Not really, when he brings up “proof of intent” and none of that is in the definition he links.
/sigh
I said as much.
Again, if you’re going to rely upon psuedo-jargon to give an air of authority to your rebuttal, don’t misuse the terms. He didn’t argue “not a bribe” because this is WoW and bribes don’t exist, he argued “not a bribe” because of [insert really bad defense here].
Nothing within the context of that conversation moved it from a baseline conversation about his actions into a discussion on the legalese of whether he could be prosecuted for bribery either criminally or civilly. You made that leap. Not him. You attempted to push your definition on him. He rejected your definitions. Logically speaking, this is simply your attempt to smash him by moving the setting from an informal discussion about his actions into an arena you clearly have more experience arguing from than he does. That’s literally all that happened. He didn’t get into a legal discussion with you. He didn’t even attempt to. And when you attempted to force it into that area he flatly rejected your attempts.
Straight up, only person pushing the legal narrative is you.
Hilariously, you didn’t even have to push a legal narrative to trash him though. That’s what is comedy gold about your entire methodology here. “I could just trash him with his own statements, but I would rather make myself seem enlightened using my superior knowledge of legal terms along with their use and general argumentation to truly set myself apart.” BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Hilarious. So freaking hilarious!
Oh, and he argued not a bribe because it doesn’t fit the dictionary definition he laid down using [insert really bad defense here]. That doesn’t mean he moved into any kind of legal discussion with you. It means he is bad at defending himself, defining terms, using them correctly, etc. None of that means diddly squat in a forum post about world of warcraft. Attempting to make it go beyond some rando making a point and doing so poorly into some “treatise on why your legal understanding is trash” is pretty worthless.
We can use whatever terms we want actually. You don’t get to decide for us. And I’m the one who cited the us code. We can argue what we want. You do not control the forums.
Doesn’t make your point any more valid, but you do you 
Dude fayld is like joyson. Maybe not a briber but he’ll use whatever logic he can to argue with you. He thinks he can control what we talk about.
It’s not invalid because you say it is. You are not a forum moderator. You’re just like joyson.
LOL! Go on with your legal citations! I am sure they are really netting you wow forum points with a variety of people. Mostly anyone without a baseline understanding of how discussions in various formats work and that in an informal setting like a wow forum you look like a complete jackhole for citing legal code to attack…checks notes…Joyson? REALLY? THAT’S THE GUY YOU USED THIS ON? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!! YOU PEOPLE ARE GREAT! The moment I point out that your legal argument is 1) absurd and 2) overkill you decide I must just be being argumentative. Never mind that there is another poster who also thinks your legal approach to blowing up an idiot isn’t relevant. But please. Continue.
This mental gymnastics thread really delivers.
It has been amazing! It was a real flop at first, but through struggle, determination, and the op admitting he tried to bribe his GM into giving him rejuv gem, it got to this glorious point!
/headdesk
Don’t.
Use.
Legal.
Terms.
Of.
Art.
Regarding.
Crimes.
If.
You.
Don’t.
Want.
To.
Be.
Schooled.
It is literally that simple. People called him out for trying to bribe (colloquially) his GM. He responded by arguing bribes aren’t bribes unless they’re a) substantial, and b) accepted. These are element claims of a cause of action. This isn’t a refutation that bribery cannot occur because WoW has no legal jurisdictions and Blizzard doesn’t manage such transactions anyway (which is true), it was a deflection that bribery somehow doesn’t work that way with faux appeals to legal doctrines.
Intent.
Hearsay.
Proof.
He made it a legal argument by trying to pad his counterpoint with legal jargon, and he did so poorly. That has been my point since the beginning.
You’re completely off base.
I literally did you dingbat. Why would I call out his misuse of “hearsay” if he didn’t literally try to use it?
/headdesk
This is your hang up. It isn’t with the argument, it isn’t with any logic at all, it is your application of Psych 101 nonsense that because someone ELSE is being corrected the person doing the correcting is actually the bad person.
I don’t get why you have a hangup with expertise, but that’s a you problem. Joyson’s feeble attempt tried using legal jargon, and he failed. It isn’t that complicated.
BAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!! OMG IT KEEPS GETTING BETTER! Now I have a hang up with expertise in a discussion where said expertise is completely irrelevant. I would go through your entire diatribe attempting to justify your egregious use of expertise against…checks notes again…the forum clown, but there really isn’t anything more to say. Terms of art. LOL!
Recent Examples on the Web: <`https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay#examples>
So rather than rely on a company’s reputation or industry hearsay, FOS conducted a survey to determine the 25 winners.
Rigorous scientific study on the phenomenon is scarce, but not all examples are mere hearsay.
You should write USA Today and Popular Science and let them know that if they are going to use terms of art, they should be prepared to be schooled.
Yeah you’re not doing yourself any favors here if you think “term of art” is out of place…
Holy crap you’re dense.
It isn’t a legal discussion because he uttered a magic word “hearsay.”
It is a legal discussion because he used “hearsay” in conjunction with “proof” and “intent” regarding “bribery” you absolute spoon.
You literally used term of art in a wow forum to beat someone over the head with legal terms in a discussion that wasn’t involving anything within the legal field. Abusing terms of art in an effort to prop up a poorly executed argument against a guy who couldn’t defend himself is pretty hilarious. You do you bub.
BAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Dude pretends that Joyson was making a legal argument and then says that I am dense. Brilliant!
It isn’t a legal discussion because he used the terms in conjunction either. That’s just dumb. Kinda like using a legal attack to smash Joyson.
He brought it up himself, sorry this assaults your senses.
“It isn’t a legal argument is someone talks about proof, intent, criminal standards, and hearsay to defend their bad actions.”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long while.
Feel free to link the point where Joyson talked about criminal standards. I will wait.
As for proof, intent, and hearsay, none of those terms are used solely within the legal field. Even in combination the legal field isn’t the sole proprietor of their use. Get outside your little bubble sometime. When you do, maybe we can have an actual discussion about something. Until then, you aren’t very interesting. Carry on beating up Joyson with your irrelevant legal arguments.
The part where he brings up “intent” regarding a bribery definition that didn’t contain the word or even imply it. Intent matters in criminal proceedings because 95% of criminal liabilities necessitate an intent element.
Again, you can’t be this dense.
…and you accuse me of stretching while ignoring the context of these being applied to bribery?
By all means, find me a field that uses bribery, intent, hearsay, and proof together that isn’t legal.
And that would be substantive in a legal setting, discussion about legal doctrine, discussion about a specific law or set of laws, discussion with a bunch of legal minded people, discussion on a legal board, discussion in a legal context of any kind, or even a discussion about the freaking EULA.
That’s ridiculous on a wow forum which is none of those things.
This is my last response. You have once again proven to be boring. Carry on.
This is all terrible. Terrible thread.
LOL
The dude brought up intent out of thin air, as a defense against claims of bribery, because intent (according to him) couldn’t be proven due to hearsay.
But sure… completely inappropriate to mock bad use of legal terms… 
dont care.
this is correct, thanks for typing it out