MrLuckyDraw - Scammer.

Who makes the final decision?

 

If Boosting Hell would have rolled lower than MrLuckyDraw, then he would have lost.
If MyLuckyDraw had rolled really high, Boosting Hell would have lost.
Furthermore, it would have not been ruled "void" based on Boosting Hell's personal interpretation.

He's (Boosting Hell) been in this situation before and he was required to pay (by me). As I previously stated, although he (MrLuckyDraw) quoted MrEvilPwns, the post does not explicitly say who can or cannot roll. As MrLuckyDraw quoted the post and rolled, he was agreeing to a dice duel no matter what the roll was. Since he rolled low and lost, now he is trying to dispute. This is not fair to anyone, and I'm not going to enable people to get "free rolls" at $100.

If he didn't want to dice for $100 then he should not have quoted and rolled. The rolls were valid and I will hold on my position that he should be required to pay.

 

In agreement with Unb4nn3d.

 

Bullshit. You even said that wasn't meant for you. If he hadn't rolled that low and you thought you had a real chance at loosing you would have pulled the "That was for XXXXXX see look it was directed at him". I stand by my decision.

 

"It was actually directed at him, but whatever" - Obviously he rolled, knowing he would be in a 50/50 chance of winning. Not until after his roll did he know that it wasn't specifically aimed at him, but it was general. Therefore, regardless of what happened after he rolled, he did roll and not once did I say it was only for XXXXXXX, I just said doing 100$.

So before you claim "Bullshit", no it's not. If you look at the past 50 threads, unless a name has been specifically said "Only XXXXX can call this bet", nobody calls it, but I didn't. It was primarily aimed at that guy, but regardless to whether he accepted it or not, I would've posted a 100$ up anyway, like I had done 2/3/4 times previously on the same day.

Also he called the bet first, so whether the guy it was aimed at called it or not, he was first, and once again, if you look through the pages, you'll see this, the first caller is the better. So whether he rolled 100, or whether he rolled 1, because I didn't specifically state who it was against, it was pretty general, although it was aimed at a certain guy more particularly than others. Therefore, it was a fair dice duel where he lost fair and square.

Another thing, instead of saying "bullshit", why not speak professionally and speak to me like i'm a human, because you are a moderator on a forum doesn't make you 1 step above anyone else in a real life situation, that was un-needed, you don't know me, you don't know what kind of person I am, so to say i'm lieing is dumb of you.

 

It also seems like you're just seeing things from 1 point of view, which is also unprofessional. I've seen it with other threads. The only staff i've seen as of yet to give their true honest opinions from both sides of the arguments in every single report i've seen is Unb4nn3d and Richard. I'm not just saying this because they've supported me, as if that was the case i'd mention Roary too, but that's how it is, and that's what i've seen.

 

Sorry about my harshness. I should have spoken to you nicer and I apologize. From what I see here: http://www.sythe.org/13653915-post3787.html. It seems like the general feel of the post was directed towards MrEvil. The fact that he quoted it and rolled a 4 obviously you're going to be fine with it because your odds are like almost 9-1 of winning. If he had rolled a 30 then you most likely would have claimed the roll wasn't for him and the tables would be turned here. Provided that in your post it isn't a direct challenge to MrEvil you would most likely have had to pay since like Travis said "you didn't say MrEvil vs me 100$ gl" so it may be valid.

 

Precisely, and if you look at every page in the donator thread, it's always been like that. Unless somebody says "my post is vs XXXXX", the opportunity is open to everybody, it's always been like that.

Another thing i'd like to bring up once again, i'm pretty sure you haven't seen the post because you called me a liar, possibly suggesting you haven't seen how i've previously been and what kind of person I am. An extremely similar situation occured before, where I was in MrLuckyDraw's situation and I wasn't sure what I had to do. I was told by Unb4nn3d that I had to pay the guy up as I am responsible for calling bets, regardless.

 

As stated previously in this thread, he (Boosting Hell) was in this situation before where he was on the side where MrLuckyDraw was and was required to pay (I think it was for $100 too).

Although he had quoted MrEvilPwns, the bet was not specific to any user. As MrLuckyDraw saw the opportunity to win $100, he took it. Also, as previously stated, I'm not going to enable people to try and get "free rolls" at $100, or any other amount. He (MrLuckyDraw) quoted the post because he was willing to dice duel for $100 and lost fair and square. Although the chance of winning was slim (after the roll was known), there was still a chance. He should not be absolved of a $100 debt based solely on the reason of, "Boosting Hell quoted someone else in the post and MrLuckyDraw rolled a low roll".

If he didn't want to gamble, he wouldn't have quoted and rolled in the first place. He was well aware of the risks and since no specific person was targeted for the bet, the dice duel should be seen as valid and a payment required.

 

I shouldn't have to pay him. I didn't expect to get anything if I rolled high. He knew I didn't have paypal and he knew I wouldn't buy gold. We had discussed on Skype and we didn't match in payment methods so we didn't dice after I won 20m 07 and sold it. The post was directed at him. Every time this guy posts he posts exactly who can't dice and by quoting this person and not saying who it isn't open to he made it clear it was only open to MrevilPwns this guy is just trying to exploit me and it's obvious because of previous skype chat if I had rolled a 30 does anyone here think he would of agreed to roll? No.

 

So why roll? You're going against everything you've said lol.

 

I never post who can't dice, until now, I'm posting you so you can't call me.

^^^^ These quotes say everything, "I didn't expect to get anything if I rolled high" - that shows what a lieing scamming scumbag you are, trying to turn this back on me after I paid you out legit. As for the second thing, I asked you if you wanted to do $150 dollars, we talked on skype 30 minutes before you called it and you said no because I refused to accept BTC/Paypal from " A chinese guy whos more trusted than me" I then blocked you on skype for being rude, calling me a moron and a gambling addict for not accepting paypal from a 'chinese man' (Your words). You then you called it 30 or so minutes later, knowing full well that I refused BTC/Paypal from a random person, so you called it knowing what I expected.

I'd also like to add, I want a Paypal/RSGP payment if the appeal goes my way, I told you via skype I didn't want BTC, so don't try and pull that one off too. The "norm" for payment methods on the dice thread is paypal, unless stated otherwise.



I would like to add, i'm not posting anymore unless I get asked to, it's making me look bad and i'm simply repeating myself.

 

Because... ?

You intended to roll low? What were you expecting?

So you willingly attempted to get a free roll at $100 when you knowingly did not have an acceptable payment method if you lost? That doesn't sound good.

It was not made clear who was and was not able to roll. If this were the case, you wouldn't have quoted and rolled in the first place. By quoting his post and rolling, you were agreeing to the terms outlined. Plain and simple.

He's not trying to exploit you. As said multiple times in this thread, he's been in a similar situation before where he was on your side. I made him roll, he lost, and was forced to pay out (It was for $100 as well, I believe). I think he would have agreed to roll. He may have been reluctant, but that's irrelevant, as I would have made him roll anyways.

Since no other Staff seem to have an opinion, I'm going to close this report with the following stipulations.

• MrLuckyDraw must pay Boosting Hell $100 in 24 hours from this post (unless disputed / agreed upon by both users). An acceptable payment method must be found and/or negotiated.
• MrLuckyDraw is not allowed to dice in order to obtain what is owed to Boosting Hell (unless both were to agree to a "DoN" for this situation).
• If either user is involved in such a case again (DDD - dice duel dispute), action may be taken which restricts or prevents the user from dicing (A.K.A. Banned from dicing).
  This will be up to Staff interpretation based on the severity of future cases, if any arise.

In the future, please make the rules clearer and account for all situations which may otherwise result in a win, loss, or tie.
Furthermore, I would advise it to be specifically stated who may or may not roll for a bet you've posted, so these situations will not come up again.

Thanks-