Issues Arising from Staking

[The Camel]

My responses to everything I've seen.

1) IMO, Keys' posts haven't been out of line out all, admittedly he could perhaps have used a little more tact in his wording, but then he's a bit of a c**k on the internet people are being a little over-sensitive i feel.

2) Guy's handling of Amatay's questions was poor, and over defensive - I was the biggest shareholder of guys package and I wasn't annoyed about it because I didn't feel like guy had acted amliciously, or thought he was in the wrong, or was trying to angle. I was a little disappointed he didn't foresee how it could have come across and communicated it better - like I said though, I dont care about that

3) The railtard thread was a total joke, 90% of the opinons coming from people with about 3% knowledge of the whole situation, which is abso fine every is welcomed and encouraged to offer their opinions (by me espcially) then everyone has a go at people who do know a great deal about the situation. People defending marc on the back of his "great reformation" are pretty jokes as well, he stole money, and is paying it back, hardly behavior worthy of a medal is it. It should be considered to his credit that he said "ill grind my ass off and pay people back" and for the most part that's what he's done/doing, but it's not like he's saved a young girl from a burning tree or donated a kidney to a dying relative and is actually kind of irrelevant to the recent thread.

4) Simon Galloway for staking mod, not even close

I thought amliciously was a a great word I hadn't seen before until I googled it and realised it was a typo.

Apart from from that, good post.

[smashedagain]

Chris sold out with the buy back clause so why should it now be up to someone to say hold up a minute you can't put a buy back clause in. He was up front and open about it and it was not like it was an after timer thing.

Has anyone ever offered to buy a piece in someone and been refused for any reason. If I offered to buy a piece in lildave could the mods then say hold on a minute Dave don't take smashedagain's money because he is money laundering for a Columbia cartel?

[outragous76]

Is Guy a grimmer? I quite like him

What Guy did to myself and other backers is basically the same as if Mondo were to just end his $35 180 man stake having lost a chunk and then start up a new thread a few weeks later without buying out. I highlighted this in his new staking thread which Longy has touched on in this thread. At the time no one really commented or gave a shit apart from Cos and thats mainly because were good friends. If it had been a more high profile, respected and prolific poster than myself (i.e Camel, Keys) then maybe more people would have taken notice

Wow!

No it certainly is not! Ive been logged out of blonde for days, but someone just alerted me to this post!

This will be my first and last on the matter (which has been put to bed for a while).

The party stake was exclusively for Party ONLY. the other stake was on stars.

So if you want to draw a Monda comparison, it would be like monda stopping his stake and then putting up a single ONE OFF THREAD to play $200 SNGS on Party for ONE NIGHT whilst having 1/2 his own action.  

The simple fact is, if my life were as it was last September, the stake would still be running. It isnt! I made my point in the stake thread and stakers have always been able to make their points.

I have also told backers that if I bink playing in 2012, i will pay the stake back. This is on any site - not just party. I felt this was fair compromise.

Simon, you have made your feelings clear. If I have not binked by Decmber 31st 2012 playing poker - I will pay you whatever is is $120? on Party. If it really pleases you, I will also not play on Party until you have your funds returned.

If any of my other backers feel the same as Simon PM me and I will do the same.

[tikay]

If SBM's (Staking Board Mods) were implemented as suggested, a single SBD, such as Simon G, would not be adequate, or even nearly so.

You need cover for when Simon is absent, offline, or on holiday (many staking threads are time-sensitive). You also need cover for when a SBM is compromised by a conflict of interest, when, for example, SG had purchased,or planned to purchase, action in that person.

I would wholly endorse SG's nomination, he's a stand-out candidate, but you need at least two more names.

[GreekStein]

Is Guy a grimmer? I quite like him

What Guy did to myself and other backers is basically the same as if Mondo were to just end his $35 180 man stake having lost a chunk and then start up a new thread a few weeks later without buying out. I highlighted this in his new staking thread which Longy has touched on in this thread. At the time no one really commented or gave a shit apart from Cos and thats mainly because were good friends. If it had been a more high profile, respected and prolific poster than myself (i.e Camel, Keys) then maybe more people would have taken notice

Wow!

No it certainly is not! Ive been logged out of blonde for days, but someone just alerted me to this post!

This will be my first and last on the matter (which has been put to bed for a while).

The party stake was exclusively for Party ONLY. the other stake was on stars.

So if you want to draw a Monda comparison, it would be like monda stopping his stake and then putting up a single ONE OFF THREAD to play $200 SNGS on Party for ONE NIGHT.  

The simple fact is, if my life were as it was last September, the stake would still be running. It isnt! I made my point in the stake thread and stakers have always been able to make their points.

I have also told backers that if I bink playing in 2012, i will pay the stake back. This is on any site - not just party. I felt this was fair compromise.

Simon, you have made your feelings clear. If I have not binked by Decmber 31st 2012 playing poker - I will pay you whatever is is $120? on Party. If it really pleases you, I will also not play on Party until you have your funds returned.

If any of my other backers feel the same as Simon PM me and I will do the same.

Guy, turning this on Amatay the way you have is really unfair.

You've handled it badly irrespective of any other circumstances.

[Simon Galloway]

Thanks for considering me suitable for the position, don't have much time to write atm but a few pointers:

1. Blonde proprietors may not want this
2. I probably don't have time to do it in the way you are hoping it would be done, anything I agreed to do would be "best endeavours" so non-committal at this stage for sure.
3. James Keys was doing a pretty good job of vetting sloppy threads imo - if he is happy to continue doing that I think that's a good thing.  The Dreenie/Railtard accusations of partisan rulings aside, and the occasional comment of "online demeanour" not in keeping with IRL, (not really relevant) everything else has surely been good.
4. As an indication on how I would see it working (if it even is a go-er) and to answer the Bram question, I think a buy-back clause written unambiguously in OP is fine, everyone can choose to price it in/out as they see fit.  Pretty much everything that isn't looking suspiciously like an angle or a potential disagreement-in-the-making is a contender for OP.  If I thought it was ambiguous, I would ask for clarification.  If I thought it was likely to be misinterpreted by many, I would get that clarified too.  Only in the event of something ridiculous in the OP would I ask that it was taken out (something clearly not ever in the interest of any potential buyer, or something borderline illegal/immoral)

[The Camel]

If SBM's (Staking Board Mods) were implemented as suggested, a single SBD, such as Simon G, would not be adequate, or even nearly so.

You need cover for when Simon is absent, offline, or on holiday (many staking threads are time-sensitive). You also need cover for when a SBM is compromised by a conflict of interest, when, for example, SG had purchased,or planned to purchase, action in that person.

I would wholly endorse SG's nomination, he's a stand-out candidate, but you need at least two more names.

Having three would be perfect really.

It one mod makes a decision the poster thinks unfair, they could make an appeal to the other 2 and if they both agree with the staker, he could be over ruled.

I dunno, I am making this up as I go along.

I do think having staking mod(s) is a very good idea.

[GreekStein]

If SBM's (Staking Board Mods) were implemented as suggested, a single SBD, such as Simon G, would not be adequate, or even nearly so.

You need cover for when Simon is absent, offline, or on holiday (many staking threads are time-sensitive). You also need cover for when a SBM is compromised by a conflict of interest, when, for example, SG had purchased,or planned to purchase, action in that person.

I would wholly endorse SG's nomination, he's a stand-out candidate, but you need at least two more names.

Completely agree with this. Camel's answer to Brammer's question made me think that too.

I'd put myself forward for it too. Think that could work pretty well along with Keys and Simon.

[outragous76]

Is Guy a grimmer? I quite like him

What Guy did to myself and other backers is basically the same as if Mondo were to just end his $35 180 man stake having lost a chunk and then start up a new thread a few weeks later without buying out. I highlighted this in his new staking thread which Longy has touched on in this thread. At the time no one really commented or gave a shit apart from Cos and thats mainly because were good friends. If it had been a more high profile, respected and prolific poster than myself (i.e Camel, Keys) then maybe more people would have taken notice

Wow!

No it certainly is not! Ive been logged out of blonde for days, but someone just alerted me to this post!

This will be my first and last on the matter (which has been put to bed for a while).

The party stake was exclusively for Party ONLY. the other stake was on stars.

So if you want to draw a Monda comparison, it would be like monda stopping his stake and then putting up a single ONE OFF THREAD to play $200 SNGS on Party for ONE NIGHT.  

The simple fact is, if my life were as it was last September, the stake would still be running. It isnt! I made my point in the stake thread and stakers have always been able to make their points.

I have also told backers that if I bink playing in 2012, i will pay the stake back. This is on any site - not just party. I felt this was fair compromise.

Simon, you have made your feelings clear. If I have not binked by Decmber 31st 2012 playing poker - I will pay you whatever is is $120? on Party. If it really pleases you, I will also not play on Party until you have your funds returned.

If any of my other backers feel the same as Simon PM me and I will do the same.

Guy, turning this on Amatay the way you have is really unfair.

You've handled it badly irrespective of any other circumstances.

It wasnt my intention, but he keeps raising it. None of the other 9 stakers do.

I even managed to not rise to Keys saying "GUY OWED THOUSANDS" which is clearly untrue.

I havent responded to any like jason or Keith on this thread. But when Amatay throws something like that out there to soil my reputation, I had to respond. I can only be thankful that a friend pointed this out to me before the blonde spiral got out of control!

I have been more then frank with my backers, I have made my final comment on the matter

[david3103]

Tikay's diary is currently debating the 'elf n safety gawn mad issue. Whether people should be protected from themselves by what many refer to as the nanny state.
All of the concern being shown here for the staker is commendable, but ultimately, the issues of mark-up and buyback are for the market to set surely?
A mod, however experienced and knowledgeable, can't be the sole arbiter of value.

The only valid intervention in a staking board should be to warn potential investors of known past history of griming or extended delays in payment. APAT recently opened their own staking board with a licensing system for potential stakees. It's not guaranteed, but nobody gets to post a proposal until their identity has been verified at the least.

[tikay]

Having three would be perfect really.

You must also remember that a SINGLE Mod would get absolutely butchered in the event of a contentious decision. Not that such a thing is ever likely, obv.

[TightEnd]

The only valid intervention in a staking board should be to warn potential investors of known past history of griming or extended delays in payment. APAT recently opened their own staking board with a licensing system for potential stakees. It's not guaranteed, but nobody gets to post a proposal until their identity has been verified at the least.

A 300 post restriction does that for us. the APAT board has no such post restrictions, but requires people to make a payment to APAT.

Different methods, same aim

[The Camel]

Is Guy a grimmer? I quite like him

What Guy did to myself and other backers is basically the same as if Mondo were to just end his $35 180 man stake having lost a chunk and then start up a new thread a few weeks later without buying out. I highlighted this in his new staking thread which Longy has touched on in this thread. At the time no one really commented or gave a shit apart from Cos and thats mainly because were good friends. If it had been a more high profile, respected and prolific poster than myself (i.e Camel, Keys) then maybe more people would have taken notice

Wow!

No it certainly is not! Ive been logged out of blonde for days, but someone just alerted me to this post!

This will be my first and last on the matter (which has been put to bed for a while).

The party stake was exclusively for Party ONLY. the other stake was on stars.

So if you want to draw a Monda comparison, it would be like monda stopping his stake and then putting up a single ONE OFF THREAD to play $200 SNGS on Party for ONE NIGHT.  

The simple fact is, if my life were as it was last September, the stake would still be running. It isnt! I made my point in the stake thread and stakers have always been able to make their points.

I have also told backers that if I bink playing in 2012, i will pay the stake back. This is on any site - not just party. I felt this was fair compromise.

Simon, you have made your feelings clear. If I have not binked by Decmber 31st 2012 playing poker - I will pay you whatever is is $120? on Party. If it really pleases you, I will also not play on Party until you have your funds returned.

If any of my other backers feel the same as Simon PM me and I will do the same.

Guy, turning this on Amatay the way you have is really unfair.

You've handled it badly irrespective of any other circumstances.

It wasnt my intention, but he keeps raising it. None of the other 9 stakers do.

I even managed to not rise to Keys saying "GUY OWED THOUSANDS" which is clearly untrue.

I havent responded to any like jason or Keith on this thread. But when Amatay throws something like that out there to soil my reputation, I had to respond. I can only be thankful that a friend pointed this out to me until the blonde sprial got out of control!

I have been more then frank with my backers, I have made my final comment on the matter

I had no idea the second stake was on a different site to the first stake.

However, just walking away from a losing stake if the buyers still want to continue is a bad thing to do, if you currently have no time to play, fair enough. But you can keep the stake open until you can put in the required volume again.

[GreekStein]

Is Guy a grimmer? I quite like him

What Guy did to myself and other backers is basically the same as if Mondo were to just end his $35 180 man stake having lost a chunk and then start up a new thread a few weeks later without buying out. I highlighted this in his new staking thread which Longy has touched on in this thread. At the time no one really commented or gave a shit apart from Cos and thats mainly because were good friends. If it had been a more high profile, respected and prolific poster than myself (i.e Camel, Keys) then maybe more people would have taken notice

Wow!

No it certainly is not! Ive been logged out of blonde for days, but someone just alerted me to this post!

This will be my first and last on the matter (which has been put to bed for a while).

The party stake was exclusively for Party ONLY. the other stake was on stars.

So if you want to draw a Monda comparison, it would be like monda stopping his stake and then putting up a single ONE OFF THREAD to play $200 SNGS on Party for ONE NIGHT.  

The simple fact is, if my life were as it was last September, the stake would still be running. It isnt! I made my point in the stake thread and stakers have always been able to make their points.

I have also told backers that if I bink playing in 2012, i will pay the stake back. This is on any site - not just party. I felt this was fair compromise.

Simon, you have made your feelings clear. If I have not binked by Decmber 31st 2012 playing poker - I will pay you whatever is is $120? on Party. If it really pleases you, I will also not play on Party until you have your funds returned.

If any of my other backers feel the same as Simon PM me and I will do the same.

Guy, turning this on Amatay the way you have is really unfair.

You've handled it badly irrespective of any other circumstances.

It wasnt my intention, but he keeps raising it. None of the other 9 stakers do.

I even managed to not rise to Keys saying "GUY OWED THOUSANDS" which is clearly untrue.

I havent responded to any like jason or Keith on this thread. But when Amatay throws something like that out there to soil my reputation, I had to respond. I can only be thankful that a friend pointed this out to me before the blonde spiral got out of control!

I have been more then frank with my backers, I have made my final comment on the matter

Saying it's a final comment is a bit pathetic too when there are clearly issues there.

I spoke to one staker (not amatay) who said they werent happy with it but didnt want to rock the blonde boat or look like the one that was being awkward.

You're in profit from the thread and quit. You should pay every cent you made from the thread back to backers split fairly according to what % they made.

That would have been the most satisfactory end to a stake that you quit. If I was one of the investors, I'd be mightily pissed off, whether i had 100% or 0.1% of your action.

[The Camel]

Having three would be perfect really.

You must also remember that a SINGLE Mod would get absolutely butchered in the event of a contentious decision. Not that such a thing is ever likely, obv.

It would have to be policed with an iron fist.

Mods decision final, no arguments.

If you don't agree with that, you lose posting rights on the staking board.