UPSB v4
Board Comments / Battling for Wages
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 03:11:25
What if when people challenged each other to a battle, they put money on it? i.e. I challenge X to a battle with a wage of $5. If I lose, I give X $5 and vice versa. Simple idea of course (and I don't want to refer to it as betting because that implies gambling, this is more of a show of skill). I'm posting this idea here because I simply want to know what the authorities of UPSB think of it. Also, would we be allowed to give positive feedback if the loser successfully pays his amount due?
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 03:52:34
I THOUGHT THE EXACT SAME THING JUST YESTERDAY! HOLY TITS. Well, when I thought about it, the only problem is a lot of people vote biased or based on their own preference, not the better combo. I think actual judges would be neccesary for this to work.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 05:42:39
How about we just use UPSB money?
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 07:00:33
Why don't you just wager in secret, and then pay up in secret? If they don't pay, just say you were scammed out of a trade and give negative feedback.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 14:17:10
This could work, however if you really wanted to do it you could probably just set it up directly with whoever you are battling... Or, betting on battles usin upsb $$ and such.
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 14:37:14
im not so sure about giving feedback, kinda cheap way of building rep, maybe if thers a minimum cash limit before being considered
-
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 14:45:12
Zombo wrote: im not so sure about giving feedback, kinda cheap way of building rep, maybe if thers a minimum cash limit before being considered
what about only being able to give negative feedback if they dont pay up. if they do pay up, you win the money, no problems. -
Date: Sun, Jul 11 2010 14:55:19
well yeah negative feedback for sure but positive feedbck only if the amount is > $5 or something
-
Date: Mon, Jul 12 2010 02:43:43
Seems kinda weird having feedback for battles, can we have a whole separate feedback list set up for battles?
-
Date: Mon, Jul 12 2010 02:52:27
put up your pen for pinks :)
-
Date: Mon, Jul 12 2010 15:15:10
lol reminds me of where you play marbles and the winner keeps them all winner gets the loser's pen haha
-
Date: Mon, Jul 12 2010 22:12:07
000zero0000 wrote: How about we just use UPSB money?
and what would one buy with UPSB money? i was thinking maybe penwish credit? -
Date: Tue, Jul 13 2010 04:14:18
lol penwish gives enough free stuff away as it is i believe he meant UPSB gameroom money and also, is the thread title supposed to be "wagers" and not "wages'? lol
-
Date: Tue, Jul 13 2010 17:41:37
If the idea goes ahead, I think a list seperate from pen trading would be best and you could always be referred to an excellent white list rating by your opponent to back up their claim of payment. Positive feedback could be harder to earn. You could earn one positive feedback point if you pay up on a battle, but lose several for not paying just once. That way, you cannot have several small bets to make a profit on a scammed big one. Battles of this kind would probably be best done in the public eye, so that any spinner taking part and not paying up would be banned and known about. Probably best only to battle long term members, or premium members (who are unlikely to want to get banned). ;)
-
Date: Tue, Jul 13 2010 18:06:41
I kinda like the upsb money idea.
-
Date: Wed, Jul 14 2010 05:28:20
strat1227;7216] and also, is the thread title supposed to be "wagers" and not "wages'? lol[/QUOTE] I suck at English, I'm gonna be a Chemical Engineer. [QUOTE=Mats wrote: If the idea goes ahead, I think a list seperate from pen trading would be best and you could always be referred to an excellent white list rating by your opponent to back up their claim of payment. Positive feedback could be harder to earn. You could earn one positive feedback point if you pay up on a battle, but lose several for not paying just once. That way, you cannot have several small bets to make a profit on a scammed big one. Battles of this kind would probably be best done in the public eye, so that any spinner taking part and not paying up would be banned and known about. Probably best only to battle long term members, or premium members (who are unlikely to want to get banned). ;)
Good ideas from a wise man. -
Date: Wed, Jul 14 2010 10:33:14
miyat wrote: I kinda like the upsb money idea.
Same here, Mats idea is just to complicated, most people won't even battle for money. So UPSB$ Betting would be best. -
Date: Wed, Jul 14 2010 15:46:03
Matrix-Chan wrote: Same here, Mats idea is just to complicated, most people won't even battle for money. So UPSB$ Betting would be best.
I think it would be better with just: x vs y, y wins, x gives y certain amount agreed on. No betting though. I talked to strat about betting on battles, he said it would be to complicated setting up bets for every battle. But he said there's gonna be bets for wc11. Aside from that i think just transferring cash (gameroom cash) between the two is easier. Then no one else is involved and it requires less work. I got off topic a bit sorry. Or to be even more fair they could both give a certain amount of gameroom cash to one trusted person. Who ever wins gets the amount of cash from both players the trusted middle man was holding. This could work for battles between more than just 2 spinners. The more spinners battling, the more money in the pot i guess... Yeah...