EPTalso, while the polls may change, that's not because of truly new information, only because many people haven't been paying attention to the information up until now, for someone like you or the rest of us here, who's been actively following it, there's nothing new.
Settling a TL bet - Page 2
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
also, while the polls may change, that's not because of truly new information, only because many people haven't been paying attention to the information up until now, for someone like you or the rest of us here, who's been actively following it, there's nothing new. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 28 2016 03:58 zlefin wrote: iirc kwizach specifically offered new terms with different odds. but I don't feel like digging through yesterday's pile of posts to verify that. also, while the polls may change, that's not because of truly new information, only because many people haven't been paying attention to the information up until now, for someone like you or the rest of us here, who's been actively following it, there's nothing new. He offered same odds with halved dollar amounts, as well as an implicit "it's okay, I know you're sad about Trump losing, let me make your loss easier", which paints me trying to back out as wrong, which I don't think it is. As someone who has watched every Donald Trump speech, I think it showed a lot, not in terms of content sure, but in terms of personality, so so much, more than we've ever seen before. Trump had no organization, temperament, ran in circles, blabbing on like a buffoon at times... Those things say a lot about how "fit for president" they are. Trump before this was acting a lot more presidential, and of course we knew that there wasn't going to be some new policy rolled out, it'd all be about the debate and language skills, and all their personal traits that would be tested. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
What was your counter to that point? as to your points about trump's behavior; you're simply wrong. Trump is acting the exact same way he acted in the republican debates. His behavior hasn't changed AT ALL. he hasn't been acting notably presidential ever. he's always had issues with his temperament, babbling, interrupting people, and poor organization. I'm not sure what you were watching, cuz what I saw is the exact same Trump I've been seeing for a year, no better, no worse (well, maybe slightly below average, but that's about it) | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 28 2016 04:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, upon review, kwiz also states that his reply at 9:05 was before the debate had truly started; they had only just come out and shaken hands. The actual talking/debating hadn't happened; and therefore no bias/advantage was gained. What was your counter to that point? as to your points about trump's behavior; you're simply wrong. Trump is acting the exact same way he acted in the republican debates. His behavior hasn't changed AT ALL. he hasn't been acting notably presidential ever. he's always had issues with his temperament, babbling, interrupting people. My response to that would be: Everything should have been figured out before 7pm MDT. Kwiz states I made two different arguments, which are in essence the same. Yes, he replied to to me past the start time, which also meant I didn't get enough time to confirm with KwarK or another mod in the thread... So only 1 out of 3 parties really agreed in time. Just to clear up the confusion about making 3 different arguments. My vision was 7:35 I send the message, 7:40-7:45 I receive confirmation, 7:45-7:50 I copy and paste bet on TL, 7:50-7:55 Kwark says one liner of yes, you can do this, and some remark about how the loser will be punished in Kwark fashion. Now I guess if before the debate I didn't have enough time to confirm with a moderator/admin, I'd be disappointed, but I suppose I wouldn't void the bet. Now I don't have exact time stamps, but I do know since I was checking the time, that at 7:02 the host said the "and we are live" or whatever, so I don't know exact times. There's little things, like did he check the time at 7:05:00 or 7:05:50, streams went at slightly different times, etc... I won't comment exactly where the live stream was, because I don't know precisely. Either way, I think these are specifics that aren't too important, because we're just arguing about how much time there was to imply from the video and audio how the debate would go, there was at least some time to read into the body language, handshakes,etc. I'll admit that I thought that at least a few words were said by that time when making my initial argument. Do I agree that it wasn't to a large extent? Yes. Was there things that you could read in to? Also yes, so instead of having some arbitrary cutoff of how much time is too much, before the start of the debate makes it very easy, and I don't think it was unreasonable of me to expect a timely reply (very short by most standards, yes, but we were with a time constraint). Yes, Trump was like that in the primaries, but he stopped being like that for quite some time in his recent speeches. Seeing his style of giving speeches change, it'd be reasonable to assume his debate style would get a bit more presidential too. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
He hasn't been consistently presidential or truly gone that way, ever. Well, we agree to disagree on matters. the issues and arguments have been covered. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On September 28 2016 03:24 FiWiFaKi wrote: + Show Spoiler [Beginning of the post] + Your initial desire to bet was before the debate happens, we did not. For me it's not an issue of money, trying to change it $50 to $25, while it may seem like a nice gesture you're making, but that's not my motivation for what I'm doing. We were essentially betting on this debate, and while having ample time (relative speaking 25 minutes), you did not, until you saw the debates come out. Like I said, I view this is as putting out in rock-paper-scissors half a second too late. + Show Spoiler [rest of the post] + You initially sent me your bet, and while you might've agreed beforehand, I obviously did not, because I we did not have a way to enforce the bet, and we are on the internet anyway. So in my contract thingy I wrote up, it said consent of all three parties. I'm not a lawyer, so obviously it's not written up to legal standards, but I think it should be clear from that, that this doesn't go into effect until all 3 parties agree. The one thing that is a bit of an implicit assumption that was a bit of my bad to not include was saying this all needs to occur before the debate begins, and that was from the first offer that he made on Teamliquid. I'm not going to make a bet where I might have 10-20% odds of not receiving winnings, and that would essentially be effecting my odds. I've wrote out too many words on the situation in the thread already, so that is my position. We have some fundamental disconnect in how we view the situation, you're viewing as someone who is frustrated with the result, because I like Trump... And I don't care for losing the money much at all, so making amends to lower the bet amount isn't something that's appealing to me. Like I told you in one of my PM's, I honestly thought you changed your mind and the bet was off after you replied to past the debate start-time (let's use the official start time here), I didn't bother replying to you until after the debate was over, since at that point when I saw your message I considered it a lost cause. So yeah, unless the debate went extremely well for Trump, I would have called it off (otherwise I'd leave the onus on you), it's silly to have a bet when we start once the debate has started, and I'm serious when I say there's a lot you can read into the first few minutes. So I repeat, we have a disconnect... You think I'm trying to bullshit you to get out of having a larger chance to pay you $50, I'm telling you that's not the case, I don't agree with your view on the situation, and I don't think having a bet that was made while the event is in progress is fair. On September 28 2016 00:42 ticklishmusic wrote: Should have had p6 and xDaunt write up the bet agreement, then it would have included a "these terms will be honored for x period of time" clause instead of fake legalese  Kwiz responded in a bit under half an hour to the offer. It seems a little absurd to claim that the offer had expired in that period. i suppose ill just call fiwifaki a weenie the next 50 times he posts. It's relative, all our messages since then were replied to within 10 minutes when this thing was being created. I mean I only got the original message 50 minutes before the debate was going to start, so of course we had to work quickly (I would have probably looked at some writing tips for these documents if I knew I had more time)... I figured that's a mutual view we have and hence we needed to move the conversation quickly. Then there was a long pause due to him supposedly being at the TV just to say a couple word message, and while I don't doubt that he was... I also believe it's an easy way to get a feel for the situation, and not reply back in case your odds slip a bit, and accept if everything is looking favorable. On September 28 2016 04:17 FiWiFaKi wrote: Either way, I think these are specifics that aren't too important, because we're just arguing about how much time there was to imply from the video and audio how the debate would go, there was at least some time to read into the body language, handshakes,etc. Your entire first post, and your following replies in the thread, are you repeating in a convoluted way your two arguments that I addressed extensively in the OP, time stamps included. Your depiction of my reply as me waiting just enough time to get an edge (the highlighted excerpts above) is, in addition, complete nonsense. I provided a link to the recording of the debate in the OP, with the clock appearing directly in the video. As I said, Clinton and Trump had not said a single word behind their podiums before I sent you the final confirmation, and no question had even been asked yet -- the debate started a bit later than 9:00 EST precisely. The idea that seeing how they were dressed would be what would give me an unfair edge in the bet about the entire 2016 presidential election is pure garbage -- you're clearly looking for excuses to justify your weaseling out of the bet in bad faith. That you don't see the irony in you writing "I hope you can see why I wanted the word of someone bigger on TL before the bet was sealed" when it's you who's breaking the letter and the spirit of our bet, as I clearly demonstrated, is pretty funny. I'm the one who's ready to honor our agreement, not you. You have no refuted anything I wrote in the OP, only repeated the position that I addressed in it. In any case, the TL moderators have already stated that they would not enforce the ban bet, so you're free to refuse to honor your word without having to worry about the consequences we both agreed on. You're not fooling anyone, though. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28558 Posts
But that's a little besides the main point, which is; do you really think kwizach was waiting for the debate to start so he could spend the first three minutes evaluating whether Hillary was going to win before really committing? He's been taunting xdaunt and GH with election bets for like, 6 months.. It's pretty far fetched to think he was angle shooting you in any way rather than 'he was just busy the minutes leading up to the debate'. And honestly, if you combine this bet-withdrawal with your US politics posts, it mostly just looks like you're trying to backtrack because you yourself lost confidence in Trump, and it comes off as kinda petty. I'm not gonna moderate this in any way, I just don't think your explanation for wanting to get away from the bet makes you look good. Hell, I'm not gonna speak for kwizach, but my impression is that if you didn't put the blame on him for you wanting to get out of the bet, he might've been more accomodating. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
he did not do it 'early enough' for himself to feel good about it, and then after the debate clearly wouldn't do it because he thinks his own bet is the losing position. rip your reputation. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6267 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On September 28 2016 22:30 zeo wrote: The moment TL mod staff said they don't care about money bets this thread should have been closed. Stop being drama queens and take it to PM's, I see no reason why this should be in website feedback. Write a blog or something, talk about your gambling problem there. Your opinion on the propriety of keeping a website feedback thread open is utterly irrelevant; if the mods see fit to close this thread, they will. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
On September 28 2016 22:30 zeo wrote: The moment TL mod staff said they don't care about money bets this thread should have been closed. Stop being drama queens and take it to PM's, I see no reason why this should be in website feedback. Write a blog or something, talk about your gambling problem there. your judgement is questionable and, more importantly, unimportant. Take your unprovoked name calling to blogs. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6267 Posts
On September 29 2016 01:30 brian wrote: your judgement is questionable and, more importantly, unimportant. Take your unprovoked name calling to blogs. Are you serious that petty disputes between TL members have to go to website feedback? edit: Maybe I was under the wrong impression about what this subforum was about. Its about questions and answers regarding the website and staff... no? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 28 2016 20:55 brian wrote: so essentially fiwi had the ball in his court regarding his own perceived need to have it 'authorized' by someone with power. he did not do it 'early enough' for himself to feel good about it, and then after the debate clearly wouldn't do it because he thinks his own bet is the losing position. rip your reputation. Well you bet it needed to be, otherwise this happens... And instead of 1.5:1 odds, I might be getting 1.3:1. And yes, I see the irony of it, obviously, but without "authorization", it could have been the other way also. From the many bets I've seen on TL, the grudge matches, or Rekrul bets... You don't proceed until there's something on the line in an enforceable way. Which is money all going to some TL middleman, or approval from staff to give a ban. Again, I'm disappointed with people here reaching the conclusion that I backed out because I was in a losing position. I've received no apology for receiving a late confirmation that could be abused, and from what I've seen, not even acknowledging that doing that is bad and problematic. A far larger deal has been made out of it that should. Initial proposal said before debate, this didn't get agreed to until the debate started, so that's it. If you do that, I don't want to make a bet with you, and I considered it over from the clock ticked :02. At that point, the bet wasn't on! We never go confirmation from all 3 parties (until kwia went to post on the forum after I sent him the message that it's off). I don't want to argue about the little ibby details. Like I don't understand guys, what would it have made it better for you? I reply 2 minutes afterwards that bet is off? Since that is what my mind said, but I was watching the debate and didn't feel compelled to get into an argument at that point. What I could of handled better is saying that the agreement is before the debate starts, which I thought was implicitly implied from his first post in the thread on page 5163, but should have been better to put in. So anyway, the way I see it, it was never agreed by all 3 parties (only 1 in a timely manner, and never the 3rd)... So the bet never went into effect, and I withdrew during the contract formulation, and left once it didn't meet the deadline. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On September 29 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote: Well you bet it needed to be, otherwise this happens... And instead of 1.5:1 odds, I might be getting 1.3:1. And yes, I see the irony of it, obviously, but without "authorization", it could have been the other way also. From the many bets I've seen on TL, the grudge matches, or Rekrul bets... You don't proceed until there's something on the line in an enforceable way. Which is money all going to some TL middleman, or approval from staff to give a ban. Again, I'm disappointed with people here reaching the conclusion that I backed out because I was in a losing position. I've received no apology for receiving a late confirmation that could be abused, and from what I've seen, not even acknowledging that doing that is bad and problematic. A far larger deal has been made out of it that should. Initial proposal said before debate, this didn't get agreed to until the debate started, so that's it. If you do that, I don't want to make a bet with you, and I considered it over from the clock ticked :02. At that point, the bet wasn't on! We never go confirmation from all 3 parties (until kwia went to post on the forum after I sent him the message that it's off). I don't want to argue about the little ibby details. Like I don't understand guys, what would it have made it better for you? I reply 2 minutes afterwards that bet is off? Since that is what my mind said, but I was watching the debate and didn't feel compelled to get into an argument at that point. What I could of handled better is saying that the agreement is before the debate starts, which I thought was implicitly implied from his first post in the thread on page 5163, but should have been better to put in. So anyway, the way I see it, it was never agreed by all 3 parties (only 1 in a timely manner, and never the 3rd)... So the bet never went into effect, and I withdrew during the contract formulation, and left once it didn't meet the deadline. blah blah blah. "A bet between 'kwizach' and 'fiwifaki' on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has been made." - You man up. edit: this is also shady as fuck: "So yeah, unless the debate went extremely well for Trump, I would have called it off (otherwise I'd leave the onus on you)" | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
brian
United States9610 Posts
On September 29 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote: Well you bet it needed to be, otherwise this happens... And instead of 1.5:1 odds, I might be getting 1.3:1. And yes, I see the irony of it, obviously, but without "authorization", it could have been the other way also. From the many bets I've seen on TL, the grudge matches, or Rekrul bets... You don't proceed until there's something on the line in an enforceable way. Which is money all going to some TL middleman, or approval from staff to give a ban. Again, I'm disappointed with people here reaching the conclusion that I backed out because I was in a losing position. I've received no apology for receiving a late confirmation that could be abused, and from what I've seen, not even acknowledging that doing that is bad and problematic. A far larger deal has been made out of it that should. Initial proposal said before debate, this didn't get agreed to until the debate started, so that's it. If you do that, I don't want to make a bet with you, and I considered it over from the clock ticked :02. At that point, the bet wasn't on! We never go confirmation from all 3 parties (until kwia went to post on the forum after I sent him the message that it's off). I don't want to argue about the little ibby details. Like I don't understand guys, what would it have made it better for you? I reply 2 minutes afterwards that bet is off? Since that is what my mind said, but I was watching the debate and didn't feel compelled to get into an argument at that point. What I could of handled better is saying that the agreement is before the debate starts, which I thought was implicitly implied from his first post in the thread on page 5163, but should have been better to put in. So anyway, the way I see it, it was never agreed by all 3 parties (only 1 in a timely manner, and never the 3rd)... So the bet never went into effect, and I withdrew during the contract formulation, and left once it didn't meet the deadline. 'otherwise this happens...' no, it doesn't. 'this' is happening because yon welched. if you held through on your own bet that you're backing out of because you feel you didn't get what you think is required. notice the trend here. 'people are arguing over the ibby details' when you're trying to sell the excuse that he was two minutes late is rich. 'what I could've handled better' was not welching on your bet. in fact, you can STILL DO THAT. but you won't. why? and the only answer I can really imagine here is 'because I'm afraid I'll lose,' because otherwise the power is all in your hands. you're the only one who is not fulfilling this deal so far. the rest of your argument boils down to 'he could've used those three minutes as an advantage' while you are doing exactly that with the remaining 90 minutes. what a hypocrite. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On September 29 2016 03:52 kwizach wrote: FiWiFaKi, you're not saying a single thing that you haven't said already. And I replied to all of that in the OP. The bet was on, and you decided to find an excuse to bail on your word because you no longer believed Trump would win due to his performance in the debate. There's no need to insult everyone else's intelligence by pretending otherwise. Give it a rest already. Not true. On September 29 2016 03:27 dAPhREAk wrote: blah blah blah. "A bet between 'kwizach' and 'fiwifaki' on the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has been made." - You man up. edit: this is also shady as fuck: "So yeah, unless the debate went extremely well for Trump, I would have called it off (otherwise I'd leave the onus on you)" Since free money. But if you do a blatant infraction that benefits you, then of course I'd call you out on it. It's the same thing of I buy a broken thing in a store, I go return it, I get two of the thing in my box, I move along. | ||
| ||
