Hello, sorry if it's a bit out of topic. Peeps...
Rating Place made a statement on other thread assessing my response about this case which I believe is rather untrue and potentially misleading. I am here to straighten the record,
Quote from holydarkness
Now, Fairlay.
To say that we [or I] did not give them a chance to provide evidence is extremely misleading. They came, asking for arbitrator, the overseers suggest a panel of three mediators to maintain fairness, the player nominates two, Fairlay withdraw their request of arbitration for their own reason.
This is my last post in this thread since I've asked you to stop nitpicking my every post. I've also asked to take Fairlay to the Fairlay thread. You want to post it here. Now you are being untruthfull about Fairlay. Fairlay asked efaltis to arbitrate, he said "no". Fairlay asked me to recommend and arbiter. I recommended you since Fairlay wanted a sole arbiter so as not to post private information to the public. You didn't accept.
They didn't want a 3 panel board since it stated in their email that they were looking for one arbiter. Paraphrasing, they wanted someone to apply so that they could be vetted and heard privately.
You tried to force rules upon Fairlay to post publicly and a 3 man board would decide. Fairlay posted multiple times that they were looking for an arbiter to apply by email. Fairlay has all the evidence,
but you decided to make a decision without any evidence. It's now all out there in public. The names, the teams and associations of the fixed matches. Some books are no longer accepting wagers from teams. I'm out.
Let's break it down, there are three points about me that, as far as my mind serves me, is not correct.
First and the most obvious, not necessarily about me and not necessarily a lie, thus I am not marking it in red, instead an underline,
"
They didn't want a 3 panel board since it stated in their email that they were looking for one arbiter."
I believe this is what the entire thread overseer understood, that they wanted to get a thing resolved, and they suggested three mediator to ensure neutrality, far as I know, it's not even me who suggested it, so not sure why it's held against me.
Second,
You tried to force rules upon Fairlay to post publicly and a 3 man board would decide., point us out, Peeps, point us out to the post where
I tried to force rules upon fairlay.
Third,
but you decided to make a decision without any evidence, kindly point us out to my post where I decide against fairlay without any evidence.