[HOME]
Re: [SBL 05/06] - Week 10 odds
Joe Horowitz [joeunderscorehorowitz@youblunder.cunts.youghey]
Mon, 17 Oct 2005 01:30:29 GMT
****House Of Hopeful Youks headed paper****
"Michael Cunningham" wrote in message
news:Zas4f.17224$R5.1530@news.indigo.ie...
> I don't think it's even nearly so straight-forward. As far as I know, there
> have been only two cases of Ghey Love so far this season. On only
> one occasion has a bet not been placed in time by the Ghey Love
> stand-in and when that did happen, evidence was quickly provided to
> show that the absentee Ghey Lover really did stake his 6 Youks on
> Liverpool.
No, I disagree still, I'm afraid. Outlining the exact circumstances behind
different cases of betcunts not being placed before the deadline (and yours
wasn't, regardless of how long ago you mailed Conlan and told her what
betcunt you wished her to place on your behalf) and showing that between any
two things, no matter how similar, differences can be found, doesn't change
the fact that there are parralels and similarities. The issue is not of
ghey love, the issue is of a deadline and whether or not you miss it, and
whether or not we should have that deadline. Vicky, who had _full_ control
of your account, missed it. Evidence was never provided to show that you
staked your Youks on Liverpool, only that you had asked Conlan to do so.
Which she didn't.
TonyMac could similarly outline the details behind his case, and say 'but
this is different, because it's the only occasion on which a deadline was
missed because I was in hospital having my own fist removed from my arse".
(Sorry, TM, I know we were supposed to keep that between ourselves but the
integrity of the SBL is at stake here... I hope you understand).
Otherwise, what we're then saying is that the rule needs changing, to
something along the lines of 'bets must be in before the weekly deadline,
unless you're ghey love betfisting in which case they don't have to be, so
long as you can persuade everyone that they were meant to be and that you
simply got let down by your ghey love betpartner', at which point e-mails
and phone calls and stuff start having to play a part in the the calculation
of SBL scores, and I think the 'everything taking place officially in the
froup, in the Appropriate Thread' rule is a good one. I honestly don't see
why the (clear, simple) rules should be different for ghey love than what
they are for other forms of betcunting, as Conlan might just as easily
forgotten to place her own betcunt as well. Would I then have to accept
yours and not hers, because you were ghey loving and therefore need special
rules to cover the possibility of your partner forgetting to place your bet?
What if someone else was waiting to see what you did before maing their
move, would it be fair to allow you (however accidentally) to have special
dispensation to make a behind-closed-doors bet which no-one else could see
until after the deadline? This was a very unpopular idea before the
competition started, and I think would remain so now.
What if she misread and placed your bet wrongly, like on a draw or
something? That would be a similar situation, in that it's not your fault,
but the fact would still remain that you placed your account in her full
control and therefore the rules that apply to betcunting still applied to
her Mikeybet. Fuck, she could deliberately spunk All Your Youks away on
Newcastle if she wanted and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
That's the danger of Ghey Love Betfisting, as Rob so rightly says it's a
gamble in itself because your partner is at once as fallible as you are but
with much less vested interest in getting it right.
It says in the rules 'there is to be no betting by mailweb, all blah blah
blah must take place in the froup' or much more words to that effect, and
that's pretty clear as well. What this means is that discussions, e-mails,
phone calls and anything else have no bearing on the competition, the
betcunt is not placed until the betcunter (or chosen nominee) places it.
Anything else is just discussion and cannot be taken into account in the
calculation of the scores, otherwise, once again, we open up a potential can
of worms in future rounds.
Of course I don't think it's that likely that your exact circumstances could
re-occur, but any rule which was changed to accomodate those circumstances
would have to be worded less specifically than 'unless you are Ghey Love
Betfisting, and are believed by the House to have geninely sent your mailweb
but your betfistpartner let you down, and you still popped up only a couple
of minutes after the deadline and your betcunt wasn't on a match which had
started yet'. That would be purely creating a new rule to suit your
specific needs, (I'm not saying this is what you're suggesting here, just
trying to cover every possible angle and possibility so bear with me) and in
itself would set a precedent of creating new rules purely to fit the needs
of one betcunter's plight rather than for the good of the competition as a
whole.
So I think your concerns have to be broken down and addressed separately,
each one of which having a ruling considered which could be applied to it,
and any one of which rulings would be enough to overturn this decision if it
could be shown not to contravene previous precedent at another's expense.
Firstly, there's the issue that your match hadn't started yet, for which a
precedent really has already been set, so rightly or wrongly that simply
cannot be reversed now, only re-assessed at the end of the season. Besides,
I'd be retiscent to change it anyway on the 'more work for me' grounds,
unless at the end of the season the froup as a whole really feel that it
hugely devalues the competition only having one deadline for all betcunts,
regardless of other kick-off times, in which case I would at least consider
it and see if there was some way to make time for it without increasing my
net workload. So that's out.
Then there's the issue of that you really only just missed it by a couple of
minutes, which does indeed suck bigly. See my personality on that one
though, I fucking hate rules that aren't really rules. I could only cope
with having a slightly modified yet equally immovable rule, like "the
deadline is officially 10:30 but I'll accept betcunts up until 10:35, maybe
10:36", in which case I might as well just say the deadline is 10:36, which
is a stupid deadline. I detest not knowing where I really stand on shit
like that, I would neither want to run nor enter such a competition. Time
At The Bar argument, I just can't and won't do shit like this any other way.
And then there's the fact that you were Ghey Love Betfisting at the time,
and that you have both told me (and I believe you) that you mailed your
betcunt to Vicky ages ago, and I think this is possibly the angle you're
coming from. But I still re-iterate that me believing you both (and I do)
is a subjective judgement on my behalf and I really don't think those should
come into play when it comes to the scores. I'll find us exciting and
varied fixture lists, I'll dream up ways to incorproate nice phrases as
stupid dumbfuck bonus rounds with no real point to them, but a fucking
soulless loveless heartless spreashit with no common sense whatsoever works
_everyone's_ scores out and that's the way it's staying. What's more, I
re-iterate that I think the rules should be the same for all betcunts, be
they advance (like Crankshaws) or ghey love (like yours) or just fucking
shit (like Crankshaws).
See, I made the rules look complicated on the bloat because I added so many
embellishments and different ways you could betcunt'n'shit, the rules about
how you can go about betcunting became complicated in the end in the hope of
making it as easy as possible for people to compete despite froup absence.
So many ways to place a betcunt if you're not here, or even if you are. And
all those different bonus rounds, some of which aren't even on the bloat
because I thought of them later, but they seem to be popular and add a touch
of extra fun on special occasions.
Wat I did manage to do, though, was keep the rules on the actual betcunts
themselves extremely simple, for precisely the reason of avoiding this sort
of difficulty. Your betcunt has to be clear, it has to be on time, and it
has to be in the appropriate thread. No exceptions. Mistakes aren't taken
into account, unless they are the mistakes of the House. Fault for failing
to meet the criteria isn't taken into account, unless it was the fault of
the House. Personal feelings are _never_taken into account, not even those
of the House. Amid all the trimmings and accompaniments, the greater the
simple purity that can be retained at the very root of betcunting, the
better the competition will be in my opinion.
I will of course make exceptions where the HOHY can be shown to be at fault,
but when you lot cock it up between you I don't think it's fair to ask the
House to take responsibility for that.
If you send someone to the bookies to place a bet for you, and they're shit
with directions and end up in a brothel instead getting a handjob from a
scabby whore, the bookies will tell you that it's just tough shit on your
part and if it's your ghey love partner they might also recommend you get
checked out. The bookies will not take responsibility for the fact that you
clearly chose what horse you wanted to back and how much you wanted to put
on it well before the race was run, they'll just say '_all_ bets are off,
that's the end of it'. Otherwise it gets hugely complicated.
When your betcunt was placed, actually placed, All Bets Were Off.
> I don't think the argument that others could say they've been unfairly
> treated as a result of any decision here holds water because this
> simply hasn't happened before. If there was a precedent, I'd be the
> first to hold my hands up and say that the same rules have to be
> applied. But there isn't.
Yes, there is. Vicky had control of your account, just as she had control
of her own account and TonyMac had control of his. No betcunt was placed on
the Mikey or TonyMac accounts in time for the respective deadlines. Simple
rules. Better comp.
> You're looking at it solely as a late betcunt and I don't think that's the
> case. There are hugely mitigating circumstances. Ghey Love was in
> operation and we've seen that the bet was decided upon eleven days
> previously.
No, I'm not looking at it solely as a late betcunt, I'm looking at it as one
of several late betcunts, each of which probably has circumstances behind
it, and trying to make sure that any rule I apply has at least some
consistency to it. TonyMac's betcunt could have been decided eleven days
previously for all I know. Similarly, for all I know, yours might not have
and the c/p'd email could be forged. That I genuinely believe that you're
both telling the truth is neither here nor there, as that comes down to an
arbitrary judgement call with personal feelings and whatnot, and I still
don't think it's fair to ask me to make those. Not fair on me, and not fair
on any cunt here who I dislike and distrust.
> This could never, ever happen to James Cook because he
> doesn't have any Ghey Lovers. As well as there not being a precedent,
> the likelihood of an identical repeat is pretty minimal. If, though, you
> genuinely think the chances of this situation happening again are
> enough to increase your workload on the competition, then, fair enough,
> I'll withdraw the appeal and take the hit.
I do think the chances of more late betcunts happening again are pretty
high, actually. And I suspect that in some cases there might well be
mitigating circumstances and evidence that it wasn't 'their fault'. And if
I've reversed a very simple rule on your behalf because of these mitigating
circumstances, I'll have to at least consider reversing it on others and
debating it with them'n'shit and that is a lot more work. This is a lot
more work.
What I'd like, actually, is for this to be a clear example to everyone that
the deadline is the deadline, and the rules on this (or anything else) will
not be altered or changed mid-competition except where they can be shown
(and agreed by the majority) to be Bad Rules. A 'late betcunt' rule which
didn't apply to ghey love or situations which weren't your fault would be
much less workable than one which does, in my opinion, and would make the
SBL a less good competition with more complex rules.
I hope you're all following this, by the way, which is why it's on Headed
Paper. I really don't want to ever have to say all this again to any of
you.
> I think you do a terrific job on the SBL and I have no interest in adding
> to the amount of work you have to do on it. If you think that accepting
> yesterday's bet would do that, then I don't want it to count.
Your understanding on this matter is greatly appreciated. Very greatly.
> That's fine by me. I'll never argue with clear, well-written rules that
> make the competition better. I only argue with non-existent ones
> and ones that detract from the integrity of the competition.
I like that about you. However, I do think the 'deadline for betcunting'
rule is pretty clear and well worded, and I've yet to be persuaded that not
having it, or changing it to a much more complicated and pretty much
impossible-to-word-clearly rule which takes mitigating circumstances into
account, would make the competition better. I really think it would make
the competition worse.
> Thank you, sir. Consider my second appeal registered.
Consider your second appeal to have been accepted, appreciated, and given
every bit as much consideration and respect as your first.
> True and I thank you for giving the issue so much consideration. I
> think I have a point and I genuinely think the bet should count. I'd
> argue the same point for anyone else because I greatly value the
> integrity of the SBL. However, if you still think it shouldn't be
> counted, then that'll be the end of it. There'll be no third appeal
> and I have no intention of doing a froup vote.
Well, that's up to you. I think a vote would have been interesting because
froup opinion counts for an awful lot when it comes to the SBL, almost
invariably it in fact counts for everything so long as it doesn't involve
extra work. For instance, I liked the idea of the 'bespoke bet', but it
would have made for _much_ more work and was therefore out the door pretty
quickly. OTOH, I actually took votes on some other issues because it was no
more or less work for me either way and coming up with a format which the
majority think is as good as it can get is the name of the People's Comp
game. I'm all about that.
However, in this case I would have left the organising of such a vote to
you, because right now I think I have enough work on the immediate horizon
getting the betcunts collated (haven't started yet), the scores sorted out
and posted (not even close) and next week's round of betcunting on the go
(still a day or two to get that done, mind). Then I can forget the fuck
about it again for another five or six days, and tbh that doesn't sound so
bad right now.
Once again, I do actually thank you for your input, this competition stands
and falls on such opinions so feel free to say whatever's on your mind,
however you wish to say it, without fear of reproof or subsequent bias. I
may be an abrasive, arrogant, antagonistic, flippant confrontational bastard
but I'm determined to get this project right and can put all that aside when
it comes to the SBL.
What's more, this sofa isn't all that bad. I'll get used to it.
*fluffs cushions, puts telly on*
--
"VIVA Las BETCUNTS!!!1one!1!!bestIcando!!1!1!" - Elvis Presley
This page and all the others hosted at this address ©Copyright
1997-2006 the uk.sport.football archive.
No unauthorised transmission
or reproduction of the content permitted.
If you experience problems with this site, please contact webmaster@uksf.org.uk.