Originally posted by EmanuelC16
I know about make-up and I think it's definitely a good thing but once it is not included in the initial agreement, you should discuss it in private if you want it to not affect reputation of either.
I know you didn't have any bad intentions but I am very certain it will damage BsB's reputation because he omitted something that now you say is standard and will drive away people new to staking after they read this.
Staker:'Oh Black Member asking for a stake, cool! I can make some $$. [reads feedback and rail threads]. Wait so stakers think he doesn't offer a standard deal but makes it more in his favour. Idk, I should prob not get involved, who knows what else I am missing here.'
As I said before, in hindsight it would have been better to discuss this private to avoid this "over reaction" by some people.
A generally accepted practise, in this case makeup, is translated to "it goes without saying". The principle of GAP is recognised in the UK contract law which is based on the common law system. So in speaking in legal terms, if this was a legal case, this term might have been recognised by the courts as a term of the contract regardless the fact that it was not explicitly stated as it is a generally accepted practise in the staking business.
Personally, I think its wrong and unfair to have this term implemented as it was not explicitly stated in the deal even though its a GAP. As I said before, this ommitance is the stakers fault and not the stakee. I am certain that the stakee was ignorant of this term and did not exclude it on purpose to favour himself.
So since it was the stakers fault I cant see how it will affect the stakee's reputation...
Originally posted by EmanuelC16
And if you think about it, why would declining the suggestion hurt BsB reputation when the guy who made the suggestion, myself, has only the best to say about BsB?
Could be viewed many ways: One obvious way is you state something negative/damaging to him like the suggestion you made. (I don't think it was your intention but it can definitely come across like that). That makes you feel bad and doesn't comply with the idea that you are a nice person and wouldn't hurt anyone that didn'd hurt you (BsB) therefore you have to compensate by always stating how cool he is.
As I have explained in depth the reasons on why I do not believe that my suggestion will not affect the stakee's reputation (or was negative), in my humble opinion your argument is not valid. It does saddens me that people jumped to quick conclusions and even went to the extent to describe me as greedy, unfair and "crybaby" but what can we do right? This is just human nature I am afraid. An attempt to praise the party I was perceived to insult/damage is certainly not a solution to this fundamental problem of human nature
So to answer to your explanation, no I would not say/do something I do not believe/want just to improve my "image" or perception. And please refer to my second post where I explained my main reason for getting involved in the stake in the first place.
Originally posted by EmanuelC16
Most likely your request didn't come through as you intended it though but that's fine.
Thats most probably true. Its funny though that after a few days and many replies, only one guy replied to my suggestion who represents 2% of the stake. If other stakers don't show an interest in the coming days then I am afraid that this comes down to the problems of dispersed ownership and there is nothing I can really do but shy away of stakes where there many stakers who have a non-significant %.
Originally posted by EmanuelC16
@BsB vs Pleno: I only read a bit through the threads and I think both could have handle things better. They are both good guys, did good things for the community, it's probably just variance that they got into an argument. The main reason I post here is that it's common not only in staking but in general for the people that seem to have a losing investment to try to minimize losses only looking at themselves, forgetting about all the parties involved.
I don't want to comment on the substance of the argument. What i want to say is that the timing of my suggestion is very unfortunate for obvious reasons.
About people tending to try to minimize losses, is should be true as its human nature. However, I was very clear about my reasoning.
This is the only reason why I am making the suggestion. Not because I can't take the loss from the stake but because it should have been included from the beginning.
We discussed the problems of staking over skype a while ago and if am not mistaken we both agreed that the fundamental problem revolves around the stakees + stakers not full understanding the terms of a stake which results to -ev stakes. A good example of this concept can be found on the variancekiller's feedback thread. Also, just this morning I pm'd a reputable member of this community to warn him about not getting involved in a -ev stake.
About your business example, I believe that its not relevant to this issue. Briefly, in you example the resources that each party would bring to this project were clearly defined from the beginning and in the business world its certainly not a generally accepted practise for the person who is responsible for the expertise etc to be asked to cover part of the losses... I am more than happy to expand on this further if you want.
I really appreciate your effort to help with the discussion and I hope that you are not put-off by my direct answers.
