Hurlshort

I weny with Emily, but I chose not to take the powers.

I picked up Dishonored 2, which for some reason I put off buying. It is a beautiful game.

Alright, I'll try, somewhat in order with pint values removed: 1. Jagged Alliance 2 (Sir-Tech) 2. Xcom (Microprose) 3. Quest For Glory 1 (Sierra) 4. Lord of the Rings Online (Turbine) 5. Baldur's Gate (Black Isle) 6. Fallout (Interplay) 7. King's Quest 1 (Sierra) 8. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (LucasArts) 9. The Black Cauldron (Sierra) 10. Might and Magic 3 (New World Computing) 11. Tie Fighter (LucasArts) 12. Zelda: A Link to the Past (Nintendo) 13. Final Fantasy IV (Square Enix) 14. Fallout New Vegas (Obsidian) 15. Super Mario 64 (Nintendo) 16. World of Warcraft (Blizzard) 17. Knights of the Old Republic (Bioware) 18. Knights of the Old Republic 2 (Obsidian) 19. Neverwinter Nights Toolset (Bioware) 20. Heroes of Might and Magic IX (New World Computing) 21. Shadow of Yserbius (Sierra On-Line) 22. Assassin's Creed (Ubisoft) 23. Xcom 2 (Firaxis) 24. Martian Memorandum (Access) 25. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind (Bethesda)

You are dead to me. And where is *your* list, Hurlshot? I was too intimidated by the math involved.

None of that has anything to do with gambling. Microtransactions and parents getting crazy bills have been a problem for years. I completely agree with it being a messed up business practice. I want disclaimers and complicated authorization procedures to make it easier for parents to avoid massive bills on their credit cards. I don't want to government banning stuff and calling it something that it isn't. That is a massive overstep. I do not see how this is any different than the decency laws drafted to protect children from violence in video games.

The fact you can't get any value out of it (outside of the game itself) would seem to make it less of a gamble. It is a product you are paying for. I've seen plenty of games that do tell you what will be in each box (one weapon, one mount, etc.) Are you telling me EA just needs to be more clear about what is in the boxes and it will no longer be worthy of government intervention? I'm not arguing that it isn't a terrible business practice. I'll sign petitions or whatever to pressure companies to pull back on this stuff. But I have a big problem with the government labeling it as something it really isn't so they can police it.

My salary is public record as well.

You are dead to me.

So do we ban trading card games next? In High School I bought a bunch of magic cards and then sold them off for a decent profit because I had a few rare ones in the mix. That would clearly fall under the same category. Baseball and other sport novelty cards also should be banned since they can turn out to be worth a bunch if the players do well. Can you even sell this digital merchandise you get from loot boxes for real money? edit: Maybe we should just teach kids that digital merchandise is a stupid investment, instead of banning stuff?

It's a bad answer to a terrible problem in this country.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Obamacare isn't free. Even if he was enrolled in some sort of program, he would still need to pay for the insulin. I think the story is from this article: https://www.thenation.com/article/alex-azar-trumps-hhs-pick-has-already-been-a-disaster-for-people-with-diabetes/ It's clearly a very biased site, although it does look like insulin prices are on the rise. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/several-probes-target-insulin-drug-pricing-n815141

Volo is quite right.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I busted my butt cleaning the house for company, and we are putting the turkey in the oven in a little bit.

Who is defending it? Aren't you and Volo? I mean i'm of the opinion of who cares if its gambling as long as it stops micro transactions. And before anyone starts getting on a high horse about how i'm wrong; net neutrality finished after many years and many previous fights. If they can use the law to their side consumers should be able to stop anti consumer practices using the law. Just because free to play have a 2% of people that pay a lot for games (whales) doesn't mean that the rest should be force to buy this **** to complete the game and definitively not on a game that's already been paid for. I don't want to government bludgeoning the gaming industry with their heavy handed policies. Do you want the gaming industry to be driven by consumers or the government? It annoys me that consumers have made microtransactions a reality, but it seems like a pretty obvious slippery slope to let the government control content. It's not gambling, or at least it isn't any more than trading card games and a ton of other products out on the market. This entire thing seems like something Jack Thompson would wholeheartedly support.

Who is defending it?

This is pretty dumb. I don't like them, but they aren't any different than those contests on cereal boxes, or those sticker machines in every grocery store in the US. You spend money, you get something. It may not be what you wanted, but that doesn't make it gambling.

That's right, he got it because he is built like a linebacker.

You also have a lack of education and viable birth control in 3rd world countries.

Says the guy who just proposed 85% tax... 85% tax on about 3% of the population. You are really having a hard time understanding this, aren't you? edit: Heh, TN beat me to it! edit 2: I'm not sure why we bother. Sharpie is clearly a Russian plant.

Maybe Sharpie is Kelly Kinkade?

We were talking about inheritances, which aren't really earned in a traditional sense. Although, I suppose I may have worked my way out of my own inheritance by not getting along with my parents. I don't really have a problem with the top 3% of estates being taxed on inheritances. I think it is actually a pretty conservative idea that you will not be taxed on the first million of inheritance. That is going to allow the vast majority of people to avoid taxes of inheritances. I think 85% after that million is an absurdly high number, but I'd rather start with the concept that 97% of estates will not be taxed and work on that 3% separately. edit: The ownership we are talking about is the estate of a deceased person. What rights do kin have that estate? We assume that property should be passed down, but where do we draw the line? Should my kids have access to my pension? I do have life insurance options, but they typically have certain costs involved.

Business as usual for the Chiefs.

Don't tell Sharpie, but I thought that was a pretty ridiculous number as well. ;-)