The case against fraud and sham commited by member Shade8780

[kNIOKAS]

Since that guy cannot keep his own thread from getting derailed I'm mounting my own defense case here. It's going be a defense case that I am going to launch into counter-offense case, because the evidence is sufficient not to only dismiss his claims as presented here, but to incriminate him of shady (no pun intended, how fitting tho) gambling and forum use pracises.

Shade8780 is a liar, a fraudster and a mobster

I am basing my claim on the International Contract Law, as universally accepted in all the 193 legitimate countries worldwide and official governments of their respective sovereigns.

THE CLAIM #1:
The contract, in this case the bet is valid for an agreed period of time, commencing from the point where the winner of the bet is known as the outcome of the bet is declared official. These are the implicit rules of the betting online, that everybody follows unless agreed otherwise in-writing.

In Shade8780 vs kNIOKAS, the bet was agreed to be an one-month avy trial. Shade8780 came back to kNIOKAS one and a half month later and asked to wear an avatar for another month.

kNIOKAS claims that is his right to not be bond to the outdated bets and be held hostage to Shade8780's will to inflict the avatar at any time of Shade8780's personal choosing. That is not how contracts work.

Analog: If a company A agrees with company B to exchange supplies for a fixed period of time, the deal sets in to start counting from the day it was agreed upon. A company B cannot show up after the time runs out, present its own part of the supplies and require the other party to start exchanging based on the outdated terms. That would be seen as a major violation of the Contract Law and its established precendents.


Chronology:
07-11-2015, 11:54 PM Shade8780 offers an open bet

Will there be streams tonight? I usually don't watch live.

Conor's winning guys. Avy bet on it.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...postcount=6814

07-12-2015, 12:24 AM I accept his offer, bargaining on the time frame:

I take it. What period? 6 months?

I got my 13 euros on Mendes too.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...postcount=6816

07-12-2015, 01:36 AM Shade8780 is seen willing to bet an avy for a month

6 months? Jesus Christ

1 month.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...postcount=6819

07-12-2015, 02:10 AM I accept the 1 month bet:

Ok deal.

they stream all types of events on firstrow, will have to wait until the action time or find something else if you demand higher quality.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...postcount=6822




Relapse
That was the last I heard of him until yesterday, 04:45 PM using slurs and expletive language to swear on me and wanting to claim the 1-month bet deal that was agreed on 12th of July, one and a half month ago (47 days ago to be precise).

You're fvcking hilarious, now go change to the ***** avy bitch.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=38984

I promptly responded Yesterday, 05:36 PM to point out that the deal has already gone past its date as well as there are a few other inaccuracies, and thus for I am ineligible to answer his demands:

A. No pm from you
B. No ava from you
C. The bet was placed 47 days ago. We agreed on a month, didn't we?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=38990

This board member Shade8780 then responded with a fierce PR attack on my and my person and organized an online-mobbing group targeted at making me give in to his illegal demands. I am afraid it did no good as far as them achieving theirs, but serves as an incriminating piece of evidence in this trial. I present the second claim of my side.


CLAIM #2
Shade8780 used social and psychological pressure as well as consipired other members of the community to force kNIOKAS into illegal (see CLAIM #1) interpretation of bet laws and bond him to an outdated deal.

Aggravating circumstances
Exhibit A: Shade8780's goon Alamo resulting to mobbing and intimidation since their fraudulent claim was denied
Yesterday, 10:22 PM

Gonna find kNIOkas' house after I find fake14's house. There's gonna be some violence

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=39054
Then at Yesterday, 10:29 PM, seven minutes later he grasps what he has stated on an online forum and backpeddals:

jk this wasn't a threat

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/new...ply&p=11657406
Yet Alamo's malicious intent is evident on the latter post at Yesterday, 10:32 PM where he insinuates tracking me down to brutually assault and carry out a lynching act no matter the costs and reprecussions of doing it:

Yes. I don't care if it's expensive. You can't put a price on justice.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/new...ply&p=11657413

[GIF REACTION]

Oh boy.

Who got the popcorn?

[SugarHill]

Shade8780's goon Alamo resulting to mobbing and intimidation since their fraudulent claim was denied

[kNIOKAS]

CLAIM #3

A person of unknown identity tried to scam kNIOKAS into using an avatar by claiming he was Shade8780 that kNIOKAS had bet bonds at the time. kNIOKAS did not give in into a shady fraud (again no pun, but you look at it) since the board member Shade8780 was banned from the forum, and could not be using it.

Analog: If Company A makes a deal with Company B, but Company B gets investigated by IRS and has its licence suspended and a monetary bankrupcy declared, Company A has its dealings with Company B suspended by default. A different company, lets call it Company C cannot then enter to the game and claim benefits of the deal from Company A to Company B, because it has nothing to do with Company B. They are two separate judicial entities.

It would be unfair to Company B if/when back in business asking from Company A to pay its dues get an answer "But I paid to Company C".

Therefore, kNIOKAS was right to suspending his dues to the claims of an anonymous user Immortal Nemesis, because he was uncertain of the identity of this person.

Exhibit B Immortal Nemesis claiming he's Shade8780:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=23152

Please pay attention that the namely user did not paste a screenshot off the browser, but edited it under MS Paint software. That takes from the credibility of the screenshot, since it was digitally altered to add scribbled quote:

**** u KNIOKAS

. Who knows what else could have been altered in that image. We for the very least are sure that the evidence was tampered with when edited in MS Paint.

Exhibit C Prominent members of the board being confused of the identity of Immortal Nemesis, thus confirming the shady use of the account:

Wait...let me get this straight...


ImmortalNemesis...

Originally Belonged to YGS
Then Shade
Now RTC?

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=33954

08-09-2015, 06:39 PM Suspect memberm Immortal Nemesis responding in a defensive compromised manner:

i'm not f*cking rtc god dammit people

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=33962

08-09-2015, 06:40 PM RRR3 is still confused about who is writing to him from the other side:

Who are you then

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=33963

08-09-2015, 06:42 PM Suspect answers angrilily in a dissmissive manner, likely infurated by the expore:

im done f*ck you guys

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=33968

08-09-2015, 06:42 PM Suspicion arises even among ranks of OG BTE emmbers:

that's sounds like something rtc would say

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=33967


I think this is sufficient evidence that not only Shade8780 might have been using an alternative account - to his own claims - when actually banned under the Forum rules, therefore bypassing the legal code of the online community, but even if he did, he was not beyond reasonable doubt to be identified as the same member Shade8780, which is then is still not enough for me to cave in to his demands since it would be illegal to use re-transfer practise as illustrated in CLAIM #3 of retransferring dues to another judicial entity so that the original one bypasses the control of IRS.

[kNIOKAS]

when someone says avy bet for a week or avy bet for a month
they usually mean the duration of how long the loser has to wear an avatar of the winners choice

so when you first offered "6 months" you really meant that the winner has 6 months to claim the avatar for the loser? so lets say if shade had agreed to the 6 months..

hypothetically 5 months and 25 days later, shade could have said he wants to claim the avy bet now and then you'd determine the timeframe of how long the loser has to hold the avatar right then? what if shade said you have to wear the new avatar for a year? but you didnt want to... then the bet is void again?

very strange...

No, that is not the point.

The point is Shade8780 cannot hold his won bet to his advantage and make me a hostage of that bond. He cannot come whenever he wants and ask for me to use an ava for the time period agreed on the original bet. His claims are valid only for the time period from the point where the outcome of the bet is known to the extent of the time agreed in the bet.

When I was making a bet I did not assume I would be asked to wear it through mid-August to mid-September. Since the bet was made in early-mid-July, I was expecting it to end by the middle of August.

One cannot come ten years later and ask another party to carry out terms when back in the day they agreed for a month-long dealing. It's not how contracts work.

[kNIOKAS]

you did also say this

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...ostcount=23148

It wasn't to be taken literally.

Again, I do not expect Shade8780 to come five years later and demand me to do his stupid bet because he only then figured out it is a good time. I might have other things to do in life by that time.

why would you say deal without knowing how long you have to hold the avatar for if you lost?

that's like making a bet without knowing the potential of what you are going to lose/win

Because some things are widely conventional, therefore implicit and not stated in the contracts. If we were to make a bet from a scratch don't you know how awful of a task would it be? We'd need to write a whole New Constitution everytime somebody bets an avy or whatnot.

[kNIOKAS]

ok so what did you think you were losing if you lost the bet?

Wow you must have a hard case of everything. Care to read?

I was betting on Shade8780 using an ava for a month of my choosing or vice versa for a month depending on the outcome of UFC 189: Mendes vs McGregor.

[imdaman99]

lol the curious case of an avy bet gone wrong on Insidehoops

[Giaodollo]

tl:dr - ITT: Shade is a next level bitch.

[kNIOKAS]

show me the post where you guys agree to the one month timeframe to claim the bet

and show me the post where you guys agree on that the loser has to wear the avatar for a month of the winners choosing

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...96&postcount=8

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...98&postcount=9

What a headcase. Who hired you? Shade8780?

[Shade8780]

How long, in your mind, were you allowed to have the avy for?

[Shade8780]

no.. im just curious

i just dont think the bet existed in the first place

you guys never agreed on how long a loser has to change his avatar for

cuz it sounds like when you offered 6 months and he replied 1 month, you guys were talking about two different things

He didn't actually mean that originally. He's a bitch who won't own up to the bet and is trying to find a new way to dodge it.

[kNIOKAS]

no.. im just curious

i just dont think the bet existed in the first place

you guys never agreed on how long a loser has to change his avatar for

cuz it sounds like when you offered 6 months and he replied 1 month, you guys were talking about two different things

We were bargaining about the duration of the compulsary avatar-using time under the implicit assumption it starts from the moment the winner is known. Otherwise it would be unfair to the loser that the winner can hold him hostage so to speak and claim his win any time he wants. That is beyond the control of the loser, therefore it is implicit in betting that the duration starts from the moment the winner is known.

I offered him 6 months bet, he countered with 1 month, I accepted.


[COLOR="White"]Although you're a smart dude jayda, I think I could incorporate some of your points...[/COLOR]

[Giaodollo]

Can we just like step out of this argument and realize you three have been putting several hours of discussion regarding why a man didn't choose to have a pen!s as his avatar and then like just forget about it?

[Shade8780]

FU[COLOR="black"]C[/COLOR]K YOU JEFF