Talking Footy

King-Eliagh wrote:

But Xman I'm sure ive seen before that if Parra's claim is not DISPROVEN then the case will end up as a no result?

No, if the claim is disproven the claimant gets a bs point. If neither evidence shows a clear result the claim is undecided.

That's exactly what I was saying. So if beaussie does not provide evidence which shows a clear result then the claim is undecided right?

King-Eliagh wrote:

That's exactly what I was saying. So if beaussie does not provide evidence which shows a clear result then the claim is undecided right?

Not for this claim. Raider needs to prove his claim.

Oh so its different for different claims? Please do tell.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh so its different for different claims? Please do tell.

Beaussies claim has no apparent challenger because raider has declared he is not interested in the bs file after initially challenging. Therefore if both sides let it slide there will be no result. However, If Beaussie wants to earn a B&S point he still needs to win it with proof and not by default.

If Radier wants a B&S point he needs to prove his claim. If he doesn't prove it he earns a BS point because Beaussie is still actively challenging the claim by being active in the thread.

The main difference is Raider will just continue to post BS and ignore the Bs file because he doesn't want to take responsibility for what he says. If he did he would have virtually nothing to say!

Beaussie does want to take responsibility. But because Radier challenged his post and has since declared no interest in pursuing it anyway, why should he lose? I'm giving him a free hit at proving it though for a reward if he wishes. I'm trying to reward effort and encourage use of the BS file.

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Beaussie have to provide evidence to the contrary? Seeing he is the challenger I thought he must put up a challenge. Otherwise its just a dead rubber right?

No, Beaussie has stated he is involved. The onus of proof though is on the claimant not the challenger.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh so its different for different claims? Please do tell.

Xman wrote:

Beaussies claim has no apparent challenger because raider has declared he is not interested in the bs file after initially challenging. Therefore if both sides let it slide there will be no result. However, If Beaussie wants to earn a B&S point he still needs to win it with proof and not by default.

If Radier wants a B&S point he needs to prove his claim. If he doesn't prove it he earns a BS point because Beaussie is still actively challenging the claim by being active in the thread.

Confusing, but anyway I think you've got it right now that I've asked you twice. If you like I'm happy to provide pointers and advice seeing I was an expert adjudicator once upon a time

King-Eliagh wrote:

Xman wrote:

King-Eliagh wrote:

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Beaussie have to provide evidence to the contrary? Seeing he is the challenger I thought he must put up a challenge. Otherwise its just a dead rubber right?

No, Beaussie has stated he is involved. The onus of proof though is on the claimant not the challenger.

King-Eliagh wrote:

Oh so its different for different claims? Please do tell.

Xman wrote:

Beaussies claim has no apparent challenger because raider has declared he is not interested in the bs file after initially challenging. Therefore if both sides let it slide there will be no result. However, If Beaussie wants to earn a B&S point he still needs to win it with proof and not by default.

If Radier wants a B&S point he needs to prove his claim. If he doesn't prove it he earns a BS point because Beaussie is still actively challenging the claim by being active in the thread.

Confusing, but anyway I think you've got it right now that I've asked you twice. If you like I'm happy to provide pointers and advice seeing I was an expert adjudicator once upon a time

I had it right before you asked too.

Well you didnt answer whether it would be a dead rubber so I guess you were misleading in your response. Anyho, my offers still open

NSWAFL wrote:

Note - the ratings Debbie is relying on are full of holes.

Do you want another BS file added to you?

Why would the throng be full of holes when it is NZ's equivalent of our ratings sites?

Dumbarse.

Because Think TV is just as full of holes, and that's the equivalent from what I saw! OzTam has NO equivalent in NZ if there's just that "Throng" bullsh!t.

Dumbarse.

Ohhhhhhhh that was an intelligent comeback.

Reap what you sow.

That's you doing the sowing, bub!

Do they teach that in you HSC class?