Steam Warns Users Against Gambling Site After YouTube Stars Discovered As Owners 80
Tom Phillips, reporting for EuroGamer: Steam has begun warning users not to use a high-profile Counter-Strike: GO gambling website after its ownership turned out to be two YouTube stars -- who were also using YouTube to promote the site. Trevor "TmarTn" Martin and Tom "Syndicate" Cassell are listed in newly-uncovered business records as the president and vice-president, respectively, of online gambling site CS:GO Lotto. The news of CS:GO Lotto's ownership came as a surprise to viewers who have watched the pair promote the site on their channels, where both YouTube stars can be seen gambling -- and winning big money -- while using it. Neither had publicly disclosed their full roles in the site. TmarTn had not even disclosed his videos as being promotional tools. Attempt to log in to CS:GO Lotto now and you are greeted with the following warning message: "The URL you are attempting to log in to has been blocked by our moderators and staff. This site may be engaged in phishing, scamming, spamming, or delivering malware."
We did this to ourselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
When we made it possible for any random douche with a computer and a webcam to become a "star," we opened the door for this kind of assbaggery. Our culture of celebrity was already bad enough until we gave the other 99% of the population the ability to join.
Re: (Score:3)
Which I suppose would be fine if gamblers didn't steal from friends and family to feed their vulnerabilities? Gambling isn't just something that only affects those who make the "adult" decision to gamble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
Re: (Score:2)
Discipline is the parents' problem, not Valve's. They can put their allowance money into a piggy bank instead of giving it to the kid. As for adults who can't control themselves, please, don't even go there.
Re: (Score:3)
It does when the casino is knowingly marketing itself in an area where online gambling is NOT legal. I realize steam reaches an international audience but it primarily a US based venue and online gambling in the US is heavily restricted if not outright illegal, so there is a high degree of fault to be laid at the casinos' feet in this case.
Re: (Score:1)
I know the law is on your side but it is wrong. The *devil made me do it* defense just doesn't fly with me. We are throwing the whole personal responsibility thing out the window with that kind of thinking. The choice to gamble is strictly personal. To nail the casino you should have to prove they held a gun to the client's head or otherwise used physical force. The internet is not the proverbial "crowded theater" so commonly used to rationalize censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you in the conventional sense, if you go into a casino and gamble it is your responsibility. But in this case online gambling is illegal. If Visa had been allowing payments from an online casino, they'd be in criminal court in an instant. Valve, Steam, YouTube and the idiots pumping this setup all deserve criminal punishment and fines.
Re: (Score:2)
But in this case online gambling is illegal.
So what? If you gamble online it is also your own responsibility. And no, contrary to your opinion, the casino, Visa, Valve, Steam, YouTube, etc do NOT deserve to be punished (you disappoint me with that attitude). The prohibitionist who wrote the law should be punished. They have no right to dictate what can be served on the internet, nobody does, especially when served from outside your borders. Their sovereignty is outside your jurisdiction. You are free to att
Re: (Score:2)
By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money from you because I don't like or believe in that particular law ? While I do support your right to an opinion the fact of the law is not in dispute and until it is changed it IS the law. People outside our borders and jurisdiction are quite free to do as their laws dictate but here regardless of how you 'feel' about the law until it is changed it is the law.
I'll certainly agree to disagree with you and I do enjoy the rational response and d
Re: (Score:1)
By your reasoning I should be able to use a gun and take your money
Whoa! You lost me on that one! Blew all the logic off into space. You hardly showed any rationality there. We were, as least I was talking about the internet. You're right, you best leave it alone if that is the kind of absurdity you are going to offer.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a bit out there but just say that was a law I don't believe in, or support. By the logic you presented I should not have to abide by it and should be free to do as I choose because I objected to that law. While I do agree that there is no real difference between gambling online or going into a physical Casino the current laws recognize a difference and declare online gambling and the transfer of winnings by Visa or any other means as illegal. Whether or not you personally support or believe in 'that'
Re: (Score:1)
Right or wrong, selectively enforced unjust law will cost the respect for all law and the people who write and enforce them. It is the example that people will follow, law or no law.
Now, yes, Valve, being in the US is subject to US law. But that is not what I am talking about. The original theme was who is responsible for the actions of the gambler. And that was asked and answered. The law in this instance has nothing to do with the price of rice.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you regarding personal responsibility, but the primary target audience for CSGO is children, who lack the fully developed sense to make informed decisions. While the bulk of the responsibility should be on the parents, Steam, hence Valve does need to take reasonable precautions to ensure that they are not marketing to children too young to be held responsible. If we were talking about a physical casino with guards that would stop children from availing themselves of the service at the door, I'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, for a second there, it almost sounded like you were saying the "casino" was skimming the credit cards surreptitiously without the player knowing it, but it appears to still be the player's choice to gamble or not. I am not complaining about Steam's warning. The "casino" could probably be malware, in which case it obviously should avoided. And they don't want to be accused of anything that will have the FBI raiding their offices, so of course they will take a stand. What I don't like at all is people t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I maintain that without physical force, "predatory practices" is just a buzzword. You will have to prove that the people are incompetent to make their own decisions before talking about "predators" in this vein. Yes, I know the law differs, but it is written as a matter of expediency and crowd and thought control. Can't give people "ideas". The verbal and the physical must be treated as two entirely different things, and that all consensual action is entirely self motivated, if we are to believe in fr
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that children or anyone less than 18 years old is legally considered to be too incompetent to make their own decisions, and for good reasons. That's why they can't vote, why they can't drink, why they can't gamble, or sign into a legally binding contract.
So again, I think valve is abusing their position in trying to attract kids into gambling. I think this is a bad thing and they should be punished for it. When I say it's a predatory practice, I really think it is because they're using their
Re: (Score:1)
Kids issues are the parent's problem, not the state's. And they usually only have their parent's money. So, the parents will have to double as accountants. If a kid gets in trouble with the law, hold the parents responsible along with the kid. That's what should have happened with that rich kid [wikipedia.org].
Censoring the internet is and always will be unacceptable. Since the majority of people disagree and wants to put the state in charge, I'm counting on a technical solution to make the issue moot. The subject is quite
Re: (Score:2)
That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
Only if you live in a black and white universe. Fortunately for the rest of us, most people have the ability to see a lot of different colours...
Re: (Score:1)
No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in this case people, including you evidently, are just passing blame to evade responsibility for their personal choices. If you are coming out against the concept of free will, spit it out... I'm not interested in charades.
Black, White. What a boring world you must live in.
Re: (Score:1)
That is merely your opinion. Facts are facts. If you can't accept responsibility for what you do, it means you have no self control or discipline and should be declared incompetent to 'stand trial' or even drive a car and locked safely away for your own protection, and ours.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's your opinion. If we are to ignore his, we should also ignore yours.
Re: (Score:1)
Personal responsibility is not an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it is simple fact, but I shall concede the internet to you. The majority opinion always prevails over all else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, of course it is. I never said otherwise, but a statement of fact is simply that. Personal responsibility is a real thing. Without proof of incompetence a person is responsible for the things he/she does. How is that open to opinion? The age when that person becomes responsible is a matter of opinion. Most car rental companies set that age at 25, when the brain solidifies [mentalhealthdaily.com], or they did many years ago. Some state governments will tell you it's 14 or 15. So before that, personal responsibility is the paren
Re: (Score:1)
I am not expressing an opinion, not mine or anybody else's.
Re: (Score:1)
That still doesn't make the casino's fault. The gambler is only person to hold responsible, regardless who his "victims" are.
That's right. It's not the crack dealer's fault. They're just poor misunderstood victims, who ought to have support groups to deal with the terrible abuse heaped upon them from everybody for creating addicts....Instead, the blame lies solely with the addict. It's not like they're, you know, addicted. Right?
Re: (Score:1)
The crack dealer didn't make him into an addict. Or are you assuming the addict was forced to consume? Addiction is also a personal thing.
It's not the crack dealer's fault. They're just poor misunderstood victims...
That of course is an absurd troll. You treat the addict for his addiction, give him the power to say no. You are not "blaming" him for anything. At least I'm not. Who knows what you are saying? And let's say the drug is legal, who are you going to blame then? Walgreens? Walmart?
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't answer the question... Who is to blame for addiction to legal drugs?
Re: It's because people no longer follow Caveat Em (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's because people no longer follow Caveat Emp (Score:4, Funny)
Wait a minute, so you're telling me that some dodgy, illegal (in the United States anyway) gambling website hosted by a couple of YouTube clowns might not be legitimate? And that I shouldn't just send them my money, in hopes of winning big?
Wow, I learn something new every day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We did this to ourselves. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here isn't the douche with the camera. Focusing on the douche with the camera ignores the bigger problem: the parallel - and thus, unregulated - economy built on top of Steam.
As with any parallel economy, you have fraud, scams and other abuses. Since the only police is Valve, and Valve has no interest in putting a stop to it because it is massively profitable for them, the abuses won't stop.
Occasionally, Valve puts their foot down, but, usually, they are more concerned about the attention that this might attract. More attention can potentially mean an official investigation, followed by regulation, and that would hurt Valve's business. So they suppress the more visible cases, while maintaining the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because the alternative where incestuous promotion of a select subset of people creates "stars" is better than allowing people producing stuff that others like to become "stars". Because the film star that became one because his mother fucked someone is more genuine than Jane Doe that through hard work have gained a lot of regular followers. Yeah right.
Have /. become a dumping ground for old grumpy know-it-all's?
No money was won. (Score:5, Informative)
This is incorrect. They were winning items and skins that had a high face value, but the only way to get cash for them would be to sell them off on other sketchy websites.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine won $1,000,000 playing the lottery, at least that's what he was told. All he got was a piece of paper that he had to take to the bank to get turned into $$$.
And even then the bank only swapped his piece of paper for other pieces of paper which he was told is worth something too.
It's tortoises all the way down!
Re: (Score:2)
They were winning items and skins that had a high face value
So... like casino chips, or bitcoins, or bonds...?
If you win something a high face value that can be easily exchanged for that face value in cash, the it is not incorrect to call it 'winning big money'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, some places the Yakuza don't even bother with that whole setup.
I was in Japan last year and stopped at a Pachinko after several friends recommended trying just to say I did. Holy hell are those places noisy!
Got a magnetic card with my winnings afterwards and had to go to a sketchy shack right in the parking lot, a shack that only had a slot barely big enough for a hand to fit through. Took the card through the slot, and handed out the money at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding Pachinko scams:
I was thinking about this when I made my comment, but I still feel it's closer than what is happening with the website. There's far less risk of getting screwed out of your money at a Pachinko bar, and I'm thinking there are places very close to the Pachinko bars that are very obvious, and will let you trade your prize for cash. Whereas with the website, I think you have to find a reliable source and hope that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No blocking or warning here... (Score:1)
When I go to the Steam web store, web market, and in-game store, or start TF2, CS, or DotA, I'm not faced with any block, and I don't get a warning about crates and keys obviously being illegal gambling, in part clearly aimed at teens...
Does this change needs some time to propagate or something?
What even is this (Score:2)
Can anyone provide an objective report of what this CS:GO gambling is and how it hooks into the consciousness of these artificial-stimulation-addicted freaks?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's two components to it, one of which I think is being purposely glossed over because it's valve/steam.
To begin from the start, valve introduced weapon skins for CSGO which are normally obtained with drops or unlocked from crates/chests which are awarded at random to players. Unlocking a crate/chest requires the use of a key. All keys can only be bought for real money at something like $2.50. I believe they can be traded, but the origin of that key at some point, someone had to pay valve some money to
Re: (Score:2)
Players have the ability to sell or trade skins, so there is a real market for them (just like any other vanity object) which fluctuates depending on demand.
CSGO has a professional players league, so people can bet skins on pro ga
FCC Rules? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)