Issue against my policies?!

[La Xingan Sports Association]

The Issue: Bet Your Life, requires gambling and casinos, which I banned, but I still got it. How?

[The New California Republic]

The Issue: Bet Your Life, requires gambling and casinos, which I banned, but I still got it. How?

Issue #1293 specifically states:

@@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a usually unremarkable 45-year-old sanitation worker, was recently detained after trying to tight-rope walk naked across the canyon between two financial district skyscrapers. It turns out this was for a bet, or more accurately as the price of a wager in an illegal “extreme casino”, where gamblers are allowed and encouraged to offer non-financial stakes. In these places any wager can be agreed, be it body parts, sexual favours or binding agreements.

So it can be valid in nations even with the "No Gambling" policy.

[La Xinga]

The Issue: Bet Your Life, requires gambling and casinos, which I banned, but I still got it. How?

Issue #1293 specifically states:

@@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a usually unremarkable 45-year-old sanitation worker, was recently detained after trying to tight-rope walk naked across the canyon between two financial district skyscrapers. It turns out this was for a bet, or more accurately as the price of a wager in an illegal “extreme casino”, where gamblers are allowed and encouraged to offer non-financial stakes. In these places any wager can be agreed, be it body parts, sexual favours or binding agreements.

So it can be valid in nations even with the "No Gambling" policy.

It later says in the issue:

Even in legal casinos...

which they are none in the nation which banned them!

[The New California Republic]

Issue #1293 specifically states:

@@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a usually unremarkable 45-year-old sanitation worker, was recently detained after trying to tight-rope walk naked across the canyon between two financial district skyscrapers. It turns out this was for a bet, or more accurately as the price of a wager in an illegal “extreme casino”, where gamblers are allowed and encouraged to offer non-financial stakes. In these places any wager can be agreed, be it body parts, sexual favours or binding agreements.

So it can be valid in nations even with the "No Gambling" policy.

It later says in the issue:

Even in legal casinos...

which they are none in the nation which banned them!

Which doesn't say that they actually exist. The part you are referring to, option 3:

[...] Make monetary gambling more attractive by making legal casinos more exciting. [...]

It doesn't claim anywhere that the legal casinos actually exist currently, so I don't see the problem.

[La Xingan Sports Association]

Part 1:

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos. It’s a real thrill, knowing that the next turn of the card could win you thousands, or could literally cost you your balls.”

[The New California Republic]

Part 1:

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos. It’s a real thrill, knowing that the next turn of the card could win you thousands, or could literally cost you your balls.”

Again, that doesn't say that they exist currently.

[ArenaC]

Part 1:

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos. It’s a real thrill, knowing that the next turn of the card could win you thousands, or could literally cost you your balls.”

what balls

[La Xinga]

Part 1:

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos. It’s a real thrill, knowing that the next turn of the card could win you thousands, or could literally cost you your balls.”

Again, that doesn't say that they exist currently.

It seems so!

[The New California Republic]

Again, that doesn't say that they exist currently.

It seems so!

So...are you conceding that there is no contradiction here, or...?

[La Xinga]

It seems so!

So...are you conceding that there is no contradiction here, or...?

No, it really gives the info that there are legal casinos, as it's not saying "we should allow casinos" rather, in legal casinos, which means there are already some.

[The New California Republic]

So...are you conceding that there is no contradiction here, or...?

No, it really gives the info that there are legal casinos, as it's not saying "we should allow casinos" rather, in legal casinos, which means there are already some.

It really really doesn't. It is speaking of them hypothetically, it does not say explicitly at any point that they currently exist.

[La Xinga]

No, it really gives the info that there are legal casinos, as it's not saying "we should allow casinos" rather, in legal casinos, which means there are already some.

It really really doesn't. It is speaking of them hypothetically, it does not say explicitly at any point that they currently exist.

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos."

Why would we say "legal casinos" if there is none?

[Gandoor]

It really really doesn't. It is speaking of them hypothetically, it does not say explicitly at any point that they currently exist.

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos."

Why would we say "legal casinos" if there is none?

Because it means that 'you don't currently have legal casinos and this thing that's going on in illegal casinos ought to be legalized along with casinos themselves'.

Seriously, reading comprehension isn't that damn hard.

[La Xinga]

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos."

Why would we say "legal casinos" if there is none?

Because it means that 'you don't currently have legal casinos and this thing that's going on in illegal casinos ought to be legalized along with casinos themselves'.

Seriously, reading comprehension isn't that damn hard.

They didn't say that LOL.

[Mzeusia]

It's not worded amazingly, but it still works.

[The New California Republic]

It really really doesn't. It is speaking of them hypothetically, it does not say explicitly at any point that they currently exist.

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos."

Why would we say "legal casinos" if there is none?

OK, I'll use a real life example to clarify. I could say "cannabis needs to be allowed in cannabis cafes in the UK". Cannabis cafes do not exist in the UK, but what I said is still valid. It is still valid because it is not making an assertion regarding their current existence, it is proffering that such a thing could exist. Therefore, on the same basis, even with there being no legal casinos in your nation, the statement "Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos" is not invalid.

[La Xinga]

“Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos."

Why would we say "legal casinos" if there is none?

OK, I'll use a real life example to clarify. I could say "cannabis needs to be allowed in cannabis cafes in the UK". Cannabis cafes do not exist in the UK, but what I said is still valid. It is still valid because it is not making an assertion regarding their current existence, it is proffering that such a thing could exist. Therefore, on the same basis, even with there being no legal casinos in your nation, the statement "Honestly, you need to allow this sort of thing in legal casinos" is not invalid.

Then I guess it's just me