Whole lot of opinions ITT about how staking agreements should be structured. However all of those opinions including those of the original two parties are 100% irrelevant once we get to the part where both parties mutually agreed to an arbitration process.
The arbitrators came to an agreement. From everything I have read one party (Cate) has accepted and agreed to the arbitration agreement, the other party (Chad) has not understood or accepted that agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyddDynamite
When did they both agree she could quit without makeup? Even if they did, that has nothing to do with my obligation to out someone for scumming a stake. Our agreement was that she owed the makeup in full - like mine is with everyone unless I drop them (which I have dropped people before).
Arbitration:
"I think a fair solution would either be to come to some sort of agreed upon buyout between for Cate to pay Chad to be free and clear of this for good, or the makeup will just stand and Chad will have the first option of putting any action on the stake he chooses if Cate were to ever come back and play poker again in the future, which seems likely at some point since nobody ever truly quits"
I agreed to this. She could buy out, or continue to be on stake and the makeup will stand. Says nothing about how she has to play again. Says nothing about how it's only cash action. Says nothing about how I'm not allowed to out her for backing out of the original agreement, and absolutely doesn't say she can quit and be absolved of her makeup because that would be absurd.
What Chad does not seem to get is there are three scenarios possible under what the arbitrators agreed to:
1) Cate never plays another hand of cash poker again.
In this case she owes nothing. Chad has made a $60k bad investment, life sucks for Chad, move on and get over it. Cate has a chance at regaining sobriety, mental health and a new life outside of poker. The odds are against that outcome but good luck to her;
2) Cate comes back to play cash poker sometime in the future.
In this case Chad owns her ass. He has first right of refusal to continue staking her. If he chooses to resume their staking arrangement then he can once again dictate the terms under which she plays and she owes the full $60k makeup figure. Or Chad makes the smart decision and cuts her free before losing any more money beyond the $60k bad investment he has already sunk into her; or
3) They come to some mutually agreed buyout.
They settle on some number, probably much less than $60k and they both go about their own lives with no further obligations to each other. This is probably Chad's best case scenario but honestly Cate has no incentive to do this beyond buying karma points.
Chad seems to think he is entitled to $60k because Cate quit the stake. From my reading of what both arbitrators said in the emails Cate posted to Twitter they agreed he is not entitled to the $60k. His options are the three I outlined.
It is obvious Chad does not see #1 above as part of the arbitrators decision but it is directly implied by #2. He preserves the right to continue the staking agreement in the future by foregoing recovery of the makeup in the present. Best possible case, Cate gets sober, regains a stable mental state and returns to being the midstakes crusher Chad once saw her as, she makes back the $60k plus earns Chad additional profits. The only road to that best case future is if Chad lets the $60k ride until she returns to poker, which includes accepting that may never happen.