Quote:
Originally Posted by IwillSucceed
I disagree completely, you're not offering because by definition you are insisting you will play them if they don't pay you (or there'd be no point in them paying you) which means you are forcing them to pay you so you don't play them, its a very different category of transaction to exchanging poker chips at the poker table.
If it's got to the stage where you are offering the bribe, they obv don't want you to play them anyway, It's just wrong. It's bribery plain and simple.
Just sit them and take their money, and play poker.
Ok, bit by bit:
You're not forcing anything. Nemo is still playing this guy, with or without the bribe being allowed/offered/denied. If Nemo had not offered the guy a bribe, what would you say? He would've still kept playing him.
The reason you offer the buyout is so that you get guaranteed money, you stop a guy from whining and you feel it's more worthwhile than playing him.
If you make $200 a month off a guy and he offers you $50, you'll probably say no. If he offers you $500, you probably say yes. It's not a "you have to pay me or I'll play you" it's "I'm going to be playing you every time I see you because it's valuable to me."
I mean, if somebody is sitting you over and over, how can you not see that you have to give them incentive to stop sitting you if it bothers you? That incentive might mean you outplaying them. It may also mean you moving down (you eliminate their incentive to play you this way). But, like many things in life, the exchange of money would be a pretty easy solution some of the time.
Quote:
If it's got to the stage where you are offering the bribe, they obv don't want you to play them anyway, It's just wrong.
That's just not true. Like I said before, if somebody makes you an offer, you would assign a value to it and compare the value of playing that person and make the better decision. Having options is good, having mutually beneficial agreements is good. Not having choices is generally bad.
In this instance, since so many people are opposed to it, I am more than happy if this is not allowed (as stated before). But the implications in your post are way over the line imo, and go from opinion to falsehood in this instance. You may just not be familiar with the intent of these people. Nobody is sitting players and asking them for money, this has only happened (in every instance I've heard of) after the one reg is whining and asking the other to stop playing him over and over.
Your alternative of "just play them over and over" is perfectly acceptable, and on at least FTP probably the only choice for a guy like Nemo at this point.
But for the marginal regs he sits, you don't think it's a good idea to allow them to make Nemo an offer to stop him from sitting them? It's not good to have that choice?