From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Chess? Chess shouldn't be listed here. I've played organized chess for money with the mayor of Kansas City, and I don't think it's illegal. DanH 14:41, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

The article doesn't claim that playing chess for money is illegal. It isn't, actually. Rather, it discusses the fact that there is a bill to clarify the status of skill-based online gambling. An issue with UIGEA is its reliance on various ambigous, archaic state laws to determine what is illegal and what isn't. In response, Rep. Robert Wexler of FL introduced H.R. 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act. TheEngineer 18:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Please Explain Edit Revisions

I changed Gambling is an addictive and unproductive activity consisting ... with The term Gambling is used to describe any activity consisting... Why is this being reverted? I think this makes the article better. By leaving it in, the article is saying that chess is unproductive, or poker is unproductive. I actually find both of those games to be very intellectually stimulating. --PaulLaroque 01:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Chess is not gambling. Gambling is often an addiction, and may, therefore, be stimulating. Like many liberals, you confuse stimulation with intellectualism. Please study up before you vandalize anything else here. Frankly, you need a cool-down block, at the least. BHarlan 01:17, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
People bet money on chess games, hence it is gambling. And what is wrong with finding poker intellectually stimulating? --PaulLaroque 01:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Only some chess games are gambling. Chess by itself is not gambling, any more than other things a liberal could bet on, like the outcome of a surgical procedure. BHarlan 01:23, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Who really cares if chess is gambling or not, my point is that an encyclopedia article should start with a simple definition. Merriam Webster defines gambling as:

1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome 2: to stake something on a contingency : take a chance

Wikipedia as:

Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.

Why can't we just define the darn thing before casting any judgment on it? --PaulLaroque 01:29, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok, I am cold and I have not had coffee yet, so I am grumpy as I write this. BHarlan - lay off the liberal namecalling and treat other editors - even if you disagree with them - as you would expect to be treated yourself. Regarding the article - it should start with a definition, but it should also state that it is addictive. However, as that claim is currently uncited, one of you will provide a source that confirms gambling is addictive. Enough of this stupid in-fighting, we are here to build an encyclopaedia, not bicker amongst ourselves. --KotomiTnandeyanen? 01:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
the issue of addiction is important and should have its own fully referenced section. Only a small minority of people (like 10%) are addicted to gambling but they create a lot of problems for themselves (and a lot of revenue for the casinos and governments). The addictive business should not be in the lede. And "unproductive" is false: gambling is a major source of legal entertainment, as office pools at playoff time indicate. RJJensen 03:48, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Exactly so, Dr. Jensen. Anyone with life experience knows, almost without first-hand experience, that those addicted to gambling will, if need be, bet on anything; trains/airplanes/buses arriving late, or early, the chances of a co-worker not showing for work, whatever. Experts in the field surmise that it is at best wildly under-diagnosed and unknown by family members, so good at covering their tracks these poor souls become, most are never discovered unless and until their "house of cards" tumbles, and by then financial ruin is complete. [1]- [2] - [3] - [4] - [5] --₮K/Admin/Talk 04:07, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Great we're all in agreement, the article should definitely talk about addiction, just not in the first sentence. I am much happier with the current form. --PaulLaroque 08:21, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

  • I am in agreement that if I see that kind of edit-warring again, the participants won't be able to edit ever again. When this sort of thing happens, simply refrain from reverting over and over again, and post on one of the Admins pages (not Andy's) explaining what is going on. Thanks. --₮K/Admin/Talk 10:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools