DeLux
Player that used to be Lux
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2010
- Messages
- 9,302
I am going to preface this thread philosophical discussion with two things:
First, I am not an attorney.
Second, I live in Kansas.
These two things are important because they are going to be the two easiest ways to circumvent my argument.
Back story: The line of reasoning I'm going to present began with my attempts to hold a tournament locally. During my venue search, many of the managers of venues expressed concerns that a video game tournament where participants entered a cash fee for a cash payout constituted gambling.
I went and did some research, and this is what I determined.
H.R. 2610: The Skill Games Protection Act died in House SubComittee. The relevance of this is that the legality of skilled games against being deemed gambling isn't protected by federal law. This means that it then falls under the jurisdiction of the states. Most states have their own Gaming Commission that has the executive discretion in terms of statutes and enforcing said rules within the state.
Based on my research of the bylaws of the Kansas Racing & Gaming Commission, the criteria used to determine if a game is considered gambling falls under two separate prongs if cash is exchanged. These are paraphrased based on my understanding of the around 80 pages of legal documents I was reading:
1. A game must consist of man vs. man elements where the winner is determined by skill.
2. A skill game consisting of man vs. machine elements that alter the outcome to be different than the results above, will be considered gambling.
I think that for the most part, the current stage list attempts to account for the first prong and passes. The stage list is for the most part, competitively sound. However, the second prong was instituted because of machine gambling (i.e. computer poker that operates under algorithms in the computer to simulate "randomness" but can never really be truly random. So a skilled person who knew the algorithm could in theory have enough skill to continually beat the computer, but since it's humanly impossible to computer said algorithm they just determined that all man vs. machine things were gambling to be safe). And because of this second prong, the stage list fails.
If we operate under the game objective that a game's winner is decided by who takes the opponents stocks or who ever has the most stocks but least amount of damage at the end of the timer, then the two pronged test has serious implications in the logistical legality of holding a brawl tournament.
Based on that prong test, a stage element that does damage or kills a player, ought to be enough to deem it illegal for tournament play because it runs the risk of having the entire tournament considered illegal gambling.
Based on this ideology, I submit that the following should be considered the legal stages of play:
BattleField
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination
Frigate Orpheon
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokemon Stadium 2
Rainbow Cruise
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Brawl
They are essentially the stages in the universal stage list that do not have stage elements that do damage. I hesitate to add Frigate Orpheon because I feel like of all the stages, this stage transformation is the only one that can reasonably be constituted as the game altering the outcome based on the level "killing someone". However, by removing this level I realize there then comes an argument that any level with a stage transformation such as RC, PS2, and Delfino where the player is often put into unfavorable positions without interaction from an opponent might be considered a Man vs. Machine element. Also, I include YI despite the ghosts because they don't eliminate a stock, which when isolated from the prong of player vs. player, wouldn't necessarily be considered man vs. machine.
EDIT: Just to clear up confusion, random does not necessarily constitute man vs. machine play. Random is an element this is considered in the first tier on whether the game is a skill game. That is typically what most stage discussion legality threads are discussing, because asking if the stage is competitive falls under the realm if it's a game of skill. If it satisfies that element of a game of skill, then the random elements cease being an issue.
For example, Jungle Japes has the Klap Trap occurring on a specific route and timer. It isn't random, but it's a stage hazard that does damage. Which alters results simply based on it have direct impact of stock and percents. Compared to YIB Ghost, which is "random", but is legally viable because it doesn't necessarily take away stocks or deal damage.
If we didn't look at it in this manner of a separated two prong test, then we'd have to say that Brawl in itself would never qualify as legal because the stage spawning points at the beginning of a set aren't identical and thus giving one player a competitive advantage. Advantage/disadvantage doesn't matter unless it's clearly measurable within the context of the game objective.
I await legitimate rebuttals. However, please don't rebut with, "My state's laws are different so your point is invalid." And if I'm wrong on my interpretation, someone feel free to correct me on that since I'm not an attorney. But based on my conversations with people at the KRGC, I think my understanding of the bylaws are correct.
First, I am not an attorney.
Second, I live in Kansas.
These two things are important because they are going to be the two easiest ways to circumvent my argument.
Back story: The line of reasoning I'm going to present began with my attempts to hold a tournament locally. During my venue search, many of the managers of venues expressed concerns that a video game tournament where participants entered a cash fee for a cash payout constituted gambling.
I went and did some research, and this is what I determined.
H.R. 2610: The Skill Games Protection Act died in House SubComittee. The relevance of this is that the legality of skilled games against being deemed gambling isn't protected by federal law. This means that it then falls under the jurisdiction of the states. Most states have their own Gaming Commission that has the executive discretion in terms of statutes and enforcing said rules within the state.
Based on my research of the bylaws of the Kansas Racing & Gaming Commission, the criteria used to determine if a game is considered gambling falls under two separate prongs if cash is exchanged. These are paraphrased based on my understanding of the around 80 pages of legal documents I was reading:
1. A game must consist of man vs. man elements where the winner is determined by skill.
2. A skill game consisting of man vs. machine elements that alter the outcome to be different than the results above, will be considered gambling.
I think that for the most part, the current stage list attempts to account for the first prong and passes. The stage list is for the most part, competitively sound. However, the second prong was instituted because of machine gambling (i.e. computer poker that operates under algorithms in the computer to simulate "randomness" but can never really be truly random. So a skilled person who knew the algorithm could in theory have enough skill to continually beat the computer, but since it's humanly impossible to computer said algorithm they just determined that all man vs. machine things were gambling to be safe). And because of this second prong, the stage list fails.
If we operate under the game objective that a game's winner is decided by who takes the opponents stocks or who ever has the most stocks but least amount of damage at the end of the timer, then the two pronged test has serious implications in the logistical legality of holding a brawl tournament.
Based on that prong test, a stage element that does damage or kills a player, ought to be enough to deem it illegal for tournament play because it runs the risk of having the entire tournament considered illegal gambling.
Based on this ideology, I submit that the following should be considered the legal stages of play:
BattleField
Castle Siege
Delfino Plaza
Final Destination
Frigate Orpheon
Lylat Cruise
Pokemon Stadium 1
Pokemon Stadium 2
Rainbow Cruise
Smashville
Yoshi's Island Brawl
They are essentially the stages in the universal stage list that do not have stage elements that do damage. I hesitate to add Frigate Orpheon because I feel like of all the stages, this stage transformation is the only one that can reasonably be constituted as the game altering the outcome based on the level "killing someone". However, by removing this level I realize there then comes an argument that any level with a stage transformation such as RC, PS2, and Delfino where the player is often put into unfavorable positions without interaction from an opponent might be considered a Man vs. Machine element. Also, I include YI despite the ghosts because they don't eliminate a stock, which when isolated from the prong of player vs. player, wouldn't necessarily be considered man vs. machine.
EDIT: Just to clear up confusion, random does not necessarily constitute man vs. machine play. Random is an element this is considered in the first tier on whether the game is a skill game. That is typically what most stage discussion legality threads are discussing, because asking if the stage is competitive falls under the realm if it's a game of skill. If it satisfies that element of a game of skill, then the random elements cease being an issue.
For example, Jungle Japes has the Klap Trap occurring on a specific route and timer. It isn't random, but it's a stage hazard that does damage. Which alters results simply based on it have direct impact of stock and percents. Compared to YIB Ghost, which is "random", but is legally viable because it doesn't necessarily take away stocks or deal damage.
If we didn't look at it in this manner of a separated two prong test, then we'd have to say that Brawl in itself would never qualify as legal because the stage spawning points at the beginning of a set aren't identical and thus giving one player a competitive advantage. Advantage/disadvantage doesn't matter unless it's clearly measurable within the context of the game objective.
I await legitimate rebuttals. However, please don't rebut with, "My state's laws are different so your point is invalid." And if I'm wrong on my interpretation, someone feel free to correct me on that since I'm not an attorney. But based on my conversations with people at the KRGC, I think my understanding of the bylaws are correct.