Two PokerStars Announcements: IOM Chess Tournament and 2014 Poker Tournament

[La_Dolce_Vita]

would you prefer if any gaming companies based here would not support local groups and activities?

If the process was completely anonymous and all talk of social responsibility was completely stripped out of company policy then there wouldn't be much of a problem.

[ans]

You would have the same issues regardless of the industry? So if this was sponsored by Ramsey Bakery it would all be bad?

 

You think it's bad because you think gambling is bad. What have I missed?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You're the one always complaining that you don't get a slice of the cake and how underpaid you are while all those non-manx barstewards take your jobs. What is it you want now? Gaming companies have brought a wide variety of jobs to the island, with all sorts of skills and people needed and wanted. That not good enough because some of them dare to give money away? You're a strange fellow...

Your argumentation is shit. What sort of time-wasting is this arguing that we don't like new business on the Island because it is charitable? That's a complete misrepresentation.

 

If...Sainbury's, for example, came to the Island and set up some stores and then poured money out in charitable donations very publicly then that wouldn't be so much a problem. The retail service they provide isn't morally suspect and damaging to this community and others.

Yes, it would engage in corporate sponsorship and splash its name around which isn't a good thing in making them seem like good guy, but they only other thing they can achieve is people buying more bread from their shelves. With gambling you get a good name for the gambling provider company and more awareness of that online gaming - not a good thing, we have discussed.

 

Ans has a point, though. People seem to be biased towards the activities they indulge in themselves, although I don't actually bet anymore. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I just don't have time since my trading days are behind me. Ah...the good old days of 12 hour shifts with no breaks and huge pressure to make money for the company. What fun it was...

No, he doesn't. Because Ans hasn't read the thread. Because we are talking about sponsorship and advertising (i.e. promotion). Nobody has yet said that drugs should or shouldn't be openly promoted.

 

Drugs can't be used a comparative issue. I think that gambling and drugs should be legal. But I don't think they should be promoted, however indirectly. In our society, gambling is promoted, by Pokerstars - by seeing its name around the place as a result of its 'social responsibility' policy.

[Bobbie Bobster]

What sort of time-wasting is this...

Careful now, you'll blow your cover!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

What? What cover?

[Slim]

Vulgarian: Yes I understand that companies will often sponsor events to promote themselves. Yes, that includes companies involved in gaming or gambling, and those activities can sometimes be harmful. I'm not being naive.

 

What you don't seem to accept is that your moral baseline for what's acceptable to be promoted is different from the majorities.

 

Look: some things are inherently harmful and are prevented from advertising by law, the classic example being smoking. There's no way to smoke safely, so it's banned. There's restrictions on alcohol advertising and gambling advertising and the companies promoting those brands have to operate within those guidelines.

 

What I can't accept is your black and white 'its harmful to some so is immoral to promote' stance. It's not as simple as that, doughnuts are harmful to some, world of warcraft is harmful to some, driving cars is harmful to some, what makes poker stand out for you versus everything else that it shouldn't be promoted?

[Bobbie Bobster]

What? What cover?

Nice try, but I'm not buying!

[Amadeus]

 

People like you snipe from the sidelines, complain about loads of things, but usually do little to nothing to change things. Please go and tell me what charities you have helped recently and I might tell you what I've done, but I have a feeling you are little more than a misanthropic couch anarchist. Prove me wrong.

Are you changing things? And no, haha, I won't play the equivalent of comparing cock size, it doesn't matter who have given more to charity. I am all for giving to charity, but don't get a big head you and think you are a super guy because you are dishing out cash - is that why you like philanthropy? You don't need to know anything because it isn't relevant to the issues being addressed.

 

I'm at least trying to do my bit, and you were the one who asked me what I do and if it's my money. I was polite enough to reply. I also said I generally do not tell anyone what I do. So you want to know but I'm not allowed to know? Man, this is like talking to a five year old.

 

I take your reply as an indication that you're rather into words on internet forums than actual actions, charitable or otherwise. That's fine, but then please don't criticize others for what they do or the way they think.

 

 

 

 

You're the one always complaining that you don't get a slice of the cake and how underpaid you are while all those non-manx barstewards take your jobs. What is it you want now? Gaming companies have brought a wide variety of jobs to the island, with all sorts of skills and people needed and wanted. That not good enough because some of them dare to give money away? You're a strange fellow...

Your argumentation is shit. What sort of time-wasting is this arguing that we don't like new business on the Island because it is charitable? That's a complete misrepresentation.

 

If...Sainbury's, for example, came to the Island and set up some stores and then poured money out in charitable donations very publicly then that wouldn't be so much a problem. The retail service they provide isn't morally suspect and damaging to this community and others.

Yes, it would engage in corporate sponsorship and splash its name around which isn't a good thing in making them seem like good guy, but they only other thing they can achieve is people buying more bread from their shelves. With gambling you get a good name for the gambling provider company and more awareness of that online gaming - not a good thing, we have discussed.

 

Ans has a point, though. People seem to be biased towards the activities they indulge in themselves, although I don't actually bet anymore. Not that I wouldn't want to, but I just don't have time since my trading days are behind me. Ah...the good old days of 12 hour shifts with no breaks and huge pressure to make money for the company. What fun it was...

No, he doesn't. Because Ans hasn't read the thread. Because we are talking about sponsorship and advertising (i.e. promotion). Nobody has yet said that drugs should or shouldn't be openly promoted.

 

Drugs can't be used a comparative issue. I think that gambling and drugs should be legal. But I don't think they should be promoted, however indirectly. In our society, gambling is promoted, by Pokerstars - by seeing its name around the place as a result of its 'social responsibility' policy.

 

 

Sainsburys is promoting gambling by accepting national lottery bets and selling scratch cards, next to selling cancer causing tobacco products and also selling alcohol as a loss leader to get people in the store. Any new supermarket in a small community like the IOM is always damaging smaller shops in the vicinity, putting pressure on local suppliers when it comes to pricing, and is normally paying low wages. See how you can twist this to suit?

 

My point was that these companies come here, employ a good number of people on good wages, create a shedload of money for IOMG, comply with some of the strictest gaming and advertising regulations in the world, give to charity not only because of the desire for a better image but also next to that, and some people still find grounds to go against them.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You asked Vulgarian, but I'll throw in my view again.

What you don't seem to accept is that your moral baseline for what's acceptable to be promoted is different from the majorities.

What majority? Of the public? Popularity of a moral position is not a wise place to determine what is moral or not.

Look: some things are inherently harmful and are prevented from advertising by law, the classic example being smoking. There's no way to smoke safely, so it's banned. There's restrictions on alcohol advertising and gambling advertising and the companies promoting those brands have to operate within those guidelines.

I would argue that your assessment here is too simplistic. We can't look to laws either as establishing any moral position of authority. You mention smoking and alcohol, but then there are other drugs which are much safer than these that cannot be advertised, in fact if you get caught with them you'd go to prison.

If you are bringing up the issue of inconsistency in public attitudes and inconsistency of the law in addressing issues in society then you're right in pointing out they exist. But that's all you can do.

What I can't accept is your black and white 'its harmful to some so is immoral to promote' stance. It's not as simple as that, doughnuts are harmful to some, world of warcraft is harmful to some, driving cars is harmful to some, what makes poker stand out for you versus everything else that it shouldn't be promoted?

In a nutshell, gambling, unlike the other activities you've mentioned, has a higher potential for regular and even addictive behaviour. And the costs of regular gambling and addictive are much higher than those activities you've mentioned.

People aren't likely to get addicted to doughnuts and eating them quite regularly would make someone put on weight but would not affect their finances heavily. Same with World of Warcraft. Playing the game may lead to compulsive and regular playing. But ultimately, someone's wealth is not being eaten away whilst playing it and in our society our wages are all we have to survive on.

You may call it a human weakness or just part of our nature, but you recognise that people are prone to addiction with gambling. Therefore, a company that promotes gambling promotes activity that people are susceptible to that can lead to addiction and big problems for them.

[ans]

In a nutshell, recreational drug taking, unlike the other activities you've mentioned, has a higher potential for regular and even addictive behaviour. And the costs of regular recreational drug taking and addictive are much higher than those activities you've mentioned.

People aren't likely to get addicted to doughnuts and eating them quite regularly would make someone put on weight but would not affect their finances heavily. Same with World of Warcraft. Playing the game may lead to compulsive and regular playing. But ultimately, someone's wealth is not being eaten away whilst playing it and in our society our wages are all we have to survive on.

You may call it a human weakness or just part of our nature, but you recognise that people are prone to addiction with recreational drug taking. Therefore, an individual that promotes recreational drug taking promotes activity that people are susceptible to that can lead to addiction and big problems for them.

See what I did there?

[Slim]

 

I think you're just showing your ignorance of online gaming. You can eat away your wealth in warcraft, you can buy gold the same as you can buy tokens to play poker. There's very little difference other than the preconceptions against the card game vs other kinds of game.

 

As for the laws regarding morality, you've veered off into LDV lala land again, and I won't respond to your fictional blue sky anarchy bollocks. Those laws exist, deal with it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I'm at least trying to do my bit, and you were the one who asked me what I do and if it's my money. I was polite enough to reply. I also said I generally do not tell anyone what I do. So you want to know but I'm not allowed to know? Man, this is like talking to a five year old.

I take your reply as an indication that you're rather into words on internet forums than actual actions, charitable or otherwise. That's fine, but then please don't criticize others for what they do or the way they think.

You're getting far too catty. I don't really know what you're trying to get at or prove by discussion of your charitable behaviour, which isn't that clear.

 

No, Amadeus, you're the one with an oddly childish way of approaching the issue. You mentioned your charity work, which necessarily invites further questioning because of its supposed pertinence to the discussion. (Though I don't think it is as relevant as you believe). What I do is not relevant to the issue of whether gambling sponsorshop and advertising is a good thing if it is open and public. And it isn't relevant to Slim's argument that larger companies give money just because they want to do good. It has no bearing on the discussion at all.

 

Sainsburys is promoting gambling by accepting national lottery bets and selling scratch cards. next to selling cancer causing tobacco products and also selling alcohol as a loss leader to get people in the store.

When Sainsbury's or another supermarket advertise their companies do you make an association between those companies and gambling? I don't think so somehow. When the TV adverts come for ASDA or Tesco on or I see Shoprite's name on a community event sponsorship banner, I don't think of scratchcards.

And no, they don't promote by accepting something.

 

I am surprised that you think that some people are induced to come to a supermarket because fags and scratch cards are at the counter? People who come in to buy fags are already addicted. And they are put together on a counter because of the size of the scratch card dispensers, lottery machine, and space needed for the cigarettes. But product placement of the cards and fags at Point of Sale is certainly done because it gets people to look at them and buy them last minute. Not inducement to enter the store but inducement to buy once in the store. That is promotion and it is disagreeable, but it isn't relevant, as we are talking about sponsorship and other public promotion through supposedly philanthropic means.

Any new supermarket in a small community like the IOM is always damaging smaller shops in the vicinity, putting pressure on local suppliers when it comes to pricing, and is normally paying low wages. See how you can twist this to suit?

And if you have a problem with this then you can argue against their advertising and sponsorship on these terms. You may very well have a good case to make for these reasons.

Why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to demonstrate that one type of advertising is just as bad as another? You haven't even accepted that promotion of gambling is a bad thing yet. If you disagree with that then stick to that. Telling me that other forms of advertising or sponsorship are bad for other completely different reasons doesn't address the issue.

 

My point was that these companies come here, employ a good number of people on good wages, create a shedload of money for IOMG, comply with some of the strictest gaming and advertising regulations in the world, give to charity not only because of the desire for a better image but also next to that, and some people still find grounds to go against them.

I don't know how much simpler to make the argument. You come across as if you cannot comprehend that there is anything wrong with their public charity work - how many times does Vulgarian and I have to tell you about the effect that promotion of gambling has on people and promotion of a company in a positive has on public image? It's promotes more gambling online and it isn't a good thing for Pokerstars to be seen as part of the community or a force for good when there business ultimately rests on getting a profit from financial risk-taking of people with little money.

 

All other things being equal, say that these gambling companies were unregulated. Would that change anything in your assessment?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

In a nutshell, recreational drug taking, unlike the other activities you've mentioned, has a higher potential for regular and even addictive behaviour. And the costs of regular recreational drug taking and addictive are much higher than those activities you've mentioned.

People aren't likely to get addicted to doughnuts and eating them quite regularly would make someone put on weight but would not affect their finances heavily. Same with World of Warcraft. Playing the game may lead to compulsive and regular playing. But ultimately, someone's wealth is not being eaten away whilst playing it and in our society our wages are all we have to survive on.

You may call it a human weakness or just part of our nature, but you recognise that people are prone to addiction with recreational drug taking. Therefore, an individual that promotes recreational drug taking promotes activity that people are susceptible to that can lead to addiction and big problems for them.

See what I did there?

Yeah, but it isn't clever. Unless I'm wrong, we don't have any businesses operating on the Island that are selling addictive drugs and which go out and promote their name through sponsorship and advertising.

Stop wasting your time. You've been told twice that the issue isn't about comparing drugs and gambling, but about promotion of a gambling business. There is no drug business equivalent. It isn't legal. Addictive drugs are usually illegal or only obtained by prescription. They can't be promoted. And if they were, I'd have just as much issue with companies doing charity work if their business was drugs.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you're just showing your ignorance of online gaming. You can eat away your wealth in warcraft, you can buy gold the same as you can buy tokens to play poker. There's very little difference other than the preconceptions against the card game vs other kinds of game.

If World of Warcraft involves spending real money then it would be almost equally as wrong for companies who create their game to promote the game or their business if it rests on an element of gambling behaviour or addictive behaviour. Thanks, Slim. Seems fair doesn't it? I may be ignorant of the game, but I am not inconsistent in applying a moral stance.

As for the laws regarding morality, you've veered off into LDV lala land again, and I won't respond to your fictional blue sky anarchy bollocks. Those laws exist, deal with it.

You're lazy in your thinking. Rather than doing the hard work of presenting the case of whether something is right or wrong you refer to the law as some sort of statement on what is the true right or wrong. If you want to go down that route that argument can be pulled apart and you'd find that the law where society needs to look to see what is right or wrong.

But it is easier for you to present a better argument and state the exact reasons that you think something is right or wrong, independent of what the law says or how many people think something is right or wrong.

[mojomonkey]

Some people have too much time on their hands.