Ban bets should result in a temp ban, not cool.

People should just do the traditional bet and give the winner control over the avatar of the loser. You should not be banned for losing a bet.

Hahaha, yeah, I recall seeing that happen recently, and if the 2 individuals really want to do it, I don't see why the mods can't accept it. That's up to the mod team, and whatever decision they decide, that's cool. Just have the individuals set up clear rules, and the mods just act as refs. Not much to stress yourselves over, mod team.

Bets can make things interesting, and it's not like there's much else to lose for a bet other than a temporary ban.

For each bet lost the mod team should add a small crow on their avatars. Maybe making a whole new flag, so it may be remembered forever. But ban bets are dumb, mods have their hands full with bots and trolls already.

I'd say so... We have had users in the past make several threads betting on nonsense only to go back when it wasn't going in their favor. Enforcing might help with some of the spam that is related to betting.

My thought process is that people who want to make ban bets already have a long history of bans and probably have nothing to lose because they may just end up getting banned for a real reason anyway. Normally, I think ban bets a ridiculous and really a terrible kind of bet and a waste of the mods time. You can literally just leave the site for a certain period of time. People who take the bet may even plan that out. A ban bet only satisfies the notion of making the other suffer, not show a sign that he was wrong like having sig control.

However, considering the thought process I just mentioned, go nuts. I noticed a scenario not to long ago where someone was making wild claims and that person refused to address more than several comments that clearly disproved his comment, and only aimed from the ones that could be up for preferable debate. In that person in that scenario made a ban bet and lost, then yeah enforce because chances are they may try to weasel out of it.

I was actually kind of a loud mouth to a couple mods about banning a user after they lost a bet. (I wasn't involved in the bet but I like being a tattletale I guess.)

I wasn't too surprised it didn't end up happening, and even though the point of a bet is to comply a ridiculous request, I can see why a ban is much.

I dunno, if both parties completely agreed to comply, then they might as well, but if not, the winning party is able to poke fin of them.

I guess the main problem with this whole scenario is that a middle man (mod) is required for the request to be complied.

Maybe it should be a two-strike rule. The first time, it can slide, but if they do another one it'll be binding. I don't know if that makes things too complicated, though.

I... I was going to try to clarify after reading the first sentence, but after reading the rest and knowing what I know about those 2, 100% beleive it and I am very happy I wasn't around for that. You're right, that is true suffering.

Actually, never mind. I don't think that there should ban such thing as ban bets. Just ignore them, unless they do something that actually warrants a ban.