|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 27 2016 12:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 12:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 27 2016 12:52 kwizach wrote:Solid performance by Clinton. It's undeniable that she won the debate -- and the media narrative is going to favor her. He also had unbelievably stupid lines that will be a goldmine for attack ads against him (in particular about how he treated the people who performed services for him and that he refused to pay); his lack of preparation clearly showed. Also, FiWiFaKi and I agreed to a bet on the election result before the debate. Here are the terms, since it involves a potential perma-ban if the loser fails to pay up: -- ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4PCUoaT.jpg) -- (screenshot of me agreeing: + Show Spoiler +) If anyone else is up for a bet, PM! He sent me an email agreeing at 7:05pm (roughly 3 minutes after the debate started) He also did not give me enough time for a 3rd party to agree (someone on the forum) For the simple fact that there was no agreement made, and he clearly stated in his original offer before the debate happens, it's not happening. Here you can see when he sent the reply to me: https://gyazo.com/13de914f2997596268d2c0a8263c3c31After I wrote up our draft for the deal. Wait, what? You sent him a message stating what the deal was and he accepted it. Also I'd be happy to hold the $, PM me for a paypal account if you need.
Nope the conversation went:
K: Hi,
I saw your post in the thread. Do you want to bet on the result of the presidential election, with the condition that both Clinton and Trump must still be running for president by election day (otherwise the bet is void)? I bet that Clinton will win the presidential election, and you bet that Trump wins? Also, "winning" = reaching at least 270 electoral votes. Shall we go for a $50 bet (you give me $50 if Clinton wins, I give you $75 if Trump wins)?
F: My only issue would be having kind of mediator, and having a guarantee that people pay up.
For some previous Starcraft bets, the way it was done was the money was pooled to some TL admin, so I'd want to know how you'd like to plan on enforcing this, or did you just want to put your TL account on the line, and without money transfer the said person would be permanently banned?
K: I personally am ok with trusting you on your word that you'll pay up if I win the bet, but it's up to you. What did you have in mind? Sending the money by paypal to KwarK?
F: That, or just informing Kwark or whichever mod of our bet, and saying we both consent to a permanent ban in the case the loser does not pay. The latter would be my preferred option, would you be okay with that?
F: My proposal:
"Let it be known and remembered.
A bet between “kwizach” and “FiWiFaKi” on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has been made. In the case of a Trump victory, kwizach will transfer over $75 (USD here and from hereon out) to FiWiFaKi, and in the case of a Hillary victory, FiWiFaKi will transfer over $50 to kwizach. Upon the result of the election, the loser has 14 days to transfer over the funds, or will receive a permanent ban on teamliquid, including its sister and affiliate sites without appeal.
The bet will be void if Clinton or Trump drop out of the election before election day, and winning will be defined as receiving a minimum of 270 electoral votes.
All parties agree that this decision is made in good mental health, with consideration to both sides, not made in duress, and cannot be void from here on out for any reason whatsoever once all three parties agree to this contest.
I, FiWiFaKi, agree to this contest, and I ask that kwizach does so in the public eye as well. I also ask that, someone of suitable authority on teamliquid, can agree to this contest, and guarantee the punishment for not fulfilling the details of this bet will be a permanent ban as described above.
"
(yep, I'm not a lawyer)
K: Agreed, on my phone, will reply longer after dzbate! (after debate started)
F: You can't reply to me after the debate starts... Plus without giving us enough time to get approvement from TL staff.
I think that's a reasonable request, so thank goodness for that, because after today's debate, no doubt I'd be down $50. Have a good day.
K: What? I confirmed that I agreed to the bet before the debate started. I said "Agreed". We both agreed to the bet, so it is on.
What I also wanted to say was to thank you for taking the time to write a detailed agreement -- it's frequent to see people take advantage of a lack of detail in how bets are made, and in this case you made the textual agreement clear and straightforward. I look forward to the election result to see who wins the bet.
Have a nice day,
kwiz
F: You sent the message 3 minutes after the debate started (feel free to take a look at the time stamp), which also gave me no time to post it on the forum, as the 3rd party never had a chance to agree.
Also feel free to look at his original post in this thread:
Anyone up for bets on the election result before the debate? I currently have a sig bet with GH over the winner of Washington state, and a money bet with iPlaY.NettleS over the winner of the election. Ban bets are reserved for GH and xDaunt, but money bets are welcome. We can discuss them over PM if the admins would rather not have us talk about those in the thread.
And hence I didn't even bother replying to him after he failed to message me until the debate started.
|
On September 27 2016 11:35 CorsairHero wrote:
barely anything on emails
ggtemplar is not pleased
Is it rigged, or something>?
|
just bet online for fair odds and no one gets ripped off or unhappy
|
On September 27 2016 13:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 12:55 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 27 2016 12:52 kwizach wrote:Solid performance by Clinton. It's undeniable that she won the debate -- and the media narrative is going to favor her. He also had unbelievably stupid lines that will be a goldmine for attack ads against him (in particular about how he treated the people who performed services for him and that he refused to pay); his lack of preparation clearly showed. Also, FiWiFaKi and I agreed to a bet on the election result before the debate. Here are the terms, since it involves a potential perma-ban if the loser fails to pay up: -- -- (screenshot of me agreeing: + Show Spoiler +) If anyone else is up for a bet, PM! He sent me an email agreeing at 7:05pm (roughly 3 minutes after the debate started) He also did not give me enough time for a 3rd party to agree (moderator on a forum) For the simple fact that there was no agreement made, and he clearly stated in his original offer before the debate happens, it's not happening. Here you can see when he sent the reply to me: https://gyazo.com/13de914f2997596268d2c0a8263c3c31After I wrote up our draft for the deal. Are you seriously already trying to back out of the bet? As I wrote to you in PM, you sent out the terms and I agreed to them -- in fact, I had already agreed to those terms and to letting you choose how we should proceed with the payment or penalty for lack of payment in my previous message. Nowhere in the terms did you specify anything about "[giving] you enough time for a 3rd party to agree" -- and there's plenty of time anyway, since moderators can see the terms for the bet and agree to ban the loser if he does not pay up. In any case, do not be worried, I intend to pay you if Trump wins as agreed. The bet is on.
Firstly you said things, I explained my issues, and hence I didn't agree. I proposed my proposal, and agreed to what I laid out, and like you said your original offer was for before the debate happens.
I gave you ample time (25 minutes before 9pm ET to reply), to which you did not... Which did not allow enough time for a 3rd party to agree.
For example, if I waited 3 minutes into the debate before my decision and letting you know or not, I would not be voting be betting on Trump, it puts you at an unfair advantage by getting to feel out the atmosphere and tempo that the two candidates brought forward. By seeing the first few minutes of the debate and the mood it had, before you chose to go ahead with the bet or not.
|
On September 27 2016 13:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Sure, deplorable, racist, fascist, Putin, it's all the same if you're not With Her.
|
United States42601 Posts
PM each other I guess and if you can't come to a resolution then go to website feedback.
|
On September 27 2016 13:06 CorsairHero wrote:
just bet online for fair odds and no one gets ripped off or unhappy
Some people just want that swag.
|
And it begins. He can't escape.
|
FiWiKaKi, you're deliberately not including the time stamps of those messages. You messaged me to declare the bet was off after the debate and after we had both agreed to the terms of the bet -- two hours and twenty minutes after I sent you my agreement. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause that would void the bet for the reasons you're now putting forward.
We both agreed to the terms of the bet. They are very specific -- because you wrote them. I'm sorry for you that Trump had a terrible debate performance, but you should have expected that to happen going into the bet.
If you want to amend the terms, propose something and I'll let you know if I agree. Feel free to go to PM.
|
clearly he pretended to do badly just so he could get out of the next 2. 7D debating.
|
On September 27 2016 13:12 ticklishmusic wrote:clearly he pretended to do badly just so he could get out of the next 2. 7D debating.
9th dimensional Korean Kart Rider
|
United States42601 Posts
When Trump saysMy lawyers have advised me not to release my tax returns what do we think we should conclude from that? Because that sounds like a lot more than just looking bad.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On September 27 2016 12:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 12:41 Lord Tolkien wrote:On September 27 2016 12:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Breaking FARC signs peace deal:
Wait what? That's actually ridiculously important if it's true. It is, they have been talking about it on NPR for a while now. Kerry is fucking killing it as SOS. The man was born for this job.
Does the US realy has a big role in this? I tought it was more the result of internal negociation (decade of nego). Of course the US were probably involve in it. Could be wrong I didin't follow it to clearly.
Also I read they were other group that are still in rebellion against the gouvernement (fragment of the FARC that split up over thr year) so it may not be the end.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:14 KwarK wrote:When Trump says what do we think we should conclude from that? Because that sounds like a lot more than just looking bad.
I just took it as garden variety trump bluster.
|
United States42601 Posts
On September 27 2016 13:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2016 13:14 KwarK wrote:When Trump says My lawyers have advised me not to release my tax returns what do we think we should conclude from that? Because that sounds like a lot more than just looking bad. I just took it as garden variety trump bluster.
If someone says to you "you can't check my internet search history" I'm thinking weird porn. If someone says "my lawyers have advised me to not allow you to check my internet search history" I'm thinking child porn. It's not a good phrase.
|
On September 27 2016 13:11 kwizach wrote:
FiWiKaKi, you're deliberately not including the time stamps of those messages. You messaged me to declare the bet was off after the debate and after we had both agreed to the terms of the bet -- two hours and twenty minutes after I sent you my agreement. Nowhere in the terms did you include a clause saying that the bet was off if no moderator could confirm before the debate that he would ban the loser if he didn't pay up.
We both agreed to the terms of the bet. They are very specific -- because you wrote them. I'm sorry for you that Trump had a terrible debate performance, but you should have expected that to happen going into the bet.
If you want to amend the terms, propose something and I'll let you know if I agree. Feel free to go to PM.
The timestamps:
You: 18:04
Me: 18:10
You: 18:18
Me: 18:20
Me: 18:35 (the 15 minutes I was writing the thing up)
You: 19:05 (debate scheduled to start at 19:00 my time, started at 19:02)
Me: 21:25
You: 21:34
Messaging me after the debate started is silly, not only was I watching it and obviously I had no consideration for the bet anymore, so I spent the debate posting silly one liners and watching, and naturally would not reply while it's occurring. You're complaining about the fact that the thing we bet on, the debate, the thing that has the overwhelming chance to affect this election, and you're complaining that I'm not respecting the terms of our agreement, when you agreed while the critical event was in progress.
I have no amends to make, I made my position clear and I think I have a fair argument. Of course I would have followed through and taken the loss if you replied to me 10 minutes beforehand, so I could get the go ahead from Kwark or another mod here, but you did not.
Anyway, I made my positions known, and all the info you need is in the PM's, so no need to continue it here.
|
All three sucked, including the moderator.
Trump big first half but man did he fall hard. And so many missed opportunities. Like fucking lay-ups. If you can't hit them, I fear for finishing the campaign well.
Hillary comes out ahead because she recovered and stayed steady. She is ahead in the race and this will stall Trump's momentum in my view, though I can't expect more than ~a point gain.
Who had "Hannity" on their drinking game lol
Friend said: Didn't know there would be a third party on stage. Holt was really the third party debating rofl.
|
That's generally what I've been seeing. Trump will claim Holt was biased, threaten to pull out and then ultimately cave and attend when they change their questions or thoughts
|
On September 27 2016 13:22 Danglars wrote:
All three sucked, including the moderator.
Trump big first half but man did he fall hard. And so many missed opportunities. Like fucking lay-ups. If you can't hit them, I fear for finishing the campaign well.
Hillary comes out ahead because she recovered and stayed steady. She is ahead in the race and this will stall Trump's momentum in my view, though I can't expect more than ~a point gain.
Who had "Hannity" on their drinking game lol
You know, I really am surprised at the reaction I'm seeing...
Usually I'm all about the hmm, you're misunderstanding Trump, taking this out of context, but now it's the other way I round. I really can't think of much that Trump could have done to be worse.
I actually had to take my headphones off a couple times and say, shit this is embarrassing. I thought from the first moment it was just so weak, while Hillary was super composed and coherent the whole time.
|
On September 27 2016 13:23 showstealer1829 wrote:That's generally what I've been seeing. Trump will claim Holt was biased, threaten to pull out and then ultimately cave and attend when they change their questions or thoughts
There are reports he blew up at reporters on the way out. Nothing about this looks good for him. Plus, he has been so terrible to the press lately, they are giddy to lay into him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7qlJJd.jpg)
