EPTI am creating this topic at the request of KwarK and Falling because I agreed this Monday to the terms of a money bet with FiWiFaKi over the result of the 2016 US presidential election. The bet can be summed up as follows:
- If Hillary Clinton wins the election (reaching 270 electoral votes or more), FiWiFaKi has to pay me $50.
- If Donald Trump wins the election (reaching 270 electoral votes or more), I have to pay FiWiFaKi $75.
- If the loser of the bet doesn't pay the other the amount agreed, he shall receive a permanent ban from the TL website.
Here is a screenshot of the detailed terms as they were offered to me by FiWiFaKi:
+ Show Spoiler [Detailed terms of the bet] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4PCUoaT.jpg)
Here is a screenshot of me agreeing to the terms of the bet:
+ Show Spoiler [I agree to the proposed terms] +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7qlJJd.jpg)
After I agreed to the terms, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump debated for 90 minutes. After the debate was over and Trump clearly performed worse than Clinton according to most observers and to FiWiFaKi himself, FiWiFaKi sent me a PM to tell me that the bet was off for two reasons: according to him, I had replied after the debate had started, and I didn't provide "enough time to get approvement from TL staff". Here is a screenshot of his reply:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j6MCpRC.jpg)
I was surprised by this transparent attempt at walking out of the already agreed upon bet, so I replied to him to confirm again that the bet was on:
+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tKcrDWd.jpg)
He nonetheless persisted in refusing to acknowledge that the bet was on, for the two aforementioned reasons. He is visibly trying to walk out of something he literally confirmed he now sees as a losing bet, using a loophole that doesn't exist. I will address his two arguments here (that he repeated in several messages to me), to make my case as for why the bet is still on and should be enforced by TL staff if he loses.
FiWiFaKi's first argument: the bet is off because I didn't "giv[e] us enough time to get approvement from TL staff"
The rebuttal to this argument is pretty straightforward. First, nowhere in the terms of the bet is it stipulated that TL staff needed to approve the terms before the debate started. This wasn't mentioned at all in our exchange either (full screenshots of our exchange can be found below). Secondly, there is no logical reason whatsoever for it to be a necessary, or "common sense" clause of the bet to imperatively have to notify TL staff before the debate. As explicitly written in the terms, the TL moderators only come into play if the loser of the bet refuses to pay up -- the penalty is a permanent ban from TL. The terms of the bet could therefore be communicated to the TL staff at any point until election day, or even during the 14-day period granted to the loser to pay, or even after those fourteen days, to let them know at that point that under the agreed upon terms that person should be permanently banned. In any case, I posted about the bet in the US Politics thread when I came back on my computer after the debate, making sure moderators would be aware of it.
To sum up, neither the text nor the spirit of the bet made it a necessity for the terms of the bet to be communicated to the TL moderators before the debate. It is certainly not a valid reason to unilaterally declare the bet void.
FiWiFaKi's second argument: the bet is off because I replied "Agreed" at 9:05 PM EST, which would be too late given the debate's start time
This argument does not stand up to scrutiny either. I'll begin with the letter of the bet itself -- there is absolutely no mention in the terms of when they should be agreed upon at the latest before the bet becomes void, other than before the election results are known.
In this case, however, I agree that the spirit of the bet implied that we would be betting before the candidates' debate performances could influence voters (in particular those watching it live). Yet the spirit of the bet was still perfectly respected in my reply at 9:05 PM. Indeed, here is the actual timeline of our exchange:
________________
+ Show Spoiler [ Full exchange] +
In my original post in the thread, I extended an open invitation to bet on the results of the election before the debate started. FiWiFaKi posted bet offers a few posts later (note that he did not include anywhere in his post that these were only valid until the beginning of the debate). I then sent him a message to offer him directly the $50 - $75 bet we ended up agreeing upon:
+ Show Spoiler [My initial PM to FiWiFaKi] +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Dcno7J.jpg)
He signaled his agreement in his response by mentioning he only had one issue, which was about having a penalty enforced by a mediator in case the loser would not pay up: "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?". We were clearly in agreement on the substance of the bet (the loser paying the aforementioned amounts of money to the winner, depending on who won the election), and the only thing that remained to be solved, as he said himself, was this issue of enforcement/possible penalty. Here's the screenshot again:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y1Ft4nB.jpg)
I was fine with any solution to his only remaining issue -- we were already in agreement over everything else, and I stated in my reply to him that I was fine with simply trusting each other to pay up if we lost, but that I left it up to him if he wanted to add an enforcement mechanism. I asked him if he possibly wanted to have us both send the money to KwarK via paypal, given the Starcraft example he mentioned in his previous post. Screenshot here:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q5MZdi5.jpg)
Again, there was nothing else to discuss -- we were already in agreement over the substance of the bet itself. FiWiFaKi then proceeded to send me two successive replies, firstly by mentioning the option I evoked and a possible ban by moderators in case of failure to pay up, secondly by sending me the fully-written terms which included this ban in case of failure to pay option. Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zGZAuzS.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler [Detailed terms of the bet] +
Finally, I responded at 09:05 EST that I agreed with the terms put forward, sealing the deal on the bet.
+ Show Spoiler [I agree to the proposed terms] +
+ Show Spoiler [My initial PM to FiWiFaKi] +
He signaled his agreement in his response by mentioning he only had one issue, which was about having a penalty enforced by a mediator in case the loser would not pay up: "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?". We were clearly in agreement on the substance of the bet (the loser paying the aforementioned amounts of money to the winner, depending on who won the election), and the only thing that remained to be solved, as he said himself, was this issue of enforcement/possible penalty. Here's the screenshot again:
+ Show Spoiler +
I was fine with any solution to his only remaining issue -- we were already in agreement over everything else, and I stated in my reply to him that I was fine with simply trusting each other to pay up if we lost, but that I left it up to him if he wanted to add an enforcement mechanism. I asked him if he possibly wanted to have us both send the money to KwarK via paypal, given the Starcraft example he mentioned in his previous post. Screenshot here:
+ Show Spoiler +
Again, there was nothing else to discuss -- we were already in agreement over the substance of the bet itself. FiWiFaKi then proceeded to send me two successive replies, firstly by mentioning the option I evoked and a possible ban by moderators in case of failure to pay up, secondly by sending me the fully-written terms which included this ban in case of failure to pay option. Screenshots:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler [Detailed terms of the bet] +
Finally, I responded at 09:05 EST that I agreed with the terms put forward, sealing the deal on the bet.
+ Show Spoiler [I agree to the proposed terms] +
________________
As you can see from this exchange, FiWiFaKi and I were in full agreement over the substance of the bet from our respective first messages onward. The only issue that needed to be agreed on was the enforcement mechanism -- he settled on having a moderator banning the loser if he failed to pay up, an option I expressed my agreement with, along with the rest of the terms, at 09:05.
When it comes to the spirit of the bet, therefore, me agreeing to his final terms at 09:05 (from my cellphone, as I was not in front of the computer but in front of my TV) was not problematic at all. At that time, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had just appeared on stage and shaken hands -- they had not yet spoken a single word behind their podiums, as can be verified here. I had certainly not gained the slightest advantage in the bet by responding at that time, and voters had not yet been influenced by the candidate's answers whatsoever (the entire reason to bet before the debate), because there had been no answers at all -- in fact, no question had even been asked yet! In addition, my reply was only a confirmation of what I had already agreed on (the substance of the bet, and the selection of any enforcing option).
To sum up, both the letter and the spirit of the agreement were perfectly respected in my final confirmation of my agreement that I sent at 09:05. It is in fact FiWiFaKi who is attempting to break the letter and the spirit of the bet, by attempting to use a non-existent loophole to get out of a bet he now believes he has little chance of winning.
I'll be honest -- I'm annoyed at having to write this post. It's such a ridiculously trivial matter that I am in genuine disbelief that FiWiFaKi is refusing to honor his word. After a back-and-forth, I offered him to settle the issue by amending the terms of the bet to cut in half the amounts that would be due, since I empathize with his regret due to Trump's debate performance. He hasn't replied to this olive branch, and his dishonest attempt to immediately get out of the bet through a non-existent loophole instead of simply solving the issue with me is disappointing. Following KwarK's advice, I am therefore asking the TL moderators to weigh in on the issue here, since we agreed to give you the authority to ban the loser of the bet should he not pay up. I am personally obviously ready to honor the bet as election results come in.
Note that I don't care about the money -- at this stage, I'm still fine with reducing the amount or amending the bet differently if FiWiFaKi recognizes it is still on and agrees to proceed from there in good faith. In any case, I'm aware that the entire thing is trivial and even posting this here feels petty. I still felt that it would maybe be worth posting a summary of the issue here, just so bets actually mean something once they're agreed upon. I'll follow any decision on the issue by TL staff.
