Wager between two anonymous people - What is your ruling?

[CryptoNinja]

I will simplify the situation because the details are not important. 2 people on a message board made a wager that an event either would, or would not happen within 10 years. 5 years later, the event still has not happened, but the board member who bet that it would happen is banned for an unrelated reason. Over the next couple years, on multiple occasions, the person who bet that it would NOT happen posts that he was stiffed by the banned poster. This is not possible because 10 years have not elapsed yet.

So, in essence my question is, once the 10 years have elapsed, if the event still did not happen, is the loser, who has already been branded a welcher, obligated to pay?

[MrTickle]

Yes

Calling him a welcher or moaning about being stiffed is irrelevant. The bet still stands.

[GrenadaRoger]

morally & ethically, yes

legally, probably not, it's unenforceable---betting is considered gambling in most places, and most forms of gambling are usually illegal unless licensed by governments (their way of getting a cut)

[Belly Buster]

I will simplify the situation because the details are not important. 2 people on a message board made a wager that an event either would, or would not happen within 10 years. 5 years later, the event still has not happened, but the board member who bet that it would happen is banned for an unrelated reason. Over the next couple years, on multiple occasions, the person who bet that it would NOT happen posts that he was stiffed by the banned poster. This is not possible because 10 years have not elapsed yet.

So, in essence my question is, once the 10 years have elapsed, if the event still did not happen, is the loser, who has already been branded a welcher, obligated to pay?

Don't worry - bitcoin will get to $100,000 within the next 5 years.

[BetCheckBet]

I find it amazing that someone would make such a bet and not have thought this scenario through... I can only imagine it was done for peanuts which is why you didn;t take the time to figure this out.

And yes obv the welcher has to pay but good luck collecting on a 10 year bet

[BCR]

morally & ethically, yes

legally, probably not, it's unenforceable---betting is considered gambling in most places, and most forms of gambling are usually illegal unless licensed by governments (their way of getting a cut)

This is the correct answer. I certainly wouldn’t count on being paid if I bet on the outcome not occurring.


I didn’t even consider the legal aspect given I have honor and bets like this are governed by assumed ethics, but given the bet has yet to be decided, and the guy is already deemed a welcher, presumably for welching on an unrelated wager, I’d have to consider whether he’s properly deemed a welcher. If he’s indeed welched on an unrelated bet, I’d consider the original bet as no action. No welcher is freerolling me on some long bet that I’ll never collect and only have exposure on.

If I had a two year long bet with someone here that has yet to be decided, and in the interim they roll someone else they have a bet with, and it’s pretty clear and convincing that they did that, I’d consider our wager no action.


I’ve seen differing opinions on this in the gambling world, but if you roll someone, you’re not freerolling me. That’s my stance.

[CryptoNinja]

The person being deemed a welcher (after 5 years on a 10 year bet) does not have any previous history of welching or freerolling. Note there are still almost 5 years left on the bet.

[CryptoNinja]

I will simplify the situation because the details are not important. 2 people on a message board made a wager that an event either would, or would not happen within 10 years. 5 years later, the event still has not happened, but the board member who bet that it would happen is banned for an unrelated reason. Over the next couple years, on multiple occasions, the person who bet that it would NOT happen posts that he was stiffed by the banned poster. This is not possible because 10 years have not elapsed yet.

So, in essence my question is, once the 10 years have elapsed, if the event still did not happen, is the loser, who has already been branded a welcher, obligated to pay?

Don't worry - bitcoin will get to $100,000 within the next 5 years.

Ha ha! Unfortunately, that is not the bet. It's actually much less likely than that.

[BCR]

The person being deemed a welcher (after 5 years on a 10 year bet) does not have any previous history of welching or freerolling. Note there are still almost 5 years left on the bet.

I noted that, but you said he’s already branded a welcher. Why is he branded a welcher for a bet only half over? Has he tried to get out of it for some reason? A bet is a bet. They have a valid wager and it settles when it settles. Getting banned from a forum is irrelevant.

[garrett]

Bet stands until the 10 years is up

This is why you use an escrow service

[BetCheckBet]

The person being deemed a welcher (after 5 years on a 10 year bet) does not have any previous history of welching or freerolling. Note there are still almost 5 years left on the bet.

I assume you are talking about the lurker? Yes definitely no sketchy history (end sarcasm).

In all honesty you have to be pretty sketchy or bad to get banned from here. I can't think of a single guy who has been banned who did not have some sketchiness to him.

[BetCheckBet]

Bet stands until the 10 years is up

This is why you use an escrow service

How can you escrow a ten year bet? seems like having the money locked up for 10 years would not be worth it. Unless its a small amount in which case escrow not worth it.

[Dan Druff]

I will simplify the situation because the details are not important. 2 people on a message board made a wager that an event either would, or would not happen within 10 years. 5 years later, the event still has not happened, but the board member who bet that it would happen is banned for an unrelated reason. Over the next couple years, on multiple occasions, the person who bet that it would NOT happen posts that he was stiffed by the banned poster. This is not possible because 10 years have not elapsed yet.

So, in essence my question is, once the 10 years have elapsed, if the event still did not happen, is the loser, who has already been branded a welcher, obligated to pay?

I don't think the banned person could be The_Lurker because he just got banned recently, and yet the above says "over the next couple years", which seems to imply years have passed since the person was banned. Also, the banned person is the victim in this story (he's being falsely accused of welching). So it appears this probably has to be about another forum, since CryptoNinja isn't banned here, and presumably he's talking about himself as the victim in this spot.

But you raise an interesting question: In the process of a very long-term bet, if one of the two parties falsely accuses the other one of being a welcher, thus repeatedly hurting his reputation, is the falsely-accused welcher ethically expected to pay upon losing?

It's similar to this: If I go around constantly telling people that you're a psycho who punched me in the face for no reason, when in reality you never touched me, do I deserve to actually be punched at that point?

I would say in the latter (punching case), the answer is YES, I would deserve to be punched.

In the betting case, it's a bit more complicated, but the "won't happen" person actually has an edge because half the time has passed without the event happening. So this gives the "will happen" person some leverage.

If you are the "will happen" person, and feel comfortable canceling the bet, I would suggest contacting the guy and telling him that you're going to cancel the bet if these false accusations continue. If he agrees and stops the accusations, then ask him to escrow with a trusted third party, with the terms that anyone accusing the other of welching prior to the end of the bet will automatically lose. If he refuses, I would just cancel the bet.

There are two reasons to cancel the bet if he refuses to do the above:

1) He's refusing to stop falsely accusing you of welching, which is already dishonorable. So you owe him no honor in return.

2) Without escrow, it is likely he won't pay you if you do end up winning, as he will claim that you had already welched on it once you were banned.


There are some of the belief that you should ALWAYS honor a lost bet, even if the other side acted shady and likely would have stiffed you if you had won. That's a load of crap. If you are being treated dishonestly in the process of a bet, and you lose, then you are absolutely under no moral obligation to pay.

[Dan Druff]

One more thought:

Is it possible the other guy (the one who isn't banned) legitimately thinks he's going to get rolled?

I can kinda understand that.

He has a bet with someone from a forum, and then that person gets banned, so he figures he's never going to see his money as a side-effect of that. I'd worry about that if I were him, too.

So perhaps you should make contact with him, assure him that the bet is still on, and go from there. That's probably the best course of action, now that I think about it. If he refuses at that point to stop calling you a welcher, then you can cancel the bet.

[MrTickle]

It's similar to this: If I go around constantly telling people that you're a psycho who punched me in the face for no reason, when in reality you never touched me, do I deserve to actually be punched at that point?

I would say in the latter (punching case), the answer is YES, I would deserve to be punched.

What the fuck? That's not how morality works. If I accuse you of raping me, do I deserve to be raped?

Violence is always always unacceptable in response to something verbal. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

[Dan Druff]

It's similar to this: If I go around constantly telling people that you're a psycho who punched me in the face for no reason, when in reality you never touched me, do I deserve to actually be punched at that point?

I would say in the latter (punching case), the answer is YES, I would deserve to be punched.

What the fuck? That's not how morality works. If I accuse you of raping me, do I deserve to be raped?

Violence is always always unacceptable in response to something verbal. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

I don't want this to degenerate into a tangential discussion about violence and when it's justified. You cited rape in your example, which is far worse than being punched.

My example wasn't to justify violence -- it's that if you set out to ruin someone's reputation by telling blatant lies about what they did to you, then you can't really complain if they finally get fed up and actually do it.

In this particular betting case, I do suspect that the guy accusing the other of "welching" might actually think he got fucked, so the other person needs to contact him and clarify before deciding what further action to take.

[CryptoNinja]

The person being deemed a welcher (after 5 years on a 10 year bet) does not have any previous history of welching or freerolling. Note there are still almost 5 years left on the bet.

I noted that, but you said he’s already branded a welcher. Why is he branded a welcher for a bet only half over? Has he tried to get out of it for some reason? A bet is a bet. They have a valid wager and it settles when it settles. Getting banned from a forum is irrelevant.

The "welcher" is banned from the forum (another place, not here) for an unrelated reason. The person "crying welcher" is crying based on the person being banned and thus THINKS the welcher will not pay up. However, with 5 years to go on the bet, it's a little early to be crying.

[CryptoNinja]

I will simplify the situation because the details are not important. 2 people on a message board made a wager that an event either would, or would not happen within 10 years. 5 years later, the event still has not happened, but the board member who bet that it would happen is banned for an unrelated reason. Over the next couple years, on multiple occasions, the person who bet that it would NOT happen posts that he was stiffed by the banned poster. This is not possible because 10 years have not elapsed yet.

So, in essence my question is, once the 10 years have elapsed, if the event still did not happen, is the loser, who has already been branded a welcher, obligated to pay?

I don't think the banned person could be The_Lurker because he just got banned recently, and yet the above says "over the next couple years", which seems to imply years have passed since the person was banned. Also, the banned person is the victim in this story (he's being falsely accused of welching). So it appears this probably has to be about another forum, since CryptoNinja isn't banned here, and presumably he's talking about himself as the victim in this spot.

But you raise an interesting question: In the process of a very long-term bet, if one of the two parties falsely accuses the other one of being a welcher, thus repeatedly hurting his reputation, is the falsely-accused welcher ethically expected to pay upon losing?

It's similar to this: If I go around constantly telling people that you're a psycho who punched me in the face for no reason, when in reality you never touched me, do I deserve to actually be punched at that point?

I would say in the latter (punching case), the answer is YES, I would deserve to be punched.

In the betting case, it's a bit more complicated, but the "won't happen" person actually has an edge because half the time has passed without the event happening. So this gives the "will happen" person some leverage.

If you are the "will happen" person, and feel comfortable canceling the bet, I would suggest contacting the guy and telling him that you're going to cancel the bet if these false accusations continue. If he agrees and stops the accusations, then ask him to escrow with a trusted third party, with the terms that anyone accusing the other of welching prior to the end of the bet will automatically lose. If he refuses, I would just cancel the bet.

There are two reasons to cancel the bet if he refuses to do the above:

1) He's refusing to stop falsely accusing you of welching, which is already dishonorable. So you owe him no honor in return.

2) Without escrow, it is likely he won't pay you if you do end up winning, as he will claim that you had already welched on it once you were banned.


There are some of the belief that you should ALWAYS honor a lost bet, even if the other side acted shady and likely would have stiffed you if you had won. That's a load of crap. If you are being treated dishonestly in the process of a bet, and you lose, then you are absolutely under no moral obligation to pay.

I think this is correct. Ok, one more twist. The "welcher", since he is banned, would have to go out of his way to contact the other person.

IMO, this bet is cancelled.

ETA: If it matters, the bet is for $1k

[Dan Druff]

I don't think the banned person could be The_Lurker because he just got banned recently, and yet the above says "over the next couple years", which seems to imply years have passed since the person was banned. Also, the banned person is the victim in this story (he's being falsely accused of welching). So it appears this probably has to be about another forum, since CryptoNinja isn't banned here, and presumably he's talking about himself as the victim in this spot.

But you raise an interesting question: In the process of a very long-term bet, if one of the two parties falsely accuses the other one of being a welcher, thus repeatedly hurting his reputation, is the falsely-accused welcher ethically expected to pay upon losing?

It's similar to this: If I go around constantly telling people that you're a psycho who punched me in the face for no reason, when in reality you never touched me, do I deserve to actually be punched at that point?

I would say in the latter (punching case), the answer is YES, I would deserve to be punched.

In the betting case, it's a bit more complicated, but the "won't happen" person actually has an edge because half the time has passed without the event happening. So this gives the "will happen" person some leverage.

If you are the "will happen" person, and feel comfortable canceling the bet, I would suggest contacting the guy and telling him that you're going to cancel the bet if these false accusations continue. If he agrees and stops the accusations, then ask him to escrow with a trusted third party, with the terms that anyone accusing the other of welching prior to the end of the bet will automatically lose. If he refuses, I would just cancel the bet.

There are two reasons to cancel the bet if he refuses to do the above:

1) He's refusing to stop falsely accusing you of welching, which is already dishonorable. So you owe him no honor in return.

2) Without escrow, it is likely he won't pay you if you do end up winning, as he will claim that you had already welched on it once you were banned.


There are some of the belief that you should ALWAYS honor a lost bet, even if the other side acted shady and likely would have stiffed you if you had won. That's a load of crap. If you are being treated dishonestly in the process of a bet, and you lose, then you are absolutely under no moral obligation to pay.

I think this is correct. Ok, one more twist. The "welcher", since he is banned, would have to go out of his way to contact the other person.

IMO, this bet is cancelled.

ETA: If it matters, the bet is for $1k

I think you're jumping the gun.

You should make a fake account on the forum and message the guy, informing him that the bet is still on, but that he needs to retract the welching accusations.

See what he says and go from there.

[sonatine]

so wait this is a real thread?