Full disclosure. I've been playing eve since 2003.
The CSM is widely regarded as a joke. According to numbers released by CCP the total votes for _all_ candidates (winning and losing) is less than 6% of the player base. A single CSM member has less than 1% of the player base vote for them.
Just like any MMPOG company CCP does what they want regardless of how much the players yell or the validity of said yelling.
Same thing with the pill. In fact with the pill you can even take it in front of your partner and not be effective. Some of the low dose ones are extremely time sensitive. Wrong time means no protection.
No. I live in a country that has restrictions on what laws can be put in place. This would never be enacted let alone stand up to challenge.
Making a law that imposes a tax on you for me owning something is nonsensical.
Regardless your cost argument is meaningless. You would not be fighting such a law. Someone with orders of magnitude more resources, and thus orders of magnitude more able to be fucked by such a law, would be fighting it.
Doesn't matter. The taxman can't do anything until you acquire assets outside the game.
Read your TOS/EULA. Make it work for you for once. Anything inside the game is owned by the people running the game. If the taxman comes knocking I have a binding legal contract, ProCD v Zeidenberg 7th Circuit, that says they need to go talk to Blizzard/Sony/Turbine/Whoever because they are the owners of record. It's their asset not mine.
For the "real income" to be real it has to exist in the possession of a real business or real person. Thus it is taxable. The taxman doesn't give a fuck how you earned it.
What the fuck? The tax man comes after you. You show this contract in which both Blizzard and myself agree that I own nothing and Blizzard owns everything. The tax man at that point has to talk to Blizzard since you have nothing taxable.
You seem to be implying that tax men don't have to follow the law. That's nonsensical.
What legal mess? You and Blizzard signed a binding legal contract stating that you are paying for a service and you own nothing.
Your assumptions about ownership and property are completely irrelevant due to this contract.
IRS taxing "in game" assets? They can go talk to Blizzard since they own it all. Imagine what the tax on all the WoW gold in existence would be? More afk cash than Blizzard has is my guess.
(which makes me wonder how the gil is generated in the first place)
When you buy something from another player the gil is not destroyed. The total amount of gil keeps getting bigger. The gil is just passed around.
Farmer sells item on auction hall to get gil Farmer sells gil. Farmer sells item on auction hall. (maybe gets back the exact same gil that he sold since the player bought the gil to buy the item)
I've encountered it in WI too. When I took my rider safety class the instructor spent about a half hour on it. It's fairly common. Almost the norm for them not to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Full disclosure. I've been playing eve since 2003.
The CSM is widely regarded as a joke. According to numbers released by CCP the total votes for _all_ candidates (winning and losing) is less than 6% of the player base. A single CSM member has less than 1% of the player base vote for them.
Just like any MMPOG company CCP does what they want regardless of how much the players yell or the validity of said yelling.
Same thing with the pill. In fact with the pill you can even take it in front of your partner and not be effective. Some of the low dose ones are extremely time sensitive. Wrong time means no protection.
Amen.
No. I live in a country that has restrictions on what laws can be put in place. This would never be enacted let alone stand up to challenge.
Making a law that imposes a tax on you for me owning something is nonsensical.
Regardless your cost argument is meaningless. You would not be fighting such a law. Someone with orders of magnitude more resources, and thus orders of magnitude more able to be fucked by such a law, would be fighting it.
The government passes a law saying I'm responsible for the tax liability of someone else's property?
That's just nonsensical.
RMT only works if you sell time.
Buying things that saves you time or makes your life easier is fine. Fluff falls into this category too.
Buying things that make you better than other people by merely having them is broken RMT and possibly a broken game design.
EVE-Online model:
Alice gives money to CCP for 30 days game time.
Bob gives ingame cash "isk" to Alice.
Alice give 30 days game time to Bob.
CCP provides a secure way for Bob and Alice to trade time for isk. No isk is artificially created by CCP.
It's risk free and inflation free. Basically CCP wants to get the subscription cash from a player rather than a farmer.
I don't understand your point.
If you received $75 for 10K you fall under existing tax law. You always have.
My post dealt with taxing assets held in game.
You should have sued in small claims. BoA would have rolled over and settled with you. Too expensive for them to go to court over such a low amount.
That has nothing to do with the original point. The GP claimed dealing in virtual goods rendered them immune to taxes.
I need to clarify here.
In EVE Online you are allowed to buy in-game money from other players. This is regular cash that was created through normal means.
This is _NOT_, I repeat _NOT_, game cash created out of thin air by the publisher.
Thus there is no risk of massive inflation.
Doesn't matter. The taxman can't do anything until you acquire assets outside the game.
Read your TOS/EULA. Make it work for you for once. Anything inside the game is owned by the people running the game. If the taxman comes knocking I have a binding legal contract, ProCD v Zeidenberg 7th Circuit, that says they need to go talk to Blizzard/Sony/Turbine/Whoever because they are the owners of record. It's their asset not mine.
What?
For the "real income" to be real it has to exist in the possession of a real business or real person. Thus it is taxable. The taxman doesn't give a fuck how you earned it.
If it's stealing then why don't they have them arrested for theft?
So the vast majority of the money is simply moved. A small minority is destroyed.
My point stands.
What the fuck? The tax man comes after you. You show this contract in which both Blizzard and myself agree that I own nothing and Blizzard owns everything. The tax man at that point has to talk to Blizzard since you have nothing taxable.
You seem to be implying that tax men don't have to follow the law. That's nonsensical.
What % is the tax or is it a flat fee?
What legal mess? You and Blizzard signed a binding legal contract stating that you are paying for a service and you own nothing.
Your assumptions about ownership and property are completely irrelevant due to this contract.
IRS taxing "in game" assets? They can go talk to Blizzard since they own it all. Imagine what the tax on all the WoW gold in existence would be? More afk cash than Blizzard has is my guess.
(which makes me wonder how the gil is generated in the first place)
When you buy something from another player the gil is not destroyed. The total amount of gil keeps getting bigger. The gil is just passed around.
Farmer sells item on auction hall to get gil
Farmer sells gil.
Farmer sells item on auction hall. (maybe gets back the exact same gil that he sold since the player bought the gil to buy the item)
Why not? Shitty access control is still access control.
I think you missed my point.
You said:
"3. There is nothing reasonable about strip searching a girl even if she did have a prescription for Ibuprofen"
Your statement limits the "nothing reasonable" to girls.
Why do you find it reasonable for boys to be strip searched and not girls?
Why the sexism? Why is it reasonable to strip search a boy but not a girl?
Again and again this is brought up. Again and again we have asked for someone to post documentation of this fact. Again and again no one can.
I've encountered it in WI too. When I took my rider safety class the instructor spent about a half hour on it. It's fairly common. Almost the norm for them not to work.
I can't imagine a bicycle setting them off.
Agreed.
Here's the simplification of the problem as I see it.
We're supposed to ignore the bad things the cop says and listen to the good things.
It doesn't work that way. Either we treat everything the cop says as trustworthy or nothing as trust worthly.
If we think the online stuff is lies then we have to think he lies on the job too.
If we think the online stuff is true then we have to think that's how he acts and thinks on the job.
Even if the judge says that so what? You say "He didn't break the law."
The judge doesn't even know who the hold out is. Even if they find out there is no law against making a decision as a juror.