Quote:
Originally Posted by BERRI SWEET
Hello 2+2. I have been pondering making this post for quite a while. ...
He argued a little, but pretty soon agreed on us consulting an arbitrator. He immediately suggested we ask Ike. ...
This is where things getting really messed up.... he went and had a private arbitrational conversation about it without including me.
It then became clear that they(Ike and Ben) had spoken about the issue privately the day prior to him being suggested and picked as an arbitrator too. Meaning that Ben may(but by no means certainly) have picked up an idea as to how Ike would rule. ...
I ask Ben to at least send me the entire conversation he had with Ike. He ignores the request. I then contact Ike and ask him to get to see the entire conversation. He ignores the request but suggests that "maybe we should get someone else to arbitrate". ...
Sauce mentions the awkwardness of him being the judge in a bet where one party is a close friend of his. He also mentions he might have financial interest in the bet, which if true would make it pretty absurd that Ben thought he was a plausible candidate. It might have not been though, so lets hope and assume it wasn't.
Sauce suggests a few possible other candidates to me. ...
The entire process, which should have been doable in an hour or two, took 6 weeks to complete. I had to do all the work and keep pushing the issue time after another.
This still keeps me up the occasional night, and I decided here to voice how I was treated by Ben and Ike. I do believe that if this was the real(not poker)world, consequences in a court could be quite harsh for this type of behaviour. But in the poker world, we have no court. And I obviously wish for noone else to have this sort of experience.
...
For the record, I finally wanted to mention that I think it is unlikely that Ben or Ike has done anything with malicious intent. But delusion does not make you devoid of responsibility.
A couple of years ago I thought about creating a poker arbitration service to resolve disputes among players as to staking and such. However, I let the idea go because I felt that the demand might not be there, especially as online poker was going to get more regulated than ever.
Now, I see this thread and the stream of stories about this, that or another instance where two players/stakers/backers/bettors have a disagreement, often over serious amounts of money.
I've changed my mind and think its time for "pokerdisputes.com" to offer binding arbitration services to willing parties.
A "Poker Disputes" service should charge about the same fees/costs as any other commercial arbitration, and would have rules and procedures suitable for making fair and impartial rulings. I'm not sure there is a continual need or sufficient volume to make this a business venture, but the idea deserves review. (Any comments on the idea of neutral professional arbitration of poker disputes should be sent via pm.) Ive just read and heard enough about such disputes to think the market should be able to offer a more efficient mechanism than this thread to resolve and collect awards between the parties.