[soulvamp]

[ QUOTE ]
"If we prove our game is a game of skill in a court of law, we'll significantly improve our standing."

"There is established caselaw regarding the skill v luck debate in several states."


And politicians can change that law overnight. Sorry, no matter what's been said before its obvious to me that this is not a matter for the courts.

If you win in the courts politicians will just attack the "activist judiciary" and pass another law to the cheers of the "legislate morality' crowd. Court decisions can only delay prohibition.

I mentioned lotteries before because that typifies the approach we need. Lotteries are a great evil until more people are for them in a state then are against them. Then they become friends of education, tax reduction or whatever fig leaf the pols choose to hide their flip-flop behind.

Debates about skill are just a sham. Today a rep from the DOJ is going to Congress to talk about how online gaming is a hazard to children and the addicted, how its a haven for money-launderers and a criminal element. Funny, there's no talk about skill vs. luck on the part of those attacking online gaming.

Know the old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight? That's what I fear we do when we argue about skill. We don't need finesse in our legal arguments. Because that won't settle anything while we still have pols that think they can get votes by sponsoring anti-gaming bills to replace the ones that the courts find flawed.

Politicians come and politicians go. We need to elect pols that see the benefit of supporting us. They don't need to agree with our fine logic. We don't need their hearts and minds just their fear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100% with this. It's all about politicians seeking money and power and has nothing to do with the intricacies of the game.