adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
IGN user comments, man come on lol.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
IGN user comments, man come on lol.
Corrik
Member
It's astroturfing if Pro-Xbox, but normal if anti-xbox. Correct?your expert is welcome to
Seriously though there's nothing wrong with pointing out how weird it is we suddenly have an army of pro-Xbox self-styled M&A/stock market gurus all coming out of the wodworks around the same time.
The astroturfing is so intense I feel like booting up my old copy of FIFA.
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
How do you prove it? I did ask for evidence. It's one thing to casually make claims about it vaguely, but you're picking out specific people and literally calling to get them banned. I thought Evilore just approved like 1500 accounts, so of course there's a lot of new accounts. I don't know if you looked at the front page, but there's nothing to talk about but this and maybe Exoprimal tomorrow. Are we truly at the point where we just have to endlessly watch a small group of people witchhunt over and over with no evidence? It's disgusting. And he's a new member so it's not like he wants to defend himself and start arguing, because then you win again. At the very least explain your evidence if you want to start threatening people.your expert is welcome to
Seriously though there's nothing wrong with pointing out how weird it is we suddenly have an army of pro-Xbox self-styled M&A/stock market gurus.
The astroturfing is so intense I feel like booting up my old copy of FIFA.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Yeah are there any good YouTube comments we can read?
Maybe some gutter trash local news station comments?
This forum man.. obsessed with finding idiots to discuss.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
2017.Yeah really bizarre, Jumeira wasn't interested in interactions on GAF from December 2017 onward and then suddenly reappeared back and only wants to post in this merger thread.
A few months after resetera was created.
Likely a user from there who decided to come back.
NickFire
Member
A single word in a statute / contract, heck even the placement of a comma, can have significant legal implications. On top of that, case law sometimes "interprets" the words / commas in ways that leaves the lawyers (and sometimes the trial judges who are required to follow precedent) scratching their heads. If it feels stupid I promise you there are tons of people, lawyers and even judges included, who would agree at times. Not all the time, but definitely some of it.
All of that said, I want to make clear that I do not know the exact language in either the statute or judge's ruling. I love shooting the shit when I can about this stuff. But I'm not spending days reading hundreds of pages of legal documents for a case that I only care about because I refuse to grow up and give up my games.
thebigmanjosh
Member
Clayton Act sec. 7 and case law from rulings as recent as AT&T. Was cited a few times I believe. Specifically point 2:
That's my understanding at least
GHG
Member
You're missing the point entirely.
tmlDan
Member
LOL for perspective, they spend over $877 billion on the military, a few million for the work the FTC does is peanuts. The FTC has an annual budget of $430 million.I'm not american but this taxpayer money should move this shit faster, just saying.
Gravemind
Member
Thanks for the explanation of what exactly the contention is. I was just basing my response off of what the poster I quoted was saying. I didn't read anything on that besides that twitter thread and was assuming the "will" vs "may" was the sticking point in all of this.
And yes, English is my first language.
Last edited:
supernova8
Banned
1) How do I prove what? That they just appeared and have exclusively commented in this thread parroting the same thing over and over? You can go on their profile and have a look for yourself.
2) I've already had my dinner, so would be nice if you didn't put words in my mouth. I haven't threatened anyone, I haven't called for anyone to get banned.
(edit - I only just noticed Jumeira got banned after seeing Kilau's comment. I didn't ask for them to get banned and I certainly am not asking for the other person to get banned)
3) There's plenty to talk about.
4 (bonus) If anything you came at me so, as I said before, get back in your (x)box.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Beep boop
Topher
Identifies as young
No, the argument is that when the judge quoted the law, she applied an incorrect interpretation. This is where she quoted the law and then changed the condition of that law from "may" to "will probably".
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
Clayton Act sec. 7 and case law from rulings as recent as AT&T. Was cited a few times I believe. Specifically point 2:
That's my understanding at least
Don't you get it? We got these geniuses looking at MS's past actions and all the incriminating info gathered during discovery and concluding you know what? There's no reason tho think this may be anti competitive. It's insane but that's where we at, even though EC and CMA already proved that risk exists and MS already conceded that risk exists which is why they accepted behavioral remedies.
But no bruh, let's be dumb and stupid.
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
None of this changes how SENTENCES work though lol
Yes a single word can change things... but that doesn't suddenly mean some bad interpretation of the English language is going to kill a case.
I'm aware how finicky the law can be, statutes, etc.
But we can still discuss the English language here from a colloquial standpoint. That's all these talking head "legal scholars" are doing on the first place when they argue on TV or on the internet or anywhere else. They are literally PAID at times to purposefully exaggerate shit like this, because if it's your only defense you have to try it. It's then a judge's job to sort through the bullshit.
People are discussing 2 sentences that in colloquial English mean the EXACT SAME THING and acting like the Judge made a massive mistake.
When you use the word "might" after "Reasonable probability" vs. "will" you don't suddenly alter the fact you are professing a reasonable probability and not an absolute.
Reasonable probability that it will
Reasonable probability that it might
Chance it might
Chance it will
It may
It might
These all mean the same thing.
I personally do not think there is a reasonable probability that this is how the FTC will win the appeal.
I also personally do not think there is a reasonable probability that this is how the FTC might win the appeal lol
(and I know you are just shooting the shit dude, so am I <3)
Last edited:
Gravemind
Member
No, the argument is that when the judge quoted the law, she applied an incorrect interpretation. This is where she quoted the law and then changed the condition of that law from "may" to "will probably".
Makes sense. We'll see if the difference in wording is enough to grant them an appeal. Could be tough considering "may" and "probably will" are so close in meaning.
Varteras
Gold Member
My dad is almost 70. Is the chapter president of a biker club. Most of the guys are in their 50s and 60s. Some older. They party at a clubhouse every other weekend and do the same shit they did in their 20's. All based around the idea of riding motorcycles. People don't bat an eye at that. But I'm in my 40's and told to grow up from playing games. Fuck that. You do you. Growing up and continuing to do what you love are not mutually exclusive. This is not so much at you in particular. Just at anyone who might feel there is a time limit on playing games.
supernova8
Banned
That's a bit unfortunate since I never said it to get them or anyone else banned. Personally I'd rather (if Jumeira was some sort of alt/bought account) that they are just left on here. Their conduct will show them up as who they really are over time and then people will know they're not genuine. That's much better than simply banning them (but I'm not a mod and it's not my decision obviously).
Punished Miku
Gaslighter Pro: 16.7 Fireflops
I'm sure you can figure out exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe spend a little more time talking about the subject matter of the thread, and less time trying to orchestrate witchhunts for new members.
Topher
Identifies as young
As always, it's up to the judge to decide. It is my understanding that some judges favor strict readings of the law while others, not so much. Who knows?
ToadMan
Member
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Sorry I'm frustrated from a convo yesterday not anything you said.
Read my next post for a more thorough explanation of the 2 sentences.
The fact the judge just said "may" later in her statement only proves my point.
It all means the same thing. They all boil down to "it may" or "it might", doesn't matter that the word "will" was in a sentence because it was prefaced by "Reasonable probability that it."
GAF can laugh about "legal scholars" all day, I am not intimidated by discussions of talking head TV morons or twitter lawyers. We all know how often these people are wrong, or more importantly, are being intellectually dishonest.
You guys ever take debate class?
Ever had an assignment where you had to argue AGAINST your actual belief?
That's what being a lawyer is, it isn't about being right all the time based on what you believe, it's about arguing a side you are paid to argue for. Honestly it's a bit like forum fanboying.. people aren't arguing logically, they have a default position they start form and then go from there and try to warp reality around it.
Last edited:
HeisenbergFX4
Member
The FTC is after ChatGPT as well nowHas anyone asked chat gpt to write them a ruling denying a PI for the merger?
ChiefDada
Gold Member
In regards to judge's word usage from one sentence to another:
In terms of FTC/PI Burden of Proof, copied from prior posts:
The Appropriate Decision Standard for Section 7 Cases
The burden of proof to determine the “reasonable probability” that a merger violates Section 7 is not clear. Using the insightful puzzlement expressed by the c
deliverypdf.ssrn.com
1. To grant PI, FTC has to show "Reasonable Probability" that the proposed merger is in violation of clayton act, sec. 7.
2. Sec. 7 "prohibits the acquisition by a corporation of stock in another corporation where the effect of the acquisition may be to lessen competition."
2a. Subsequent cases established the term "reasonable probability" = "more likely than not" and the term "may be" = "likely". ("Substantial is entirely different can of worms but it seems like FTC and judge were on the same page with this, I think).
3. Put it all together = The FTC has to prove: "more likely than not" that the acquisition is "likely" to lessen competition substantially" (Probability of a Probability; Lower threshold for FTC)
4. The judge's decision stated the FTC failed to prove: "more likely than not" that the merger "will" lessen competition substantially" (Probability of an Absolute; Higher threshold for FTC).
Yes.
FrankWza
Member
Psygnosis.... Sony Too... Taxpayer$.Has anyone asked chat gpt to write them a ruling denying a PI for the merger?
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Yeah, it came back as "waste of taxpayers money."Has anyone asked chat gpt to write them a ruling denying a PI for the merger?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
.
Last edited:
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
around 17% of the us budget is military, health (including medicare and medicaid) is about 28%, and social security is 25%. Everything else is in the remaining percentage.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ignorance, bots and shills parrot the corpo executive script on message boards, social media and comment sections.
Here's the $.03 cents that was or is going to impact you, now STFU.
Total silence about the "waste of taxpayers" hearings today which are posturing, lobbied and purely tax dollars.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
If the standard is properly laid out in paragraph 2, then I would absolutely agree the judge got this wrong. An "appreciable danger of [anticompetitive] consequences in the future" screams low threshold. It suggests if the FTC is worried, and there is a chance they could be right, they should be allowed to investigate. And the amount of consumers who could lose access is material. And the defendant literally did the exact same thing after Bethesda that they suggested was not their intent when buying that company.Clayton Act sec. 7 and case law from rulings as recent as AT&T. Was cited a few times I believe. Specifically point 2:
That's my understanding at least
It feels, to me, like the judge usurped the FTC's right to make credibility assessments in their administrative hearings by declaring that she believes everything MS says.
Sanepar
Member
It is not on the stock... it was on stock options. It jumped from 83 to 92, this is exponential on options.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
oh shiiit i just have the perfect argument for the FTC to win. Too bad they are a bunch of inepts.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I wonder why that is? Doesn't seem very impartial.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Much of law is based on verbal thresholds like that. could and probably indicate two vastly different meanings. In much of modern communication, you would not use could and probably interchangeably.
As a personal example, if a friends gas tank was on empty and they asked you if you thought they could make it to the gas station, you would say "you could run out of gas" - but if they ask you if they can drive to a town 50 miles away, you would say "you will probably run out of gas".
As a professional example, a doctor using could and probably interchangeably when making a diagnosis or discussing the dangers of specific treatments would be extremely unprofessional and *could* (lol) lead to law issues.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
And this goes back to what I was saying yesterday.
If the "might" matters vs. the "will" in that sentence..
Then it's a terribly written law that needs to be updated. It's way too vague to be so important.
Last edited:
NickFire
Member
I still cannot fathom how a judge would ever decide a case involving a company their child works for and I never will. It feels so absurd to me that I really wonder if it is even true.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
Whats the argument?
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That's fine we can come up with other examples where the concept makes sense for this to matter.
To me it absolutely does not matter between the 2 sentences being debated because "reasonably probability" is clearly the core part of the sentence meant to actually imply the "probability."
If there intent was to LESSEN that by then throwing a "might" at the end of the sentence they need to change the law.
kvltus lvlzvs
Member
no, lol, thats not how sentence structure works. You cant just cut out the bit you dont agree with.
As another example
"reasonable probability that it WOULD" is the polar opposite of the term "reasonable probability that it WOULD NOT"
and the changes in the sentence are differences in the words following the term "reasonable probability"
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
That is the exact point I've bene making.
OH COME ON lol
Just bad examples IMO.
Alright I have to actually do some work as a non-lawyer now.
Dick Jones
Banned
What's their market cap?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I'm watching this on and off between Exoprimal runs and Lina is getting pretty severely cooked it seems.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Because in America, judges know they have this leverage and more often than not, won't be challenged, or recuse themselves.
Judges Can’t Hear Cases When There’s a Conflict of Interest? Some Do.
Ethics rules require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving relatives or their own partisan or political interests. But it doesn't always work out that way.
www.governing.com
Judicial Ethics & Recusal
Robust judicial recusal standards are vital to achieving unbiased decisionmaking. The Brennan Center supports best practices regarding when and how judges should step aside from cases in the face of potential conflicts of interest.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked