182 réponses à ce sujet

[Sol Veracity]

Mad Method,

Are you even reading your posts? Allow me to quote your second most recent post, along with a relevant line from latest.

"If you want to discuss the law, research the relevant parts before opening your mouth. If you cannot be bothered to learn about the law, then you have no place discussing it."

"To the contrary, I have made no comment whatsoever on the legality of the contest because I am not knowledgeable on the relevant law."

Now kindly, please take your leave. Or, are you unable to notice the glaring contradiction in alleging your opponents' unfamiliarity with the law while openly admitting your own? Would you prefer to continue the proverbial process of digging your own grave?

Feel free to persist in this struggle to save some semblance of face.  I will admit, however, that your audacity is very impressive.

Modifié par Sol Veracity, 07 avril 2010 - 07:51 .

[Demx]

sfchicken knows how to play the game..sort of

[Mad Method]

Siradix, it's not as clean cut as you make it out to be and the poor communication exacerbates things. This thread is here to discuss the practice, explain your feelings on the matter, how it affected you, etc. As for what we want out of all of this, that's a good question. I guess actual dialogue from Bioware on the matter would be a good start, at least.

Sol Veracity wrote...

Edit:  Your post is truly hilarious.  You managed to be wholly ignorant of the law while defaming those familiar with it.  Perhaps if you spent more time familiarizing with the subject matter than insulting your dissenters, you might be able to formulate some form of cogent argument.

If your efforts to research the matter prove fruitless, I will be glad to provide no less than three sources corroborating my claims and undermining yours.

On the first count, I minimally defame those who are unfamiliar with the law and yet feel compelled to share their interpretations of it. On the second count, I, again, have no claims on the matter of legality. I find it curious that you continue to draw a line between you and I nonetheless. I think you are the one antagonizing me.

If you have a thorough, logical perspective grounded in legal fact to share on the matter, however, by all means share it, and I will sincerely be interested in reading it.

Addendum: There is an additional post, so to rebut: Sol Veracity, the contradiction exists within your imagination only. I am, again, indicting the practice of arguing without knowing what you're talking about. I am not professing an opinion on the actual subject of the argument itself.

Modifié par Mad Method, 07 avril 2010 - 08:10 .

[Demx]

@Mad Method The poor communication comment, who are you directing that at?

[Mad Method]

Chris Priestly mostly. Some of it is Stanley Woo's fault, but it seems to be more of an innocent mistake on his part. Chris Priestly, on the other hand, gave a limited answer, invited further questions, and didn't really answer them. Overall, the actual dialogue on the matter was limited and problematic.

[cynicalsaint1]

Mad Method wrote...

Siradix, it's not as clean cut as you make it out to be and the poor communication exacerbates things. This thread is here to discuss the practice, explain your feelings on the matter, how it affected you, etc. As for what we want out of all of this, that's a good question. I guess actual dialogue from Bioware on the matter would be a good start, at least.

Exactly. This is all a matter of communication, or a lack thereof. BioWare could have prevented a lot of this problem simply by being clear from the start, and even after this they refuse to even aknowledge our concerns. None of us were ever arguing whether or not it should be considered cheating after BioWare finally decided to clearly state that it was. Nor are we trying to debate that here.

Saying that it should have been obvious is meaningless at this point, because if it was obvious there would have not been a debate, nor would Chris need to have taken two days to let us know. Of course after the fact its all very clear to everyone, but at the time there was a question, and it was left open for 2 days.

Then after we found out, we stopped doing it, and starting asking exactly how this would be dealt with, and were stonewalled. I mean presumeably its someone's job to communicate things to the community, and many people in the community had questions that weren't being answered. This is not how this should have been handled.

I guess BioWare doesn't feel like it needs to talk to us 'cheaters' even though most of us were doing it unwittingly, nor did any of us want the situation to be unfair to those who didn't do it, our only concerns were that we wanted clarification on how it was being dealt with, so that we could decide whether or not we should still put any time into earning more tokens or not. Instead we were left in the dark, wondering whether or not performing free advertising for BioWare was still worth anything to us.

EDIT:
I agree with Mad Method's assessment, from what I can tell it was Chris' responsiblity to keep the community informed of official bazaar matters.

Modifié par cynicalsaint1, 07 avril 2010 - 08:32 .

[Sol Veracity]

Mad Method wrote...


Addendum: There is an additional post, so to rebut: Sol Veracity, the contradiction exists within your imagination only. I am, again, indicting the practice of arguing without knowing what you're talking about. I am not professing an opinion on the actual subject of the argument itself.

This is sheer nonsense.  You were caught in a moment of weakness and refuse to acknowledge any shortcoming of your own.  You continue to rationalize this away as if there's some reason for why your comments should not apply to yourself.

I can't even begin to imagine why you're peddling this garbage.  You built your argument on the premise that your opponents were unfamiliar with the law.  Not only were you wrong, but you then admitted that you had no clear grasp of the obtaining legal concepts.

Look, I understand.  It sucks to humiliate yourself.  You would look far better for acknowledging your error and moving on.

P.S.  The audacity oozing from each of your posts is remarkable.  You might be able to pull the wool over a lesser person's eyes with your attempt to re-color the facts.  Unfortunately for you, I'm not that lesser person.

[Misaki-Ki]

^ He pretty much said "Don't talk about the law, if you don't know it," and then "I don't talk about the law, because I don't know it," as far as the quotes you listed.

[Sol Veracity]

I'm aware of what he said - you should read his full posts for additional context.

"Arguments do not work this way. You do not get to aimlessly assert your justifications and beliefs about a subject you possess no knowledge of. If you want to discuss the law, research the relevant parts before opening your mouth. If you cannot be bothered to learn about the law, then you have no place discussing it. It is simply unfair that every time your lazy ass posts on this thread to discuss the law, someone should tutor you on the relevant sections of the law and explain why you're wrong, only for you to repeat the cycle of not learning relevant sections of the law and proceeding to argue why they must be wrong. No doubt part of the reason you do this is because ignorance is an unlimited weapon with which a person can be attacked ad nauseum.

If you want to continue discussing the subject, please make sure your points are logical and rooted in a verifiable legal basis (ie. actual fact) rather than your own assertions and wishes of how the law should work. (One often defends those daintily as being "common knowledge" and "common sense".) It's more respectful to the person you are talking to; you are demonstrating a willingness to learn and a willingness to put some effort into your words.

Of course, if the entire purpose of your argument is to disrespect the other person, then please leave.

Sol Veracity, this goes for you too."

There is one purpose in making a post like this: to establish that the named users have no idea what they're arguing about. It's all well and good to make a claim like this, but you better be sure it's correct.

It's not. Mallisan (sp?) has stated this is an illegal lottery contest. However, the contest obviously doesn't meet the criterion to be classified as such. Here are the three basic requirements for a contest to be considered a lottery:
-A prize must be offered.
-Winning the prize must involve an element of chance.
-Some kind of purchase or similar consideration must be provided to participate.

Because the contest does not meet the latter two requirements, it is considered a skill based contest. The contest's administrators have significantly greater leeway in running a contest of this nature.

Modifié par Sol Veracity, 07 avril 2010 - 10:01 .

[Sol Veracity]

Also, can someone tell me if my posts appear to have major spacing issues?  IE: the formatting looks like someone has used the "Enter" bar profusely.

Modifié par Sol Veracity, 07 avril 2010 - 09:51 .

[Mad Method]

Yes, there's excess spacing; it's a bug. Edit your post (any miniscule change will do), resubmit, and it should be fixed.

[Sol Veracity]

Fixed. Thanks.

[Mad Method]

No problem.

As for your post, I shall have to reiterate: I am indicting the practice of arguing without knowing what you're talking about. I am not professing an opinion on the actual subject of the argument itself. You can refuse to acknowledge my words, but then discussion is lost on you. Honestly, I'm not sure why you believe yourself to be a better authority on my words than myself.

I'd also appreciate it if you would tone down the grandstanding. Thank you.

Modifié par Mad Method, 08 avril 2010 - 02:55 .

[Sol Veracity]

I'll be honest. Your argument would hold some merit if you had simply left it at generalizations directed at no one. However, you invested yourself in the discussion by singling people out in an attempt to undermine their credibility. You basically tied yourself to the opposite side by only naming the dissenters.

Due to this, you can't convince anyone familiar with arguing in intellectual arenas that you somehow don't hold a stake in the substantive matter. You defamed people because you simply thought they were wrong. If you thought otherwise, or didn't care, your comments would have been far less antagonistic.

To summarize: you made a very critical post that precluded any notion of certain users being correct. This is obviously expressing an opinion on the subject matter - it is endorsing that one side is more right than another.

Modifié par Sol Veracity, 07 avril 2010 - 10:44 .

[Mad Method]

Sol Veracity wrote...

I'll be honest. Your argument would hold some merit if you had simply left it at generalizations directed at no one. However, you invested yourself in the discussion by singling people out in an attempt to undermine their credibility. You basically tied yourself to the opposite side by only naming the dissenters.

Due to this, you can't convince anyone familiar with arguing in intellectual arenas that you somehow don't hold a stake in the substantive matter.

The attempt wasn't to undermine their credibility. The credibility was undermined by the original posters in making arguments without any form of credible proof or basis behind it besides assertions and personal wishes. Perhaps I tied myself to the "opposite side" in your perspective, but I still have no stance on the actual argument itself. The fact that I disapprove of how one "side" has been going about does not mean I am with the other "side". Honestly, such dichotomies get silly and they carry strange, competitive mindsets that believe one "side" must be the "victor" and the other "side" the "loser." The ensuing tooth and nail competition ensures that reason is drowned out as extrapolations and arguments are made from less and less relevant points to nail a "victory" and the overall "big picture" is lost. There is no real point to deciding who is right and who is wrong. What's important is to figure out what is right.

The reason why I specifically mention Syrellaris and yourself is because I have seen little sign that either of you have done any research on the matter, little evidence to back your words, and almost no incidence of deductive or inductive reasoning. In the end, you foist the entire burden of logic and research on Mallissin, which is ridiculously unfair and disrespectful. You make him both prove that you're wrong and that he's right without bothering with either end yourself (proving that you're right or that he's wrong). Instead, you just toss out more assertions and positions and make Mallissin again have to prove both ends. Remember that 3 pointer?

1. How are these inaccurate punishments?
2. If you feel this type of discrimination is illegal, please show me the law that makes it so.
3. Just because you might be able to rationalize something as illegal does not mean you're capable of recovering from it.

You just told Mallissin to do all the work for you.

Your next post?

It's perfectly legal discrimination and not the least bit suspect in any reasonable court's eyes. Bioware established a blanket policy that penalized, or at the very least attempted to, all who engaged in the illegal behavior. There's no individual discrimination with unreasonable justification - in fact, it is quite reasonable. Any court would see Bioware's actions as attempting to protect both the integrity of the contest and those who were disadvantaged by not acting illegitimately.

This is nothing more than a bunch of assertions and personal opinions.

Mallissin, for his part, has read the relevant law and given an evidenced, rational perspective, so, yes, I do not criticize him. This does not make him correct; it merely means that he is upholding the proper basics of a rational argument.

Back to the rest of your post:

You defamed people because you simply thought they were wrong. If you thought otherwise, or didn't care, your comments would have been far less antagonistic.

I lectured you both to explain explicitly what you were doing wrong and why you need to stop. The disrespect comes from the fact that you yourselves were being disrespectful in how you handled this argument.

To summarize: you made a very critical post that precluded any notion of certain users being correct.

Of course. If you're going to discuss and give your own interpretations of a subject you have no knowledge of, you are, quite frankly, talking out of your ass. If you are talking out of your ass, odds are nine out of ten that you will wind up being completely wrong, and on the off chance you are right, I will still not give you any credit because it will have been dumb luck.

This is obviously expressing an opinion on the subject matter - it is endorsing that one side is more right than another.

Because one is wrong, the other must be right? It is, in fact, quite possible for both to be wrong. (It is also possible that Mallissin is correct. Possibilities...) I still don't have an actual stance on the subject of legality itself, as I said.

Modifié par Mad Method, 08 avril 2010 - 06:03 .

[Sol Veracity]

I just skimmed through that wall of text and have zero interest in refuting your claims point by point.  It is, however, riddled with assumptions about me; allow me to clear up my personal background.

-I'm a senior in Business Administration with a minor in Political Science
-I've taken the following law courses at my undergraduate institution: (Business Law, Employment Law, Constitutional Law, Law and Medicine, and Regulation of Business)
-My undergraduate GPA and LSAT score make me an ideal candidate for a top 15 law school
-I hold an officer position in my university's Pre-Law organization and am active in undergraduate
law competitions (Moot Court, Mock Trial, and Mediation).

In all likelihood, I am one of the more legally savvy posters in this thread.  When I give my opinion on a potential legal issue, it's not out of some immature understanding of the law.  This is an area that I have already devoted a portion of my life to studying and will be practicing in.

As for your concerns regarding lack of support for my argument...  I don't see this as any "weak" point that you should have dedicated so much of your time to criticizing.  I kid you not, you can make yourself a miniature expert on laws regulating contests in a matter of seconds on Google.  Take a look at these lovely summaries:

Contests of Skill - http://www.adlawbyre...ocl_id=RESOURCE

"But, what constitutes skill? First off, the skill that is required to win must be bona fide, participants must have the opportunity to exercise the skill required and the general class of participants must possess the skill necessary to participate. Skill must determine and control the final result and an element of chance may not affect either the selection of the winner or the amount of the prize the winner will receive."

Lottery - http://www.adlawbyre...ocl_id=RESOURCE

"All lotteries, except those which are state operated are illegal under federal law and the laws of all fifty states. Most states follow the standard lottery rule defining a lottery as a promotional scheme in which all three of the elements of prize, chance and consideration are present."

Couple the fruits of a simple Google search with the obvious.  BioWare already had this contest scrutinized by a legal team.  They're professionally inclined to know the risks associated with the relevant case law and statutes across the nation.  Evidence of this is apparent in the restrictions:

"This Contest is only open to residents of the 50 United States and the
District of Columbia with the exception of residents of Florida and New
York"

In the meanwhile, what has your argument done?  You've spent a good deal of time proving absolutely nothing.  You could have just as easily spent the few seconds on Google to verify my claims.  Instead, you decided to raise a major fuss over how it should be my responsibility to give you something so accessible.

[cynicalsaint1]

Are you guys seriously still having this pointless argument? If this is what the rest of the thread is going to be, I hope Woo closes it soon to put it out of its misery, as it ceased being a productive discussion long ago.

[Sol Veracity]

I'd also like to point out that this argument is going nowhere.  The possibility of any productive discussion from either of us is remote.  I'll admit our bickering looks petty; we should drop it.

Modifié par Sol Veracity, 08 avril 2010 - 02:44 .

[Mad Method]

Sol, with all your qualifications, consider what it says about you that to me you were indeed indistinguishable from the average forum layman. Requiring someone to be rational and provide evidence is reasonable in any setting where proper discourse is to be expected.

Cynicalsaint, the aside is done.

Modifié par Mad Method, 08 avril 2010 - 03:07 .

[SpartanDS11]

Please help and click the link!
Thanks!
social.bioware.com/brc/1228931

[Sol Veracity]

Mad Method wrote...

Sol, with all your qualifications, consider what it says about you that to me you were indeed indistinguishable from the average forum layman. Requiring someone to be rational and provide evidence is reasonable in any setting where proper discourse is to be expected.

I wouldn't have expected any less.  Were you familiar with the relevant law, you'd have noticed I touched upon a number of concepts:

-Recovery: The earlier question was designed to probe into what possible harm was incurred.
-Reasonable vs Unreasonable justification: Courts often defer where justifications are reasonable in contractual dealings.
-Blanket Discrimination: The BioWare policy does not unjustly discriminate, it treats (or attempts to treat) all similarly situated individuals the same.
-Element of Chance: Basic requirement of lottery contests.

Really, I would not have expected any less.  The fact that you didn't recognize any of these speaks to your unfamiliarity with the law.  Your impression of me doesn't hold much weight when you've faulted me for your own relative shortcomings.

[cynicalsaint1]

Honestly, I don't think the legal ramifications of the contest have anything to do with anything, I'm sure EA's lawyers have a firmer grip on the situation than any armchair law student does, regardless of anyone's pre-law studies as an undergrad.

Me? I just have a BS in CS

Modifié par cynicalsaint1, 08 avril 2010 - 03:46 .

[Ranger115]

okay, can someone enlighten me please. if you have had a point reduction, are you able to build your points back up and STILL PARTICIPATE?

[Sol Veracity]

I can only guess that you can, but it seems like doing so would be difficult. I assume BioWare would have used a permanent way of revoking your contest privileges if they wanted to exclude you.