The Gaming Den

Any rod-shaped object going into a mouth is inherently sexual, once you're dealing with horny perverts.

God damn, that's what I call a meat bat!

Eyes up here buddy!

I confess not noticing and being like “wuts a meat bat?”

It's kind of hard for me to not notice when a guy's singular testicle is the size of my fist.

What's the COVID equivalent of a 9/11-truther? I know they exist (in disturbingly high numbers) but what are they called?

Game On,
fbmf

Mostly I see them called ‘COVID truthers.’ The only slang term I’m aware of for them is ‘COVIDiot’ and that’s an umbrella term that also covers a lot of non-Truther stupidity.

I've seen the term anti-masker being used. Mostly because they all seem to like protesting against masks and the lockdowns.

Besides "COVID truther" and "antimasker" I've occasionally seen "ratlicker", an insult brought back from the Spanish Flu when once again there were people who refused to follow protocol.

red hat, trumpist, science denier, bootlicker, and fool.

I understand all of those except 'bootlicker'. Whose boots are being licked here?

Trump. A bootlicker is a euphemism for a sycophant.

I guess the word is just so diluted that everybody uses it now, because I usually hear that slung at people who wear masks...

So with all this Gamestonks nonsense, apparently the brokerage app RobinHood just stopped allowing people to purchase Gamestonks and even went so far as to sell people's shares without their permission. Today I'm seeing a bunch of articles popping up saying that it's unlikely for any court cases to go anywhere because RobinHood said they could do that in their EULA.

I can't think of a good way to phrase this, but how... legally tenable is that position? I was under the impression that companies couldn't do whatever they want to you if you sign your rights away. I'm guessing EULAs are a form of contract law, so how does that work in these sorts of situations where the people who drafted the contract fuck the people who signed it, but they agreed to getting fucked?

Robinhood is reminiscent of a 1928-style bank, they love to lend people money to gamble on stocks with. So when they're selling "your" stocks for you, really they owned those stocks about as much as you did.

Robinhood is basically a stock trading app which lends people money to trade stocks with and then sells user's stock trading data to recoup the costs of lending out that money. In theory, they're not under any obligation to facilitate trades for any particular stock, in the same way that in theory, a grocery store is allowed to decide that it does not want to sell Cheerios to you in particular. Likewise, if the right to arbitrarily reverse trades made through their platform was part of the agreement made with Robinhood (not sure on this point - I don't use Robinhood), then they absolutely can reverse trades, even if the users don't want them to.

The big question is whether what Robinhood did constitutes market manipulation. In the same way that a grocery store refusing to sell you Cheerios is okay, but a grocery store putting up a sign saying "NO CHEERIOS FOR BLACKS" is a crime, refusing to allow trades or reversing trades in order to fuck around with the stock market is illegal, even if doing those same actions for a different reason or on a different basis would have been totally fine. While it is unclear whether the EULA itself is enforceable, the odds of Robinhood getting out of this without a market manipulation investigation by the SEC are very low. All of the relevant congress critters are mad about this and want to make a show of punishing Robinhood for making the stock market look bad, after all.

It mostly appears to be the case that most if not all of the reversed trades have to do with stuff about making trades on the margin, and then the robinhood user not having the funds to pay on the margin and Robin Hood just literally not having enough money to pay for all the stock that all it's users were trying to buy.

I genuinely do not know all the legal stock trading bullshit that results in it working this way, but the upshot is that it appears to be true that RobinHood has a pretty good case that they didn't stop trades because of anything about GME stock's effect on a shitty hedge fund, but basic functioning of their app.

To that end I expect little to no investigation for market manipulation.

On the other hand I do expect some investigation of Wall Street Bets, because while what they did is market manipulation and illegal, and is exactly the kind of illegal market manipulation Chiron (the Hedge Fund) does and did when it shorted a bunch of Gamestop stock and told everyone else to short it too, it's also the case that our government understands the difference between the people who are "in the club" and are allowed to commit crimes, and the people who aren't.

EDIT: And to be clear I really do mean club shit. The WSB's people are not a bunch of poor people who just came up with a great idea, they are younger financial investment people who come from money and have bloomberg terminal access and shit.

Kaelik wrote:On the other hand I do expect some investigation of Wall Street Bets, because while what they did is market manipulation and illegal, and is exactly the kind of illegal market manipulation Chiron (the Hedge Fund) does and did when it shorted a bunch of Gamestop stock and told everyone else to short it too, it's also the case that our government understands the difference between the people who are "in the club" and are allowed to commit crimes, and the people who aren't.

EDIT: And to be clear I really do mean club shit. The WSB's people are not a bunch of poor people who just came up with a great idea, they are younger financial investment people who come from money and have bloomberg terminal access and shit.

But hedge funds are privately owned companies with staff and investors and shit and WSB is a public forum anyone has access to. Even if some young trust fund assholes get blasted on coke and drive up Gamestop stock and post about it on reddit, can't anyone see that? If I get a sign and painted "BUY GAMESTONKS NAO DIAMOND HANDS BBY" and drive around my neighborhood with it plastered to my car, is that different because it happened in real life?
Basically, who do you prosecute here? The first guy who posted saying to buy GME? The entire Reddit website? Just that particular subreddit but not any of the people in it? Some third party who didn't shitpost on the internet? Elon Musk?

Foxwarrior wrote:Robinhood is reminiscent of a 1928-style bank, they love to lend people money to gamble on stocks with. So when they're selling "your" stocks for you, really they owned those stocks about as much as you did.

That... doesn't sound financially tenable?

The Adventurer's Almanac wrote:But hedge funds are privately owned companies with staff and investors and shit and WSB is a public forum anyone has access to. Even if some young trust fund assholes get blasted on coke and drive up Gamestop stock and post about it on reddit, can't anyone see that? If I get a sign and painted "BUY GAMESTONKS NAO DIAMOND HANDS BBY" and drive around my neighborhood with it plastered to my car, is that different because it happened in real life?
Basically, who do you prosecute here? The first guy who posted saying to buy GME? The entire Reddit website? Just that particular subreddit but not any of the people in it? Some third party who didn't shitpost on the internet? Elon Musk?

There are specific figures that promoted the idea and it's really easy to present the case against them if there's a record of everything they said. They obviously aren't going to hit everyone who ever visited the reddit, but specific people who were influential and had significant stock ownership in Gamestop maybe.

Technically they need to have "spread false information" and that's probably how you could avoid it with the sign case if they bothered to prosecute you, which they wouldn't, but given the extensive posting that is likely possible to point to.

There's a handful of people who made millions by making this happen, and they stand to be investigated. The question is DID they lie about any of it? If they just said "this hedge fund wants to make a bunch of money by driving Gamestop into bankruptcy, and we can stop that by buying the shit out of their stock and holding it," that's not a lie.

Hell, for all I know that guy could've covered his ass and disclosed that he had already bought a shitton of shares at $20 and if so I believe the SEC can go suck a fat one. It's not manipulation to say "I bought a shitton of this cheap stock and if we all start buying it the price will go up."

Zaranthan wrote:There's a handful of people who made millions by making this happen, and they stand to be investigated. The question is DID they lie about any of it? If they just said "this hedge fund wants to make a bunch of money by driving Gamestop into bankruptcy, and we can stop that by buying the shit out of their stock and holding it," that's not a lie.

I am obviously not following the specifics of WSB reddit posts that tightly, but yes, if they said that, they would actually be in the clear. The problem is it sure looks like a bunch of them made tendentious arguments for why Gamestops "fundamentals" justified a higher price as well. Probably not most of the time, but if even one post on WSB's by some of the big figures does that, the SEC can fine that person, and the main movers post a lot so probably at some point many of them did.

What kind of a fine are we talking about here? The slap on the wrist kind, or the fuck you we're taking everything you have kind?

Theoretically either or anywhere in between. This is a weird situation so I have no idea what the SEC will actually do.

Weird legal/copyright question-

Say I wrote a book heavily inspired by American Gods, to the point where it essentially takes place in the same world, but doesn't deal with/mention any of Gaiman's specific creations, like Mr. World or Technical Boy, or any specific names he created for gods, like Mr. Nancy for Anansi or Bilquis for the Queen of Sheba. How much of a legal leg would Harper Collins have to stand on if they tried to sue me over the copyright (I imagine Neil himself would be apathetic about someone playing in his world at worst, and more likely encouraging)?

Would they have more of a leg to stand on if I used less creative names for established figures, like calling Odin (Mr.) Wednesday, or Anubis and Thoth Messrs. Jackal and Ibis? Does "A person who is Anubis, works in a funeral home in America, and goes by Mr. Jackal" constitute a copyrighted figure, even if that figure is intended to literally be Anubis?

I think I know the answer, but, I guess the question is "how much of Neil Gaiman's expression of the idea of 'ancient gods in America' is copyrightable and I have to avoid treading unless I want to have some conversations with Harper Collins lawyers?"

Looking at the number of fanfics the author changes the names of and makes zillions, I'd not be too worried. You could be the next E. L. James or Cassandra Clare.