|
On September 29 2016 03:54 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote: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. '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.
No I'm not, I agreed beforehand, he didn't.
It was over at 7:02, and hence I didn't bother (especially during the debate I was watching live). I have no desire to remake another bet with someone who I now have bad blood with and still disagree with. The bet was never put into effect, and then I called it off as he was still trying to make it happen past the deadline.
Now seeing what happened, it wouldn't make sense to remake a bet with the same odds anyway, it'd be very forceful and unnatural.
|
You're rewriting history and blaming me to an extent that is unbelievable. All of the messages and time stamps of our conversation are in the OP. I agreed to the bet way before the debate started, and all that remained to be settled was the matter of the enforcement mechanism that you wanted to add. I told you I was leaving that up to you -- I was perfectly fine with trusting you not to renege on your word (how incredibly naïve of me), and I was fine with any enforcing mechanism/penalty that you could think of. You ended up sending me the terms you wanted to adopt, and I agreed to those terms at 9:05, before:
- any candidate had uttered a single word behind their podiums, and
- before a single question had even been asked by the moderator
Please explain to me how that is "a blatant infraction that benefits [me]". Did seeing how they were dressed as they entered the debate stage provide me with the crucial information I needed to gain an edge for a bet on the 2016 presidential election in November? Really, do explain what I'm supposed to have gained from that.
Also, for the record, among other TL users I already had a $20 bet going with NettleS (I offered him to make it $50 on the 24th but he declined). I've been offering bets to other users for months. The idea that I wanted to wait two minutes into the debate to gain an edge that I didn't want to bet without is so clearly false and dishonest it boggles the mind that you're still making that argument -- especially since the bet would have been agreed on even sooner if you hadn't wanted to add a penalty/enforcement mechanism (which, again, I was fine with). If you had replied "Agreed" to my first message, it would already have been a done deal, so the idea that I desperately wanted to wait until the candidates appeared on stage is farcical. I had people over to watch the debate, I was not in front of my computer in the half hour before it started, and I replied as soon as we sat down.
In any case, as I extensively explained in the OP, neither the letter nor the spirit of our bet makes my communicating my agreement at 09:05 a reason for the bet to be void. You're unilaterally declaring it to be void, and reneging on your word because you no longer believe Trump will win. Absolutely nothing has changed on my side -- I was sure Clinton was going to win before the debate, and I still am. You're the one weaseling out, not me.
|
Norway28736 Posts
Fiwi, do you seriously believe kwizach was intentionally angle-shooting you in any way?
|
On September 29 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Fiwi, do you seriously believe kwizach was intentionally angle-shooting you in any way?
At the time, yeah, I thought there was a good chance (still reasonably small, but there). I didn't know him, and it's the internet, so no reason to assume otherwise.
Smaller to zero chance of that being the case now, sure.
|
Germany25657 Posts
Oh this thread is still going, I guess you guys can really argue about anything 
|
Yeah, and some people just don't give up their arguments; noone likes to concede defeat, no matter how overwhelming the evidence.
Of course I have won FFAs that way.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts
On September 27 2016 22:37 R1CH wrote:
TL isn't a betting site and we are not going to moderate private disagreements between two users.
After R1CH posted this, I expected that to be the end of it. Instead, this thread has progressed to three pages already? Huh?
|
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said).
|
United States24753 Posts
I'm surprised nobody pointed this out yet... FiWiFaKi is a DONALD TRUMP fan and you guys are surprised he pulled this shit? Really?
He learned from the best.
|
On September 30 2016 12:11 micronesia wrote:
I'm surprised nobody pointed this out yet... FiWiFaKi is a DONALD TRUMP fan and you guys are surprised he pulled this shit? Really?
He learned from the best.
I think most people betting on Trump here would probably have a preference to him.
More a Hillary hater than Trump fan though, and ideologically sure, not a fan of his character though.
|
On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said).
it's not that nothing happened; it's that nothing happened those of us following weren't already aware of. It was only new information for people who hadn't been following the election closely. So changes in the polls are a result of people who previously hadn't looked getting the info those of us following closely had known all along.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said).
dude, you should really consider just avoiding this thread altogether at this point. Nothing can change the fact that you relegated on a bet that was completely fair just because you felt like it especially when neither candidate made a statement and especially when you make statements like the above.
|
On September 30 2016 22:47 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said). dude, you should really consider just avoiding this thread altogether at this point. Nothing can change the fact that you relegated on a bet that was completely fair just because you felt like it especially when neither candidate made a statement and especially when you make statements like the above.
Just saying it like it is, and you're being ignorant.
@zfelin Of course there'd be nothing new at debates in terms of content (nothing will till the end of elections), it's all a sign of their character, talking skills, and pereceived personality. So I don't know why brought up the debate is nothing new, when like I claimed before the results came in it won the election, and now we see just as much.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 01 2016 03:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 22:47 BigFan wrote:On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said). dude, you should really consider just avoiding this thread altogether at this point. Nothing can change the fact that you relegated on a bet that was completely fair just because you felt like it especially when neither candidate made a statement and especially when you make statements like the above. Just saying it like it is, and you're being ignorant. @zfelin Of course there'd be nothing new at debates in terms of content (nothing will till the end of elections), it's all a sign of their character, talking skills, and pereceived personality. So I don't know why brought up the debate is nothing new, when like I claimed before the results came in it won the election, and now we see just as much.
I'm just saying it like I see it ~
|
On October 01 2016 05:03 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2016 03:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 30 2016 22:47 BigFan wrote:On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said). dude, you should really consider just avoiding this thread altogether at this point. Nothing can change the fact that you relegated on a bet that was completely fair just because you felt like it especially when neither candidate made a statement and especially when you make statements like the above. Just saying it like it is, and you're being ignorant. @zfelin Of course there'd be nothing new at debates in terms of content (nothing will till the end of elections), it's all a sign of their character, talking skills, and pereceived personality. So I don't know why brought up the debate is nothing new, when like I claimed before the results came in it won the election, and now we see just as much. I'm just saying it like I see it ~
Don't worry, you're saying it like everyone sees it ,-)
|
On October 01 2016 03:34 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2016 22:47 BigFan wrote:On September 30 2016 10:36 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I'm just looking at 538 and seeing now cast go from 48% to 28% for Trump. Which dummies thought it nothing happened here? S:
Just goes to show the input of a lot of people on the internet isn't meaningful on at least a frequent basis. Like I said, this debate decided the outcome of the election, or by far the greatest portion of it, and hence even posture and their body language at the start could make a big difference (I had a this isn't the Trump that I wanted to see before a single word was said). dude, you should really consider just avoiding this thread altogether at this point. Nothing can change the fact that you relegated on a bet that was completely fair just because you felt like it especially when neither candidate made a statement and especially when you make statements like the above. Just saying it like it is, and you're being ignorant. @zfelin Of course there'd be nothing new at debates in terms of content (nothing will till the end of elections), it's all a sign of their character, talking skills, and pereceived personality. So I don't know why brought up the debate is nothing new, when like I claimed before the results came in it won the election, and now we see just as much.
a) their character, talking skills, and personality are exactly as everyone who was following knew them to be.
also, the election hasn't actually happened yet, so you really shouldn't claim such.
the trump flaws are just hte flaws we knew he had all along; more people have seen them now, that doesn't change that they've been there all along and everyone who was following knew about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
