The situation is confusing and complicated..
@nubcake_MeoW_ since your original agreement has a some conflict between clause, maybe this proposal of FatManTerrais fair enough for you..
I believe my solution is the fairest way. Although I believe I have sufficiently proven that my interpretation of the clause is correct, I am willing to add significant concessions to remain in line with what I believe to be the true spirit of our agreement even though it is at my detriment. This would be my recommendation. If you agree, let us know that this is your final decision and we can consider the matter resolved right away. If you're still unsure, you are welcome to copy DW's decision.
I apologize for the confusing situation.
I strongly object to opening this up to post-facto 'arguements' or 'submissions' from the participants because we've clearly been unable to resolve this ourselves and it will obviously lead to long and likely fruitless debates but more importantly this should not be done because it was specifically excluded in the original terms (clause 6).
I'm not submitting new terms, though. I agree that the original terms should be upheld. There is a disagreement regarding the very meaning of one of the terms, so I believe outlining the correct interpretation of said term with context is in order.
Bear in mind that
you are the one who recorded the public bet terms and saved them, presumably for a situation like this where clarity over a term is necessary. I may have considered this a genuine miscommunication if you weren't begging arbitrators to
not read the comprehensive context behind formation of our terms. This move, to me, shows bad faith and indicates that you are trying to exploit a potential loophole because you thought you might get away with it. The terms are clear; I have outlined why my interpretation is reasonable and I don't feel the need to add more to the discussion.
I agree that long-winded debate isn't in anyone's interest here. You have submitted your case for why you believe your interpretation is correct, and I have done the same for my side. This is how the arbitration process has always worked. I think we should let the escrowers come to an arbitration decision. I'm not interested in extending this unnecessary situation & clogging up these threads based on an unreasonable refund request.
(If you agree, I would also like to tip both escrow providers an additional 0.01 BTC each from the bet pool as this service has creeped beyond its expected scope.)