/warp casino discussion thread

Calidre i see you disagreeing with my posts, ill just say that this kind of moralistic view toward rules only increases work to moderators (policing a new rule), leaves the party that enforces the rule outside of that market (if casinos are wrong crates are too), makes illegal something broadly popular that people have become accostumed to, and people will most likelly break the rule left and right because its not only moralistic but difficult to police, even if they break droppers gambling is able to happen.

KhalDrogo you sound just like Wayne Wheeler, blinded by your morals, unable to distinguish from a rule that makes society better and rules that seem good to your own mind, willing to bend the freedom of the public to abyde your wish.
"I’ll take the written text in the EULA as the rule." would suggest you have any authority over that rule, did you wrote it? do you enforce it? do you have any qualifications to interpret a legal document like that? because i think thats Microsofts job and not yours, you are here debating about the way this server should police that rule, nothing more, and as any text it is relative, even more when we are talking about the concept of gambling, what do you consider gambling? the definition includes money and grass is in no way real money. any game of chance then? lets ban eggs then, anything that gives valuable items with a rare chance? then lets ban nether fortresses chests, you need to pay?
then lets take out generators because the pickaxe gets damaged in return, text is relative, stop talking like its not. and stop making plain illogical arguments like compairing if this is what the EULA talks about to a speeding ticket thats one of the most common things that do get policed.
And sorry but casinos are very popular in the server you like it or not, making the information public may actually save some kids from scams but i dont think making it a secret would actually stop someone from owning a casino, as i said, unable to see a rule that would help from one that seems good to you.
i have found several of your arguments ludicrous and i havent suggested we ignore each other, this just shows a big problem with closed mindness and how your morals are more important to you than logic, what a shamefull way to defend a point.

 

Ok. So you choose to not leave things be and simply accept that we have a differing opinion, clearly you are here to argue and that does not surprise me. I’m not even going to read your rant because most of what you say is ridiculous. I will continue to think you a fool and will breeze straight past your posts as they are a waste of my time.

 

Your ad hominems are very commical and really tell more about you than all the things you say about me, but you do you, and im not here to argue, im here to show my point, if you expected me to leave it there i reccomend you not to add the several comments about my person and my point, for someone that talks about accepting you have a different oppinion you take a lot of time to start keeping it to yourself.

 

You are here to argue. Don’t fool yourself, as easy as that is. No one commented on you initial post as far as I know but you have come here throwing insults and attempting to shoot down all who has disagree with you or have opinions that differ to yours.

 

well, you may think that for the mindset you have, but contrary to you i have actually talked about my point and not who says it, for exaple what you just said "No one commented on you initial post as far as I know but you have come here throwing insults and attempting to shoot down all who has disagree with you or have opinions that differ to yours." that has nothing to do with the topic and its just wrong, i only talked to abb untill she/he asked and i only talked to cal because he disagreed with most of my posts and would like to debate further to see why, the only moment i admit i was wrong was when i thought you were replying to me, still all i said was very objective and true, you just dont like facts and say actuall insults lol

 

It is not a "law" or a "rule", it's a User agreement. Which you agree to when using the services provided... so the obvious & courteous thing would be to adhere to what you agreed to...

 

The very first dialogue between you and me ever, was you insulting me. I acknowledge that you admitted you were mistaken but you set the tone that has turned things nasty.

 

Absolutely correct. The code of conduct mentions the use of common sense and common sense would tell me to not do anything that might cause the EULA to be violated. One might argue that skyblock’s code of conduct indirectly prohibits gambling.

 

ca1 i can see you dont recall correctly my comment, but agreement is right in the definition of law that i present, anyways its an agreement to a set of rules, it clearly states what to do and not to do and youre agreeing to that, and the crimes that they police do have consecuences, i think everything checks out in that aspect.

Sorry drogo but mentioning that you missundertand me or that you are using certain litterary tools is not an insult, is exclusivelly about your argument and in any way about your person. and still i took back and said sorry the second and for the things i needed to, i dont see the point, if you post your opinion here it is expected to be discussed.

And if they mention to use common sense it may aswell refer to not go to servers to debate about poilicing things you consider wrong if they clearly dont care about policing and they maybe arent even refering to this kind of casinos.

 

Your comment was, “you clearly have a problem understanding.”
If you don’t see how that is personal and insulting then you are a fool.
That there is an insult by the way incase you lack the intellect to pick it up.

 

easy to consider it an insult when you cut the sentence in half, i clearly said "Drogo, if what you understand from what i said was "It seems that this is considered to be ok because “everyone else does it” and it’s not enforced." you clearly have a problem understanding." the use on "if " means its only if this was the case and it wasnt, also even if it was the case i dont see how saying you have a problem understanding is an insult when i clearly stated what i was talking about, your keep fixating on talking about each other and how what i say its about you when its clearly about your arguments presented here.

also very classy way of saying thats an insult, clearly adding i lack the intelligence adds to your strong logic.

By the way you reply is clearly that you interpret what i say as it best suits you, even when i apologized for my bad english and was objectivelly talking about my point, you say that i insulted you for saying you have a problem understanding what i said? even after i told you i thought you were replying? what insults you aloof me, clearly your arguments put your own moral and perception over logic. should i list the insults you have used in the conversation? because that would be a different topic.

 

Your argument that a law is only valid when it is actively enforced as law is committing crime and committing a crime is breaking the law is invalid in this situation as in your own sourced definition of "law" this particular situation would fit into the "breaking agreement" part of it and not the "committing a crime" section of it from my understanding

 

the logic still stands, i was talking about both but didnt feel the need to mention them after the initial definition, to make my point clearer, it is that we can conclude that minecrafts EULA doenst refer to the casinos currently in the server since it isnt policed in that way, i think its clear we are already treating it like a set of rules since before i entered the conversation.

 

Just because it hasn't been punished yet doesn't mean it can be

 

the EULA is a legal document and to interpret them using precedents is very standart, i gave a very popular example with the prohibition since microsoft is also in the US. The only party that can enforce the EULA is microsoft anyways, their definition is the only one that matters and precedents tell us the way they meant it.

 

You said the following

“The oxford dicctionary defines a law as: "a rule that deals with a particular crime, agreement, etc." so dealing with a crime could be one thing to consider, but whats a crime?, the oxford dicctionary defines crime as: "an illegal actor activity that can be punished by law"……”

If you are considering law, and the definition you use shows that it relates to crime, agreement, etc, why did you go down the path of looking at the definition of ‘crime’ as a basis for your argument? Why not look at the definition of agreement, given that’s exactly what the EULA is?
You took a wrong turn early in your arguments and so much of what you have said is not relevant.

 

Oh thats something elemental, so, when doing my research i also considered the definitions of rule and agreement, i just tried to stay focused in the point to explain, we all know that the definition of agreement is very broad and has several uses, both the set of rules and a responsability mentioned in a ruleset are in fact agreements, but in this instance it is being listed besides crime so we can say that the definition is talking about the latter, for example the agreement of receiveing money every time you circle the map in monpoly is also a rule or law, now breaking those kind of agreements is also considered a crime, a good example is the right by law to water in Mexico, the thing listed in the ruleset is not a crime, still, breaking that agreement it is.
your notion that "Why not look at the definition of agreement, given that’s exactly what the EULA is?" is incorrect since as you said, we are talking about the agreement that constitutes a set of rules (The EULA) and not an agreement listed in a rule set like the one listed besides crime in my definition, thats why i went to the definition of crime, because any breaking of the law is a crime and historically they have been very concepts depending on each other, the agreement part there just talks about one way law can be expressed in text, the other being direct crimes that shouldnt be broken.
Also please take everything that i say objectivelly since one of my arguments dont disreggard the other unrelated ones.

also another thing to consider is that i went to the definition of law instead of rule since your argument is that the server currently is breaking the EULA and thats a real crime, breach of contract, and the definition of rule cant come close to the current topic, if you go to a lawyer and tell him you sold tons of pirated MC copies or that you used it to promote your IRL casino and he will tell you its serious breach of contract because of the EULA, tell them about this kind of casinos and they will laugh, precedents is the key when interpreting a parties intentions with legal documents.

 

How dare they create an informative warp for a popular ingame feature!

 

Well this spiraled, my opinion, remove the signs internally describing the contents of the droppers and chests (Currently you can make a full working casino based on the information provided at the warp, even though apparently these are not tutorials), then add an information section detailing how odds work, how you can lose everything, and how you shouldn't gamble with anything you don't want to lose. Simple, then the warp can stay imo. The warp is about information and currently there is no information about casinos except how to make one.

 

So now we have a shotty casino design. As reference for new players to build casinos from. The “casino” market is a very delicate thing. Introducing the opportunity for more broken/unreliable casinos ruins the market entirely.