|
Hello,
I 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] +
Here is a screenshot of me agreeing to the terms of the bet:
+ Show Spoiler [I agree to the proposed terms] +
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 +
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 +
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] +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.
|
fiwi had no idea what he was getting into, kwizach sharked him good 
(the bet should still be honored imo)
|
TL isn't a betting site and we are not going to moderate private disagreements between two users.
|
Moderators have previously enforced ban bets though, were they acting in contravention of TL policy?
|
Germany25657 Posts
We don't mind dealing with minor grudge matches and other trivial/fun stuff. If you guys want to do a sick dota 2 grudgematch where the loser gets banned for a week, I'm game.
Money bets over politics, nope, you guys can do that on your own 
|
On September 27 2016 22:00 farvacola wrote:fiwi had no idea what he was getting into, kwizach sharked him good (the bet should still be honored imo)
I actually genuinely did not expect him at all to attempt to void the bet immediately. He was offering bets up to $500 ($750 for others to pay him if they lost), and the amount we agreed on was even half of the minimum amount he suggested in his initial thread comment ($100). I would have been fine with amending the bet amicably after the debate, and I still am. Attempting to void it unilaterally like that is disappointing and cheap.
|
On September 27 2016 22:44 KadaverBB wrote:We don't mind dealing with minor grudge matches and other trivial/fun stuff. If you guys want to do a sick dota 2 grudgematch where the loser gets banned for a week, I'm game. Money bets over politics, nope, you guys can do that on your own
So TL does enforce bets so long as they pertain to gaming events and involve only bans/signature changes. That seems fair if so.
|
On September 27 2016 22:44 KadaverBB wrote:We don't mind dealing with minor grudge matches and other trivial/fun stuff. If you guys want to do a sick dota 2 grudgematch where the loser gets banned for a week, I'm game. Money bets over politics, nope, you guys can do that on your own
Alright, thanks for looking into it. I wasn't expecting you to force him to pay up though, but to enforce the ban in case he loses, something which has precedent and is not out of the ordinary at all for TL bets, so I'm surprised by your answer.
|
in which states/localities do you reside?
gambling of such sorts may be illegal in such locations (at least if money is involved), and TL would probably rather not be involved in what may be technically illegal activity. (not that minor private gambling is generally enforced anywhere)
Also, we should have fiwi post in here.
If the parties would like my opinion on the matters I will provide one; but I imagine they prefer a mod adjudication (though the mods may wish to avoid adjudicating such a matter to avoid any potential liability for themselves/the site).
|
I don't think any further debate on the issue will add much considering FiWiFaKi has refused to pay up if he loses and the moderators have declined to treat this as a ban bet.
|
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.
|
That clause would have little operative effect; without express language to the contrary, acceptance periods are usually presumed "reasonable" in light of the deal being struck
|
I'm just gonna view fiwi as slightly welching; but no great matter. a fine learning experience.
|
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. 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.
|
The bet was not on the outcome of the first presidential debate; it was on the outcome of the election, which is a long way away still. the first debate is only a very small amount of the overall outcome.
So I don't really see your point; nothing that happened in the debate is surprising/new at all.
|
On September 28 2016 03:37 zlefin wrote:
The bet was not on the outcome of the first presidential debate; it was on the outcome of the election, which is a long way away still. the first debate is only a very small amount of the overall outcome.
So I don't really see your point; nothing that happened in the debate is surprising/new at all.
On page 5163, he said, with his original request for the bet:
"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."
As discussed in the thread, this debate will have a huge outcome, it'll be the last big swing in the polls (compared to debate 2 and 3). I think from yesterday to election day, maybe 50% of what the result will be hinged on the election (and after seeing it, I do think it decided it as well, very one-sided). Now we can agree or disagree on this, but that's besides the point.
This is what I, and a lot of other people believed, and hence I think it's imperative that a bet isn't made once the debate is started., because it's going to significantly change the outcome.
|
It's only one debate, and there's a lot of stuff other than the debate that decides the outcome.
and this debate really didn't have anything new or unexpected.
I agree there's a slight imperfection in his response; but I don't consider it significant enough to nullify the bet, at most it would validate changing the odds rather than nullifying.
Of course, it doesn't matter what I think, since i'm not the adjudicator; but I consider the evidence to establish you improperly backing out. So that's how I will treat it, unless new evidence comes along to justify changing my view.
|
kwizach, I hope you can see why I wanted the word of someone bigger on TL before the bet was sealed, as I knew it isn't going to be so black and white.
Also, yeah, I'd rather pay up $50 80% of the time than getting my account that has 8.5k posts between TL and LD permabanned. I genuinely don't see myself in the wrong here, and I don't agree with you, and that's why I am fighting it.
|
Why are you fighting it? didn't TL itself already decide it's not going to enforce the bet, therefore it's only your reputation on the line?
|
On September 28 2016 03:49 zlefin wrote:
It's only one debate, and there's a lot of stuff other than the debate that decides the outcome.
and this debate really didn't have anything new or unexpected.
I agree there's a slight imperfection in his response; but I don't consider it significant enough to nullify the bet, at most it would validate changing the odds rather than nullifying.
Of course, it doesn't matter what I think, since i'm not the adjudicator; but I consider the evidence to establish you improperly backing out. So that's how I will treat it, unless new evidence comes along to justify changing my view.
Well give it a few days, and you'll see the swing in the polls relative of what's to come, maybe then we can get a clearer view, so I kindly disagree with your opinion on it.
To me changing the odds and nullifying the bet almost the same thing? As it's essentially opting out, and rewriting new odds. I think that new odds would create bad blood, since I don't think kwizach would like that first of all, and second of all, after all this crap... I dunno, I'd just rather bet with someone I'm on good terms with.
On September 28 2016 03:54 zlefin wrote:
Why are you fighting it? didn't TL itself already decide it's not going to enforce the bet, therefore it's only your reputation on the line?
I'm simply trying to show my reasoning and justification. I suppose you're right, mostly reputation, because I don't believe I'm in the wrong.
I see that I didn't convince you, but I didn't want it to be a unilateral explanation.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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, 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)
|
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.
|
And Trump really never shifted that strongly presidential, and every time he shifted, it was only temporary anyways.
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.
|
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.
|
Norway28675 Posts
fiwi, I gotta admit I think it's a little weird that you think his answer being a grand 30 minutes after you messaged him and 3 minutes after the debate started invalidates a presidential election 2 months from now bet. Trump didn't even look bad those first three minutes (or even the first 10 minutes really) - the start of the debate was about as good as he's ever looked in any of the debates.
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.
|
That tends to happen when you don't put enough details into you bet treaty
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Based on all the evidence presented, I believe kiwzach is the clear winner here. He's presented a very coherent and hard to argue against argument. Withdrawing because you only got the pm 3 minutes into the debate when nothing has been said so far is not right imo.
|
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.
|
On September 29 2016 01:30 brian wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
weak shit fiwifaki. man up.
|
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.
|
On September 29 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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)"
|
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.
|
On September 29 2016 03:07 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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: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. 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.
|
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.
|
Norway28675 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?37026 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 States24695 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![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4PCUoaT.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/o7qlJJd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/j6MCpRC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tKcrDWd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Dcno7J.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y1Ft4nB.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q5MZdi5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zGZAuzS.jpg)
