Open Letter to Druff: Dealing with forum betting

[Steve-O]

This an open letter to Druff that I hope other people agree with or can come up with an alternative way to deal with the problem.

In the JSearles v Vegas thread I made the comment that perhaps there should be a forum rule regarding bets. Something along the lines of all bets being non-binding unless money is escrowed OR a third party confirms the nature and validity of the bet.

The reason i say this is because it seems like PFA is starting to fracture into groups and personal vendettas (similar to another forum that many members here were part of). I think this forum is great; legitimate debates have been robust and for the most part the drama has been minimal, but this seems to be changing. My thought is that by eliminating a serious problem (the E-Dick swinging that "bets" bring about between people who either can't pay, or have no intention of paying to begin with) we could slightly diminish the presence of trolling posts and stem the fracturing of the community.

Now legitimate bets should still be allowed (I'm not advocating doing away with them altogether) but there should be some guidelines as to what is a binding bet and what isn't-- After all we are dealing with the Anonymous Internet here. In one case we had a drunken(?) poster make a bet and now we have this nonsense about some Bill Clinton-esque what does "use" mean.

I'm hoping other people also want to nip this in the bud, and get back to talking about important things like naming the radio show!

[lewfather]

Lmfao third party? :internet

No just ban faggots like gaysearles who has a history of this and the problem will work its self out naturally

[Steve-O]

Lmfao third party? :internet

No just ban faggots like gaysearles who has a history of this and the problem will work its self out naturally

A third person could clarify the terms so that there is no wiggle room

[jsearles22]

Lmfao third party? :internet

No just ban faggots like gaysearles who has a history of this and the problem will work its self out naturally

One person and one person only on this site has a history of getting into questionable wagers- Vegas1369

[Deal]

Lmfao third party? :internet

No just ban faggots like gaysearles who has a history of this and the problem will work its self out naturally

Seriously, restrict posting to adults. People that get their jolly's from kicking people on the internet should just be banned. No need to make up a laundry list of rules to protect against the angle shooters. Just get rid of them.

[lewfather]

Lmfao third party? :internet

No just ban faggots like gaysearles who has a history of this and the problem will work its self out naturally

One person and one person only on this site has a history of getting into questionable wagers- Vegas1369

kid of course you were getting sharked, he pointed that out before you even accepted the wager. you got hustled and now you dont want to pay, we call that scamming.

weiss would be proud kid

[jsearles22]

One person and one person only on this site has a history of getting into questionable wagers- Vegas1369

kid of course you were getting sharked, he pointed that out before you even accepted the wager. you got hustled and now you dont want to pay, we call that scamming.

weiss would be proud kid

Check out my signature for your reply. Who got "sharked"?

[Sloppy Joe]

Disagree. Trust is a key component of the gambling economy.

Once it's lost, it's lost. Just slap those who violate with a scammatar to prevent future rollings.

[TheTemplar]

Disagree. Trust is a key component of the gambling economy.

Once it's lost, it's lost. Just slap those who violate with a scammatar to prevent future rollings.

AMEN

[Jasep]

Steve-O, I think your intention here is good, but it's not something that is really required...

The rule should just be if you welch, roll, scam or angle you get dealt with.

Example: I bet with Templar (and 3-5 others) all the time, sometimes it's facilitated on the board, sometimes it goes down on Skype, sometimes it's just a matter of me typing a one word confirmation to him that we are on for a common bet. I don't require an escrow from him and I have no issue taking action with him, I'm 100% sure he'd say the same about me. Should he ever roll me (or me ever roll him) then it is perfectly acceptable for the faggotry to be widespread and known on the board. I wouldn't even be against a banning.

The problem lies in people taking bets from people who either a.) They have never done business with before b.) No one has ever done business without escrowing... Does one person really want to get involved with being an escrow for every stupid 10 dollar last longer that gets proposed?

The policy should be bettor beware, IMO

[BetCheckBet]

You guys are partly responsible for jsearles. Just ignore all his posts and he will be done. Instead you guys give him the attention he craves and start threads about him. I can't believe I'm even wasting my time telling you guys this. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to get rid of him...

[Vwls]

Steve-O, I think your intention here is good, but it's not something that is really required...

The rule should just be if you welsh, roll, scam or angle you get dealt with.

I always thought it was welch. Did I have it wrong?

BetCheckBet is a wise man.

[zealanddonk]

Steve-O, I think your intention here is good, but it's not something that is really required...

The rule should just be if you welsh, roll, scam or angle you get dealt with.

I always thought it was welch. Did I have it wrong?

BetCheckBet is a wise man.

Welch is correct unless dealing with cheese lovers from the United Kingdom.

[Jasep]

Steve-O, I think your intention here is good, but it's not something that is really required...

The rule should just be if you welsh, roll, scam or angle you get dealt with.

I always thought it was welch. Did I have it wrong?

BetCheckBet is a wise man.

Your correct, I just spelled it wrong...however, if you can find 25 incorrect usages of those two words in my posts..........

[jsearles22]

I always thought it was welch. Did I have it wrong?

BetCheckBet is a wise man.

Your correct, I just spelled it wrong...however, if you can find 25 incorrect usages of those two words in my posts..........

Your correct? You look kind of silly making a grammer joke with that effort.

[Jasep]

Your correct, I just spelled it wrong...however, if you can find 25 incorrect usages of those two words in my posts..........

Your correct? You look kind of silly making a grammer joke with that effort.

I think you just look silly

especially correcting my grammar with the word grammer

[jsearles22]

Your correct? You look kind of silly making a grammer joke with that effort.

I think you just look silly

especially correcting my grammar with the word grammer

Lol, Johnny we are actually fairly, mildly similar looking. Not that I don't agree with you.

And I corrected your grammar, you are commenting on my spelling.

[Jasep]

This message is hidden because jsearles22 is on your ignore list.

[jsearles22]

This message is hidden because jsearles22 is on your ignore list.

That's what I would do too immediately after I realized I look almost identical to a guy who I have been bashing!

[Deal]

This message is hidden because jsearles22 is on your ignore list.

The problem with this is that everybody keeps quoting him. I wonder if this forum software has a 'ghost poster' feature. If the feature is activated for a poster then only that poster see's his posts. After a few days the poster typically leaves.