Pirate wants to settle with individuals for less. Don't let him do it.

[imsaguy]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Matt,

I hope your not setting up to win the bet on a technicality.. If the investors don't get at least 90 percent of their money back and it was agreed by the investors and Pirate, (including all interest owed up to the minute of the deal, (if there is one)) then he is in default and is fraudulent.. Now, if Pirate says, i ill give you guys 50 percent as long as you take my deal. I would consider that being held hostage and he is in default.. The way its written, if Pirate doesn't pay at last 90 percent back and its agreed upon by the lenders, then Matt would win.. Anything less, then the bettors would win..Plain and simple..

AR

90% would be a loss as well, the bet was that pirate would repay 100% and nothing less.

Well considering the bet doesn't have an arbiter, its a sucky bet anyway.

[1715634880]

1715634880

[1715634880]

1715634880

[1715634880]

1715634880

[1715634880]

1715634880

[1715634880]

1715634880

[bigasic]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

He cant MAKE his clients do anything.. He can recommend action, but he certainly cannot make anyone do or say anything. (Unless he has a gun to their heads)

But, we have to wait til the 9th of September until we can officially call the bet between Matthew and the bettors. The point it mute, but since Matt doesn't have to pay interest, no reason to start paying til he has to..

[Hexadecibel]

Well considering the bet doesn't have an arbiter, its a sucky bet anyway.

yeah, there is that...

[payb.tc]

how can he block them?

i don't see how he can stop lenders from telling pirate their own account info.

oh good, now I can tell pirate about my bitcoin max account that had 40k coins in it.  I even have a screen shot to prove it.  

i wouldn't say lack of verification counts as 'blockage' or censorship.

matt said

Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to.

i was wondering how goat can even disallow this.

duct tape?

[imsaguy]

Matthew was clearly being silly. He is trying to win his bet anyway he can     

[SysRun]

if I had 350k on the line i would enter full time silly mode.

[julz]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid.  (?)  

[imsaguy]

I think PPT operators should bear in mind that if they choose to negotiate with pirate on behalf of their investors, they'll probably be leaving themselves wide open to liability if the investors are not happy with the outcome or if they do not vigorously pursue any and all means possible to recover their investors' money, up to and including taking legal action against pirate.  I'd strongly suggest that the PPT operators seek legal advice regarding their own position should they advise their clients not to deal with pirate directly.

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid.  (?)  

Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.

[myrkul]

Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid.  (?)  

Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.

And this changes things how...?

[The_Duke]

Chaang Noi's clients are his - not Pirate's. Your bet surely requires that Chaang Noi (Pirate's client) is paid.  (?)  

Goat isn't a straight passthrough, he takes a commission.

And this changes things how...?

Maybe he meant to say he's a gay passthrough? But yeah, even then, I don't think sexuality has much to do with anything here.

[organofcorti]

The point it mute, but since Matt doesn't have to pay interest, no reason to start paying til he has to..

That's the second time, and I really have to correct you there because "mute point" bugs the shit out of me.

The phrase is "moot point". It comes from the "moots" or debates old english counties would have. Clearly, mutes would not have been much use at moots.

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

[repentance]

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

[organofcorti]

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

Huh. I'd always thought "moot" as in debate was pronounced like "foot" and I always wondered how I was supposed to use the word in polite society. Now I know.

[repentance]

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

Huh. I'd always thought "moot" as in debate was pronounced like "foot" and I always wondered how I was supposed to use the word in polite society. Now I know.

Nah.  That's why Americans sometimes confuse it with "mute".  If you've noticed, some US dialects pronounce "u" as in ewe (the sound in mute) the same was they pronounce "u" as in "hoot".  You notice it a lot with "new".  It seems to be regional, but a lot of people say "Noo York".

[P4man]

This is interesting. Where is the alternative explanation from pirateat40?

I just can't make sense of it. Why does pirate want to handle it this way?

Wild guess? He is going to pay a small amount of PPT holders directly, and blame the PPT operators for not refunding everyone else, possibly claiming he paid them back. Divide and conquer.  It would be interesting to have a breakdown of sums owed directly and indirectly to see how/if this could work though.

[myrkul]

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.

[organofcorti]

(I'm ignoring the Australian usage of the word "moot", since that means "vagina")

Pronounced differently.  "Moot" as in point is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as hoot.  "Moot" as in vagina is pronounced with the same "oo" sound as foot.

Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.

Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.

[repentance]

Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.

Try listening to a conversation between an Aussie, a Kiwi and a South African some time.  We all pronounce our vowels slightly differently and if you're not attuned to the different accents you won't have a clue what people are actually saying.

Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.

I strongly suggest never asking an Aussie woman which sports team she roots for.  Avoid comments about her fanny, too.

On topic : It will be interesting to see whether pirate gives any further explanations, hands everything over to his lawyers, or just drops out of sight after midnight Friday.

[myrkul]

Mental note: Before entering debate with an Aussie, have him pronounce both "hoot" and "foot" so I know what he's calling my arguments.

Try listening to a conversation between an Aussie, a Kiwi and a South African some time.  We all pronounce our vowels slightly differently and if you're not attuned to the different accents you won't have a clue what people are actually saying.

Yeah, won't help when you get asked for a "root" though.

I strongly suggest never asking an Aussie woman which sports team she roots for.  Avoid comments about her fanny, too.

Very good advice, all around. I know at least one person from each of those areas, and I can fairly easily tell them apart, and usually even tell what they're saying.

[JoelKatz]

I don't think PPT operators are even considering such a thing. What we're seeing though is outright -blockage- of client information. Chaang Noi is refusing to allow his own clients to contact Pirate even if they -want- to. That's going to make calling my bet a bit difficult to say the least, if everyone got paid except Chaang Noi's clients due to his stubborness.  

I don't think he has a choice. If he reveals his client information to Pirate, what keeps Pirate from trying to negotiate individual settlements with them? He has an obligation to his investors to ensure that any Pirate payments on their collective debt is divided according to his agreement with them. If he lets them contact Pirate individually, how can he comply with his obligation?

He can't stop his customers from contacting Pirate directly, of course. But Pirate paying them directly wouldn't settle his debt with Goat anyway.

If my local sandwich store lets me have a sandwich on credit, I have to pay the shopkeeper back because he's the one who gave me the sandwich. I can't make individual deals with the shop's employers and suppliers and then claim I've settled the debt for the sandwich. The shop owner gets to decide how the money is divided per his agreement with the employers and suppliers. Me settling with them individually would cause the shop owner to be breaching his agreement with his employers and suppliers, which I would have no right to do.