Issues Arising from Staking

[mondatoo]

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.

This definitely isn't true, clearly seen by the fact the rest of the forum is modded and there are loads of debates about decisions they make.

Whilst I agreed Simon would be a very good staking Mod, I don't think one is needed. Things seem to work fine as they are, pretty massive overreaction to Keys' poor response to one of the threads was totally blown out of proportion and he is obv still a good poster to have for guidance in that section. But even before Keys it worked fine.

Think it would be a pretty bad idea for blonde as a business to have official mods for staking when they don't have any involvment in threads that go wrong if people get grimmed, just seems like it could get messy.

[DMorgan]

I agree that it is inevitable that something big will happen at some point in time, but that isn't a reason to enact 'aggressive modding' which creates a great deal of extra work and red tape.

When people use scissors, someone will inevitably cut themselves. We don't make scissors less sharp because then they would be less effective at what is a very useful function. Instead we educate people as to the dangers of using scissors recklessly.

I'd rather give the staking community on blonde some credit than mollycoddling. In the wake of the Blatch scandal people have sharpened up and as someone with extensive experience of both buying and selling on blonde I think it works very well. It didn't exactly take long for the collective to highlight the caveat in Brams post and analyse it.

 

[The Camel]

I agree that it is inevitable that something big will happen at some point in time, but that isn't a reason to enact 'aggressive modding' which creates a great deal of extra work and red tape.

When people use scissors, someone will inevitably cut themselves. We don't make scissors less sharp because then they would be less effective at what is a very useful function. Instead we educate people as to the dangers of using scissors recklessly.

I'd rather give the staking community on blonde some credit than mollycoddling. In the wake of the Blatch scandal people have sharpened up and as someone with extensive experience of both buying and selling on blonde I think it works very well. It didn't exactly take long for the collective to highlight the caveat in Brams post and analyse it.

 

Fair enough.

As I said, it was an idea that came to me and I thought it might work.

It just seems people are pretty precious about their staking threads and one bit of questioning/criticism and the toys come out of the pram.

It's business ffs.

[DMorgan]

As for the TMay thing, if these people want to use pieces of info that were clearly not directed at you as a signal to send someone money then gl with life. They're going to need it.

There is absolutely no need to expose yourself to financial transactions where ambiguity exists or may exist.

[The Camel]

As for the TMay thing, if these people want to use pieces of info that were clearly not directed at you as a signal to send someone money then gl with life. They're going to need it.

There is absolutely no need to expose yourself to financial transactions where ambiguity exists or may exist.

As I said, it certainly was not clearly directed at anyone.

It looked like an open invitation for anyone to send money and be booked.

[DMorgan]

As far as I'm concerned its clear as day. You don't send money before your action is confirmed as booked. You have to protect yourself and these guys learned a valuable lesson that imo should be clear to everybody anyway.

[The Camel]

As far as I'm concerned its clear as day. You don't send money before your action is confirmed as booked. You have to protect yourself and these guys learned a valuable lesson that imo should be clear to everybody anyway.

As far as I remember nearly 100% of posts on that very long thread (including several of his friends) felt TMay should pay up.

[DMorgan]

That isn't surprising given the relatively relaxed attitude towards ambiguity in OPs on 2p2. That just wouldn't fly on blonde because the community would pick up on it.

I'm confident that I speak for most of the regular buyers on blonde when I say that we would not have sent money in that spot.

Struggling to make this any clearer without repeating myself

[The Camel]

That isn't surprising given the relatively relaxed attitude towards ambiguity in OPs on 2p2. That just wouldn't fly on blonde because the community would pick up on it.

I'm confident that I speak for most of the regular buyers on blonde when I say that we would not have sent money in that spot.

Struggling to make this any clearer without repeating myself

Guess we'll have to agree to differ.

The ambiguity is why I had a problem with Bram's caveat.

I buy 5% of Bram, go away for a few days. I turn my computer on and see he's binked a bracelet only to check my email and find out he's opted out of the stake the night before he played it, I would have been spitting blood.

If he had said in his proposal "I reserve the option to buy back my action if I have won $100k or more on the stake already". I would have had zero problem with it.

As it was, he could have bought a share in Tikay's HiLo bracelet.. and bought back his action despite it being a losing stake.. (I don't think he would, but the caveat gave a more unscrupulous player the chance to do that).

Anyways, I've wasted enough time on all this tonight.

[henrik777]

As far as I'm concerned its clear as day. You don't send money before your action is confirmed as booked. You have to protect yourself and these guys learned a valuable lesson that imo should be clear to everybody anyway.

As far as I remember nearly 100% of posts on that very long thread (including several of his friends) felt TMay should pay up.

What would have happened if somebody shipped on pokerstars but not posted on the thread and hence it was already sold out ?

Those who sent were stupid and Tmay was sloppy which does look suspicious .

Sandy

[treefella]

That isn't surprising given the relatively relaxed attitude towards ambiguity in OPs on 2p2. That just wouldn't fly on blonde because the community would pick up on it.

I'm confident that I speak for most of the regular buyers on blonde when I say that we would not have sent money in that spot.

Struggling to make this any clearer without repeating myself

Guess we'll have to agree to differ.

The ambiguity is why I had a problem with Bram's caveat.

I buy 5% of Bram, go away for a few days. I turn my computer on and see he's binked a bracelet only to check my email and find out he's opted out of the stake the night before he played it, I would have been spitting blood.

If he had said in his proposal "I reserve the option to buy back my action if I have won $100k or more on the stake already". I would have had zero problem with it.

As it was, he could have bought a share in Tikay's HiLo bracelet.. and bought back his action despite it being a losing stake.. (I don't think he would, but the caveat gave a more unscrupulous player the chance to do that).

Anyways, I've wasted enough time on all this tonight.

But surely as a genuine investor you would of just raised any issues you had before sending any funds. A simple pm asking the very question ' how much are we talking about before you want to buy back the action ? "
All this 'what if 'and ' i would of not been happy about' are poor examples because surely you would of made sure that you are investing on terms you are happy with.
Why should the 'seller' be drawn over the coals about his proposal by non-buyers that have issues with it.
Obviously it just wont sell if it's that bad a deal for the investor and the seller would have to take a look again at their proposal.

 

[bobAlike]

No SBM needed, IMO, just a re-clarification of guidelines with an emphasis on ambiguity or lack of.
If stakees/stakers decide not to follow the advice given then on their own heads be it.

[rfgqqabc]

Well if i ever put an op up, with OPR and acceptable facts, gl everyone if someone chooses to question it after that. Atm there is clearly a one rule for one, one rule for another, depending on who is liked by certain members.

[pleno1]

Well if i ever put an op up, with OPR and acceptable facts, gl everyone if someone chooses to question it after that. Atm there is clearly a one rule for one, one rule for another, depending on who is liked by certain members.

what for example you charge 1.7 for a really tough event and people question it then. extreme case obv but lets say its closer and somebody thinks otherwise, then what?

[RED-DOG]

Well if i ever put an op up, with OPR and acceptable facts, gl everyone if someone chooses to question it after that. Atm there is clearly a one rule for one, one rule for another, depending on who is liked by certain members.

Which rules are these?