Taxes on virtual assets forthcoming

[Zeus]

Crazy as it sounds, you're gonna get taxed on it as "other income" in the future if these guys are right

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6162654.html

[Nev]

I actually don't really blame the government for wanting to tax these kinds of things. Some people are making a living off selling loot from MMO's, and right now, I'm sure a lot of it is untaxed. While I'm usually one of the last people to say "give the government more money", these people are likely to be using government-funded equipment or services (i.e., government-funded communications equipment - such as phone lines for DSL - or possibly the postal service) to make their living, and I'm not sure it's fair to say that they don't need to pay taxes to support said infrastructure.

What I do sincerely hope is that the measure is written with some semblance of sanity to it. Taxing all transactions would be an idea that is beyond horrible, and which would hurt the growth of MMOs terribly. Hopefully, some sanity will reign, and they won't do that. If it were me, I'd probably give people a three-to-five-grand-a-year buffer of transactions that don't need to be reported, and require reporting of income beyond that.

The other issue, though, is that the game industry may fight this kind of thing tooth and nail, and so far it's won a majority of the legal challenges it's taken on. So we'll see how it all plays out.

[Julius Seeker]

This won't effect you Zeus, you live in Canada.

My take on it, I don't think it is a bad idea to place taxations on selling in game assets like those World of Warcraft some people play the game to unhealthy levels, and like cigarettes, this should be taxed in any way possible.

I am sure anyone here can think of someone they know whose life has become worse due to habitual addiction to games like this.

[Nev]

Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think the figures show that taxing that kind of thing actually reduces the presence of addiction.

For cigarettes, there's a decent reason to tax anyway, as the addiction carries with it mounting public health costs due to lung cancer and emphysema, among other things. With MMO's, I'm not aware of any public health epidemic due to overuse of the games.

And who are you to say what's bad for someone or not bad for them? We live in free democracies, Seek - the do-gooder stuff, to me, just comes off as being interfering.

[Julius Seeker]

Not to rain on your parade, but I don't think the figures show that taxing that kind of thing actually reduces the presence of addiction.

For cigarettes, there's a decent reason to tax anyway, as the addiction carries with it mounting public health costs due to lung cancer and emphysema, among other things. With MMO's, I'm not aware of any public health epidemic due to overuse of the games.

And who are you to say what's bad for someone or not bad for them? We live in free democracies, Seek - the do-gooder stuff, to me, just comes off as being interfering.

40% of World of Warcraft players are addicted according to expert.

http://www.twitchguru.com/2006/08/08/wo ... _addicted/

[Kupek]

And what was her method for coming to this conclusion? A random survey? Bringing in a sample group and testing them for signs of addiction? Self reporting?

RW: According to your research, and your experience with patients, how many addicted gamers are there today?

Orzack: Well, let's take World of Warcraft as an example. Let's say there are around 6 million subscribers for the game. I'd say that 40 percent of the players are addicted.

Oh, I see. Conjecture. Man, and I'm wasting all of this time implementing designs and running experiments. We can just make numbers up! This changes everything! I'm going to tell my advisor immediately. I should have my Ph.D. by the end of the week.

[Julius Seeker]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/ ... 5965.shtml Online RPG addiction drove this guy to suicide.

[Kupek]

Okay. Are you trying to make a point?

[Zeus]

We'll see how long before they actually use some of the revenue to treat gaming addiction. If they do it for cigarettes, they should do it for games as well

[Julius Seeker]

Okay. Are you trying to make a point?

Yes, and it is obvious. Read up a few posts: "some people play the game to unhealthy levels." The game referenced in my post was World of Warcraft, but only because it is far and beyond the most popular online rpg ever.

[Julius Seeker]

there are no chemical properties in videogames that make them addictive, so they shouldn't be taxed like cigarettes. Just because people are idiots and play videogames too much doesn't mean that they should pay more taxes. The American government is just so rediculously in debt that they need to start making money to pay for their ridiculous war.

Chemical properties are not required for addiction.

[Kupek]

Since you replied after me, I figured you were responding to what I said. Since nothing you've said since has any relevance to what I pointed out about that expert, I guess you've dropped that.

[Nev]

And what was her method for coming to this conclusion? A random survey? Bringing in a sample group and testing them for signs of addiction? Self reporting?

RW: According to your research, and your experience with patients, how many addicted gamers are there today?

Orzack: Well, let's take World of Warcraft as an example. Let's say there are around 6 million subscribers for the game. I'd say that 40 percent of the players are addicted.

Oh, I see. Conjecture. Man, and I'm wasting all of this time implementing designs and running experiments. We can just make numbers up! This changes everything! I'm going to tell my advisor immediately. I should have my Ph.D. by the end of the week.

Kup, I just have to say, I love you for this post.

[Don]

I don't think taxing virtual properties is a bad idea especially with these guys claiming they've the GDP of (some country) these days.

I think MMORPGs have to be partially responsible for obviously designing a game that's meant to be addictive since they work on a monthly subscription model. But I don't think taxation has anything to do with it.

[Flip]

As a CPA, i've feared jumping into this conversation... and still havent formed a good fact based opinion on the taxing of intangible assets of an individual or what qualifies as intangible...

So, i guess what i'm saying is, nothing... carry on!

[Julius Seeker]

Since you replied after me, I figured you were responding to what I said. Since nothing you've said since has any relevance to what I pointed out about that expert, I guess you've dropped that.

If I was replying to you, I would quote you. Your post was silly and not worth replying to.

Chemical properties are not required for addiction.

But we don't tax everything that is possibly addictive, cigarettes cause cancer and "heart disease" (I don't think it should be called that.... it's not really a disease) and create 2nd hand smoke that can harm other people. Alls I'm trying to say is that the comparison between cigarettes and MMORPGs isn't something that I entirely agree with. I think it would be more like gambling as something addictive you could compare it to. There should be a support system in place for people who are negatively affected by the activity, but it shouldn't be treated like a negative behavior. It's a source of entertainment, not a vice.

I can't see how any form of addiction cannot be unhealthy, gambling addiction is certainly a very large problem as well. One thing that Cigarettes, gambling, and online rpg addiction all have in common is that they involve money.

I also think that I give the government too much credit in taxing cigarettes due to health reasons. My evidence for this is that our health budget has actually been reduced as the tobacco taxes have gone up; I think the main reason for cigarette taxation is simply because they can do it, and gain support for rising taxes from non-smokers; it is an easy way to get more money.

So I can agree with Don on this one; tax it just because it is a good source of income.

I just actually thought up of a good idea for an organized crime story: money laundering via virtual properties =)

[Zeus]

I can't see how any form of addiction cannot be unhealthy

What about sugar addiction? Everyone here is addicted to that

[Kupek]

I was sarcasticly pointing out that the statistic you dredged up was garbage.

I haven't thought it through thorougly, but my initial reaction is that if people are making a living off of virtual assets, it would make sense to tax them. Even if your income is based on fictional items in a videogame, you still live in the real world and use our infrastructure and services that taxes support.

[Flip]

I was sarcasticly pointing out that the statistic you dredged up was garbage.

I haven't thought it through thorougly, but my initial reaction is that if people are making a living off of virtual assets, it would make sense to tax them. Even if your income is based on fictional items in a videogame, you still live in the real world and use our infrastructure and services that taxes support.

Oh i totally agree with that. If people are selling items for real money then no matter what the item it should be reported on SCH C as self-employment income.

But, i think the article was talking about taxing items that just have value. Like, say your character is loaded with $1,000s of dollars worth of gear and the person dies in real life, should the value of those assets be added to the deceased's estate for estate tax purposes? That, would be debateable...

[Julius Seeker]

I was sarcasticly pointing out that the statistic you dredged up was garbage.

Good for you, not only do you argue with the use of sarcasm but you disagree with the authority (on the subject) of a Harvard Medical School graduate with 11 years research and experience in the field. Considering your argument makes about as much sense as Beowulf fucking Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. Excuse me as I continue to ignore it.

What about sugar addiction? Everyone here is addicted to that

Actually, there are taxes on sugar. There are taxes on all things considered junk food. Though grocery items are tax free. At least in this country.


Either way, it is just my opinion that they should be taxed due to addiction (you don't have to agree with it). As I stated in my post above, I do not think that the governments taxation of cigarettes has anything to do with addicition, it is just how they are justifying it. It's all about the cash income generated from the additional taxes.

[Kupek]

Okay, I'll rephrase. She pulled a number out of thin air. She provided no study or related data to justify the number she came up. In other words, she made it up. That's not science. Her credentials do not make up for lack of data, or at least an argument. Appealing to authority, as you are doing, is a logical fallacy.

[Julius Seeker]

Okay, I'll rephrase. She pulled a number out of thin air. She provided no study or related data to justify the number she came up. In other words, she made it up. That's not science. Her credentials do not make up for lack of data, or at least an argument. Appealing to authority, as you are doing, is a logical fallacy.

It states that she did research right in the quote you pulled out.

[Kupek]

She cited no research or study. I require more than just her word.

[Julius Seeker]

She cited no research or study. I require more than just her word.

Congratulations, have a cookie.

[Nev]

Quit trolling, Seek. Kup's point is highly valid. A lot of damage happens when so-called "experts" get up and parade before a soapbox...

[Julius Seeker]

Quit trolling, Seek. Kup's point is highly valid.

Calling someone a troll/nazi is not a valid argument form. Explain how his point is valid at all?

A lot of damage happens when so-called "experts" get up and parade before a soapbox...

Really? I would certainly like to see you explain this.

Either way, again, invalid argument form, "so-called "expert"" when it is quite obvious that the person in question has the proper credentials.

I would have thought you would be all for the exposure of these kinds of addictions to the public considering that you have openly admitted on this forum to having suffered greatly from a similar addiction.

[Nev]

You're trolling just as badly as he is, and honestly I've not really suffered from any sort of severe gaming addiction. I broke my Warcraft III CD at one point because I was playing too much, that was about as bad as it got. I have had addiction issues, but I would say they are of a quite different sort.

And I notice you try to tell people how they should live, a lot. On this board. I don't like that much. Especially when - forgive me for saying this - I don't think you have anywhere near the intelligence that Kup does. You fly off the handle a lot (so do I, but he doesn't). You're at best a semieducated bouncer - to me, anyway - whereas he's going to be a Ph.D. I easily believe Kup knows far more about research than you do.

As far as "experts" being assholes on the internet/television, my main problem with the ones who claim to be experts on addiction is that, quite frankly, I think they say some really hurtful shit, often to pursue their own agendas as opposed to the greater good of the issues they're dealing with.

Or, to come at it from a different perspective, Andrew Vestal, the former webmaster of square.net (now rpgamer.com), who I still stay in touch with, plays a tremendous amount of World of Warcraft. He also works at Blizzard, and seems pretty happy with his life in general. He stays in touch with co-workers there via WoW and for him it seems to be an effective release. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I could dredge up an "expert" or two who'd say he's addicted and needs to go to gaming rehab.
I hate those kinds of people. I believe that, as long as you're not causing problems to anyone else, it's your life and you should live it as you damn well please. I note that you seem to have a problem with that.

Thankfully, it is your problem, not mine. I will continue to crap on so-called experts who I think trade more on reputation and/or some sort of overhyped credential than on actual fact/desire to help, I hope Kup maintains his skepticism as well, and...well, you kinda pissed me off here, and since we're all trolling, I hope Santa brings you a few extra brain cells for Christmas, because right now I wouldn't accept you as an expert on how to wipe your ass properly.

Ahhhh. That one felt good. I may have to have another at some point. For now, I'll wait to see you fly into a brutal rage, the way you do every time someone criticizes you...

[Flip]

For the record, i think Kup knows nothing about everything. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. BOOYA!

^_^

[Don]

The example of people NOT addicted to MMORPG is even less meaningful than those who do. Of course one would hope most people are not adversely affected for playing MMORPG, but frankly if 10% of the people who plays MMORPG gets addicted it's too much. You can say those people could be addicted to the drugs which is possible but it's better not to be addicted at all.

The gambling/sugar comparisons are actually quite valid. On one hand you are free to do whatever you want if you've self-control, but government also needs to protect those who do not. That's why it's not that easy to gambling. I believe New York just banned trans fat. And make no mistake about this. Every MMORPG is set up like a drug deal minus the chemical dependence. Unlike the average game that has a finite end, the subscription model automatically forces games to be designed like that. Like I said, the game makers are at least partially responsible for coming up with a scheme that favors addiction. This issue has nothing to do with taxation, though.

The real problem with virtual goods having value is what happens if the server crashes and wipes out X million gold or Y epic items? Sure the EULA says they own everything in the game and it's just electronic bits, but it's obvious to anyone who plays a MMORPG that those virtual bits really do have value. Right now there's no law that says they do but when they do, expect lawsuits for bugs, server crashes, or even downtime.

[Oracle]

Right now there's no law that says they do but when they do, expect lawsuits for bugs, server crashes, or even downtime.

Honestly, if laws such as the the hypothetical you describe come in to place, it would cause development and marketing of such games to be so prohibitive that the genre would cease to exist as we know it (notice I said "as we know it," I do not mean entirely).

I don't see how any law could change the fact that the companies that create and host these games can do whatever they want with them, including the "virtual property" that exists within the game, as long as the users agree to their terms prior to logging in. Now, if there was some legal way to get around requiring users to agree to said terms, or nullifying such agreements entirely, then you'd have a problem.

[Julius Seeker]

Nev

1) I was speaking about your pornography and Internet addiction which are similar addictions to Online RPG addictions. I figured you would understand what I was referring to without me having to point out that you were addicted to pornography and lost years of your life to it.

2) Since you seem so interested in my personal life. I have three majors completed: Biology, English, and History; as well as minors in Philosophy, Psychology, and Chemistry. Currently working on Island Studies, and I have been accepted into Dalhousie and Memorial Medical schools; though I do not have plans in attending at this point; my current plans are Ontario. Additionally, I do not work as a bouncer anymore, that was a LONG time ago. I bartend now (part time); and I love my job. I also rent and invest for additional income. Yes I lack solid direction in case you are wondering, though that has mainly to do with me enjoying my current situation, and not wanting to move on just yet =)

3) The only thing that is really relevant (seriously, nothing else you posted is relevant to anything, I do not care about who you think is a "troll" or who you think is intelligent or not.): If you doubt the credentials of the source I provided, then please, provide even a bit of evidence. Then we have something to discuss.

4) If you think these sorts of addictions are not a problem, then post some evidence. I will similarly post evidence as to why addiction is a problem.

5) I do not understand why you think I am angry. I'm about the most cool tempered person on the planet. Don't mistake blunt forwardness for anger =)

6) You want a good argument against taxing of virtual goods:

The real problem with virtual goods having value is what happens if the server crashes and wipes out X million gold or Y epic items? Sure the EULA says they own everything in the game and it's just electronic bits, but it's obvious to anyone who plays a MMORPG that those virtual bits really do have value. Right now there's no law that says they do but when they do, expect lawsuits for bugs, server crashes, or even downtime.

Then agree with Don =)

As Oracle said, there would have to be an insurance to prevent this sort of thing.

PS. Nev, I don't hate you or even think badly upon you if that is what you are thinking. Though feel free to hate me all you want, think badly upon me all you want; you can expect me to talk, just don't expect me to care =)

[Kupek]

He understood exactly what was meant.

I have had addiction issues, but I would say they are of a quite different sort.

I think that some people are addicted to WoW. I have never meant to call that into question. What I have called into question is the figure that doctor gave, and the burden of proof relies on her, not everyone else. I have provided clear arguments to this effect, which I admit I knew ahead of time would not be taken seriously by Seeker. Whether Seeker deliberately plays dumb, or if he is honestly incapable of understanding argument validity and the scientific process, I don't know. And I long ago stopped caring. So, Nev, I appreciate the effort, but it's not worth it. I sometimes amuse myself by pointing out flaws in his arguments, but I know better than to try to engage him in actual discussion.

Don: I hadn't considered the assets part. I think taxing people on real income from virtual transactions is justifiable. But we do tax people on large assets such as homes, cars and land. How we would handle your level 99 Flame Sword, I have no idea.

[Zeus]

He understood exactly what was meant.

I have had addiction issues, but I would say they are of a quite different sort.

I think that some people are addicted to WoW. I have never meant to call that into question. What I have called into question is the figure that doctor gave, and the burden of proof relies on her, not everyone else. I have provided clear arguments to this effect, which I admit I knew ahead of time would not be taken seriously by Seeker. Whether Seeker deliberately plays dumb, or if he is honestly incapable of understanding argument validity and the scientific process, I don't know. And I long ago stopped caring. So, Nev, I appreciate the effort, but it's not worth it. I sometimes amuse myself by pointing out flaws in his arguments, but I know better than to try to engage him in actual discussion.

Don: I hadn't considered the assets part. I think taxing people on real income from virtual transactions is justifiable. But we do tax people on large assets such as homes, cars and land. How we would handle your level 99 Flame Sword, I have no idea.

Just do what most here have done a long time ago: ignore Seek when he's being pig-headed. When he, or anyone else, gets like that, there's no point in even trying. And I agree on the basic principle that the scientist or even "expert" has the burden of proof. We don't question our "experts" enough nowadays. So many provide their opinions and so many people just take their word for it since they're "experts" or scientists without questioning whether or not their positions are valid.

The other question I have is: HOW do we tax virtual assets? I do agree with the argument that they are, basically, property or a form of income. But what are they, property or income? Do we tax it like an employment income (full amount taxed at the tax rate of your bracket) or do we tax it like a property (ie. Capital gains - 50% taxed at your tax bracket)? That's another thing the governments are going to have to decide upon as it makes a big enough difference. This will likely be determined by how many rich guys own "virtual assets" (if they own little or none, expect it to be a form of employment income).

Also, WHAT is a virtual asset by tax definition? Is it anything someone else will pay for or is there a specific definition of the type of asset you have to have in order for it to be taxable? I mean, is your online character a virtual asset? Are the people who sell off their online characters on Ebay subject to taxation? You could actually argue that that would be a form of virtual slavery, selling off a virtual being as opposed to a virtual asset. And are we going to have different "assets" taxed in different ways?

This is the type of crap accountants have to worry about as it makes all of the difference in the world.

[Don]

I think you can get into some weird situations if you consider assets. If I sell a Flaming Sword of Doom for $3000 and then later it was stolen/lost/wahtever, you can reasonably argue that the said sword has a value of $3000. I believe this is what happened in a Chinese MMORPG and the person who paid for the goods got the money back. So say we average some transactions and figure the average Sword of Flaming Doom has a worth of $2000. So what happens if I had one that I never intended to sold, and then it was lost due to some game error? Does the game maker owe me $2000 because I could have gotten $2000 for it? Currently the answer is no because every game besides EQ2 says you're never supposed to sell our stuff so there can be no monetary value. Except we all know these gold/item selling guys aren't going away when they claim to have the GDP of a third world nation.

I think eventually you might end up something similar to how the lawsuits with P2P goes. MMORPG makers will have to at least make some attempt to make sure you get the proper value of a transaction (which is what EQ2 does) instead of saying 'nope not our problem you're not supposed to do it' because no one sure has been able to stop the problem, so they need to stop saying it's illegal (which it may be) and actually do something about it.

[Julius Seeker]

He understood exactly what was meant.

I have had addiction issues, but I would say they are of a quite different sort.

I think that some people are addicted to WoW. I have never meant to call that into question. What I have called into question is the figure that doctor gave, and the burden of proof relies on her, not everyone else. I have provided clear arguments to this effect, which I admit I knew ahead of time would not be taken seriously by Seeker. Whether Seeker deliberately plays dumb, or if he is honestly incapable of understanding argument validity and the scientific process, I don't know. And I long ago stopped caring. So, Nev, I appreciate the effort, but it's not worth it. I sometimes amuse myself by pointing out flaws in his arguments, but I know better than to try to engage him in actual discussion.

Actually you did not point out any flaws in my argument, you did not even tackle my argument. Also, my argument was not with you, it was with Nev and Zeus. It is not that either one of them are supporting you as a favour to you, as you seem to think. The only reason they are supporting you in return is because they don't have any other strings left to hang onto besides that little irrelevant thread of an argument you made after clumsily stumbling into the middle of the existing argument.

I do not know why you continue to fail to understand why I continue to ignore your post.

This is the argument:

Crazy as it sounds, you're gonna get taxed on it as "other income" in the future if these guys are right

My take on it, I don't think it is a bad idea to place taxations on selling in game assets like those World of Warcraft some people play the game to unhealthy levels, and like cigarettes, this should be taxed in any way possible.

.....With MMO's, I'm not aware of any public health epidemic due to overuse of the games.

And who are you to say what's bad for someone or not bad for them?.....

Now explain how you have really added anything significant to either side?

Seriously, all you have achieved is to cause annoyance by insisting on the interruption of the main argument.


PS. If you are really that interested in finding out the exact information on her research, then I suggest going to her webpage http://www.computeraddiction.com/
or Email her: Orzack@ComputerAddiction.com

That would serve you a greater purpose than making silly sarcastic remarks on trivial points which I am just going to ignore.

[Tessian]

As Don mentioned and we all know-- the game company claims ownership of everything within the game...

So how the hell can I be taxed for something I don't own? My subscription only gives me the ability to make use of their resources...the only thing I own is the CD the game came on...

You can be taxed on income, property, goods and services...the closest thing this falls into is services, but then you're taxing people for PLAYING the game, not for their virtual assets (which they don't really own) in the game and that's a whole different issue entirely. You can tax their income only if it equates into real world currency...but then you run into the issue of ownership and like nearly every company has said-- we own the items so you have no right to sell them. So technically people who make a living selling items and characters on games like WoW are thieves (kind of like bootleggers for DVDs) and good luck taxing something illegal.

So there you have it-- you guys bitch back and forth for days and I solve the whole issue in 10 minutes

[Zeus]

As Don mentioned and we all know-- the game company claims ownership of everything within the game...

So how the hell can I be taxed for something I don't own? My subscription only gives me the ability to make use of their resources...the only thing I own is the CD the game came on...

You can be taxed on income, property, goods and services...the closest thing this falls into is services, but then you're taxing people for PLAYING the game, not for their virtual assets (which they don't really own) in the game and that's a whole different issue entirely. You can tax their income only if it equates into real world currency...but then you run into the issue of ownership and like nearly every company has said-- we own the items so you have no right to sell them. So technically people who make a living selling items and characters on games like WoW are thieves (kind of like bootleggers for DVDs) and good luck taxing something illegal.

So there you have it-- you guys bitch back and forth for days and I solve the whole issue in 10 minutes

But the government will look into whether or not that will be changed so that virtual assets will become the property of the subscriber. A fundamental part of this will be to establish the definition of a virtual asset and, by extension, the owner of said asset. That clause will be eliminated by simple legislation if the gov't decides to move on with this.

But like Don said, if the asset is lost due to a technical error, this then makes the developer/publisher/server host/ISP liable to reimburse the consumer for losing their asset. This will not make the sellers happy and is yet another big hurdle the gov't will have to get past in order to even think about taxing virtual assets. And that's before you even start talking about valuation of the assets, for which they'll have to define and entirely new marketplace AND keep up with the radical changes in it. This isn't real estate, prices will fluctuate DRAMATICALLY, even daily

[Julius Seeker]

Another major problem I have considered is the possible laundering of funds under the guise that they are being used for the purchase of virtual property. If the market continues to grow, it can be almost guartanteed that this is going to happen if it has not already been happening.

[Tessian]

I think if the gov't does pass legislature stating that virtual items are property of the subscribers it will pretty much mark the death of MMO's as we know it.

Not even Sony would be stupid enough to keep a game like that around with that kind of liability.

[Don]

Like I said, I think you'll end up with some kind of minimal liability eventually. Like say Blizzard has to be responsible to be able to have a backup within 1 week if something catastrophic happened to your character, or they'd have to pay you back 10% of your character/item's market value. If they load you up to a week ago and you still lose your Flaming Sword of Doom, tough luck. But if they can't do that, then they have to pay you some % of what the Flaming Sword of Doom is worth. If I entrust a Black Lotus to some reputable source and they end up losing it, you can't say 'well the material of the card is worth 5 cents, the $200 value people pay to it means nothing because Wizard of the Coast can always print more'. They might not have to pay me the full price of what the market fetches for but they've to be responsible for something.

[Don]

By the way, there are servers in EQ2 where SoE acts as the middle man for sales. This way it ensures if you pay for the item you definitely get it (since SoE holds the item, and heck if they really want to they could just grab it by force). SoE says this is quite profitable because they get a cut of the sales for the service, and complaining about goods that aren't delivered is apparently a large source of customer compliants.

[Nev]

PS. Nev, I don't hate you or even think badly upon you if that is what you are thinking. Though feel free to hate me all you want, think badly upon me all you want; you can expect me to talk, just don't expect me to care =)

I don't really hate you. I just think you're a hick masquerading as an intellectual.

[Julius Seeker]

I don't really hate you. I just think you're a hick masquerading as an intellectual.

A few weeks ago I was a Neo-Nazi. If you are going to "troll" on these forums, at least make an obvious attempt at remaining consistent in your disparaging remarks =)

[SineSwiper]

Wait, Kwanzaa Bot is real?

[SineSwiper]

A few weeks ago I was a Neo-Nazi. If you are going to "troll" on these forums, at least make an obvious attempt at remaining consistent in your disparaging remarks =)

Godwinned!

[Zeus]

Wait, Kwanzaa Bot is real?

That's Oracle, if I'm not mistaken

[bovine]

That's Oracle, if I'm not mistaken

I'm flattered, but it was me, bovine.

[Zeus]

That's Oracle, if I'm not mistaken

I'm flattered, but it was me, bovine.

Close enough, man. Same province :-)