First off, I'd like to thank the many who PM'd or posted concern for my little one. Outstanding community here, and it's heart-warming, even in the midst of heated exchange. He has not taken any turn for the worse, and we have the fever in check. He'll just need time now.
Nobody said that 3dice is guaranteeing ANYONE a Win with the Slogan. It was pointed out that this Slogan would be illegal in some areas. Does that make it illegal for them to use it? NO...
LOL #1.
Firstly, this wasn't a debate about 'legality', it was a debate about 'misleading', and that came from you directly. You opened this debate...
Secondly, in a direct response to YOUR original opinion that the slogan was misleading, this was said before I ever even posted:
Actually, I think its against the law in my country to advertise slogans which imply you WILL be a winner. Only adverts promoting possibility of win are allowed.
Why is one instance out of ALL the software providers being singled out?
LOL #2.
See your post #26. You opened this debate. You provided this instance. You provided the slogan to be debated. Maybe you can answer your own question? We can't. We are working with what you provided as evidence of 'misleading'.
If you are to be called a WINNER you would have to make PROFIT. Everything else is not true, not logical, not mathematically correct. So, if You`re down at 3Dice, go sue them because thats what they promised You.
I clearly see the problem here, and that is something I have said since the beginning. The term 'winnings' can be used in several ways. There is no right way, there is no wrong way, and that's because people freely move in and out of different meanings. It is the 'is the glass empty or full' scenario.
I put an empty glass on the table and ask you if it's empty or full.
You reply "empty".
I say, "but if I said the glass was 'not full', would you understand me and agree?"
You would reply "yes".
Therefore, the STATE of the glass can be described two ways, both are valid and understood by the average person.
This condition, where we have an object and a state is common in computer programming, and is referred to as 'Object Oriented Programming', or OOP. The various 'states' of an object are represented by variables. In programming, as in real life, we can name those variables anything we want.
If we were to take your concept of 'winnings' into a formula, it would look like this:
WINNINGS equals (WINNINGS minus WAGER)
From a programming standpoint, this would be unacceptable, because ONE variable name cannot represent TWO different values at the same time. If you did it that way, (and it IS possible to do so), it would be confusing for the programmer who comes in behind you to trouble shoot or make changes to the code. So that we're technically CLEAR, as a programmer, the formula would be 100% unambiguous by stating:
NET equals (RETURN minus WAGER)
Now we have all 3 variables represented by 3 unique technically acceptable names, and now there cannot be any confusion. If there's more discussion on this subject, let us agree to use those 3 names to represent the values we are discussing. Also, the term 'outcome', which you often interchange with 'NET', should be reserved for the action it actually represents, ie., the roll of dice, the final deal of any cards, the drop of a roulette ball, etc. Therefore, OUTCOME should never be used to formulate any portion of the wager object. OUTCOME is therefore a CONDITIONAL state, and should be used as such when appropriate. It simply triggers a RETURN to be formulated by using IF/THEN logic, and therefore has no mathematical application for us. It's garbage for purposes of this discussion.
A WAGER cannot become a wager until it is greater than zero, therefore it must be a positive integer (WAGER > 0).
A RETURN cannot be known until the OUTCOME determines it. Once determined, a RETURN can be ZERO or any positive integer (RETURN >= 0).
The NET cannot be known until we have a WAGER object, a RETURN determined, and we subtract the WAGER from the RETURN. The NET can then also be ZERO or any positive integer, but it also has the unique capability of being a NEGATIVE integer (NET = 0 or any positive or negative integer).
(Other programmers please note that I have intentionally left the term 'float' out of these equations so that they don't introduce any confusion for people unfamiliar with advanced mathematical elements.)
Now then, your contention is that the term WINNER is satisfied here:
WINNER is TRUE, IF NET > 0
and conversely
WINNER is FALSE, IF NET <= 0
I will agree, and have agreed with that, because I understand the context with which you are applying to 'WINNER'. You are maintaining that this is the only valid interpretation of WINNER, and that's just not so. There is, and are, different ways to view a 'WINNER', and here's what I mean:
WINNER is TRUE, IF RETURN > 0
That's valid to me for conversational purposes. For programming purposes, the following is actually 100% accurate:
WINNER is TRUE, IF RETURN >= 0
While the concept of winning NOTHING might be mind-blowing, please recall above where RETURN can, in fact, equal ZERO. In conversational English terms, if someone was to state "I won nothing", you would completely understand they won zero. Would you stop them and start an argument by saying "No, you didn't win zero, you lost [the wager]". It's a matter of semantics, and very few people would stop to argue how someone views the state of their RETURN.
That's all argument for a zero RETURN. It gets worse for you if the RETURN is greater than zero. If someone was to state "I won 2 dollars", again, would you stop them and say "No, you wagered 3 dollars, so you won nothing. You actually lost 1 dollar."
That is NOT factual! If this person actually WON NOTHING, then they would have lost 3 dollars, not 1! It is impossible for a RETURN to be greater than zero without winning it. The facts are, 1 dollar WAS LOST, and if because of that you say then "You didn't win anything" is just blatantly false unless you provide the context: "To me, you can only win something if it exceeds your wager for an actual profit, so you didn't win anything." We cannot argue then, because you provided your context; you have boxed us in. Unfortunately, as outlined above, there is real estate outside of the box, and it is very real.
I have proven that there are multiple applications of the term 'WINNINGS'. I recognize yours, you do not recognize the others. That doesn't mean the others don't exist.
If you have to provide your context every single time for debate purposes, you are losing the debate. The world is bigger than that, and does not operate on one person's context (or even necessarily a MAJORITY'S context). Language applications are probably one of the most difficult things to agree upon. That being said, we give quite a bit of leeway for 'interpretation'. That means that the burden FOR YOU to prove that there is ONLY ONE application of 'WINNER' becomes much much harder, if not impossible, and that burden is actually YOURS.
Let's say you were a lawyer making arguments that this slogan was 'misleading'. Even if you have the Judge's attention by trying to box in the term 'winner', you will still need to prove 'intent to mislead', so your climb is still very much uphill. In the end, the Judge will need to retire and consider:
1. Does the term 'winner' only apply to a return that provides a net profit?
2. Does the term 'be', when used in this slogan, infer any type of guarantee?
3. Does the slogan overall have the intent to mislead? Are they trying to trick anyone, promising something they cannot deliver, promising something they have never delivered, or promising to deliver something not normal for this industry?
A Judge can feel either way about 1 and 2, and that's when 3 kicks in. Intent is a major contributor to gray areas.
I submit the following, as regards to #1:
- A return greater than zero cannot exist without WINNING it, and we can freely interchange the term WINNINGS for RETURN.
- The only person who can be the beneficiary of the WINNINGS is the WINNER of it.
In 2 sentences, I believe I have proven ONE VALID definition of a 'WINNER', whilst acknowledging other definitions in fact exist.
As to 'someone provide me a link to this slogan', you'd have to ask Nate. He brought this slogan up in response #26. All of us have simply been under the assumption that it exists. I have never actually seen it.
Cheers,
- Keith
