Instead of MMA style you guys should do this Tuffman style. Boxing gloves, no headgear, three one minute rounds.

Loser pays disputed amount. Let the gloves arbitrate it.

You can't be serious!?!? I'm not trying to be a dick, but.....

Was there any contract, verbal or otherwise between viffer and deeb that deeb was paying his debt and viffer would pay him back? I am guessing no. Deeb just did it on his own and figured he would tell viffer later and viffer would pay him back. Do you think in a court of law that the judge would rule for deeb in that situation? I hardly think so. There were specific details about the debt viffer had with a 3rd party that he was trying to work out, so without speaking to viffer and getting all the details and an agreement before paying the debt was foolish, although I'm sure he had good intentions. Now deeb is just desperate because he knows he screwed up and no arbitrator would agree with him

Deeb is just looking for some sweet cash to rub on his titties.

would JRB really do this to Shaun?

Well you kinda are being dick by posting a stupid picture with your response. The character in the movie Rounders is called "Grama" and it sounds like "Grandma" when TeddyKGB shouts for him in the scene where Mike and KGB are playing heads up. I put a link below to the scene in question, skip to 1:15 and you will hear it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnhqkpvPLis

Sounds like you guys should resolve this.

I'll accept being the escrowing party (38k + 15k = 53k from Viffer) & 15k from Shaun.

If you won Shaun, you'd get paid your debt + the 15k from the bet. If you lose, you just lose the 15k.

I'll also be the arbitrator if you both accept, and believe I can be completely impartial in this situation. I know you both for many years, and about the same level (acquaintances not friends).

Nobody has prompted me in to this position - simply from it being mentioned on twitter and here. It's caught my attention and I'll do my part to resolve it.

A lot of people don't like arbitrating because in many ways it's kind of a negative freeroll for the arbitrator (chance one of the parties dislikes the decision and you)... but I have my own theories and believe that in almost all conflicts there is a fair resolution. It's like solving a puzzle to come up with that fair resolution - which is a fun game intrinsically. That fair resolution is also the just due of the parties involved, and by giving that resolution I've done everyone a service. Any bitterness is unwarranted and a sign of a weak person whose friendliness I can do without.

King Rast has spoken! lol congrats on the recent win btw

Seems like the best solution by far

Deeb got freerolled by JRB, in response he is now freerolling himself

NvG threads are the gift that keeps on giving!

You need to accept tsarasts offer Sean, or apologise. Because if what Viffer is saying is true you're out of line.

I love how JRB is untouchable. Why isn't everyone talking about he may have caused all this? And that he could be the scum

Do you even have any experience as an MMA referee?!

Grunch

Can the participants in the fight please wear these



If y'all can't afford the suits, there are funding opportunities.

It's pretty telling IMO that Shaun Deeb hasn't come and repsonded to all this since more of the details came out. And yeah JRB sounds pretty bad as well. This all needs to die unless the arbitration thing happens. Or the MMA fight.

Actually, MMA fight NEEDS to happen that would be awesome.

Really disappointed that we are 190 posts in and wcgrider hasn't outed someone who has commented as being a hypocrite

Too small for Deeb

fixed.

+1

his next complaint will be against the doctor that slapped his arse when he was born to get him to suck in as much oxygen as he can.

Everyone waiting for Deeb to turn up already or is just me

I dont think anyone who has read this thread could arbitrate objectively. Best for someone who has no info on the situation.

Unless you do business with him.

lol I've got no dog in this fight

First, as others have pointed out, debts and other obligations are assignable. These assignments go on all the time. That's why you might see "non-assignability" language in contracts to prevent you from assigning it without permission of all the parties.

Second, there seems to be a belief that parties are legally entitled to some sort of "offset" if party A owes money to party B as part of one transaction, while party B owes money to party A in a second transaction. Unless both parties agree to this offset, there is no automatic right a party has to just say something like "knock it off what I owe you." The two debts/obligations/transactions are all legally independent.

There is an obvious reason for this.

Let's say Party A claims Party B owes him 100k. Party B may agree with this, or may dispute it. The dispute might have to do with the amount, the due date, interest, or even whether the debt itself is owed.

If, as part of a separate transaction, Party B now claims Party A owes him $28,000, the same defenses exist for Party A. Party A may dispute the amount, the due date, the interest or whether the debt itself is owed.

What Party A can't do is say, "knock it off the $100k you owe me." If that unilateral action were legally enforceable, it would operate to destroy the defenses Party B has to the claim he owes Party A the $100k.

Also, the argument that a refusal to bet on the outcome of a lawsuit or arbitration somehow operates as a reliable truthfinding mechanism is quite possibly the most absurd thing I've ever read on the internet.

As for Viffer's claim he doesn't want to give Deeb a freeroll by participating in arbitration without a bet on top of it, I would remind Viffer he has his own freeroll available. It has been claimed Deeb is slandering or libeling Viffer by accusing Viffer of not paying a debt owed. If Viffer believes such statements have been made, that they are false, and they have caused him harm, he has a freeroll defamation of character lawsuit he is free to start against Deeb. If he wins, he stands to recover far more than the amount he proposes to debt, assuming adequate proof of damage to character, and if he loses, que sera sera.