Banning Neilly until... - Page 3

hes probably less likely to pay back if you isolate him from the community

On April 15 2008 23:23 mikeymoo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2008 21:16 Baal wrote: The thing is... if you are staking somebody, there is a risk that tha player is going broke... otherwise its just magically making money with no risk. If you stake a player and busts you loose your money as simple as that, if neilly cheated somebody in a deal (scamming) i will ban him. What if the stake is given under strict circumstances (only play with certain bi rule, etc.) Would it be considered a scam if Neilly loses it all playing too high and doesn't pay back?

If the conditions said that he was only allowed to play certain limits with a specified roll and that if he broke those rules he would be held responsible for paying back the full amount... then yes he should have to pay the money back and it should be considered a scam if he doesn't?

Regardless of who and what he is when you make the agreement you obviously run this risk when you loan/stake anyone, just because it's neilly doesn't mean you aren't entitled to getting your money back in for example the aforementioned situation.

lol at staking someone over the interweb...family and friends only lol and even then not for that much....maybe syntax since he's like my personal bank at times, but thats about it lol

why the fuck would you EVER want to ban a source of entertainment.

and whoever loans him money is fucking retarded: you're not helping him out of his situation you're making it worse.

and i LOL at the people that actually expect it back. wtffff you play poker that's based on logic and shit and yet you can't even piece together the fact that staking a retarded degen = -ev.

or didn't you know?

I voted yes, he is only funny the first 2-3 times after that he just gets annoying.

On April 16 2008 00:07 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 15 2008 22:54 Fayth wrote: I'm willing to invest a few buy ins to travel over to his house, NEONE WITH ME ? i dont think ur the kind of person who people would ship to collect money wheres hovz?

i loled

On April 16 2008 03:10 YoMeR wrote: why the fuck would you EVER want to ban a source of entertainment. and whoever loans him money is fucking retarded: you're not helping him out of his situation you're making it worse.

On April 16 2008 03:10 YoMeR wrote: why the fuck would you EVER want to ban a source of entertainment.

QFT I voted no obv. Neilly for the fucking win.

On April 16 2008 01:20 Karma wrote: hes probably less likely to pay back if you isolate him from the community

Neilly for mod.

i def. voted no neilly is too entertaining to ban and ur retarded to loan him money i rly dont care if he doesnt pay ya back.. seriously why would u loan him money.

edit: wrong thread!

On April 16 2008 09:57 NerO wrote: i def. voted no neilly is too entertaining to ban and ur retarded to loan him money i rly dont care if he doesnt pay ya back.. seriously why would u loan him money.

its still funny

playin out of his br against f4zi

lol

To Ket:

The purpose of him getting ban is not for him to pay back debts, one way or another, no ones getting their money back. Also, it's going to attract unwanted attention here, scamming people with no punishment.

Why did I trust him? It was $40 I lent him, not a big deal. I just wanted to see what kind of BS he would come up with, or if he could actually pay the money back. It wasn't about me lending him and getting "profits" from him, it was to see what kind of a jackass he is.

The deal exactly was, staking for NL2, so $40 = 20 buyins. But he insisted no matter what, he was going to pay it back whether he loses.

On April 16 2008 11:16 Subaru wrote: To Ket: The purpose of him getting ban is not for him to pay back debts, one way or another, no ones getting their money back. Also, it's going to attract unwanted attention here, scamming people with no punishment. Why did I trust him? It was $40 I lent him, not a big deal. I just wanted to see what kind of BS he would come up with, or if he could actually pay the money back. It wasn't about me lending him and getting "profits" from him, it was to see what kind of a jackass he is. The deal exactly was, staking for NL2, so $40 = 20 buyins. But he insisted no matter what, he was going to pay it back whether he loses.

sounds like you knew what you were getting into

well actually giving a man $40 dollars to make you laugh your ass off is a fair price don't you think?

hell people pay way more to go to shitty concerts, pay for ugly hookers, buy diablo 2 items (that'd be me), or do other stupid shit with their money.

this isn't such a bad way to spend it imo.

Yeah this all seems a little unnecessary given that last post. You don't sound like you were too serious about the stake, but yeah uh staking Neilly with the pretense that hes going to pay you back no matter what is kinda dumb.

Ket, stake me 50k for 1kNL plz. Ill pay you back no matter what.

On April 16 2008 11:16 Subaru wrote: To Ket: The purpose of him getting ban is not for him to pay back debts, one way or another, no ones getting their money back. Also, it's going to attract unwanted attention here, scamming people with no punishment. Why did I trust him? It was $40 I lent him, not a big deal. I just wanted to see what kind of BS he would come up with, or if he could actually pay the money back. It wasn't about me lending him and getting "profits" from him, it was to see what kind of a jackass he is. The deal exactly was, staking for NL2, so $40 = 20 buyins. But he insisted no matter what, he was going to pay it back whether he loses.

lol if you actually made a ''deal'' with him that he plays certain stkaes and w/e your a retard. like if you wouldnt know that he would play 2 20$ heads ups with ur 40 bucks lol. this is why people dont want him banned; o