Issues Arising from Staking

[Doobs]

What about the guy case? If mods judged him to be ool and owe 3k what happens then?  If its just advice on ops and deleting spam then you don't need 3 staking mods.

100% not a mods job

If it is judged a poster has broken staking board rules/protocol, do you not agree they should be banned from putting futures proposals up?

if they break rules mods delete anyway.  mods should be not judge or jury on whether a person quitting make up or has grimmed previosuly is out of line. i am sure the self regualtion on here that exists anyway will unearth such trechery! :-)

The reason I thought it would be good idea to have a specific staking board is the existing mods might not grasp all the issues involved completely.

How much staking experience does *grasping a mods name from thin air* Ginger have for example?

I don't see the staking board mod as someone who commentates on value or terms and conditions.  I don't think they should really stop anyone buying and selling unless someone is a serial offender/known fraudster etc.

I think what they could do is insist some people have to put a warning in their posts.  Eg Guy has to admit that he had a previous stake that went sour and provide a link.  Marc has to link to the previous thread on his scamming and provide current status and if someone has done multiple did not completes that can go in too.

If they don't put the obligatory warning agreed by the mods, they can't use the board anymore.  

And I just think people should take things less personally. I dunno, if someone says you aren't worth 40% just show them the evidence.  

[TightEnd]

What about the guy case? If mods judged him to be ool and owe 3k what happens then?  If its just advice on ops and deleting spam then you don't need 3 staking mods.

100% not a mods job

If it is judged a poster has broken staking board rules/protocol, do you not agree they should be banned from putting futures proposals up?

if they break rules mods delete anyway.  mods should be not judge or jury on whether a person quitting make up or has grimmed previosuly is out of line. i am sure the self regualtion on here that exists anyway will unearth such trechery! :-)

The reason I thought it would be good idea to have a specific staking board is the existing mods might not grasp all the issues involved completely.

How much staking experience does *grasping a mods name from thin air* Ginger have for example?

The blonde mods don't have to grasp all the issues involved

The board was set up on the sole proviso that it was modded for flaming and that staking requests themselves, nuts and bolts/ perceived value, etc was not modded

We set up some guidelines, issued a template with user help and for four years it has self policed very well

The fact that recently a few people have spoken up about perceived problems in some requests is a good thing. Shows that self-policing is working well

[The Camel]

Camel I don't get what role you think a 'SBMod' would have?

Proof read staking requests, arbitrate disputes, compile a list of acceptable clauses.

Going back to Bram's well argued example.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was too ambiguous and ask for a figure to be inserted. IE Bram would be entitled to buy back his action if he copped 100k or more for his stakers.

Or maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

[MPOWER]

I am against the idea of staking mods, who in their right mind would want the job - it is just opening themselves up for flaming. On blonde a mods decision is never final it is always the start of 26 pages of blathering.

Buyers are perfectly entitled to buy stakes at terrible value, stakers can put up awful pitches, constructive ideas can help both sides to improve but let users do their own stupid things.

I agree.

I like to have a punt now and again not having time for poker myself.

Just see it as a bit of a gamble and like all punters hope to get lucky. Often it's because I like the person
or just giving someone a chance to have a crack in a bigger competition.

I pays my money and take my chance.

Most of us are over 21. And should decide themselves. Don't fancy the value offered don't buy-in to the horse.

Lets not put off first timers putting up a staking thread. We can all read what is on offer and then make our own decisions

Regards

M

[RED-DOG]

Camel I don't get what role you think a 'SBMod' would have?

Proof read staking requests, arbitrate disputes, compile a list of acceptable clauses.

Going back to Bram's well argued example.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was too ambiguous and ask for a figure to be inserted. IE Bram would be entitled to buy back his action if he copped 100k or more for his stakers.

Or maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

But Keith, might there not be just as big a debate about the decision?

[RED-DOG]

What I mean is, if it's a decision that no one would argue with, there is no need for a decision.

[TightEnd]

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

Why is a big debate a problem?

Who is to say the outcome of a debate is not a more reliable result that one person or a small group of people's decision, with all the biases that they could contain?

In the Bramm instance, there was a good debate. Didn't harm things at all

If you don't want debate, as someone asking for staking, put up a plain vanilla proposal.

[The Camel]

What about the guy case? If mods judged him to be ool and owe 3k what happens then?  If its just advice on ops and deleting spam then you don't need 3 staking mods.

100% not a mods job

If it is judged a poster has broken staking board rules/protocol, do you not agree they should be banned from putting futures proposals up?

if they break rules mods delete anyway.  mods should be not judge or jury on whether a person quitting make up or has grimmed previosuly is out of line. i am sure the self regualtion on here that exists anyway will unearth such trechery! :-)

The reason I thought it would be good idea to have a specific staking board is the existing mods might not grasp all the issues involved completely.

How much staking experience does *grasping a mods name from thin air* Ginger have for example?

I don't see the staking board mod as someone who commentates on value or terms and conditions.  I don't think they should really stop anyone buying and selling unless someone is a serial offender/known fraudster etc.

I think what they could do is insist some people have to put a warning in their posts.  Eg Guy has to admit that he had a previous stake that went sour and provide a link.  Marc has to link to the previous thread on his scamming and provide current status and if someone has done multiple did not completes that can go in too.

If they don't put the obligatory warning agreed by the mods, they can't use the board anymore.  

And I just think people should take things less personally. I dunno, if someone says you aren't worth 40% just show them the evidence.  

This, so much this.

I have said here that I think Guy was out of order for the way he stopped his last stake.

However, that doesn't mean I don't trust him, like him and wouldn't buy a share in him in the future.

He probs thinks I'm a ***** for what I said, but when I post in staking threads it's purely business.# and nothing I say should be taken personally.

People might find it difficult to believe but I actually like railtard. But I do.

[titaniumbean]

Camel I don't get what role you think a 'SBMod' would have?

Proof read staking requests, arbitrate disputes, compile a list of acceptable clauses.

Going back to Bram's well argued example.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was too ambiguous and ask for a figure to be inserted. IE Bram would be entitled to buy back his action if he copped 100k or more for his stakers.

Or maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

proof read staking requests seems ridiculous, you put up a good detailed staking request = more likelihood of selling out.

If someone includes a clause you don't like you don't buy it's quite simple, I didn't think Chris' clause was unfair, yes I think that it impinges somewhat on the value of the stake however as such a good value stake imo he can have more 'right' to add a clause like that especially with how much easier than alot of other people he will sell out.

I don't see how a mods decision saves a debate, if the topic is good/contentious enough then it can be debated and those less informed can learn from better informed peoples opinions.


As someone said above things just need to not be taken personally. It frustrates me no end when I will be talking to someone and a name will come up and their play or value may be critiqued and then someone will snap reply oh but their a really nice person. We are not talking about the same thing, them being nice reflects no way on their poker abilities and vice versa.  People need to take criticism and be able to back up what they say, if you are charging a markup you should be able to explain why you are and why YOU THINK that's valid. Other people may not agree with you and that's fine they wont invest.


It also changes massively when someone like flushy posts a thread, you don't need links and links and I'm trustworthy for xyz reason so his post could be 'selling xyz, 1%=$45k, 1.8 markup cos I is bawse'

if a new user posts that though you'd expect them to be flamed to bits.

I hadn't made a thread in the staking boards before and even though I felt I knew alot of people on here/could be easily vouched for I wanted to put up all the information I would if I were selling to people I didn't know.  Some people take the piss with how little they put, how much markup they charge and what they want to play etc, we should encourage people to post if they think it's pants.

Just in relation to your proof reading bit take Plenos recent OP for staking and compare it to some random newish posters couple of liner, honestly who do you think is going to be a better prospect in competitive games of today, the guy who includes pictures, bolded sub headings and detailed information or the punter with 3 lines and awful grammar?

[The Camel]

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

Why is a big debate a problem?

Who is to say the outcome of a debate is not a more reliable result that one person or a small group of people's decision, with all the biases that they could contain?

In the Bramm instance, there was a good debate. Didn't harm things at all

If you don't want debate, as someone asking for staking, put up a plain vanilla proposal.

The debate in itself wasn't a problem, but there was no definitive outcome.

I think there should be a guide or template to what is acceptable in staking proposals, so when the bink happens.. no one feels screwed or cheated.

Better to have a decision/policy BEFORE people gt angry/fall out than after, surely?

[Junior Senior]

Camel I don't get what role you think a 'SBMod' would have?

Proof read staking requests, arbitrate disputes, compile a list of acceptable clauses.

Going back to Bram's well argued example.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Maybe the mod would think the clause was too ambiguous and ask for a figure to be inserted. IE Bram would be entitled to buy back his action if he copped 100k or more for his stakers.

Or maybe the mod would think the clause was fine.

Whichever the decision, it would have saved a big debate.

or maybe, we just all check our birth certificates, realise we are all old enough to make our own decisions and continue to buy and sell our own proposals without the need for school teacher to tell us what they think of it.  If someone flames, gets out of line or posts without meeting the 300 post threshold a mod removes it anyway or warns accordingly.


sorry keith, you normally make a lot of sense but on this i'm just not seeing the point to this suggested over regulation

[MANTIS01]

I don’t favour the idea of staking mods but have enjoyed reading the debate. Any member should be free to put up whatever they like and see if it sells. What the board does need though is fair impartial comment. If negative comment is passed on a current thread it’s akin to somebody walking around with a placard outside your business putting customers off. Who would take kindly to that? Especially if another business benefits from free advertising. Suddenly the market isn’t fair.

What the board needs is a protocol section where staking issues are discussed to find a general consensus of conduct. Horses can be rated on various criteria including profitability and reliability. Before I go & watch a film or a show, or book a restaurant, or go on holiday I find it helpful to log onto rating websites and get a broad spectrum of opinions. Sites like eg rotten tomatoes produce an overall rating for films. This approach is better than one or two people offering opinions because a) maybe those opinions have an agenda and b) they are just singular opinions.

[TightEnd]

I think there should be a guide or template to what is acceptable in staking proposals, so when the bink happens.. no one feels screwed or cheated.

there is a template. If the consensus is that it should be expanded for things like forex/tips etc (after the event issues) then fine

However that template should still be self policed, in my opinion


As someone who set up the boards (with significant help), did the guidelines, wrote the template and has read every thread in there..I see what passes through the mods room, my PMs on a weekly basis..people asking for advice, offering opinions etc and that's without the mods actually modding anything except flaming!

Believe me, a Staking Board Mod would need to devote significant time to this, and hand on heart I'd tell anyone to think very carefully before taking it on

Self policing is by far the best option in my opinion. I totally agree that self policing is easier is people both express and receive criticism in a business-like rather than personal fashion

[titaniumbean]

I don’t favour the idea of staking mods but have enjoyed reading the debate. Any member should be free to put up whatever they like and see if it sells. What the board does need though is fair impartial comment. If negative comment is passed on a current thread it’s akin to somebody walking around with a placard outside your business putting customers off. Who would take kindly to that? Especially if another business benefits from free advertising. Suddenly the market isn’t fair.

What the board needs is a protocol section where staking issues are discussed to find a general consensus of conduct. Horses can be rated on various criteria including profitability and reliability. Before I go & watch a film or a show, or book a restaurant, or go on holiday I find it helpful to log onto rating websites and get a broad spectrum of opinions. Sites like eg rotten tomatoes produce an overall rating for films. This approach is better than one or two people offering opinions because a) maybe those opinions have an agenda and b) they are just singular opinions.

I do not agree.

So if I were to put up a thread selling for DTD 500, I am charging 4500% markup because I am a fking G. No one can come in and post that this is a shit offer because what; because they're putting off the people who don't know better, oh no cry me a river. If something looks and smells like shit, just say its shit.


If I get shit service from somewhere I tell my friends and we are all better informed about how shit it is.


Similarly a 'general consensus' is rubbish, considering that stakes differ in terms of profitability, event, player reliability etc etc

there are a tonne of people I wouldn't back with certain clauses in the agreement, however there are a select few like Keys sorry Bram who I think are a better proposition than most so would be more willing to have them included.


IMO within the staking community I would respect certain peoples opinions alot more than a group of 10k randoms opinions.

[The Camel]

I don’t favour the idea of staking mods but have enjoyed reading the debate. Any member should be free to put up whatever they like and see if it sells. What the board does need though is fair impartial comment. If negative comment is passed on a current thread it’s akin to somebody walking around with a placard outside your business putting customers off. Who would take kindly to that? Especially if another business benefits from free advertising. Suddenly the market isn’t fair.

What the board needs is a protocol section where staking issues are discussed to find a general consensus of conduct. Horses can be rated on various criteria including profitability and reliability. Before I go & watch a film or a show, or book a restaurant, or go on holiday I find it helpful to log onto rating websites and get a broad spectrum of opinions. Sites like eg rotten tomatoes produce an overall rating for films. This approach is better than one or two people offering opinions because a) maybe those opinions have an agenda and b) they are just singular opinions.

Actually this isn't a bad idea.