Issues Arising from Staking

[pleno1]

if the mod thing is implemented it gives more people an excuse or reason to use Alex's site btw.

[GreekStein]

if the mod thing is implemented it gives more people an excuse or reason to use Alex's site btw.

why?

I think the same number of people will use Alex's site regardless of mods or not rly.

[TightEnd]

if the mod thing is implemented it gives more people an excuse or reason to use Alex's site btw.

why?

I think the same number of people will use Alex's site regardless of mods or not rly.

presumably it will be viewed as a hurdle to attracting finance on here, which might not be a hurdle elsewhere

This might be a good thing, of course, depending on potential stakees.

Just saying

[RED-DOG]

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.

How will that be enforced?

[TightEnd]

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.

How will that be enforced?

and by who?

:-)

[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 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.

Keith

Anyone that is aware of the stake knows that is what I did. I tried to keep playing, but it was hugely intermittant and not good for the stake. I couldnt possibly give it my best and therefore the backers were more likely to continue to lose more rather than win. So what is better, accept that its not great situation, but not lose more? It seemed approriate to me. As a further consideration I told them that if I bink for the rest of the year I would pay back, which seemed reasonable to me. ie. when I did get back to playing (hopefully my best), they would all benefit if I did

There is another reason, which Im not prepared to go into on blonde, but again, I advised every backer that if they wanted to know i would tell them privately.

[pleno1]

if the mod thing is implemented it gives more people an excuse or reason to use Alex's site btw.

why?

I think the same number of people will use Alex's site regardless of mods or not rly.

some people dont want to be judged. they want to be able to post shitty threads (see alex martins today ) and if someone who sells regularly wants to write something on their phone etc its just realyl easy to say the amount.

alex will obv allow people with less than 300 posts and if it gets popular there will be more traffic.

we'll basically never say any bad deals anymore like the dtd 70/30's which ofc is not a bad thing.

just think thew overall traffic will go down q alot.

also i think people involved in the modding shouldn't be regular buyers and definitely not regular sellers.

[nirvana]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

[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.

Keith

Anyone that is aware of the stake knows that is what I did. I tried to keep playing, but it was hugely intermittant and not good for the stake. I couldnt possibly give it my best and therefore the backers were more likely to continue to lose more rather than win. So what is better, accept that its not great situation, but not lose more? It seemed approriate to me. As a further consideration I told them that if I bink for the rest of the year I would pay back, which seemed reasonable to me. ie. when I did get back to playing (hopefully my best), they would all benefit if I did

There is another reason, which Im not prepared to go into on blonde, but again, I advised every backer that if they wanted to know i would tell them privately.

I understand and accept all that Guy.

But what is wrong with giving stakers a choice? Either pay them back now, or keep the stake open for another six months, a year or whenever you able to play again?

Walking away from a losing stake without giving the stakers a chance to get their money back is almost always a bad thing to do.

[GreekStein]

if the mod thing is implemented it gives more people an excuse or reason to use Alex's site btw.

why?

I think the same number of people will use Alex's site regardless of mods or not rly.

some people dont want to be judged. they want to be able to post shitty threads (see alex martins today ) and if someone who sells regularly wants to write something on their phone etc its just realyl easy to say the amount.

alex will obv allow people with less than 300 posts and if it gets popular there will be more traffic.

we'll basically never say any bad deals anymore like the dtd 70/30's which ofc is not a bad thing.

just think thew overall traffic will go down q alot.

also i think people involved in the modding shouldn't be regular buyers and definitely not regular sellers.

Some of the people that don't want to be judged are some of the peoeple who are going to take the piss.

Modding would make 2 liner posts like Alex's not happen at the last minute. Let's face it, it takes 5 mins max to make a good proper staking thread.

[Boba Fett]

I think its fine the way it is fwiw

[The Camel]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

Whatever else, it isn't a "truly ridic" idea.

[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 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.

Keith

Anyone that is aware of the stake knows that is what I did. I tried to keep playing, but it was hugely intermittant and not good for the stake. I couldnt possibly give it my best and therefore the backers were more likely to continue to lose more rather than win. So what is better, accept that its not great situation, but not lose more? It seemed approriate to me. As a further consideration I told them that if I bink for the rest of the year I would pay back, which seemed reasonable to me. ie. when I did get back to playing (hopefully my best), they would all benefit if I did

There is another reason, which Im not prepared to go into on blonde, but again, I advised every backer that if they wanted to know i would tell them privately.

I understand and accept all that Guy.

But what is wrong with giving stakers a choice? Either pay them back now, or keep the stake open for another six months, a year or whenever you able to play again?

Walking away from a losing stake without giving the stakers a chance to get their money back is almost always a bad thing to do.

This is the key point really Guy. You acting as judge and jury on it seemed bad.

The fact you were also playing in the weeks after seemed kind of OOL. You said in your other post that playing on was more likely to be a losing proposition than a winning one - why didn't this stop you playing that sunday stars session or mentioning it in the OP?

[pleno1]

i assume the online section would be modded too right?

[GreekStein]

Countless people posted sensibly along the lines of 'caveat emptor' etc. Keys wasn't appointed so he can critique staking posts from any angle he wants, just like the rest of us.

Truly ridic idea to look to appoint judges/mods to police this board specifically

Existing mods approach is plenty - ie someone does something that obviously harms the community, ban them from Blonde

A bunch of petty fascistic rulings over the minutiae within staking requests does not advance the place at all

Whatever else, it isn't a "truly ridic" idea.

I don't mind either way if Mods are implemented or not for the staking board but it's most definitely not a truly ridic idea by any means.