23 ms·

Why is no one talking about the true jerk in this situation? The guy legally forcing the other to mortgage his house in order to give him $500k — because of roc

Why is no one talking about the true jerk in this situation? The guy legally forcing the other to mortgage his house in order to give him $500k — because of rock, paper, scissors...

TuringNYC 6y ago
Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.
- coding123 6y ago
  Yes but sometimes you have a shark that eggs on the game knowing it is rigged. Google rock paper Scissors robot. It's not inconceivable that a human may have some skills close to that. Or was purposely slowly entering their final state.
- liamcardenas 6y ago
  If the roles were reversed, I would have a similar criticism of the other guy. Clearly, the loser didn’t want to pay because he contested it in court — and the victor could have forgiven the debt. I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
  - jon_elbrook 6y ago
    >and the victor could have forgiven the debt. That would be equivalent to burning $500,000. >I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS. What is the minimum amount of effort required to make a bet of $500,000 valid?
  - jstanley 6y ago
    > I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS. That's a bit different. Your friend is presumably not deliberately forgetting his wallet while eating $500k lunches, and if he was I bet you'd expect him to pay you back. And the game of Rock Paper Scissors may be trivial and low-effort, but betting $500k on the game is very much not. If I enter into a $500k bet on a game of Rock Paper Scissors, it's with the understanding that I stand to lose $500k if I lose the game, and I take that seriously. The only reason that risk is worth taking is if I also stand to win $500k if I win the game. If I win and you turn around and say "oh come on man I really don't want to pay", then you're basically saying you entered into the bet with the intention of scamming me out of an expected sum of $250k, so yes I'll insist that you pay up.
    - liamcardenas 6y ago
      This is a fair point. Part of the reason I would not make this bet in the first place is because I wouldn’t want the put myself into a situation where I either lose lots of money or risk causing financial hardship on another person. It’s lose-lose, in my opinion (I don’t think it’s worth $500k). I understand how people can reasonably disagree about this and I take back calling him a jerk (although I hope I would not behave the same way in his circumstance). I also lack information about the specifics of what happened.
- apta 6y ago
  And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.
  - Alupis 6y ago
    > And this is why gambling should be banned How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know. It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events. The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are totally unenforceable.
    - edflsafoiewq 6y ago
      > How do you propose to enforce this? Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt. This appears to be basically what happened in this case anyway.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        To be fair, what you actually accomplish there is not to ban gambling, but just to limit it to table stakes. Though that's probably a more useful goal anyway.
      - apta 6y ago
        > Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt. Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.
        icebraining 6y ago
        To penalize them, you have to identify them first. Gambling is like corruption, in that two innocent activities (a game and a transfer of money) are combined, and you need to prove that link to prove that gambling occurred.
tzs 6y ago
If he's a true jerk, he'll report the now cancelled debt to his country's equivalent of the IRS. If you owe money and some or all of that is cancelled, in many countries the amount cancelled might count as income to you for tax purposes. I'd expect that in this case it would not be income, because it sounds like the court determined that the debt was not valid in the first place and so it is more of a "there was never a debt in the first place" than a "cancelled debt" situation, but being investigated to determine that would likely be annoying.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
valuearb 6y ago
He didn’t force the other guy to do anything. The other guy showed up at a notary public to sign the contract for chrissakes.
meddlepal 6y ago
How is the guy an asshole? Don't make bets you cannot afford.

Why is no one talking about the true jerk in this situation? The guy legally forcing the other to mortgage his house in order to give him $500k — because of rock, paper, scissors...

TuringNYC 6y ago

Well, we do not know what would happen if the situation were opposite. They both entered into the agreement, presumably seriously. It seems like just playing the game qualifies both sides as jerks.

coding123 6y ago
Yes but sometimes you have a shark that eggs on the game knowing it is rigged. Google rock paper Scissors robot. It's not inconceivable that a human may have some skills close to that. Or was purposely slowly entering their final state.
liamcardenas 6y ago
If the roles were reversed, I would have a similar criticism of the other guy. Clearly, the loser didn’t want to pay because he contested it in court — and the victor could have forgiven the debt. I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS.
- jon_elbrook 6y ago
  >and the victor could have forgiven the debt. That would be equivalent to burning $500,000. >I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS. What is the minimum amount of effort required to make a bet of $500,000 valid?
- jstanley 6y ago
  > I wouldn’t even make my friend pay me back for lunch if they forgot their wallet — let alone put them through financial hardship for such a trivial, low-effort event as a game of RPS. That's a bit different. Your friend is presumably not deliberately forgetting his wallet while eating $500k lunches, and if he was I bet you'd expect him to pay you back. And the game of Rock Paper Scissors may be trivial and low-effort, but betting $500k on the game is very much not. If I enter into a $500k bet on a game of Rock Paper Scissors, it's with the understanding that I stand to lose $500k if I lose the game, and I take that seriously. The only reason that risk is worth taking is if I also stand to win $500k if I win the game. If I win and you turn around and say "oh come on man I really don't want to pay", then you're basically saying you entered into the bet with the intention of scamming me out of an expected sum of $250k, so yes I'll insist that you pay up.
  - liamcardenas 6y ago
    This is a fair point. Part of the reason I would not make this bet in the first place is because I wouldn’t want the put myself into a situation where I either lose lots of money or risk causing financial hardship on another person. It’s lose-lose, in my opinion (I don’t think it’s worth $500k). I understand how people can reasonably disagree about this and I take back calling him a jerk (although I hope I would not behave the same way in his circumstance). I also lack information about the specifics of what happened.
apta 6y ago
And this is why gambling should be banned. Just because a couple of people "agree" on something, doesn't make it rational or legal.
- Alupis 6y ago
  > And this is why gambling should be banned How do you propose to enforce this? If these two people had simply gambled the same way, and the loser took out the mortgage and paid the winner, nobody would even know. It's illegal to gamble where I live, yet every year my friends and I place bets on major sporting events. The solution to problems isn't always more government. Particularly when the proposed laws are totally unenforceable.
  - edflsafoiewq 6y ago
    > How do you propose to enforce this? Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt. This appears to be basically what happened in this case anyway.
    - a1369209993 6y ago
      To be fair, what you actually accomplish there is not to ban gambling, but just to limit it to table stakes. Though that's probably a more useful goal anyway.
    - apta 6y ago
      > Don't legally recognize gambling debts. If people lose a bet they can pay it if they want to, but the law wouldn't recognize or enforce the debt. Correct, and you take it a step farther. People don't pay even if they want, both parties engaging in gambling are penalized.
      - icebraining 6y ago
        To penalize them, you have to identify them first. Gambling is like corruption, in that two innocent activities (a game and a transfer of money) are combined, and you need to prove that link to prove that gambling occurred.

tzs 6y ago

If he's a true jerk, he'll report the now cancelled debt to his country's equivalent of the IRS. If you owe money and some or all of that is cancelled, in many countries the amount cancelled might count as income to you for tax purposes. I'd expect that in this case it would not be income, because it sounds like the court determined that the debt was not valid in the first place and so it is more of a "there was never a debt in the first place" than a "cancelled debt" situation, but being investigated to determine that would likely be annoying.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

valuearb 6y ago

He didn’t force the other guy to do anything. The other guy showed up at a notary public to sign the contract for chrissakes.

meddlepal 6y ago

How is the guy an asshole? Don't make bets you cannot afford.