ok this would be a great time for posters championing morality all day long to explain to jalfrezi what an angle shot is

The May LC thread in P has some great reminiscences about wil's tragic salary bet with LG. When I have time soon I'll read the history of that great wil bet.

Sounds familiar?

It's alarming. I think throughout history there have been swings back and forth about doing what's "right" but now the advantage is clearly on the social justice side due to the sheer power of social media. All throughout human history there was only so much damage you could do to your reputation, or perception of the amount of damage, because it was difficult to spread the word out. Years ago it would have to be the "talk of the town" for something to really hurt you socially. Now that can be done with a click of a button and thousands of people can instantly despise you and make your life miserable. We've all seen examples of how people have ruined their careers by making one stupid comment (there was recently a story about the girl who made the aids joke and her being white in the new York times).

This has led to behavior that encourages embracing how something is perceived over what is actually correct. I'm unsure how this downstream effect will play out. I used to think this nonsense would at least stop at the court system but now I'm not so sure, especially after seeing how a judge stopped Trump's travel ban.

There's a lot at risk here and I'm growing more concerned. Society being idiotic is one thing, but we are truly at risk right now. It's interesting/fascinating, to say the least.

Lol, no. That's not how this works.

I'm willing to go to arbitration to end this bet, as I'm tired of dealing with you and your games. Pick terms and let's end this. Dealing with scum like you is tiresome.

It does. Please ask LG publicly what our current tallly is, if you are so interested in other people's affairs. Let me know what his response is.

lolwilch

I'll suggest terms since you are scared to do just about anything at this point.

The easiest and quickest way would be for both of us to agree on one person, who will then in turn ask 3 people to judge who won. The only requirement I ask is those people are not active here and have no previous bias towards either you or me. Majority vote wins, and the only two choices are either you or me win, anullment is not an option.

Agreed? If so, give me a name of your choice who will then pick 3 unbiased judges.

By the way, lol, it's hilarious that jalfrezi admits he's been sitting here reading everyone's responses to this bet and hasn't been active in the thread like a normal person. So he's been deep in thought about how to get out of a spot where he made himself look, publicly, like a giant scummy douchebag. Your sheepishness and change of tone didn't go unnoticed.

Lol jalfrezi. You put me in a position where if I win this bet I laugh in your scummy angle shooting face, and if I lose you still look like a giant scummy untrustworthy angle-shooter.

Lol at you, you dildo. Great job there, buddy.

And this, people, is why you don't try to screw over people in life, because it often comes back to bite you in the ass.

Maybe racist *******s shouldn't lecture on morality.

Jalfrezi being an absolute scumbag in this spot, and anyone defending him at this point should be ashamed.

And whatever your personal feelings on the actual bet (though there is really only one correct one), at the very least you should realize Wil's willingness to go to arbitration is far more reasonable than all of Jalfrezi's posting and positions in the aftermath.

Where is... El Diablo? Maybe a prop bet resolution post/thread is in order. Because again, no one I queried even considered siding with Jalfrezi. And yet I see the Band of Slappies in P siding with him reflexively over their hatred of Wil. Might as well do the double whammy and expose Jalfrezi as the scumbag he is, in addition to showing that moral and rational actors award a decision to Wil.

Yep. I'm more than willing to go to a panel of judges, majority wins. The only thing I ask is they don't have a bias against me or him so they have no reason to screw either of us. I would say 5 judges would be best but I'll roll with 3, which probably increases his chances.

I've been nothing but reasonable in terms of this dispute and jalfrezi has been nothing but underhanded and dishonest. I don't know how anyone could describe him as a respectable person at this point.

Whatever happens, I can walk out of this with my dignity. Jalfrezi can't either way, which makes it so much sweeter.

i get that your are angry at me for being racist. but this illustrates my point. you don't have any evidence that im racist because im not. youre just angry at the concept of someone being racist and proud of yourself for your hypothetical virtue

Anyone who believes in equality of outcome over opportunity is, by nature, a racist themselves.

It's amazing what people fail to comprehend. I don't think they are able to be saved, Juan.

I do agree that "all such betting situations should be annulled". Where we disagree is on which types of situations are analogous.

I think the analogy to poker is flawed. The crux is this: when I argue that this bet should be ruled void, there are two components to that argument:

1) There was no meeting of the minds on the terms of the bet

2) The terms of the bet as offered are sufficiently ambiguous that it's unreasonable to place the burden of understanding the specific intent of the offer on the second party. Especially when the specific intent depends upon an unusual interpretation of the plain language of the offer.

(2) is essentially the argument that you were angle-shooting. My original assumption -- and I think you said this yourself -- is that you were originally joking, to which I have no objection. But, you can't fall back on that explanation while demanding to be paid. I think the bet offer is fine as a joke meant to make fun of wil's spelling, but not so great as an actual prop bet.

In any case, the flaw with your analogy to a hand of poker played by someone who doesn't understand (for example) hand valuation is that it only satisfies condition (1), but not (2).

In other words, yes we all agree that there is some reasonable expectation that a party to a bet can't back out after the fact by claiming they didn't understand the bet when the terms are very well established ahead of time. Obviously both parties to a bet bear some responsibility to understand what they are doing. With a poker site, the rules are fixed by the site itself, enforced by the site, and unambiguous. It would clearly be unreasonable to take ignorance as a legitimate reason to avoid paying. I don't believe that is the case here.

Imo, in order to deal with the argument that the bet should be void, you need to do more than point out examples where the lack of "meeting of the minds" does not void a bet, you need to establish that it's unreasonable to believe that a normal person could have honestly misunderstood the terms.

Arbitration, jalfrezi. Pick a person or suggest multiple people and we can come to an agreement. We are all anxiously waiting on you.

This is going to be interesting. I haven't been this excited on 2+2 in a while.

I hope will starts issuing ultimatums, that's always fun.

Lol, watching your boy squirm is hilarious, trolly. You're a dirtbag too.

wilch imagining that people sit at their computers squirming at his drivel (other than in embarrassment for him) is another fine addition to his canon of stupidity.

I'm waiting for you to ramp it up a level now wilch, having had the whole forum laughing at you for not recognising a totally obvious error of yours even after it was reposted several times and a stick pointed at it.

Now excuse me while I cook and read all about your refusal to take LG's advice not to accept his bet.

This is correct. Whatever happen, we know the Odi Award winner wil318466 didn't win. This is just a not-quite as loltastical replay of the LetsGambool "bet".

As 5ive has pointed out multiple, even if we consider the misspelling an "angle shoot", that doesn't mean the fool wil318466 automatically wins. In fact, since the fool insists he has action, he clearly loses. The quote the fool supplied doesn't "literally" call him a propagandist, or a "propogandist"(sp), or anything else for that matter.

I'd rule that keying on this spelling error was clearly an "angle shoot". I thought, contemporaneously, that the bet was about being "literally" called this or that, regardless of any spelling errors. The best outcome, if I was arbitrating, would be for both sides to agree to call this "no action". If both sides insist they have action, wil318466 needs to pay up.

Oh yeah... forever as always, LMFAO @wil318466 !!!1!

the smartest lefty here just called you an angle shooter

are you going to stand up for yourself? lol

This is the quote:

It's not clear to me how you think this doesn't literally call him a propagandist, unless you just missed it. If you're objecting to the qualifier "basically" I think that's some pretty tortuous hair-splitting.

Oh this is obviously not the case for you. Your entire tone and posting patterns have changed. It's blatantly obvious that you are deeply uncomfortable with what is happening and it explains why you are reading multiple forums about the opinions of others in terms of this bet. You desperately want to deflect the issue which is why you are bringing up other topics at this point.

I've asked you many times to settle this outstanding debt. I don't know how many more times we have to go over this. Give me some names of acceptable 3rd parties and let's get this over with. I'm ok no matter how it turns out. It's blatantly obvious that you aren't.

I think chimpstare should arbitrate this dispute.

Yes, you think he will win the bet. I can see that.

Jalfrezi, trolly thinks you will easily win. Let's go to arbitration so I can send you this money.

I think this cats obsession with spelling has backed him into a corner.

I don't like to take sides but this is clearly an angle shot and is frowned upon in civilized cultures. My biggest concern about this forum is the lack of morality.

I pray for a swift and ammicable resolution to this conflict.