people expect when they lose, they get nothing.
just like when people win, they expect winnings. in fact, even losers expect winners to get winnings.
so again, i will rehash since u plank supporters don't get it. why should everyone carry the risk for plank?
in fact, im going to ask everyone here to invest in some stocks. i will not invest anything. if we gain, we'll split the earnings. if they go belly up, no big deal. i didn't invest **** anyways
the fact that he provided the opportunity to "make money" for the winners is irrelevant. for obvious reasons
Those are called stock brokers (which is actually what I'm studying to be)... That's how it works. You are not BUYING money, just like you're not buying payouts. You expect them when you invest, but if there is no profit there is no profit to distribute among the investors, just as there are no profits to distribute among the winners. I entered the tournament under the advertisement that I could win some undisclosed amount, and i felt as though that were a safe assumption, but I was only guaranteed verbally of some pay out. There's no documentation proving the entrance fee was for the pot.
just lol laijin
here is what selfish means:
"concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others"
what plank did was selfish, not us expecting payouts.
if he pays everyone their prizes, 1 person is in debt. instead, 22 people are in debt.
how is that not selfish on plank's part again?
again, u seem to be confusing urself. u say ur not defending his actions but in fact u are. u say that he has the right to refuse to payout anything in this situation. but you completely ignore the fact that at EVERY SINGLE TOURNAMENT, the venue fee and the entry fees are separate. in fact, that is why they are distinctly paid and listed
just because everyone else would have done it doesn't mean it's right. so you say if ur in debt u would steal? sorry, but that's in fact not true. don't speak for everyone else
also, eggm, ur a ******. im glad $mike gonna make u feel it. who cares if it is possible to have that "good time" that plank provided?
if i walk into a restaurant, ask for food, pay for food, and they turn around and say, "sorry, resources low. no food. no refund. go away, we're closing" i would say, "hey, this is plank's 5 pound of chicken bucket of horse**** restaurant right here"
we all understand risk. if u chose to take it, that is ur decision. but don't steal from others if it doesn't work out
all you mother****ers who think it's okay since we decided to attend deserve to die. seriously. society doesn't want ******* like you. if i decide to go outside and someone shoots me, is it my fault? if i go to a restaurant and they undercook my food, is it my fault? holy **** u smashers are ********. i really want to punch u through this screen right now
you didn't buy a sandwich. You entered a tournament, there was a tournament. There was the advertisement of a payout, but none of us ever guaranteed or agreed on the terms. The only precedent is the common law of the community, it was brought up before that in games of skill the precedent is that the community sorts this out. I was unaware of this, but it's not as though plank received a salary, if plank can mathematically prove he lost money it's not fraud. In fraud the perp has to benefit from the action and planks financial interests were to not hold this tournament.
no, we were told it could be paid with the 20 dollar venue fee. that is all plank asked for the venue fee.
what happens when u pay 100 for something and then they say it costs more so they hold ur money until u pay the difference?
walk into a restaurant. pay $5 for ur meal. they come out and say it costs more so u get nothing. but no contract was made! well, clearly no case. omg ****ing lol u ******s
also, the money was RIGHT THERE for plank to give to the winners. the fact that he immediately took it and paid the hotel is irrelevant. if i steal $ from ur wallet and then immediately spent it, is that not a crime?
no one cares too much that plank paid off the hotel with the money first. it's that he will never pay the winners back what they earned
Can you show me documentation that you were guaranteed that the entrance fee was for the winnings? Or was that, again, common law of the community? Has plank not, in the past hosted similar events? Has he not always paid out the profits.
Were you not in the hyatt. did the hyatt and plank not give you the opportunity to compete for a winning?
Can you define this winning?
Were you guaranteed that the entrance fee was for the winnings and not for the chance to compete. How was this money given to plank? Do you have a receipt?
Oh you have a pay pal?
So all you can logistically prove is that you gave plank a certain amount, and that this amount was articled as "venue and entrance fees."
It gets grey, but I would like to be the defendant.
lol ur just proving my point. if i open a fund saying im helping armada, then people donate 1000 dollars. then i buy him a lollipop. yes, technically i fulfilled the service since there was no express contract, etc to say i had to buy him a plane ticket or whatever, but it would hardly be okay to simply say, well, i will simply buy him a lollipop and that will be his "help"
much like the "cookie" or "experience of the tournament" is insufficient as a prize to the winners
Can you not define a lollipop as help.
I'm starting a fund helping armada.
in what form? Is this a financial help.
I'm starting a fund helping armada. 100% of proceeds go to armada.
That's different. Now I have defined terms under which i am donating money.
Such terms were never definitively laid out.
apparently a farewell suffices
okay, so explain the difference.
you say my example of the restaurant is different than what happened with the tournament
in both cases, a clear precedent of expectations for payments has been established. no explicit contract was made. and thus the lack of a product is in fact theft of the original sum.
okay, forget the restaurant.
let's reduce smash to a baser activity such as gambling. say it is all luck. if i buy one at the gas station, win the prize they state, and then as i redeem, they say the gas station needs more $ to keep running and give no prize, how is that any different than what has transpired
edit: lol gimr, i didn't even quote or mention him. he quoted me and then attacked me
This is your best argument by far, and I want to stop fighting because I believe we're both good people. I made a joke at your expense and for that I apologize.
But the legal definition can include "payment without the guarantee of profit." Usually Gaming and competition are under the same boards and are treated sensitively.
But the fact that within our community there's a certain precedent does not guarantee a profit.
And I hate to say it... but you're still wrong.
You bought into a lottery, there's no overhead in a lottery, your stock representation was much more accurate.
You could say you bought into a lottery and the company that distributed the lottery has no finances to provide its entrants. If you sue, the lottery company will most likely file bankruptcy.
I don't like how plank is handling this. And I understand what he did, and I wouldn't have done it.
Maybe I would have, and forsaken myself.
I would have worked something out, or been more honest with people. Or at least I would have tried to.
and a lot of people on this board are thinking you can take this to court. And of course you can take this to court and go through the motions for a small amount. And you can get the right judge and even win if you're lucky.
I've always been law savvy, and I'm a good person. I just don't think you understand how big things can get in the real world. You have every right to be angry, but this is the law.
It's not like I have a JD, and I decided against law school and instead am going into finance (where you steal peoples money all the time, and then the government would bail plank out in this comparison) but as I seem to be the most legally savvy person in this debate, I have to say it's a bad idea. Check with an attorney, they could provide a counter argument I'll write one up.
But gut instinct is if this goes to court I don't think plank will get stuck with it.
DJrome you're a hot head and I don't think you're being very practical.
It's not a matter of opinion.
