2 ms·

Thank you for being straight forward with your criticism. I can't say I disagree all that much. There is a legitimate other side which would argue that your sta

by n72 11y ago

Thank you for being straight forward with your criticism. I can't say I disagree all that much. There is a legitimate other side which would argue that your stance is too paternalistic. E.g. where do we draw the line as a society to protect ourselves from ourselves? Alcoholism is a terrible and wide spread disease. Should we outlaw pubs? I'm not arguing for one side or the other, but merely that it's a rather complicated issue and the arguments on both sides should recognize that.

mb_72 11y ago
I do accept that it is a complicated issue, and realise also my own attitude towards poker machines is that of a reasonably-sophisticated gamer who could never see the point in playing such 'games'. I also, perhaps fortunately, have a friend who works for a company that tests poker machine motherboards to make sure the results are 'as expected' and that they payout as per local legislation. His explanation of the statistics and 'under the hood' mechanics of how the machines work were quite eye-opening to me, and meant that the chance of me playing these machines dropped from 'maybe one day' to 'never'. I would reason that, same as for alcohol and other drugs, there should be more money directed from profits towards support for addicts. I realise it's not a good idea, in general, to be overly paternalistic in general; my statement was made more from a personal point of view in terms of what work I would or would not be involved in.
mercer 11y ago
The thing is, I'd say there's a difference between seeing the arguments of both sides, and actively 'promoting' a side (by creating a game). And I think your answer doesn't really address that original question: how do you feel about being actively involved in this, especially in light of 'not disagreeing all that much'? I understand if you don't feel comfortable answering in public though. (and to be clear: while I have strong personal feelings about whether I would or should create gambling apps, I'm truly not writing this as an excuse to judge you. Doing so would be hypocritical, as there's plenty behavior in my life currently that doesn't fit my convictions.) EDIT: just noticed you've already gone into this further down in the conversation.

by n72 11y ago

mb_72 11y ago

I do accept that it is a complicated issue, and realise also my own attitude towards poker machines is that of a reasonably-sophisticated gamer who could never see the point in playing such 'games'. I also, perhaps fortunately, have a friend who works for a company that tests poker machine motherboards to make sure the results are 'as expected' and that they payout as per local legislation. His explanation of the statistics and 'under the hood' mechanics of how the machines work were quite eye-opening to me, and meant that the chance of me playing these machines dropped from 'maybe one day' to 'never'. I would reason that, same as for alcohol and other drugs, there should be more money directed from profits towards support for addicts. I realise it's not a good idea, in general, to be overly paternalistic in general; my statement was made more from a personal point of view in terms of what work I would or would not be involved in.

mercer 11y ago

The thing is, I'd say there's a difference between seeing the arguments of both sides, and actively 'promoting' a side (by creating a game). And I think your answer doesn't really address that original question: how do you feel about being actively involved in this, especially in light of 'not disagreeing all that much'? I understand if you don't feel comfortable answering in public though. (and to be clear: while I have strong personal feelings about whether I would or should create gambling apps, I'm truly not writing this as an excuse to judge you. Doing so would be hypocritical, as there's plenty behavior in my life currently that doesn't fit my convictions.) EDIT: just noticed you've already gone into this further down in the conversation.