Post: Women's National Championship- ND vs. TAMU
User: sleeper
Infraction: Breaking the no-posting-on-threads-with-ND-in-the-title rule you agreed to after losing a bet
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Infraction

Message to User:

You said you wouldn't post in threads with ND in the title. They were in the title of the women's national championship thread. You were there and being a bit antagonistic.

Original Post:

Looks like Notre Dame will get blown out in this relevant game too. Although, the win over UCONN could be the school's greatest win in 20+ years, in any sport.

I saw he'd been given an warning and since the next step was given as custom infractions, here we are. Expect plenty of QQ-ing on his part.

sleeper wrote:One, its only for college football.

Two, this isn't a rule you can give an infraction for. It's not in your rules. Dick.

The QQ-ing has begun.

One, that wasn't specified in his post. And even if it was, we could just transfer it to the post that ts reported from the CFB board that he deleted after being called out, but the actual post remains as quotes.

Two, on the "what to do about him" thread, Justin's rules were to warn first and then custom infract. He had a listed warning, so I custom infracted.

I don't think we should be enforcing bets unless it was a ban bet....

Nah, I think this is enforceable. Most people have the credibility to live up to bets... he doesn't.

He tries to make up fictitious limitations regarding the bet after the fact.

Fly4Fun;734200 wrote:Nah, I think this is enforceable.

Why? because we want to selectively enforce this one?

Like I said, there is no reason to enforce bets other than ban bets.

LJ;734202 wrote:Why? because we want to selectively enforce this one?

Like I said, there is no reason to enforce bets other than ban bets.

What's the reason to enforce ban bets? How is this any different? Just because you say so? A bet is a bet. The terms of which don't change the underlying philosophy. I think if betting becomes a huge issue and there are a million people making bets, then sure, we can re-examine the issue. But this was a pretty notorious bet as such most of the ones made on college football are. Mostly everyone has the honor to live up to it on their own... except sleeper. We aren't selectively enforcing this one. We just happen to enforce this one because sleeper is the only person so far to try to squirm out of it.

I would liken bets to contract. Both are private agreements between the parties involved. They have their terms, offer and acceptance. On another thread in the mod forum I put together all of that. There clearly was a bet, with none of the limiting language that sleeper wants.

I think this is pretty easy to enforce and should be.

Bets = contracts. Moderators = Government. Government enforces contracts that are written and clearly expressed not necessarily in one topic that don't contract to do something illegal or outside of the terms of contracts. This bet was clearly within the rules we have at OC, there is no hardship for us making sure this bet is honored. And it makes our lives easier too if he stays off ND threads.

No reason not to enforce this bet besides and artificial line in the sand you want to draw.

Fly4Fun;734216 wrote:What's the reason to enforce ban bets? How is this any different? Just because you say so? A bet is a bet. The terms of which don't change the underlying philosophy. I think if betting becomes a huge issue and there are a million people making bets, then sure, we can re-examine the issue. But this was a pretty notorious bet as such most of the ones made on college football are. Mostly everyone has the honor to live up to it on their own... except sleeper. We aren't selectively enforcing this one. We just happen to enforce this one because sleeper is the only person so far to try to squirm out of it.

I would liken bets to contract. Both are private agreements between the parties involved. They have their terms, offer and acceptance. On another thread in the mod forum I put together all of that. There clearly was a bet, with none of the limiting language that sleeper wants.

I think this is pretty easy to enforce and should be.

Bets = contracts. Moderators = Government. Government enforces contracts that are written and clearly expressed not necessarily in one topic that don't contract to do something illegal or outside of the terms of contracts. This bet was clearly within the rules we have at OC, there is no hardship for us making sure this bet is honored. And it makes our lives easier too if he stays off ND threads.

No reason not to enforce this bet besides and artificial line in the sand you want to draw.

No, we only enforce ban bets because we are the only ones that can ban. If the loser doesn't PM one of us and say it's time for them to get banned, then we do nothing. It's not our responsibility to enforce bets that posters made between themselves. We are not like the government, we are like the police. We are only here to enforce the rules that are set, not to settle civil differences between posters.

LJ;734221 wrote:No, we only enforce ban bets because we are the only ones that can ban. If the loser doesn't PM one of us and say it's time for them to get banned, then we do nothing. It's not our responsibility to enforce bets that posters made between themselves. We are not like the government, we are like the police. We are only here to enforce the rules that are set, not to settle civil differences between posters.

But by your logic we should enforce this bet as we also have the power to. If he doesn't live up to the terms of the bet on his own, we can unapprove his posts under said threads and also give him the custom infraction as Justin requested in the original post. Because it is in our power to do it, just like the argument made for enforcing ban bets, we should do it. And do you really not think the police are part of the government? They are a separate branch. We just happen to be all three branches in one. We have the power to make the law/rules, interpret the law/rules and faithfully execute it. I know feel like I'm in a fourth grade class going over the basics of government.

We're not settling civil differences between posters but are upholding a very public agreement made that was freely entered into and within our power to enforce. If the bet was one of the posters buys the other lunch, obviously we can't enforce that. But the bet was that one of the posters not post under Notre Dame topics... that is clearly within our powers to enforce.

Fly4Fun;734229 wrote:But by your logic we should enforce this bet as we also have the power to. If he doesn't live up to the terms of the bet on his own, we can unapprove his posts under said threads and also give him the custom infraction as Justin requested in the original post. Because it is in our power to do it, just like the argument made for enforcing ban bets, we should do it. And do you really not think the police are part of the government? They are a separate branch. We just happen to be all three branches in one. We have the power to make the decisions, law, and faithfully execute it.

I said enforce it when the loser says they want to live up to it. I never said that we should MAKE someone pay up. That's stupid and honestly comes off as power hungry.

We're not settling civil differences between posters but are upholding a very public agreement made that was freely entered into and within our power to enforce. If the bet was one of the posters buys the other lunch, obviously we can't enforce that. But the bet was that one of the posters not post under Notre Dame topics... that is clearly within our powers to enforce.

Uh, that is exactly what a civil difference is. Personally, I think it is stupid and a waste of time to selectively enforce this bet. No other forum enforces bets unless the loser says they want it enforced.

Is it selective enforcement? Hell yes. But, we generally are like that with all trolls because they earned it by being huge bitches.

ts1227;734232 wrote:Is it selective enforcement? Hell yes. But, we generally are like that with all trolls because they earned it by being huge bitches.

I just don't think it's a road we should go down.

If anything I think you're offering to only enforce ban bets is stupid and comes off as completely arbitrary. I outline a rule basically that we enforce bets that have clear terms, agreed upon and are within our power to enforce. That's a lot more clear than oh just ban bets because that's what I chose. I even used your logic for enforcing ban bets to enforce this bet as well as it falls within the same parameters. It has nothing to do with being power hungry but being consistent with the logic you chose to apply.

As far as the civil difference, I originally took you as trying to diminish the conflict to a situation as two people standing on their yards yelling at each other over something that no law (public or private) rules over.

I think this is pretty easy to enforce, if the people on the other side of the bet want to give up their rights of enforcement prematurely then we let it be at that point. But as of now there is no reason not to enforce it.

Fly4Fun;734238 wrote:If anything I think you're offering to only enforce ban bets is stupid and comes off as completely arbitrary. I outline a rule basically that we enforce bets that have clear terms, agreed upon and are within our power to enforce. That's a lot more clear than oh just ban bets because that's what I chose. I even used your logic for enforcing ban bets to enforce this bet as well as it falls within the same parameters. It has nothing to do with being power hungry but being consistent with the logic you chose to apply.

As far as the civil difference, I originally took you as trying to diminish the conflict to a situation as two people standing on their yards yelling at each other over something that no law (public or private) rules over.

I think this is pretty easy to enforce, if the people on the other side of the bet want to give up their rights of enforcement prematurely then we let it be at that point. But as of now there is no reason not to enforce it.

Rights of enforcement? Seriously? You are taking this way too seriously. The reason to not enforce it? Because it's not our problem.

As for being arbitrary, how is enforcing something only when asked to by the loser being arbitrary? There is nothing in the rules on here that say that we are going to enforce bets no matter what. Being arbitrary is picking and choosing what to enforce on our own. It's ridiculous and none of our concern.

Even if it isn't labeled as enforcing the bet, any post he makes in an ND thread is trolling anyway. All he does is take a shot at how they aren't relevant or choke, its not like he's offering insight about the team or game.

ts1227;734249 wrote:Even if it isn't labeled as enforcing the bet, any post he makes in an ND thread is trolling anyway. All he does is take a shot at how they aren't relevant or choke, its not like he's offering insight about the team or game.

I'm fine with getting him for trolling, but making up a new infraction to enforce a bet that we had nothing to do with is ridiculous

LJ;734247 wrote:Rights of enforcement? Seriously? You are taking this way too seriously. The reason to not enforce it? Because it's not our problem.

As for being arbitrary, how is enforcing something only when asked to by the loser being arbitrary? There is nothing in the rules on here that say that we are going to enforce bets no matter what. Being arbitrary is picking and choosing what to enforce on our own. It's ridiculous and none of our concern.

Not taking it seriously, just looking at it from a realistic view. Everyone knows that if the winner of the bet wants to let the loser slide on the terms that is clearly within their powers. Just because I use more official language, does that at no time mean that I am going away from general principles that people know from childhood on.

Once again, you're proposal of only enforcing ban bets is a lot more arbitrary than my proposal of only enforcing bets that are within our power to. They made the bet here for a reason... because they wanted to. People don't make bets that the plan on not meaning anything... that defeats the purpose of the bet.

To not be arbitrary we either say we only enforce bets where the terms are within our powers.... or we don't enforce any bets. Either one of those I'm okay with. But to say we only enforce bets that are ban bets is completely arbitrary.

LJ;734252 wrote:I'm fine with getting him for trolling, but making up a new infraction to enforce a bet that we had nothing to do with is ridiculous

So the government enforcing contracts that they had nothing to do with is ridiculous? I'm not saying this is serious business. I'm just drawing an analogy... because as moderators we technically are the governing body... we make the rules, we interpret the rule and we enforce the rules. I'm just pointing out the basics. That's part of the reason why I suggest from time to time that mods should try to refrain from getting into pissing matches with posters as we are the example and we are the governing body... we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. But I also understand that we are human and also like to have fun on a meaningless message board... it's all just a balancing act (that's life).

as I said in the post above this. If we're going to make a distinction it's either enforce the bets we have the power to enforce, or enforce no bets at all.

ts1227;734249 wrote:Even if it isn't labeled as enforcing the bet, any post he makes in an ND thread is trolling anyway. All he does is take a shot at how they aren't relevant or choke, its not like he's offering insight about the team or game.

Agree for the most part (I'm not willing to say any post but I bet that actually is the case).

Fly4Fun;734258 wrote:So the government enforcing contracts that they had nothing to do with is ridiculous? I'm not saying this is serious business. I'm just drawing an analogy... because as moderators we technically are the governing body... we make the rules, we interpret the rule and we enforce the rules. I'm just pointing out the basics.

as I said in the post above this. If we're going to make a distinction it's either enforce the bets we have the power to enforce, or enforce no bets at all.

I already said, only enforce bets that we are asked to by the loser. It's that simple.

LJ;734264 wrote:I already said, only enforce bets that we are asked to by the loser. It's that simple.

That doesn't even make since. Why would you only enforce the bets that the loser wants to enforce? They are the loser, if anything it should be up to the winner.

I think it's simpler than that though. Enforce bets that are made and enforceable. Why would anyone make a bet if they didn't want it to be enforced (that is the sole purpose). Unless otherwise notified by the winner, if it's a very public and easily discernible bet (such as the one in this case) enforce it.

Fly4Fun;734267 wrote:That doesn't even make since. Why would you only enforce the bets that the loser wants to enforce? They are the loser, if anything it should be up to the winner.

Because the person being affected is asking for us to do it.

I think it's simpler than that though. Enforce bets that are made and enforceable. Why would anyone make a bet if they didn't want it to be enforced (that is the sole purpose). Unless otherwise notified by the winner, if it's a very public and easily discernible bet (such as the one in this case) enforce it.

Fine, you can be the bet mod. I will never enforce one in the poli forum.

I also ask that any ban bets enforced without the permission of the loser not be enforced on the poli forum and that they still be allowed to post.

LJ;734272 wrote:Because the person being affected is asking for us to do it.

Fine, you can be the bet mod. I will never enforce one in the poli forum.

I also ask that any ban bets enforced without the permission of the loser not be enforced on the poli forum and that they still be allowed to post.

I think it's ultimately up to Justin whether we enforce bets at all or not. Honestly, you sound like a child or bitter spouse right now "fine, you do it and don't bother me."

As for the reason because the person being affected is asking for you to do it? How does that make sense. If they are asking you to enforce it against them then they can just as easily enforce it against themselves by living up to the terms so there is no need for moderation in that regard. So in effect it is just a rule saying we don't enforce bets at all, which is fine.

But also, back to the contract comparison. Would it make sense to enforce contracts that only the breaching party wants to enforce? No, that seems kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

Whether or not we should enforce bets should be determined because of policy... we should just go ahead and list out reasons anyone can think of.

Reasons for:
Makes big games more interesting for those involved
Is a standard of a person's credibility (if they believe what they say, the should back it up with a bet) (As was the case with the Sleeper bet)
Bragging rights about a game that otherwise might be meaningless
(Add any people can think of)

Reasons against:
Requires more moderation
(Add any people can think of)

Heck, this is even a question we could pose to the general populace. Ask them if they would prefer that we enforce bets when the loser doesn't keep their word... or just stay out of it all together.

Fly4Fun;734278 wrote:I think it's ultimately up to Justin whether we enforce bets at all or not. Honestly, you sound like a child or bitter spouse right now "fine, you do it and don't bother me."

thinking something is stupid makes me a bitter spouse? You are the one sounding like "man, gimme more powa!!!!"

As for the reason because the person being affected is asking for you to do it? How does that make sense. If they are asking you to enforce it against them then they can just as easily enforce it against themselves by living up to the terms so there is no need for moderation in that regard. So in effect it is just a rule saying we don't enforce bets at all, which is fine.

Seems like you are finally understanding

But also, back to the contract comparison. Would it make sense to enforce contracts that only the breaching party wants to enforce? No, that seems kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

We are not in the process of enforcing civil contracts on our own. That is not why we are here. Maybe that is why you are here, not me.

Whether or not we should enforce bets should be determine because of policy... we should just go ahead and list out reasons anyone can think of.

Reasons for:
Makes big games more interesting
Is a standard of a person's credibility (if they believe what they say, the should back it up with a bet)

Credibility? Seriously? On a forum? Who gives a shit? Obviously, this is, serious business.

Reasons against:
Requires more moderation
(Add any people can think of)

It creates more tension between posters and moderators. It's a waste of time

Heck, this is even a question we could pose to the general populace. Ask them if they would prefer that we enforce bets when the loser doesn't hold their word... or just stay out of it all together.

Go for it. I, still, will not enforce them in the poli forum.

LJ;734284 wrote:thinking something is stupid makes me a bitter spouse? You are the one sounding like "man, gimme more powa!!!!"

Seems like you are finally understanding

We are not in the process of enforcing civil contracts on our own. That is not why we are here. Maybe that is why you are here, not me.

Credibility? Seriously? On a forum? Who gives a shit? Obviously, this is, serious business.

It creates more tension between posters and moderators. It's a waste of time

Go for it. I, still, will not enforce them in the poli forum.

How am I saying give me more power when I leave open the interpretation of whether we should enforce it at all or not. Sounds like you're just letting a prejudiced view cloud your reading of the situation.

If you're not here to moderate then why are you here? Since... you know, that's what a moderator does. This speaks back to the issue of whether we enforce it or not... which is the ultimate issue.

And yes, credibility does mean something to people on a forum. It actually helps promote and grow the forum. People without credibility (i.e. trolls) are the ones that bring it down. So how is credibility a bad thing? If a place is seen as having some credible posters worth reading than more people will visit. If a forum is just full of internet persona jackasses (they might be good people in real life) such as sleeper, art, like that, capone then people might be pushed away... for example BR.