Appellate question. Will the NVSC reject a brief if I filed it with the wrong font size? i.e., 12-point font when apparently a 14-point font is required :/
(5) Typeface.  Either a proportionally spaced or a monospaced typeface may be used. Footnotes must be in the same size and typeface as the body of the brief.
(A) A proportionally spaced typeface (e.g., Century Schoolbook, CG Times, Times New Roman, and New Century) must be 14-point or larger.
I wouldn't be stunned if it is sent back with instructions to correct by a time certain. I'm mainly in Ninth but that Court has really ramped up ensuring briefs are filed exactly to designations by local rule.
The answer is – they may. The routinely reject for page limit violations and similar violations, but you'll be able to resubmit so don't worry about blowing a deadline. I HATE briefing with the NSC – pain in the ass with the rules – so my paralegal makes sure they're all correct. Good luck.
There is an appellate section of the state bar where you might be able to flag this issue. Don't know if they have a Listserve that you can access. You should probably join. Having said that and having brought many cases before the Nevada Supreme Court and just thinking out loud, you are probably ok. The clerk's office will probably accept it. I would contact them they are helpful. The Nevada Supreme Court is not like the SCOTUS or Circuit Court where they might reject non conforming pleadings.
File a motion to file a corrected brief, explaining you inadvertently used the wrong font size. I've always found the NVSC to reject obvious formatting errors but very reasonable in allowing corrections.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 4:59 pm
Moss has guts IMO and is the only judge in Nevada(and, I believe, the only public official in this state) to so aggressively lobby and advocate as to treatment for problem gaming. She was already involved in this project while she was still on the bench.
Generally, a quite unpopular position in a state whose main industry(by far) is separating gamers from their money. Don't expect her to receive any awards from the gaming conglomerates.
Some of the casino groups pay mild lip service to the issue of assisting with really problem gamblers, but it is almost always when they are put in a position where they are kind of forced to address the issue in some manner.
No, I'm not opposed to gambling and participate a little myself. But this issue addresses the situations where gaming takes over people's lives and destroys their finances, marriages, jobs, etc. I'm sure people reading this know people this happened to.
I totally agree. As somebody who grew up in Las Vegas and have lived here a great majority of my life, you are dead on. This is also the reason that State of Nevada has some of the worst Consumer Protection law in the United States. If we had stronger Consumer Protection law coming up in the Nevada legislature, I have no doubt the hotels would do everything in their power to crush it. Just a fact of life.
Like many of you I deal with the consequences of problem gaming on a regular basis and it's not pretty. Whether it's criminal law, family law, bankruptcy, or all three the ramifications can be tragic.
I see a strong correlation between problem gaming and other mental health issues, especially bipolar and PTSD. As much as I'd like to see stronger consumer protections I'd rather see better mental health support to address the root causes of these issues. Lord knows all I can do is try to clean up after the fact, which is really frustrating.
I'm a lawyer and have been a gambler in the last few years and guess what – I have PTSD due to forcible rape when I was a child and again as a young adult – along with sorts of other trauma. I started leaving the office to gamble – no one would ever know. It's a problematic escape from life. I am in treatment with a psychiatrist but guess what – many therapists and psychotherapists are enablers. Some would say I'm a "functional" gambler – but any addiction whether its alcohol, drugs, food, gambling…any, is just a filler for the black hole created by trauma. I can't see myself getting so deep as to commit crimes- but I empathize with those that do. The addiction takes over your mind in a way that is an escape. So I for one support all courts that advocate for treatment. The key is to get into treatment before addiction destroys ones life – that's a serious problem for people like myself who are skilled at hiding and pretending "all is wonderful!".
I'm a lawyer who has been addicted to prostitutes, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and smoking (tobacco) at various time in my career. I finally found some peace with cannabis. Knowing me, it will eventually become a problem, but I am enjoying a more relaxed life at the moment. Grateful for the moment.
11:17, that's why you should attend the lectures and read the material offered by Moss, as it addresses the dynamics you mention.
You raise some critical points, and I think the most important one is the specialists who observe that you are a "functional gambler."
They obviously lack training and acumen in this particular field that Moss presents on. And, in their defense, or at least in mitigation, this is a common problem among mental health specialists as they don't have a lot of experience as to nuances with gambling as an addiction.
Some of them may have a far better grip on alcohol or narcotics addictions, and how to diagnose and treat it(or at least where to refer a patient), but this gambling addiction discipline is relatively new and Moss is at the forefront.
So, two major problems with their dismissive and non-perceptive "functional gambler" label(I don't elevate it to a "diagnosis" as they are just using this as a "label" and intend to recommend no further inquiry or treatment).
First major problem, is"Functional" is often used by a so-called "specialist" when they determine that, even if the person needs the activity or substance every single day, that if the patient can still afford the habit, and has not lost their job, or a marriage, and is till able to pay their basic expenses that they must be "Functional" and it is not a dire problem.
Problem is if someone of less means than 11:17 performs the activity to the same extent as 11:17, but is less able to financial afford it and it does then start to manifest itself in more tangible manners in their life, then suddenly it is a "problem" worthy of treatment, even though the extent of the addiction was on the exact same level of 11:17.
This is why it is quite myopic and overly simplistic to label it as an addiction, or not being an addiction, based on who can afford it and who can't , etc.
If the activity is occurring to the same extent, and is destroying Person A and 11:17 to the same extent psychologically, it makes no sense to call Person A an addict, while 11:17 is listed as "functional" merely because 11:17 may have the finances to ride it all out for a while longer before it causes the financial and personal problems that Person A is already experiencing.
Second major problem with the "functioning" label is that the specialist is focusing on the fact that the gaming has not yet destroyed 11:17's career, finances or personal life without focusing on the fact that if it continues it will greatly impact those areas of 11:17's life, and that the gaming must stop in total as it is filling a painful void in 11:17's life.
Gambling must stop and that void and pain must be addressed.
This pain was (obviously) largely caused by the two rapes, but that has lead to a lot more.
So, the game plan should be let's aggressively do whatever we can to stop 11:17 from gambling, and then let's aggressively address this pain and trauma in 11:17's past.
But to instead say don't worry about any of this because 11:17 can currently afford it and hasn't lost their career yet on account of it, ignores the runaway train coming down the tracks.
Well, 11:57, that assumes a lot that has not necessarily been provided by 11:17.
And if you don't have some real psychological training, and haven't interacted with 11:17 fairly extensively, I just think you are prematurely leaping to too many conclusions.
That said, and with the qualifier I also lack psychological training, there is a general point you hit(not necessarily limited to 11:17) that I agree with.
We see sports stars and entertainers gambling huge amounts. And even if they are physically and mentally programmed to gamble everyday or experience adverse reactions when they resist the urge to gamble, we(as a society) ignore these symptoms and conclude it is not a problem merely because "they are multi-millionaires and can easily afford it."
And yet if someone without much finances gambles to the same extent of the millionaire entertainer we suddenly say that must be a real psychological problem and an addiction(probably because the person without much money hits some disturbing bench marks like becoming debt-ridden, losing house, job, etc.).
Let's say the behavior between the two is identical. If that be the case, whether someone is an "addict" as opposed to a "functional gambler" should depend on a lot more factors than the simple determination of who can financially afford it and who can't.
I'll never understand how people get so addicted to slots that they lose everything. The few times I've played I've lost all my money in just a few minutes. Not sure what the appeal is.
12:55-agree.Ofetn, when people put $20, $40, or even $100 into a machine, it is gone right away without them even having one spin where they win anything. Every spin is a losing one.(yes, I'm speaking from my experience, as well as many others).
At least with live table games(such as playing poker against other actual human beings, including the house/dealer)if you have a high skill level you should perform better than the total randomness of the slots.
Also, as to sports books, there are a few people who are pretty adept at sports betting.
But the slots have nothing to do with talent. But that does not stop the slots(specifically, video poker) from being the main money-maker for casinos.
They have had studies as to video poker, which conclude that people who are skilled poker players do not perform any better at video poker than people who are average, or even poor, poker players.
The machines are expertly programmed to drain us all dry–whether we be adept at poker, average at it, or incompetent at it.
Actually, there was another study which did indicate that skilled poker plays did slightly better than those who would be classified as average players, but the difference was not statistically significant.
There are people who participate in the World Series of Poker, who indicate they do no better than the average person when it comes to playing video poker.
So, next time you see a book or seminar such as "Winning At Video Poker", don't waste your money on the seminar or book. Instead, waste your money on the closest video poker machine. Result is the same, but with the second option you at least got to play.
–Signed, bitter person with no gaming talent who always loses.
1:24. Your last sentence, you must mean "declaring" her as a winner.
But yes, I think the exact same thing when I see those billboards.
Locals who win money at the neighborhood casinos almost immediately lose it back to the same casino(and often the very same slot machine) they won it from.
Back in my undergrad days, we learned "addiction" is a term to describe a socially unacceptable behavior, and it is really just an excuse to make people do what we want to do within our own moral framework. If daddy prefers the crack pipe to changing diapers, and mommy prefers the slot machine to parenting, they must be held "accountable." But who are to say they are wrong?
Now, when hailed before the mighty tribunal, the accused will (as they all do) jump at the most convenient excuse: addiction. It's beyond my control, your honor! Cut me some slack. Give me a chance. Let me avoid the societal consequences.
For the alleged victims of the men and women displaying the addictive behaviors, the label of addiction acts as a salve of sorts over the wound. Poor daddy and mommy didn't choose crack and slots over me, they were addicted. No, little Timmy, they chose crack and slots over you. Period.
I have watched men and women go in and out of "addiction" cycles, with rehab and divorce, and so on. The only ones who "came out" and "reconnected" with society are the ones who simply decided, "eh, the love and affection of my child is, in fact, sweeter than the pipe or slot machine." That's it. Rehab is a joke. Virtually all counselors are a joke. Any judge who cuts an "addict" some slack is a joke. It's the moment of clarity, or whatever.
To "Bitter" at 1:19: Read Bringing Down the House, Ben Mezrich, Free Press (c) 2002.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 5:06 pm
9:59–Agree that we need more public officials getting involved with this issue, but I read the SBC Americas article that is linked to the mention of Moss(in the above topics section)and I just don't get it.
So, someone please explain it to me like I'm a six-year-old as there's an element here I just don't get(to quote Denzel Washington portraying attorney Ray Miller).
The article is centered around the issue that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gaming.
I always thought that New Jersey(following Nevada) was the second state to legalize casino gaming, and did so decades ago when casino gaming a was adopted in Atlantic City.
I think the issue in NJ is that gambling is currently only allowed in Atlantic City, and they recently passed a law to allow casinos in other parts of the state too.
Agree strongly with Moss as well!
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 5:12 pm
I guess I'm as simple-minded and uninformed as 10:06 as I was also quite puzzled when the article starts by stating that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gambling.
So, I figured they were debating some new or innovative form of gambling(like some on-line variant, etc.)in addition to standard casino floor play, so I read the article to find out these details.
But the article does not clarify, which still leaves us with the very general premise that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gambling–which, yes, has been legal for years starting with Atlantic City.
So, if teacher has an extra dunce cap for me, I'll, join 10:06 in the corner.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 5:30 pm
10:06 and 10:12 accurately allude to some basic journalism oversights.
The writer knew, or should have known, that the first thing many readers would say is "Wait. I don't get it. Atlantic City has had gaming for years. So, what's this about debating legalizing gaming casinos in New Jersey?"
So, one additional sentence, or even just part of a sentence, would have handled matters, by including the clarification 10:09 points out.
So, after "New Jersey debates whether to legalize casino gaming…", add in "in areas in addition to Atlantic City."
That would have handled it.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 5:38 pm
Moss was not so highly-rated as a judge, and a chief complaint was calendar control and inordinate waiting times. But these days, with our new video hearings, that would have been largely(but not totally) reduced as a problem if she were still on the bench.
But, regardless of her legacy as a judge, we have had a gazillion judges(good, bad and in between) and they come and go without leaving a mark.
But she has a chance to make a real difference, and be much better as a former judge/community advocate than she was as an actual judge.
She's already creating quite a legacy as to this problem gaming issue and has been at it for years. I believe her late mother, who was a V.A.psychiatrist, was a pioneer in this field.
Sort of reminds me of people who were much better as former presidents than they ever were as serving presidents. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter come to mind. But a lot of people still don't appreciate it when 96-year old Jimmy Carter weighs in on current policy issues, but he has been involved in a great number of altruistic projects over the years.
Moss was not only a lousy judge who took the bench late and then wasted time free associating instead of making decisions, she would then berate attorneys who were just a few minutes late to her court because they were juggling other family cases, in other departments. She has no credibility with me on any subject.
11:21–I believe you are conflating two separate things.
You suggest that if she had poor calendar control, and some demeanor lapses, as a judge that such must mean that she has no useful knowledge on any subject–including problem gambling, of which she happens to be an expert.
If I follow your logic, then the fact that a bankruptcy attorney may be ineffective at car repair would mean that he must therefore have no skill or credibility in the are of bankruptcy, even if he appears to be held in very high regard by his peers.
So,the fact you don't like the judge should not lead you to conclude she has no credibility in any other matter. There are many people I don't like so well, but I recognize their skill and abilities in a given area.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 6:27 pm
Oh, look another Harry Reid associate given a gig at Boyd. Elissa Cadish, Jennifer Dorsey, who else?
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 6:48 pm
My main issue with Moss is that at least part of her experience comes from being a family court judge and seeing the impact of problem gambling on families. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing these people come into family court whining about their addiction and it's an illness and blah blah blah…meanwhile they blow up their lives with their little problem. The victims aren't the addict. The victims are the spouse who finds themselves $150K in the hole with gambling debt they didn't know they had. The victims are the children who are left alone with dad who happens to be smoking crack in the garage while the baby runs around the house in a dirty diaper. I've sat in court and listened to judges wax on about how these people really understand their addiction and the court can tell they are serious about treatment…and yet it's the 4th, 5th, 6th time they've been to rehab. There's all this focus on the addict and the havoc they wreck, the hell they inflict on the remaining members of the family is just terrible. There's no accountability.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 6:55 pm
A-21-834498-B Why isn't this case in the LVRJ? Wife's firm got the referral for the defense. Class action against a California foreclosure business that foreclosed for years in Nevada and apparently never thought to get a business license.
Chris Yergensen who was counsel for a decade of shoddy foreclosures at Nevada Association Services is now worried about foreclosures being properly conducted? Well that is rich.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 7:33 pm
11:48–please review the comments by 11:17, 11:33,11:57 and 12:09.
I don't agree with everything they say but I think if you consider the general themes they offer, you will think about this issue with more sensitivity and in a more complex manner. More importantly, review Moss' material or other material on the subject.
Now, that said, despite you taking a somewhat jaundiced and non-compassionate view as to addicts, only a fool could deny you hit thee bull's eye when you hammer on the fact that addicts are often people who don't generate, or even seemingly deserve, much sympathy, that their habits are largely(or even totally) self-created, and that our real concern should be for the families and other victims who suffer due to the addict's behavior.
But even if you think a lot of us are bleeding hearts for the addicts, while you seem to detest the addicts and believe the sole focus should be on the victims, we are all need to be focused on solving the problem to the best extent possible on a case-by-case basis.
Some people may focus mainly on the addict, while others may put main focus on the harm to their families and victims, while others are greatly concerned about both the addicts and victims. Any of those philosophies can work if we are all on the same team as to addressing the problem.
But, whatever the focus, and wherever our sympathies lay, if we successfully treat addicts(even if they are worthless and don't deserve help in your estimation) we invariably wind up helping the families and other victims who have suffered at the hands of the addicts.
Hopefully, you can examine the issue from that angle as well, rather than just wanting to bury the addicts in some hole in the desert and forget about them.
Some recovered addicts go on to have successful lives(both personally and financially) make good with those they wronged financially, etc.)
However, I will be the first to admit that only relatively few addicts, even the "recovered" ones, ever come close to fully making good as to the emotional and financial harm they caused.
But we still need to aggressively address these problems. At least that helps avoid future and continued harm.
That said, there is a part of me that often feels like 11:48, but I always try to fight the urge to view addicts in that fashion.
Guest
Anonymous
June 16, 2021 7:36 pm
I tend to feel like 11:48, and generally have very little compassion for the addicts, as almost all my compassions is with the victims of the addicts.
But I also agree with 12:33 that if we successfully treat the addicts, we are certainly helping the families and other victims of the addicts, or at least we help prevent or greatly reduce future victimization.
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 4:14 pm
11:48 here…I get what you're saying and I don't disagree from a treatment perspective. That said I've been in too many family court cases where the addict has destroyed their family (finances, future, custody, careers, stability, etc) with gambling and/or substance addiction. Then, because they are now going to some meetings and they maybe went to detox or rehab, the court extends tremendous sympathy and leeway to them. They literally destroy their family – causing bankruptcy, loss of the family home, savings gone, college funds gone, DUI, divorce, new schools for the kids away from their friends, 401k gone, etc. It's a nightmare for the spouse who suddenly finds themselves with $150k in credit card debt they didn't know they had. Then you go to court and now they have to share credit and possibly even pay child support to this addict who destroyed their lives and the family AND the judge congratulates the addict for being sober now. WTF
In custody cases the sole consideration (by statute) is the best interests of the child. I fail to see how an addict who has destroyed the family now getting joint custody of the children is in their best interest…especially when they've gone to rehab 4-8 times. We can see where this is going…they've relapsed repeatedly. They've destroyed their family and the lives of their family members with their addiction. Are we really going to say it's in the best interest of the children to put the kids with this person? Their next relapse is as predictable as the sunrise.
If you want sympathy and understanding go to therapy or drug court. I don't see how coddling addicts has much of a role in family court.
Final note – I'm referring to hardcore addicts with real problems. Not some parent who over indulged in college 20 years ago and got a DUI with no problems since then.
Appellate question. Will the NVSC reject a brief if I filed it with the wrong font size? i.e., 12-point font when apparently a 14-point font is required :/
(5) Typeface.  Either a proportionally spaced or a monospaced typeface may be used. Footnotes must be in the same size and typeface as the body of the brief.
(A) A proportionally spaced typeface (e.g., Century Schoolbook, CG Times, Times New Roman, and New Century) must be 14-point or larger.
I wouldn't be stunned if it is sent back with instructions to correct by a time certain. I'm mainly in Ninth but that Court has really ramped up ensuring briefs are filed exactly to designations by local rule.
The answer is – they may. The routinely reject for page limit violations and similar violations, but you'll be able to resubmit so don't worry about blowing a deadline. I HATE briefing with the NSC – pain in the ass with the rules – so my paralegal makes sure they're all correct. Good luck.
There is an appellate section of the state bar where you might be able to flag this issue. Don't know if they have a Listserve that you can access. You should probably join. Having said that and having brought many cases before the Nevada Supreme Court and just thinking out loud, you are probably ok. The clerk's office will probably accept it. I would contact them they are helpful. The Nevada Supreme Court is not like the SCOTUS or Circuit Court where they might reject non conforming pleadings.
Since you seem to be aware of the rule, just follow it! That way, you will never know the answer to your question.
File a motion to file a corrected brief, explaining you inadvertently used the wrong font size. I've always found the NVSC to reject obvious formatting errors but very reasonable in allowing corrections.
Moss has guts IMO and is the only judge in Nevada(and, I believe, the only public official in this state) to so aggressively lobby and advocate as to treatment for problem gaming. She was already involved in this project while she was still on the bench.
Generally, a quite unpopular position in a state whose main industry(by far) is separating gamers from their money. Don't expect her to receive any awards from the gaming conglomerates.
Some of the casino groups pay mild lip service to the issue of assisting with really problem gamblers, but it is almost always when they are put in a position where they are kind of forced to address the issue in some manner.
No, I'm not opposed to gambling and participate a little myself. But this issue addresses the situations where gaming takes over people's lives and destroys their finances, marriages, jobs, etc. I'm sure people reading this know people this happened to.
I totally agree. As somebody who grew up in Las Vegas and have lived here a great majority of my life, you are dead on. This is also the reason that State of Nevada has some of the worst Consumer Protection law in the United States. If we had stronger Consumer Protection law coming up in the Nevada legislature, I have no doubt the hotels would do everything in their power to crush it. Just a fact of life.
Like many of you I deal with the consequences of problem gaming on a regular basis and it's not pretty. Whether it's criminal law, family law, bankruptcy, or all three the ramifications can be tragic.
I see a strong correlation between problem gaming and other mental health issues, especially bipolar and PTSD. As much as I'd like to see stronger consumer protections I'd rather see better mental health support to address the root causes of these issues. Lord knows all I can do is try to clean up after the fact, which is really frustrating.
I'm a lawyer and have been a gambler in the last few years and guess what – I have PTSD due to forcible rape when I was a child and again as a young adult – along with sorts of other trauma. I started leaving the office to gamble – no one would ever know. It's a problematic escape from life. I am in treatment with a psychiatrist but guess what – many therapists and psychotherapists are enablers. Some would say I'm a "functional" gambler – but any addiction whether its alcohol, drugs, food, gambling…any, is just a filler for the black hole created by trauma. I can't see myself getting so deep as to commit crimes- but I empathize with those that do. The addiction takes over your mind in a way that is an escape. So I for one support all courts that advocate for treatment. The key is to get into treatment before addiction destroys ones life – that's a serious problem for people like myself who are skilled at hiding and pretending "all is wonderful!".
I'm a lawyer who has been addicted to prostitutes, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and smoking (tobacco) at various time in my career. I finally found some peace with cannabis. Knowing me, it will eventually become a problem, but I am enjoying a more relaxed life at the moment. Grateful for the moment.
11:17, that's why you should attend the lectures and read the material offered by Moss, as it addresses the dynamics you mention.
You raise some critical points, and I think the most important one is the specialists who observe that you are a "functional gambler."
They obviously lack training and acumen in this particular field that Moss presents on. And, in their defense, or at least in mitigation, this is a common problem among mental health specialists as they don't have a lot of experience as to nuances with gambling as an addiction.
Some of them may have a far better grip on alcohol or narcotics addictions, and how to diagnose and treat it(or at least where to refer a patient), but this gambling addiction discipline is relatively new and Moss is at the forefront.
So, two major problems with their dismissive and non-perceptive "functional gambler" label(I don't elevate it to a "diagnosis" as they are just using this as a "label" and intend to recommend no further inquiry or treatment).
First major problem, is"Functional" is often used by a so-called "specialist" when they determine that, even if the person needs the activity or substance every single day, that if the patient can still afford the habit, and has not lost their job, or a marriage, and is till able to pay their basic expenses that they must be "Functional" and it is not a dire problem.
Problem is if someone of less means than 11:17 performs the activity to the same extent as 11:17, but is less able to financial afford it and it does then start to manifest itself in more tangible manners in their life, then suddenly it is a "problem" worthy of treatment, even though the extent of the addiction was on the exact same level of 11:17.
This is why it is quite myopic and overly simplistic to label it as an addiction, or not being an addiction, based on who can afford it and who can't , etc.
If the activity is occurring to the same extent, and is destroying Person A and 11:17 to the same extent psychologically, it makes no sense to call Person A an addict, while 11:17 is listed as "functional" merely because 11:17 may have the finances to ride it all out for a while longer before it causes the financial and personal problems that Person A is already experiencing.
Second major problem with the "functioning" label is that the specialist is focusing on the fact that the gaming has not yet destroyed 11:17's career, finances or personal life without focusing on the fact that if it continues it will greatly impact those areas of 11:17's life, and that the gaming must stop in total as it is filling a painful void in 11:17's life.
Gambling must stop and that void and pain must be addressed.
This pain was (obviously) largely caused by the two rapes, but that has lead to a lot more.
So, the game plan should be let's aggressively do whatever we can to stop 11:17 from gambling, and then let's aggressively address this pain and trauma in 11:17's past.
But to instead say don't worry about any of this because 11:17 can currently afford it and hasn't lost their career yet on account of it, ignores the runaway train coming down the tracks.
Well, 11:57, that assumes a lot that has not necessarily been provided by 11:17.
And if you don't have some real psychological training, and haven't interacted with 11:17 fairly extensively, I just think you are prematurely leaping to too many conclusions.
That said, and with the qualifier I also lack psychological training, there is a general point you hit(not necessarily limited to 11:17) that I agree with.
We see sports stars and entertainers gambling huge amounts. And even if they are physically and mentally programmed to gamble everyday or experience adverse reactions when they resist the urge to gamble, we(as a society) ignore these symptoms and conclude it is not a problem merely because "they are multi-millionaires and can easily afford it."
And yet if someone without much finances gambles to the same extent of the millionaire entertainer we suddenly say that must be a real psychological problem and an addiction(probably because the person without much money hits some disturbing bench marks like becoming debt-ridden, losing house, job, etc.).
Let's say the behavior between the two is identical. If that be the case, whether someone is an "addict" as opposed to a "functional gambler" should depend on a lot more factors than the simple determination of who can financially afford it and who can't.
I'll never understand how people get so addicted to slots that they lose everything. The few times I've played I've lost all my money in just a few minutes. Not sure what the appeal is.
12:55-agree.Ofetn, when people put $20, $40, or even $100 into a machine, it is gone right away without them even having one spin where they win anything. Every spin is a losing one.(yes, I'm speaking from my experience, as well as many others).
At least with live table games(such as playing poker against other actual human beings, including the house/dealer)if you have a high skill level you should perform better than the total randomness of the slots.
Also, as to sports books, there are a few people who are pretty adept at sports betting.
But the slots have nothing to do with talent. But that does not stop the slots(specifically, video poker) from being the main money-maker for casinos.
They have had studies as to video poker, which conclude that people who are skilled poker players do not perform any better at video poker than people who are average, or even poor, poker players.
The machines are expertly programmed to drain us all dry–whether we be adept at poker, average at it, or incompetent at it.
Actually, there was another study which did indicate that skilled poker plays did slightly better than those who would be classified as average players, but the difference was not statistically significant.
There are people who participate in the World Series of Poker, who indicate they do no better than the average person when it comes to playing video poker.
So, next time you see a book or seminar such as "Winning At Video Poker", don't waste your money on the seminar or book. Instead, waste your money on the closest video poker machine. Result is the same, but with the second option you at least got to play.
–Signed, bitter person with no gaming talent who always loses.
1:19–well, you may have no gaming talent, but I agree that even if you were talented at live poker, you would still lose at video poker.
Ultimately, everyone loses at it.
As to the blue-haired elderly woman who is on the Rancho Blvd. billboard "I won $16,000. at Station Casinos video poker."
Yes, she lost as well.
Granted, she presumably won the $16,000. But she probably gambled over $200,000 over the last few years in order to finally win that $16,000.
And that $16,000. is going right back into the slots at Station Casinos.
She probably lost it all before the billboard(dealring her as a winner) was even erected.
1:24. Your last sentence, you must mean "declaring" her as a winner.
But yes, I think the exact same thing when I see those billboards.
Locals who win money at the neighborhood casinos almost immediately lose it back to the same casino(and often the very same slot machine) they won it from.
Back in my undergrad days, we learned "addiction" is a term to describe a socially unacceptable behavior, and it is really just an excuse to make people do what we want to do within our own moral framework. If daddy prefers the crack pipe to changing diapers, and mommy prefers the slot machine to parenting, they must be held "accountable." But who are to say they are wrong?
Now, when hailed before the mighty tribunal, the accused will (as they all do) jump at the most convenient excuse: addiction. It's beyond my control, your honor! Cut me some slack. Give me a chance. Let me avoid the societal consequences.
For the alleged victims of the men and women displaying the addictive behaviors, the label of addiction acts as a salve of sorts over the wound. Poor daddy and mommy didn't choose crack and slots over me, they were addicted. No, little Timmy, they chose crack and slots over you. Period.
I have watched men and women go in and out of "addiction" cycles, with rehab and divorce, and so on. The only ones who "came out" and "reconnected" with society are the ones who simply decided, "eh, the love and affection of my child is, in fact, sweeter than the pipe or slot machine." That's it. Rehab is a joke. Virtually all counselors are a joke. Any judge who cuts an "addict" some slack is a joke. It's the moment of clarity, or whatever.
To "Bitter" at 1:19: Read Bringing Down the House, Ben Mezrich, Free Press (c) 2002.
9:59–Agree that we need more public officials getting involved with this issue, but I read the SBC Americas article that is linked to the mention of Moss(in the above topics section)and I just don't get it.
So, someone please explain it to me like I'm a six-year-old as there's an element here I just don't get(to quote Denzel Washington portraying attorney Ray Miller).
The article is centered around the issue that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gaming.
I always thought that New Jersey(following Nevada) was the second state to legalize casino gaming, and did so decades ago when casino gaming a was adopted in Atlantic City.
I think the issue in NJ is that gambling is currently only allowed in Atlantic City, and they recently passed a law to allow casinos in other parts of the state too.
Agree strongly with Moss as well!
I guess I'm as simple-minded and uninformed as 10:06 as I was also quite puzzled when the article starts by stating that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gambling.
So, I figured they were debating some new or innovative form of gambling(like some on-line variant, etc.)in addition to standard casino floor play, so I read the article to find out these details.
But the article does not clarify, which still leaves us with the very general premise that New Jersey is debating whether to legalize casino gambling–which, yes, has been legal for years starting with Atlantic City.
So, if teacher has an extra dunce cap for me, I'll, join 10:06 in the corner.
10:06 and 10:12 accurately allude to some basic journalism oversights.
The writer knew, or should have known, that the first thing many readers would say is "Wait. I don't get it. Atlantic City has had gaming for years. So, what's this about debating legalizing gaming casinos in New Jersey?"
So, one additional sentence, or even just part of a sentence, would have handled matters, by including the clarification 10:09 points out.
So, after "New Jersey debates whether to legalize casino gaming…", add in "in areas in addition to Atlantic City."
That would have handled it.
Moss was not so highly-rated as a judge, and a chief complaint was calendar control and inordinate waiting times. But these days, with our new video hearings, that would have been largely(but not totally) reduced as a problem if she were still on the bench.
But, regardless of her legacy as a judge, we have had a gazillion judges(good, bad and in between) and they come and go without leaving a mark.
But she has a chance to make a real difference, and be much better as a former judge/community advocate than she was as an actual judge.
She's already creating quite a legacy as to this problem gaming issue and has been at it for years. I believe her late mother, who was a V.A.psychiatrist, was a pioneer in this field.
Sort of reminds me of people who were much better as former presidents than they ever were as serving presidents. Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter come to mind. But a lot of people still don't appreciate it when 96-year old Jimmy Carter weighs in on current policy issues, but he has been involved in a great number of altruistic projects over the years.
Moss was not only a lousy judge who took the bench late and then wasted time free associating instead of making decisions, she would then berate attorneys who were just a few minutes late to her court because they were juggling other family cases, in other departments. She has no credibility with me on any subject.
11:21–I believe you are conflating two separate things.
You suggest that if she had poor calendar control, and some demeanor lapses, as a judge that such must mean that she has no useful knowledge on any subject–including problem gambling, of which she happens to be an expert.
If I follow your logic, then the fact that a bankruptcy attorney may be ineffective at car repair would mean that he must therefore have no skill or credibility in the are of bankruptcy, even if he appears to be held in very high regard by his peers.
So,the fact you don't like the judge should not lead you to conclude she has no credibility in any other matter. There are many people I don't like so well, but I recognize their skill and abilities in a given area.
Oh, look another Harry Reid associate given a gig at Boyd. Elissa Cadish, Jennifer Dorsey, who else?
My main issue with Moss is that at least part of her experience comes from being a family court judge and seeing the impact of problem gambling on families. Frankly, I'm sick of seeing these people come into family court whining about their addiction and it's an illness and blah blah blah…meanwhile they blow up their lives with their little problem. The victims aren't the addict. The victims are the spouse who finds themselves $150K in the hole with gambling debt they didn't know they had. The victims are the children who are left alone with dad who happens to be smoking crack in the garage while the baby runs around the house in a dirty diaper. I've sat in court and listened to judges wax on about how these people really understand their addiction and the court can tell they are serious about treatment…and yet it's the 4th, 5th, 6th time they've been to rehab. There's all this focus on the addict and the havoc they wreck, the hell they inflict on the remaining members of the family is just terrible. There's no accountability.
A-21-834498-B Why isn't this case in the LVRJ? Wife's firm got the referral for the defense. Class action against a California foreclosure business that foreclosed for years in Nevada and apparently never thought to get a business license.
Probably because the court has ruled previously it doesn’t matter if they are licensed.
Chris Yergensen who was counsel for a decade of shoddy foreclosures at Nevada Association Services is now worried about foreclosures being properly conducted? Well that is rich.
11:48–please review the comments by 11:17, 11:33,11:57 and 12:09.
I don't agree with everything they say but I think if you consider the general themes they offer, you will think about this issue with more sensitivity and in a more complex manner. More importantly, review Moss' material or other material on the subject.
Now, that said, despite you taking a somewhat jaundiced and non-compassionate view as to addicts, only a fool could deny you hit thee bull's eye when you hammer on the fact that addicts are often people who don't generate, or even seemingly deserve, much sympathy, that their habits are largely(or even totally) self-created, and that our real concern should be for the families and other victims who suffer due to the addict's behavior.
But even if you think a lot of us are bleeding hearts for the addicts, while you seem to detest the addicts and believe the sole focus should be on the victims, we are all need to be focused on solving the problem to the best extent possible on a case-by-case basis.
Some people may focus mainly on the addict, while others may put main focus on the harm to their families and victims, while others are greatly concerned about both the addicts and victims. Any of those philosophies can work if we are all on the same team as to addressing the problem.
But, whatever the focus, and wherever our sympathies lay, if we successfully treat addicts(even if they are worthless and don't deserve help in your estimation) we invariably wind up helping the families and other victims who have suffered at the hands of the addicts.
Hopefully, you can examine the issue from that angle as well, rather than just wanting to bury the addicts in some hole in the desert and forget about them.
Some recovered addicts go on to have successful lives(both personally and financially) make good with those they wronged financially, etc.)
However, I will be the first to admit that only relatively few addicts, even the "recovered" ones, ever come close to fully making good as to the emotional and financial harm they caused.
But we still need to aggressively address these problems. At least that helps avoid future and continued harm.
That said, there is a part of me that often feels like 11:48, but I always try to fight the urge to view addicts in that fashion.
I tend to feel like 11:48, and generally have very little compassion for the addicts, as almost all my compassions is with the victims of the addicts.
But I also agree with 12:33 that if we successfully treat the addicts, we are certainly helping the families and other victims of the addicts, or at least we help prevent or greatly reduce future victimization.
11:48 here…I get what you're saying and I don't disagree from a treatment perspective. That said I've been in too many family court cases where the addict has destroyed their family (finances, future, custody, careers, stability, etc) with gambling and/or substance addiction. Then, because they are now going to some meetings and they maybe went to detox or rehab, the court extends tremendous sympathy and leeway to them. They literally destroy their family – causing bankruptcy, loss of the family home, savings gone, college funds gone, DUI, divorce, new schools for the kids away from their friends, 401k gone, etc. It's a nightmare for the spouse who suddenly finds themselves with $150k in credit card debt they didn't know they had. Then you go to court and now they have to share credit and possibly even pay child support to this addict who destroyed their lives and the family AND the judge congratulates the addict for being sober now. WTF
In custody cases the sole consideration (by statute) is the best interests of the child. I fail to see how an addict who has destroyed the family now getting joint custody of the children is in their best interest…especially when they've gone to rehab 4-8 times. We can see where this is going…they've relapsed repeatedly. They've destroyed their family and the lives of their family members with their addiction. Are we really going to say it's in the best interest of the children to put the kids with this person? Their next relapse is as predictable as the sunrise.
If you want sympathy and understanding go to therapy or drug court. I don't see how coddling addicts has much of a role in family court.
Final note – I'm referring to hardcore addicts with real problems. Not some parent who over indulged in college 20 years ago and got a DUI with no problems since then.