seller ships goods to a
consumer who has consented in advance to receive the goods and after the
receipt of the goods is given the opportunity to examine the goods and to receive
a full refund of charges for the goods upon return of the goods undamaged.
c. A sale by a catalog seller that derives at least fifty percent of its annual revenues
from the sale of products sold in connection with the distribution of catalogs of at
least twenty-four pages that contain written descriptions or illustrations and sale
prices for each item of merchandise, if the catalogs are distributed in more than
one state with a total annual distribution of at least two hundred fifty thousand.
435.1 SS Rule of FTC (From what I am reading this is basically defining "a merchant," being made to disclose the full terms of a sale prior to its close.
I am a bit fuzzy on my legalese but this exemption would seem to apply, that being said the legal department of Blizzard is probably more familiar with this shit than I am.
Wouldn't Puck's having purchased and consented to the quality of SC2 by extension be exempt from this statute?
|
Italy12247 Posts
ARIZONA
So what about the EG players when they were living there
hehe
|
On February 13 2015 02:02 Teoita wrote:So what about the EG players when they were living there hehe
I think the clause is a recent addition that was added this year.
|
On February 13 2015 01:24 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 01:14 andrewlt wrote:On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote:
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal
for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is
responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?),
you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this. Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary.
What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games).
Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
|
It sounds like this problem has more to do with Blizzard than it has to do with any state's legal code.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 13 2015 02:09 DScorpio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 01:24 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 13 2015 01:14 andrewlt wrote:On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote:
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal
for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is
responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?),
you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this. Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary. What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games). Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
Probably because the money is paid out by the PGA itself or the org running the Phoenix Open, which is distinct from its sponsor(s)? I mean here it looks like the issue is that Blizzard sells SC2 AND pays out the money to WCS participants. If, say, it would be KeSPA which would pay out the money for WCS to players instead of Blizzard there would be no problem, right?
|
On February 13 2015 02:09 DScorpio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2015 01:24 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 13 2015 01:14 andrewlt wrote:On February 12 2015 20:19 Startyr wrote:
As others have mentioned, these states have professional sports teams or individuals.
If someone was to buy equipment from some manufacturer of sports good, would it then be illegal
for them to take part in any competition that that manufacturer was involved with?
Or is it down to although you are using the same brand that is
responsible for some of the prize pool (even if they are personal sponsors of both you and the tournament?),
you could technically use a different brand. Where as there is no alternative to buying sc2 to play sc2.
Also is there no problem taking part in an sc2 competition where blizzard is not providing the prize pool?
Arizona and Maryland have professional sports teams. North Dakota, Connecticut and Vermont, I'm not sure, unless they have minor league teams. These things usually happen to states with small populations. Their politicians are usually free to craft overly broad laws and without enough people doing different things, they usually don't run into problems like this. Sporting teams is a bad comparison since the league doesn't pay a prize to the players. The teams pay the athletes as salary. What about Tennis or Golf, both of which award money to players based on their success in tournaments? Both are individual competitions structured much like SC2 (Tennis moreso than Golf due to brackets and head to head games). Are golfers from Arizona not allowed to play in the PGA? In fact, Arizona just hosted the PGA Phoenix Open last week and paid out over $6 million. How could Arizona allow that in their own state, but not allow a resident to travel to LA or Germany or South Korea and win a SC2 competition there? This makes no sense to me.
I would have to ask how the prize pools are funded for Golf and Tennis. I have to imagine that most of the pool is out of pocket for Blizzard whereas more lucrative sponsorships in sports like Tennis and Golf probably fund the winnings for the tournament.
|
|
|
I'm confused as to how WCS is considered gambling. These States all have anti gambling laws, meaning you can't 'bet' your own money to make money, unless it's an State sponsored event. The only way in which WCS can be considered gambling is if WCS makes its participants purchase competitor passes (like MLG does). If that ISN'T the case, than WCS shouldn't count as gambling.
|
China6331 Posts
Again, the code and the WCS rule won't effectively ban puck or anyone, just the rule being there is stupid.
|
On February 13 2015 02:37 Felix.Ice wrote:
I'm confused as to how WCS is considered gambling. These States all have anti gambling laws, meaning you can't 'bet' your own money to make money, unless it's an State sponsored event. The only way in which WCS can be considered gambling is if WCS makes its participants purchase competitor passes (like MLG does). If that ISN'T the case, than WCS shouldn't count as gambling.
All boils down to definitions of game of skill vs. game of chance. Pinball for example, has historically been considered gambling at least at its inception.
|
It's unfortunate because those laws are not behaving the way they were designed to... They can safely be ignored, I'd argue 
I'm from Quebec and that law is annoying. I can't win canadian raffles over $100. I recently won $50 though so that's cool.
|
On February 13 2015 02:40 digmouse wrote:
Again, the code and the WCS rule won't effectively ban puck or anyone, just the rule being there is stupid.
Right, so that's just completely misleading to include that in the rules than.
On February 13 2015 02:41 ThomasjServo wrote:
All boils down to definitions of game of skill vs. game of chance. Pinball for example, has historically been considered gambling at least at its inception.
Yes true, but that holds true for most games. Participants in WCS games aren't gambling anything personal. They literally have nothing to lose, except maybe time. If WCS has no entry costs, than its not considered gambling. Puck is basically playing the lottery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
