The matching system of online games is important factor that determines enjoy the game with others and defines the features of the online game itself. In this regard, Regulation to force the random matching of Web-based board game that has recently been made in Korea, have some problems in terms of both the development and use. First of all, regulation directly to the matching method, shall preclude the development of a creative matching system in social game environment . In addition, the antipathy of fun and discomfort of the game use is a concern in the position of the user. Games for direct regulation affecting the development and use as much considering it prudent approach is required.
Interpretation of the laws governing speculation in Korea has been discussed primarily based on the judiciary judgment over the concept of speculation where the courts and statutes have been consistent in applying the existence of “cash convertibility” as the criterion in determining the speculative nature of an activity. This has applied to the Korean gaming regulations in such a way that a game is to be prohibited if it meets this speculative condition but allowed otherwise. But amendments of the Game Industry Promotion Act’s enforcement ordinance in 2013 to prohibit “auto-play” etc., has brought out a new political problem in the government’s regulation against speculation in online poker games, as the new amendment was devised to prevent excess-use by the users of online poker games that do not meet the definition of speculation such as gambling, under the existing provisions. This study examines and tests the banning of “auto-play” that would not be suitable for Online games. And it shows the ineffectiveness and lots of side effects that game industries confront on many aspects.
This study challenges constitutional problems of the identification regulation on online web-board Games, which is about to be reviewed by Ministry of Government Legislation. The regulation comprises imposition of duty for online web-board game publisher to identify every game user whenever the game user plays or accesses the online web-board game. The regulation is deemed to be unconstitutional because 1) it is not an effective mean to prevent online web-board game from being misused as gambling 2) it violates free speech right, right on personal information as well as privacy. As the Constitutional Court of Korea has already decided that internet real-name system, which imposed identification duty online bulletin board, is unconstitutional, any regulator or legislator should not use identification regulation without eliminating its unconstitutionality.
LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ and alamarBlue® are fluorescent materials used for the enumeration of live and dead bacteria. LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ is generally used for confocal microscopy applications to differentiate live from dead bacteria in a biofilm or planktonic state. AlamarBlue® has also been used widely to assay live and dead bacteria in a planktonic state. Whilst these materials are successfully utilized in experiments to discriminate live from dead bacteria for several species of bacteria, the application of these techniques to oral bacteria is limited to the use of LIVE/ DEAD® BacLight™ in biofilm studies. In our present study, we assessed whether these two methods could enumerate live and dead oral bacterial species in a planktonic state. We tested the reagents on Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Enterococcus faecalis and found that only LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ could differentiate live from dead cells for all five of these oral strains. AlamarBlue® was not effective in this regard for P. gingivalis or A. actinomycetemcomitans. In addition, the differentiation of live and dead bacterial cells by alamarBlue® could not be performed for concentrations lower than 2 × 106 cells/ml. Our data thus indicate that LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ is a more effective reagent for this analysis.
The article 18 of game review regulation has some problems related to mandate of upper law; it violates the limit of mandate of upper law and judicial power. The article 2 of Game industry promotion law defines the concept of ‘gambling behavior’. But the article 18 of game review regulation includes behaviors which are not included in the article 2 to regulate them. Court should have the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not; according to the article 18 of game review regulation, the game rating board has the power to interpret which is ‘gambling behavior’ or not. According to the revision of Game industry promotion law, rating rejection to the violation of Game industry promotion law is possible. Minor violation of law as to business regulation should not be considered as the reason of rating rejection. Therefore, The revision of game law has probability of violating Constitution principle such as proportion rule.
Currently, Game Rating Board is regulating online web board games for the purpose of eradicating the speculation of the games through prohibition on direct charge system of the game and now is trying to even ban the indirect charge method. However not only the direct charge system but also the indirect charge system is a legal business model under the Promotion Act on Game Industry. There are 3 reasons: First, the web board game is essentially different from gambling. In order for the activity in question to be considered as gambling, it should meet all of the three requirements which are consideration, chance and prize. However, the game doesn't give prizes so that excludes it from gambling. Second, the deliberation about the prohibition on direct charge system of the game deviates from the limits of delegated legislation. Since the web board games do not fall under the purview of the concept of gambling, the deliberation is a subordinate to the Promotion Act on Game Industry, the deliberation itself may be in violation of the delegation range if the web board games are judged as operating illegally. Lastly, the prohibitions on the business model of the web board games transcend the constitutional limits of the regulations of games involving gambling and in the long run fringe constitutional rights. The essential cause of the problem surrounding online games is attributed to exchanging real money into game money outside the system of the game, not in the online web board game itself. Hence, impetuous regulation on indirect charge system of the web board games will substantially shrink the national online game industry, making other competitors from other nations enjoy the benefits.