noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 10:22pm:


I've yet to see you actually logically refute any of my corrections.

You know you have to prove you're right, right?

noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 10:33pm:


Got anymore excuses?

So far you've only admitted you have a hard time reading because you don't read well and are excusing this by calling me an idiot.

In other words, your reading comprehension is lacking.

noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:07pm:



Fuck, you are dense.

So far your assumption is you can't understand me, yet you're actively arguing with me about that fact right now.  The lame ass memes are not my argument, they're something else and it obviously gets under your skin.

You are making excuses because I've yet to see you cite one specific argument that was pure "incomprehensible drivel"  <-- you ironically didn't spell incomprehensible correctly.    

I ask you again, prove your claims.

Oh wait, why start now, right?  M I RITE?   

noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:28pm:


I refute that. I never corrected it, I left it as you wrote it.

What I did was cite the IRONY in your statement coupled with a spelling mistake about me being incomprehensible while what you wrote was actually incomprehensible.


You must not like being the butt of a joke, particularly if they're intelligent and light-hearted.  I certainly was not berating you.  I was pointing out the irony, which someone with intelligence might actually laugh about upon reflection.

I'll let you have time to process this.

noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:28pm:

...and that's coming from the guy who has been pretty nice to you, Kist.

No wonder your dogs run away.

Head-Meat wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 5:36pm:

I am not that familiar with the law of digital property/assets.

I graduated law school just over 24 years ago and the extent of the field of computer law, at the time, was based on intellectual property as it related to software and licensing agreements.

I can say that and SSG insistence that the boxes aren't worth anything, that really may hurt them.

But I'd be skeptical they would actually claim that in a court case whether it be in a criminal or civil court.

If they did stick to a stance claiming the boxes really aren't worth anything, then they'd have no case because they would have suffered no monetary damages and monetary damages are what is usually asked for in a civil lawsuit.

A criminal case for theft of some kind would also rely on the boxes being worth something. SSG would have to allege that they are for any sort of theft charges to be filed on a complaint from them.

There is the matter of a tax case that could be brought by the IRS if the government can prove the sellers of the duped boxes never reported income generated from them. An income tax case is more likely than a criminal case or a civil case assuming SSG claims the boxes aren't worth anything.

Disclaimer: While I did graduated from law school, I never took a bar exam so I am not an attorney. OnePercenter IS an attorney, however, and your question might be better directed to him.

noamineo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:53pm:


Oh no jew didn't.

Technomage wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:54pm:


While I won't pretend to be anyone's accountant(except Strake's), it wouldn't be that hard for these guys to simply report their money and pay the taxes on it. Online business. Done and dusted. Government not going to get involved if they get their cut.

Here's an interesting case that's been brought up on the vault before, and unlike kisty's dumbass links, actually IS related:

https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/

The TL:DR version is two guys discovered a glitch in the software running on video poker machines and took the casinos for a ton of money. (no one knows exactly how much but it was on the order of millions). Legal actions were brought against them for theft, but the cases were eventually dropped because...

..wait for it...

...abusing a software glitch does not constitute "theft"

Now unlike technomage I did not go to law school, but I understand there is a concept in our legal system called precedent? Whereby if a court finds that abusing a software glitch is not considered a crime, future people who abuse glitches cannot be tried for it?

Also in the above case: the guys paid their taxes on the money. One of the guys even got to keep it because he had better lawyers. The other was pretty much bullied into giving his up even though legally he could have kept it.

Technomage wrote on Aug 14^th, 2020 at 11:54pm:


Question: is OnePercenter ACTUALLY an attorney, or are you just trying to get people to PM him because it's funny?

Technomage wrote on Aug 15^th, 2020 at 12:07am:


So not trying to attack your point, just wanting to clarify:

*The boxes do not have value

*The points do not have value

BUT

Could SSG claim damages if they could show a drop in sales?

E.G. "we had been taking in this much money, but now we are taking in less since they started doing this"?


Just as an example, sticking with my arcade analogy: if I hung out in front of an arcade telling everyone who walked in that the games were rigged and were going to steal their money, and the owner of the arcade could show his profits were falling since I started doing that, couldn't he sue me for damaging his business with my filthy, filthy lies?

Technomage wrote on Aug 15^th, 2020 at 12:24am:


Ya hear that, Duperhero? You better give uncle sam his cut OR ELSE!

I'm kidding, I don't really care. Also the simple fact that you consulted a lawyer tells me you're also obviously going to be claiming the income on taxes. Hope it doesn't knock ya into a new tax bracket, otherwise all the best of luck.

Technomage wrote on Aug 15^th, 2020 at 12:24am:


Well that's handy. Too bad he barely posts here anymore. I think he'd get a huge laugh out of a certain "legal advice" thread.

Technomage wrote on Aug 15^th, 2020 at 12:30am:


Admittedly I may not have actually read your previous post.

Anyway, if the boxes have to have value, that's the end of it. SSG's TOS clearly states they do not, and it'd be very tough for them to argue with themselves(not impossible, but I think the legal term would be "kistarded").

noamineo wrote on Aug 15^th, 2020 at 2:11am:


Name names!

I haven't seen any help. 

I've seen a lot of terrible people pile in on a defamation claim.