Conquer Cup I

[lackattack]

Although I don't see any conflict between the Conquer Cup and our rules, I updated the guidelines as follows to make it clear:

• This is a casual gaming site, not a serious one. If you want to bet money or "real-world items", then you'll have to find another site.
• Wagering CC points is also not allowed.
• The Conquer Cup is of course not considered gambling just because there is an entry fee associated with participation!

[trapyoung]

So sayeth God.

[comic boy]

Lack
Purely out of interest , does this now mean that any member can start a tournament , request an entrance fee and award prizes ?

[MoB Deadly]

I made the mistake of not bonusmonkeying in the beginning. There's a big gorilla monkeying around in Australia in my game and he'll probably win it .

Did the same mate...! don't feel alone...

I DID! First Turn of the First Round! Game 9979939 Hope it pays off!

[lackattack]

Lack
Purely out of interest , does this now mean that any member can start a tournament , request an entrance fee and award prizes ?

Even if it isn't gambling, you'd better check the Tournament Rules first.

[drunkmonkey]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a ... skill.html

1) I'd guess no one in this discussion has the legal knowledge to determine the legality of an entry fee/prizes.
2) Just because lack hosted one, it doesn't mean he has to let you host one.

[trapyoung]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/games-of-chance-vs-games-of-skill.html

1) I'd guess no one in this discussion has the legal knowledge to determine the legality of an entry fee/prizes.
2) Just because lack hosted one, it doesn't mean he has to let you host one.

Well the biggest problem is that this is a world-wide site and I think it's probably safe to say that some jurisdictions may allow people to gamble on games of strategy, but others do not.

Where are the servers located?

[jbrettlip]

Lack,

Thanks for the clarification. Now can you answer the question of "Can two members publicly challenge each other to a 1v1, with the loser buying the winner premium"?

And if not, why has it been allowed in the past, with no discipline etc.

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/games-of-chance-vs-games-of-skill.html

1) I'd guess no one in this discussion has the legal knowledge to determine the legality of an entry fee/prizes.
2) Just because lack hosted one, it doesn't mean he has to let you host one.

There are only a couple of states where the referenced gambling is illegal, and it's each individual's job to know whether or not they are legally allowed to participate in gambling events. At any rate, CC is based out of Canada, so the US laws apply on the end of US users only.

[Gillipig]

I made the mistake of not bonusmonkeying in the beginning. There's a big gorilla monkeying around in Australia in my game and he'll probably win it .

Did the same mate...! don't feel alone...

I DID! First Turn of the First Round! Game 9979939 Hope it pays off!

By the looks of that game you're no the only monkey.

[king achilles]

Lack,

Thanks for the clarification. Now can you answer the question of "Can two members publicly challenge each other to a 1v1, with the loser buying the winner premium"?

And if not, why has it been allowed in the past, with no discipline etc.

I do not recall any past C&A cases where two people had a bet or wagered a premium prize for a game. If there is, please do enlighten us or report them and they will be dealt with.

[comic boy]

At the end of the day this is Lacks site and he has the perfect right to amend or twist the rules as he sees fit. Obviously there are pitfalls for him in such a strategy , it is showing contempt some might think and certainly it indicates a willingness to devalue the integrity of the site .
This is however a business and consequently it needs to generate money , obviously Lack thinks this is the way to go , we might disagree but we are not shareholders and to be fair dont know the financial position.

[jbrettlip]

I completely understand about changing the business strategy. Amending the rules makes sense too. This tourney is completely voluntary, and if people want to risk $5 to win an ipad, fine. But I will tell you that regardless of what the rules say, it is gambling, by definition. Look at the lockdowned online poker sites, and I really think that if Lack starts making these constant tourneys, and bringing in big bucks, the government might start to take notice. I am sure he is a tiny fish in that regard, but I like this site and would not want it to dissappear.

[AndyDufresne]

I completely understand about changing the business strategy. Amending the rules makes sense too. This tourney is completely voluntary, and if people want to risk $5 to win an ipad, fine. But I will tell you that regardless of what the rules say, it is gambling, by definition. Look at the lockdowned online poker sites, and I really think that if Lack starts making these constant tourneys, and bringing in big bucks, the government might start to take notice. I am sure he is a tiny fish in that regard, but I like this site and would not want it to dissappear.

I understand your concern, jbrettlip. If Lackattack and his legal counsel had concerns that the Conquer Cup was a form of gambling, and not a tournament akin to other sports tournaments or boardgame tournaments with an entry fee for participation and no real 'wagering' of 'stakes,' he wouldn't have risked (no pun intended) any sort of legal predicament.


--Andy

[drunkmonkey]

I like how the discussion on gambling turned from "How come you can set up gambling when the site prohibits it? You hypocrite!!!" to "We're just looking out for you, in a legal sense".