Yes, there is a clearly established precident. A lot of people are arguing about how things should be, but it's pretty obvious to everyone who operates in the MP how things ARE right now. And how things are is that sellers have the ability to change action up until the tournament, and buyers who have already confirmed or paid do not (although buyers 'reserve' and then 'unreserve' all the time, that's viewed differently).
Whether or not that's how things should be, I don't know, but in this specific instance where I very clearly intended for the action to be 20% to the point where I don't even think anyone is arguing against that anymore, and where I very clearly would've only gotten 20% had I busted, I concur with the majority of people in this thread that have said that it's clearly 20% booked here.
See:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezmogee
OK, I rarely post, but I think this is a good opportunity to use this situation to develop more rights for buyers.
The deal is this: Galen only owes Crisp 20%, imo. HOWEVER, that's a function of the way this forum works and is majorly problematic. As it stands, sellers (the player) have a disproportionate amount of power. Players routinely change schedules, percentages, even cancel packages last minute with little or no warning. It has been tacitly endorsed by the buyers and is accepted as commonplace.
Because of this power misalignment, Galen (rightly, unfortunately) understood that he could revise Crisp's percentage without any real communication. But it shouldn't be this way.
I cannot tell you how many e-mails I've gotten from players this summer after confirming terms and schedules, that they were canceling their deal with me to sell to another buyer at higher MU. Or that because they saw players they considered inferior selling at a higher MU, they were revising the contracted MU. This type of behavior is really problematic.
It's not a judgment on Galen. He acted the way many other players/sellers in this forum act, so I can't blame him. But it's not fair to the buyers and needs to be amended moving forward.
Ezra
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by RmplTILTskin
I think most people seem to agree the ruling should be 20% even though Galen handled the situation incorrectly because this kind of practice has been somewhat prevalent lately in the MP (especially with confirmed ballers as andres pointed out), his action seemed acceptable. At this point I think the thread is about how the marketplace can be improved to keep situations like this from happening in the future...someone want to start writing a sticky?
Also, I could dig up a bunch of examples myself.
The 5% was clearly moved before the tournament, the question now is whether or not I should have done that. In doing so, I took +EV equity away from him and gave it to someone else, and if I was in the wrong then I should compensate him for that equity.
This is where more people are debating, and I sent crisp a PM offering to more than cover the equity that I took from him (which I was technically within my rights to do) by giving him more than that in freerolls during WSOP.
Hopefully he accepts that and can move on.
Last edited by GoldenBears; 05-23-2011 at 08:19 PM.