It has less to do with the paying of state taxes.....and more to do with the fact that a public forum is hosting an active venue for unlicensed (and therefore illegal) gambling.
The Napster example that was provided a few posts up set the precedent that the host can be made responsible for the actions of others.
If we were to continue with "raffle" type transactions, here are a couple of suggestions:
1) Don't call it "raffle". This is one of the key words that the gaming commission uses to scour the Internet for illegal raffles.
2) Call it a "group purchase" of the said cue, with the exclusive rights and ultimate ownership of the said cue to be determined by some undisclosed method by the group of purchasers.
That should be good enough to avoid any action by any authority....or at least make it real tough for them to prove that there was ever a raffle.
Just my 2 cents.
Donald
The Napster example that was provided a few posts up set the precedent that the host can be made responsible for the actions of others.
If we were to continue with "raffle" type transactions, here are a couple of suggestions:
1) Don't call it "raffle". This is one of the key words that the gaming commission uses to scour the Internet for illegal raffles.
2) Call it a "group purchase" of the said cue, with the exclusive rights and ultimate ownership of the said cue to be determined by some undisclosed method by the group of purchasers.
That should be good enough to avoid any action by any authority....or at least make it real tough for them to prove that there was ever a raffle.
Just my 2 cents.
Donald