Originally Posted by RYO
Also, regarding the hotmail incident, doesn't OP deserve responsibility for continuing to allow Brendon to hold his (OP's) money even though he knew (Brendon had told him explicitly) that the account which the money was held in was connected to a hotmail account?
Yes that's what I am saying on PNW. I think the hotmail incident should be completely disregarded when making judgement. It should be edited out of OP as it is swaying ppls opinions towards the backer and not allowing for unbiased discussion.
Copy/pasted from PNW:-
IMO opinion - this is NOT as clear cut as your post and others on here make out this to be. Let me preface this by saying I dont really know either party well - I have spoken to jonno once or twice and have NEVER met or spoken to Brendan.
1. IMO - the 10k is owed no matter what. It is Brendan's responsibility to make sure the party he sourced for the money is good for it.
2. I agree that IF you both agreed to the 6 person thing and go with the majority decision than this should uphold 100%
3. This point is the one that is contentious IMO. I think most people are entirely missing the point. I only bothered to give my two cents worth because I am in business and have many employees (of which stakees are similar too). I get jonno's point about telling Brendan to change hotmail etc. but Brendan offered a reason as to why he won't change. This is the contentious point that I think most ppl are missing. In my opinion if Brendan gave a reason that jonno accepted either explicitly (by saying hmmmmm ok etc etc) or implicitly (by not actually saying anything but continuining to provide the stake knowing full well that Brendan is still using hotmail), then the fact that jonno even raised the issue of hotmail with Brendan should be ENTIRELY disregarded in my opinion. this may or may not mean that jonno is responsible for some of the amount but if jonno continued the stake while knowing Brendan was still using hotmail, then this shouldn't even be brought up as doing so I think unfairly biases people's Opinion.
I look at this like this in the business world:
Jonno (employer): hey Brendan when you are mopping the floor can you do it after we close because the floor is wet and one of our patients might slip and fall and hurt himself.
Brendan (employee): hey jonno, I don't really wanna do that I would prefer doing it before closing time so I can get out of here quicker and not have to stay back to mop the floors and besides, it saves you money having to pay me more for staying back.
Employer: says nothing
For the next few weeks the employer sees Brendan is mopping floors early before finish time and does or says NoTHiNG...
3 months later a patient slips over breaks his leg.
In this case the employer is solely responsible.
I am not saying jonno is responsible for the stolen money just that the hotmail incident should not be used if the above chain of events occurred.
4. I am not sure if Jonno is implying if Brendan is lying about the money being stolen from bwin. If Brendan is Lying then obviously 100% at fault and should have to pay up. If it is proven he is not lying then the decision should be made using an industry standard about what to do about stolen funds and the hotmail incident should be entirely cut from the decision making process.