:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by gut
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by gut
The only thing I got out of reading this thread is Jesap is the biggest faggot on the internet. lol at the line of credit comment...then again, jesap is making high five figures doing storage wars..
Wait so Searles wins the bet because of a error in the wording of the bet? Wow what a slowroll by Searles. Searles, my attorney fees are $100, just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by gut
Duddly you fucked this bet up. No one was talking combo until you blurted it out in this thread. Way to go Duddly, way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
In my mind the mis-use of then or than is the issue, not that it's used in the same post.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesDuddly you fucked this bet up. No one was talking combo until you blurted it out in this thread. Way to go Duddly, way to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe Diddly
In my mind the mis-use of then or than is the issue not that it's used in the same post.
If you use then in the place of than, then you are using both words incorrectly. Anyone that interprets what I said to mean otherwise is a fucking idiot. There was no error in how it was presented, and obv the vast majority here agrees with me on that, except of course the one asshole who lost the bet.
As far as the judges, Jsearles already agreed that it would be Druff, Tony and Steve-O before the bet was made, and Jsearles booked the bet with them as the established judges. There is no going back and saying the shit he is saying about bringing in an impartial arbitrator, HE ALREADY FUCKING AGREED TO THOSE 3 GUYS. Just another angle shoot from this complete scumbag.
Also, for those of you calling me faggot for going through his posts, I somewhat agree, but this is why I made the bet for such a high amount. That was the number I felt it would take for me to go through such a faggoty task. If I was wrong, so be it.... I felt pretty strongly I wasn't, but I needed a high risk/reward for this to go down.
Pay up scammer.
Here ye, here ye, I am finally free to review this dispute and pass judgement.
Jsearles, I assure you that I will put any personal feelings aside and render a fair judgement.
More to follow.......
Fuck me there are a lot of pages here, this may take a while...
Please show where I acknowledged and agreed to those 3? You offering isn't me accepting. Please show where I say "sure, I think those three are fair"?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
If you use then in the place of than, then you are using both words incorrectly. Anyone that interprets what I said to mean otherwise is a fucking idiot. There was no error in how it was presented, and obv the vast majority here agrees with me on that, except of course the one asshole who lost the bet.
As far as the judges, Jsearles already agreed that it would be Druff, Tony and Steve-O before the bet was made, and Jsearles booked the bet with them as the established judges. There is no going back and saying the shit he is saying about bringing in an impartial arbitrator, HE ALREADY FUCKING AGREED TO THOSE 3 GUYS. Just another angle shoot from this complete scumbag.
Also, for those of you calling me faggot for going through his posts, I somewhat agree, but this is why I made the bet for such a high amount. That was the number I felt it would take for me to go through such a faggoty task. If I was wrong, so be it.... I felt pretty strongly I wasn't, but I needed a high risk/reward for this to go down.
Pay up scammer.
Skimmed thread, but why in God's name would you not escrow before? Does this guy seem like the type that would ship you $500 even if he had it?
You booked the bet AFTER I nominated them as judges you fucking idiot, that is you accepting. You really don't know how bets are conducted, do you? Pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Please show where I acknowledged and agreed to those 3? You offering isn't me accepting. Please show where I say "sure, I think those three are fair"?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
It is so amazing watching you flounder around in this thread like a dying fish out of water. I have never seen someone so immune to being told he is wrong by literally everyone on this board, and continue on the way you do. It's fucking disgusting.
Pay up scammer.
I agree now, bad move on my part. For some stupid reason I gave him more credit than this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeBet
How can Jsearles be certain you didn't take 10 minutes and count up his then/than errors before proposing a wager?
Yeah you better pretend i'm invisible and duck that question.
I know people who will do shit like that, they play the I'm honest role very well too, just saying.
You got to escrow any thing over a $100 these days and this was just not a good bet since you could easily angle shoot.
This is as far as I am right now butQuote:
Originally Posted by lewfather
:lol
Lulzfather is god
I'm not saying I agree that Vegas cheated buuuuuuuuuuuuuutt:Quote:
Originally Posted by FPS_Russia
That was hours before the bet was consumated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/att...4&d=1331047138Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsy CollinsI would like to add that BCR should also arbitrate this dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuntmissioner
Jason, can I assume by your post that you accept me as a mediator who will render a fair decision? I will hold off until you confirm.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
tags are god. makes the board so much better, subtly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutshttp://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/att...4&d=1331047138Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsy Collins
I'm not a technicality guy, and we all know what the "spirit" of the wager Vegas proposed was, but I could in no way be considered impartial as I have a strong positive opinion of Vegas, and he'll probably be the first person I will party with next time out west. I could be impartial with probably 99% of the posters here, but the first two that have been in question (Willie and Vegas) are among a small handful with which I have spoken to privately, beyond forum banter, and are simply two of the main reasons I'm even involved with the community anymore. I happen to agree with Vegas here, but in the event I didn't, I wouldn't call him out on it either, so I'm certainly biased.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatus
bracket geek?
God you are such a fucking asshole. If you were concerned with this then you would have never made the bet to begin with, and you KNOW you are taking that quote out of context now and trying to make it look like something it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
FPS, I am not ducking your question...lol. Here is the deal. Try running a search on "then" on Jsearles22 and you will see it is impossible, the search function won't allow it, it is too common. I had to go through each and every one of his posts looking for these errors... LOL at that shit taking 10 minutes, it took me over 2 hours, maybe 3. Which brings me to my next point. I did not start looking for these errors until last night when we started the bet, which was about an hour after I had gotten home from work. I had to be at work yesterday morning at 8am, and had a long ass day and didn't get home till close to 8pm. That is when I started talking again about this bet with him and made this post...
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ll=1#post18978
Another point... This isn't even an issue, jsearles clearly had no qualms about this when he booked the bet. If it was an issue for him he would not have accepted the bet to begin with. You can't come in now, after the bet was made, and say "oh, well what if you did this, or that, that's cheating". That's ridiculous, but again, not an issue because I did not cheat in anyway to begin with, and the bet was booked without your point even being an issue.
:internetQuote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369God you are such a fucking asshole. If you were concerned with this then you would have never made the bet to begin with, and you KNOW you are taking that quote out of context now and trying to make it look like something it wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
FPS, I am not ducking your question...lol. Here is the deal. Try running a search on "then" on Jsearles22 and you will see it is impossible, the search function won't allow it, it is too common. I had to go through each and every one of his posts looking for these errors... LOL at that shit taking 10 minutes, it took me over 2 hours, maybe 3. Which brings me to my next point. I did not start looking for these errors until last night when we started the bet, which was about an hour after I had gotten home from work. I had to be at work yesterday morning at 8am, and had a long ass day and didn't get home till close to 8pm. That is when I started talking again about this bet with him and made this post...
http://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sho...ll=1#post18978
Another point... This isn't even an issue, jsearles clearly had no qualms about this when he booked the bet. If it was an issue for him he would not have accepted the bet to begin with. You can't come in now, after the bet was made, and say "oh, well what if you did this, or that, that's cheating". That's ridiculous, but again, not an issue because I did not cheat in anyway to begin with, and the bet was booked without your point even being an issue.
@sloppyjoe, if this wasn't over $500 I would agree with you but the fact is a bet was made. If you hit up your bookie on a $500 bet and the book said oh we wouldn't have made this bet if we knew we were going to lose. Would you be pissed if the book welched ?
$500, dude, $500...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe:internetQuote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Doesn't this little clown play on staked money on some
Staking site? Just make sure they know about this over there and he'll never be staked again I'm
Sure. If that's the case he will be losing out on a whole lot more than a measly 500$(at least in opportunity since hes most likely a giant losing player)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewfather
Except thats not what Im saying here at all..........
What Im saying is that I accepted the bet as it was worded, that both errors must be in the same post.
Great Summary!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gut
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutshttp://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/att...4&d=1331047138Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootsy Collins
And this is precisely why I am hesitant to agree to anyone in this community arbitrating this bet. I dont know the characters involved well enough to know if I am getting slow rolled. Luckily BCR is a stand up guy and admits that he is in no way impartial. I cant trust others to do the same, especially someone like T-Bags who has roundly criticized me in the recent past. Its just human nature, you cant honestly wipe your brain clean and make a fair and impartial decision when you were calling me a raging doucher just days ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
Stakemebro,
The spirit of the wager is clear, anything else you say is clearly angle shooting.
It also sounds as if you wont agree to arbitration unless its a personally-handpicked-stranger to the community, and if I understand correctly, you wont escrow.
Druff,
This is exactly the type of shit I left DD to avoid. I always thought you would fight for whats right, on nearly any minuscule-coupon-related-wrongdoing, no matter how petty, if it was clear there has been an injustice. $500 bets are not petty.
How about setting precedent for this type of thing, and set up a poll. Your user base wants Vegas paid, or Jsearless gone. It only takes one turd to ruin a pot of stew.
Escrowing was clearly never part of the deal. All of you faggots streaming in here demanding I escrow (and only I) are showing how retarded you are. Impartial observers to a bet cant voluntarily impose stipulations on said bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
I wont agree to a partial arbitrator from this community who has expressed a dislike for me. I would be retarded to do so.
Yeah, a poll, like there is any doubt how that would turn out. Did you think of that all by yourself. Man you are brilliant, I cant believe no one had yet thought of throwing up a poll and then waiting anxiously to see how this hotly contested debate would shake out.
Did I know Vegas' intent the entire time? You bet I did! That much doesnt seem to be in doubt. A bet is a bet though and the bet offered by him was clearly worded and I accepted. Vegas has yet to produce 25 posts with both words misused. He still has about 12 hours.
Riddle me this; if someone threw out an offer to wager anyone in this community $100 that Druff would cash in the One Drop tournament, would someone be wrong to accept that bet? Is it the person accepting the wager offer responsibility to say "um, you realize Druff isnt playing that tournament right?" Hell no it isnt! A bet is a bet. If someone offers a bet then its anyones right to accept that bet. Like someone said the other day, you dont tell the fish at the table to quit powerplaying Ace rag, you just take his money.
:thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.
Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.
This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:
and then the ambiguity arises:Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Book the bet, yes or no? I'm not reading my thousands of posts searching for the words then and than unless you book the bet. Since we obviously aren't making a bet for millions, I will bet you $500?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.
What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.
Tony is right. Just null and void the bet. Then, I say, ban jsearles for being an angle shooting douche nozzle.
In all honesty, I thought that you and Druff would be the only 2 people who would actually look at the facts and see this whole thing for what it is. I thought there was a decent chance of that, but recent history did not allow me to positively agree to risk $500 on it. Wether I agreed to you being the final arbitor or not, you can be damn sure I will be trumpeting your opinion from here on out! I wish Druff would weigh in as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsSearles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.
Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.
This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:
and then the ambiguity arises:Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Book the bet, yes or no? I'm not reading my thousands of posts searching for the words then and than unless you book the bet. Since we obviously aren't making a bet for millions, I will bet you $500?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.
What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Bagadonuts
jsearles22, with all due respect, your analogy is off base here. In your Druff hypothetical, both you and your opponent have a clear understanding of the bet's TERMS. Your opponent does not have a mistaken understanding of the bet's TERMS, he just has a mistaken understanding about something that will affect the outcome. This is akin to betting on the Colts winning (last season) not knowing Peyton Manning will not play. As long as my opponent and I both understand that the bet is about whether or not the Colts win, then there is no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
The difference in THIS case is that Vegas had a different understanding of the bet's TERMS than you. (as is evident from the posts in this thread, Vegas's view is the more popular, perhaps more reasonable, view). If you took this bet suspecting that Vegas had a different understanding of its TERMS, and instead of clarifying those terms, you decided to use the misunderstanding to your advantage, then that is some shady shit right there.
You cant just say anything you want because you said with all due respect :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwichjsearles22, with all due respect, your analogy is off base here. In your Druff hypothetical, both you and your opponent have a clear understanding of the bet's TERMS. Your opponent does not have a mistaken understanding of the bet's TERMS, he just has a mistaken understanding about something that will affect the outcome. This is akin to betting on the Colts winning (last season) not knowing Peyton Manning will not play. As long as my opponent and I both understand that the bet is about whether or not the Colts win, then there is no problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
The difference in THIS case is that Vegas had a different understanding of the bet's TERMS than you. (as is evident from the posts in this thread, Vegas's view is the more popular, perhaps more reasonable, view). If you took this bet suspecting that Vegas had a different understanding of its TERMS, and instead of clarifying those terms, you decided to use the misunderstanding to your advantage, then that is some shady shit right there.
No sir, I actually think my analogy is a better one then yours. It is impossible for Druff to win the One Drop tournament if he doesnt play in it. The Colts can conceivably win the game even without Peyton (errrr.......maybe).
Also, I would have quickly clarified the terms if Vegas had attempted to do so as well. This is proven in that I did this with the next person who offered to accept the same bet. If anything, Vegas and myself are both guilty of not being clear enough. Hell, its possible that Vegas originally meant both and then backed off of it later when he realized he was wrong.
Can you show me where Vegas mentions that both words being misued in the same post was the criteria? From what I read it was Crowe Diddly who said this when he was looking for side action using "combo" in his post. That was not in the mix in any prior post as far as I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Escrowing was clearly never part of the deal. All of you faggots streaming in here demanding I escrow (and only I) are showing how retarded you are. Impartial observers to a bet cant voluntarily impose stipulations on said bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky
I wont agree to a partial arbitrator from this community who has expressed a dislike for me. I would be retarded to do so.
Yeah, a poll, like there is any doubt how that would turn out. Did you think of that all by yourself. Man you are brilliant, I cant believe no one had yet thought of throwing up a poll and then waiting anxiously to see how this hotly contested debate would shake out.
Did I know Vegas' intent the entire time? You bet I did! That much doesnt seem to be in doubt. A bet is a bet though and the bet offered by him was clearly worded and I accepted. Vegas has yet to produce 25 posts with both words misused. He still has about 12 hours.
Riddle me this; if someone threw out an offer to wager anyone in this community $100 that Druff would cash in the One Drop tournament, would someone be wrong to accept that bet? Is it the person accepting the wager offer responsibility to say "um, you realize Druff isnt playing that tournament right?" Hell no it isnt! A bet is a bet. If someone offers a bet then its anyones right to accept that bet. Like someone said the other day, you dont tell the fish at the table to quit powerplaying Ace rag, you just take his money.
Seriously? The offending post has been widely quoted in this thread. This came very early in the process:Quote:
Originally Posted by limitlesCan you show me where Vegas mentions that both words being misued in the same post was the criteria? From what I read it was Crowe Diddly who said this when he was looking for side action using "combo" in his post. That was not in the mix in any prior post as far as I can see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
This was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonutsSearles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22
I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.
Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.
This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:
and then the ambiguity arises:Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Book the bet, yes or no? I'm not reading my thousands of posts searching for the words then and than unless you book the bet. Since we obviously aren't making a bet for millions, I will bet you $500?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.
What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.
I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.
Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.
Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play
It doesn't say "both of". "Where you have used those two words incorrectly" could mean in the same post or it could mean singularly. Considering there are 15 posts pointing to the latter interpretation leading up to this one it's quite clear what his meaning was.Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Seriously? The offending post has been widely quoted in this thread. This came very early in the process:Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas1369
Again, I've been friendly towards you in all of our dealings on here, and don't knows Vegas from a hole in the wall. So the idea that I'm partial to one party is ludicrous; if anything I'm partial to you!
Any solution that does not result in searles being banned here will be a disappointment.
Vegas offered a bet proclaiming that he could find 25 offending posts where I used both words incorrectly. I pounced on this knowing he could in fact not do so. If anyone tried to later change the parameters of the offered bet it was him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-OThis was my initial line of thinking (and since we can't prove what either thought the bet was we can't speculate on their motives). But the more I read of their exchanges in the leadup to that one ambiguous post it is crystal clear what the bet was for, and Searles is using an added word (or lack of a clarifying one like "one of" or "either of") to try to win the bet on a technicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts
Searles, I understand and appreciate your concerns, but you overstate my criticism of you. It's possible that I described you as a raging doucher a couple of days ago, but I don't think I did. That isn't typically how I conduct my business on the boards.
I've been critical of your trolling of China, and also found your decision to go after guys like China and Vegas somewhat curious, but it's not like I've been ripping you a new one in every thread.
Since you have clearly refused to accept me as an arbiter or mediator, I will stop waiting and go ahead and give my take.
This will not be a popular decision, but I believe that both Vegas and Searles agreed to different bets, therefore the bet should be voided and cancelled. Vegas had him with this exchange:
and then the ambiguity arises:Quote:
Originally Posted by jsearles22Book the bet, yes or no? I'm not reading my thousands of posts searching for the words then and than unless you book the bet. Since we obviously aren't making a bet for millions, I will bet you $500?Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Vegas clearly proved his point that Searles doesn't know the difference between then and than, and I do see this as a weak angle shoot attempt by J.Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
TommyT had the line of the thread when he mentioned that jsearles angle shot himself in the foot, and he nearly did.
What jsearles clearly did do was not accept my ability to be impartial. Too bad, I think this is as close as you're going to get.
I've already explained why this is impossible and the best he can hope for is a voided bet (because the same technicality he is purporting can be claimed by Vegas as well; that they had different interpreations of the bet). I'm still of the opinion that the two should comed to a decision about the dollar amount Searles should pay --I don't feel the full amountg is: A) going to happen and B) the best end to this mess-- as he most certainly lost the bet. The fact that he, out of the dozens of people who followed the thread, interpreted it this way doesn't make it so. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that this was his interpretation (and not an angle-shot from the get go) but it still is only a technicality and not enough to void the bet imo.
Since there is some ambiguity in the language it comes down to what the spirit of the bet was, and whether or not this was clear to both parties. The fact that Searles is saying his interpretation of the bet was why he made it (to screw over Vegas based on a technicality and offer him a "bad bet") CLEARLY SHOWS Searles understood both interpretations and therefore lost the bet he was making with Vegas.
Since this isn't a contract (where the wording must be followed) intent does come into play
I have said this before and I will say it again, if Vegas had said "I have a better bet for you... How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?" then I would never have taken the bet. He did however say "where you have used those two words incorrectly."
Steve-O, you keep implying that I entered into this thing hoping to get it voided from the outset. That couldnt be further from the truth. I entered into a bet hoping to win it! And that bet was that Vegas could not find 25 posts with multiple errors.