jsearles and Chinamaniac debate about the value of his WSOP pieces

[jsearles22]

The intent of the bet seems very clear, but if two people have two different interpretations of a statement (and that ONE particular statement does have some wiggle room) then there is an impass. My feeling is the best way to solve the problem is to bring the matter to arbitration. I didn't say Vegas SHOULD get a reduced amount, just that this is a viable option, especially if Vegas hopes to get anything out of Searles.


The simple addition of one of the following would have made this point moot:
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used one of those two words incorrectly?"
"How about I find, lets say 15 posts, where you have used either of those two words incorrectly?"

I'd gladly listen to both of their stories and what they feel they are entitled to and make a ruling on the matter... if they want me to of course. I've already stated that Searles did not win the bet on his technicality, and that that the bet should not be voided because of it. As to how much he should pay (up to the full $500) would be determined after I hear thier sides

Clearly we have different interpretations of the bet, I would not have agreed to either version of the alternate phrases that you provided. I merely agreed because I read the phrase and snap interpreted that we were betting he could find posts with BOTH words used incorrectly.

I also will not agree to you being the arbitor after you have already ruled against me!

Yes, I ruled against you, but I'm also willing to possibly lighten your burden (although it would probably come with non-monetary stipulations agreed to by Vegas). In all honesty that is probably the best you could ever hope for here.

Your options seem to be:

1) Have someone mediate an agreement between you and Vegas
2) Have your name and reputation smeared and "Santorumed" by Google
3) Pay the full amount

or 4) have a fair and impartial arbitor rule in my favor