The War Room Bet Thread v2

[Fawlty]

Right on, any crime goes! Makes it more interesting, I'm good with this.

 

[Lead]

1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

@Fawlty v. @HomerThompson
1. Flynn, Stone, Manafort, Page, Kushner, Don Jr, Eric, President Trump, Ivanka, Sessions, DeVos, Preibus, Ryan, Pruitt, Pompeo, Bannon, or Perry will be formally criminally indicted by 23:59 EST 15 June 2018
2. Homer- 2 or more indicted, Fawlty- 1 will be indicted, Tie- 0 are indicted
3. 06/15/18
4. Signature bet
5. 3 months

Just need okays from you both for it to be posted

 

[Fawlty]

Good with me, noting that it excludes the "both lose" clause. I'm okay dropping that.

Signed.


Lead, you're a damn good arbiter.

 

[Quipling]

Offering @kahiljabroni a 3 month av and sig bet that at least 5 msm outlets covered the uranium one deal, and at least one had a major story on the topic that was not a defense of Clinton.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/uranium-1-deal.3570847/#post-131802803

 

[kahiljabroni]

Offering @kahiljabroni a 3 month av and sig bet that at least 5 msm outlets covered the uranium one deal, and at least one had a major story on the topic that was not a defense of Clinton.

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/uranium-1-deal.3570847/#post-131802803

Well if you are willing to bet then I'm sure you know that they exist so I'm not betting.
Anyway we might have a different definition of covering a story. Do you mean"covering" like discussing it in a neutral manner for a segment or two?

Or do you mean"covering" like they cover trump/russia....leading with the story for weeks, bombarding with leading questions, congressional investigations, tons of innuendo and biased opinions based on nothing?


My main point was the coverage was not proportional to the alleged crime. Everyone should know the full details of the story and I bet 8 out of 10 civilians know nothing of it.

 

[Quipling]

Well if you are willing to bet then I'm sure you know that they exist so I'm not betting.
Anyway we might have a different definition of covering a story. Do you mean"covering" like discussing it in a neutral manner for a segment or two?

Or do you mean"covering" like they cover trump/russia....leading with the story for weeks, bombarding with leading questions, congressional investigations, tons of innuendo and biased opinions based on nothing?


My main point was the coverage was not proportional to the alleged crime. Everyone should know the full details of the story and I bet 8 out of 10 civilians know nothing of it.

So, you haven't done any investigation into what the msm actually says before spouting off, don't know anything about it, but are willing to make a thread ti criticize them for not saying anything in a story that occurred and was covered literally years ago.

Good talk.

 

[HomerThompson]

@Fawlty v. @HomerThompson
1. Flynn, Stone, Manafort, Page, Kushner, Don Jr, Eric, President Trump, Ivanka, Sessions, DeVos, Preibus, Ryan, Pruitt, Pompeo, Bannon, or Perry will be formally criminally indicted by 23:59 EST 15 June 2018
2. Homer- 2 or more indicted, Fawlty- 1 will be indicted, Tie- 0 are indicted
3. 06/15/18
4. Signature bet
5. 3 months

Just need okays from you both for it to be posted

Let's go!

 

[Jack V Savage]

So, you haven't done any investigation into what the msm actually says before spouting off, don't know anything about it, but are willing to make a thread ti criticize them for not saying anything in a story that occurred and was covered literally years ago.

Good talk.

Being able to make posts like this is just as important a part of the idea of betting as the actual wins.

 

[Hans Gruber]

It's clear as day imo.
People should have been more thoroughly tipped off that Wikileaks is a shill machine when Assange had us stay up until 4am for a bombshell reveal.... that turned out to be a book sales pitch.
But guys like Hans think it is literally a charity of some sort.

Take it to the bet thread (but since you brought it up)

The $500 bet that you found any excuse to dodge (that you lost) would have went here. Look at this Charity Navigator website that goes to "Freedom of the Press Foundation" which donations to Wikileaks go through.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=my.donations.makedonation&ein=460967274

Donations to wikileaks go there. See for yourself
https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate

You ready to send that $500 yet?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Take it to the bet thread (but since you brought it up)

Sure, if you want to have a discussion about it

The $500 bet that you found any excuse to dodge (that you lost) would have went here. Look at this Charity Navigator website that goes to "Freedom of the Press Foundation" which donations to Wikileaks go through.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=my.donations.makedonation&ein=460967274

Donations to wikileaks go there. See for yourself
https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate

You ready to send that $500 yet?

Hans, just because you can give money to something.... doesn't mean it is a charity. I know this concept is impossible for you to grasp.
Non-profit =/= charity

 

[Hans Gruber]

It's clear as day imo.
People should have been more thoroughly tipped off that Wikileaks is a shill machine when Assange had us stay up until 4am for a bombshell reveal.... that turned out to be a book sales pitch.
But guys like Hans think it is literally a charity of some sort.

Lies. They never announced a bombshell. People assumed.

Also since you brought it up I am allowed to defend my position:

The $500 bet that you found any excuse to dodge (that you lost) would have went here. Look at this Charity Navigator website that goes to "Freedom of the Press Foundation" which donations to Wikileaks go through.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=my.donations.makedonation&ein=460967274

Donations to wikileaks go there. See for yourself
https://shop.wikileaks.org/donate

 

[Hans Gruber]

Sure, if you want to have a discussion about it



Hans, just because you can give money to something.... doesn't mean it is a charity. I know this concept is impossible for you to grasp.
Non-profit =/= charity

But it is listed at Charity Navigator. I win.

If I want to give a charitable donation it is charity.

If a man can claim to be a woman I can sure as hell claim that my charitable donation is charity.

Case closed

 

[Limbo Pete]

But it is listed at Charity Navigator. I win.

If I want to give a charitable donation it is charity.

If a man can claim to be a woman I can sure as hell claim that my charitable donation is charity.

Case closed

Being able to cut someone a check doesn't make them a charity lol
I'm surprised you didn't try and list yourself

 

[Wally Brando]

The Rules:
-Since we have this thread now, keep bet discussions in here rather than other threads. It will prevent derailing the discussions there. If you organically come up with an idea in another thread, just move the conversation over to here with whomever it is with.

-I will try to manage the OP with the current bets going on. You both must come to an agreement on:
1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

-Punishments are limited. No account/e-suicide bets as silencing part of the community isn't very WR like. This is suppose to be something fun but not fatal for our regulars here. Signature and av bets are fair game. The av/sig that will be given can be decided before or after the bet.

-No cash bets. It can't be enforced and isn't something the site can or wants to host.

-If there is a dispute over who won/lost the bet, you can choose a moderator to decide the result. The mod options will be Madmick, Zankou, and myself. If you both want a different moderator, each poster can decide a moderator they don't want to decide and the remaining of the three will make the call (yes, this sounds very detailed and overly complex but I'm sure this likely is going to occur and want to make it fair as possible. Eliminating one ensures both posters at least get their 2nd best choice.)

-Same rules apply in this thread as any other thread in the War Room. No flaming other posters, etc.

-Both posters involved in the bet must have either an account that's been around over 1 year or over 1000 posts. Exceptions can be given. If the volume of bets becomes frequent, I will limit the amount of pending bets per user. I don't expect this to happen.

-Do not allude/mention bets in this thread that don't adhere to the rules above. For example, mentioning an account ban bet will just get the post deleted.

-If a punishment doesn't begin at the start date in #5, the amount of time will remain paused until it begins. For example, if someone was suppose to change their Av on 1/1/16 for a one month avatar bet and they don't begin until 1/3/16, the loser must keep the av until 2/2/16.

-Certain rules above can be suspended if approved at the time the bet is made. These rules would be the two bets at a time, post/join date requirement, and anything else that was made just to handle the flow of traffic with bets.

If I'm missing something, I'll be sure to clarify it in the thread before editing the OP but I think this covers most of it. Have fun and stuff.

Previous Threads
The War Room Bet Thread

@NC252 I'm a calling you out.
Let's make a wager. Anyone want to witness this pact?

 

[NC252]

@NC252 I'm a calling you out.
Let's make a wager. Anyone want to witness this pact?

Awesome how do you define the terms?

 

[Wally Brando]

Awesome how do you define the terms?

Alright how about this: by February charges will be brought against Kushner, or Manafort, or Diaper Don based wholly or in part on this meeting or a chain of evidence of which this meeting is part. AV and sig bet for a month.

Good to you?

 

[NC252]

Alright how about this: by February charges will be brought against Kushner, or Manafort, or Diaper Don based wholly or in part on this meeting or a chain of evidence of which this meeting is part. AV and sig bet for a month.

Good to you?

February??? What charges? Why not leave it to Mueller?

 

[Wally Brando]

February??? What charges? Why not leave it to Mueller?

Aight. If you want it to have a time limit... for some reason then the same terms but once Mueller closes his investigation and we switch to it if Mueller concludes criminal activity occurred in this meeting. Good enough?

 

[NC252]

February??? What charges? Why not leave it to

Aight. If you want it to have a time limit... for some reason then the same terms but once Mueller closes his investigation and we switch to it if Mueller concludes criminal activity occurred in this meeting. Good enough?

I'll stick with charges against those three at the time that Mueller closes the investigation? Good enough?

 

[Wally Brando]

I'll stick with charges against those three at the time that Mueller closes the investigation? Good enough?

Done.

Let's get a witness to this. @Led ?