I did not say it was a bet. I said that we are treating it as a bet.
Previously, the SDMB has permitted/tolerated/indulged/verb-of-your-choice interactions among individual posters (not organized gaming schemes) that resulted in two purportedly responsible adults making an agreement to exchange money in recognition of the outcome of various elections. Looking at this new case, we decided that two (purported) adults who arranged for a specific financial exchange as the result of a particular action is most nearly analogous to a bet. Since we really do not want to be playing the in loco parentis game, we chose to stay out of this particular situation. (And the bet analogy is not that far off: if the one poster chooses to begin posting prior to the end of the stipulated period, the money reverts to the other poster. It is, effectively, a bet that the one poster cannot resist posting for a minimum of two years. No, it is not exactly a bet, but it involves a number of bet-like conditions.)
We certainly do not want this sort of event to recur, (much less become routine), but we hardly expect it to become a weekly event and we would prefer to treat our members as adult agents of their own destinies. If such odd offers begin to be proferred in all seriousness, we will probably (reluctantly) interfere in some fashion, but we do not expect that to be the case. (We will also refuse to be held to some petty charge of “inconsistency” if we do establish new rules/guidelines to cover similar situations. Permitting one really odd event differs from being faced with a half dozen or a dozen or more copycat events.)
The person making the offer decides, and the person accepting the offer decides, both of whom are adults. Yes, it is in fact perfectly okay to pay off people you disagree with – if you’re willing to live with the reputation of being that sort of person and if you can get them to agree to go away. Why the hell wouldn’t it be okay?
Actually, his rather vehement denunciation of religious beliefs is only a few months old. He did not pick up any warnings for his expressions of those beliefs and i see no reason to begin shutting down open discussion on the SDMB to protect any specific belief or the adherents thereto. If a poster’s arguments are flawed, then hammer that poster for bad arguments. If the poster’s language is in violation of board rules, then that poster will be warned for inappropriate language. There is no reason to shut down any poster merely for believing the wrong thing or even for expressing that belief in a hostile (as opposed to personally offensive) manner.
I actually agree with you here. I’m just saying that prr had preconceived notions about an entire group of people. What’s the word for that?.. :dubious: And that he should have been smacked by the mods long ago. Since he wasn’t, Lib overrode them and did us all a service.
It’s not o.k. with me, personally. Those who desperately need the money are more likely to take it, which gives those that don’t need it a louder voice. Also, I find that people who are willing to buy their way into winning arguments are perfectly willing, or even proud, to “live with the reputation.”
Thank you, for the detailed answer. You have just assured me we are not on a slippery slope. This was really the first clear-cut post to say as much. I thank you for it and drop my complaint against the Mods. I believe the pitting of liberal deserves to continue.
Sorry, I was taking a shortcut and I did misrepresent your position.
Why would someone be banned for being vehemently against people in favor of gay marriage? I have seen no proof of this. I think the “equality for blacks” for blacks one stands up however.
I really really like you Caridwen, I just thought I should mention that. I am very happy you joined the dope. {This is not flirting, I mean as a fellow doper.}
ETF in a few years the Decider should have plenty of time to help us. I just wish it was sooner.
What happens if Aeschines turns out to be right, and the board is gone by March 26? Does the deal get called off? Does Tris remit the $500 on the spot? Does everyone involved in the deal carry on for the next two years as though nothing had happened?
Please don’t make me read that entire attention-whoring thread just to find out if that eventuality has been addressed…
That’s my point. Maybe gay marriage wasn’t the best example. prr took the position that anyone who allowed themselves to believe in a fictional higher power were idiots, and not to be taken seriously. They were lesser human beings, too dumb to be regarded seriously.
Is Poly dumb? I can’t think of a better example. Surely there are more. But prr still wrote him and all others off as deluded.
I have no problem with atheists. Even if they vigorously defend their position. Hell. I encourage them to. But when they start there defence with “how can a thinking person believe in a myth”*, this crosses a line. A line I think the mods** should have smacked down a while ago.
*not a quote from prr… just the gist I got…
**I’m NOT looking for a war with the mods. I certainly don’t need that. I just think his “absolutes”… should have been… discouraged, early on.
Is it a moot point that it was ok with PRR? That he agreed? I fail to see how all this vehemence against Liberal can possibly be considered fair when PRR not only took the challenge, but repeatedly baited and goaded Liberal to continue.
Again, the analogy with affairs is just too obvious. PRR made his own mind up. He is to blame for making that choice.
What, like the grand total of one person who’s taken such a bargain so far? In that case ISTM that those who don’t need it have the right to a louder voice, because they didn’t take the money. And if a person who needs the money decides to take that money based on need – who are we to tell him or her s/he doesn’t have the right to make that decision? On the one hand, you posit some rash of buy-offs based on need, but on the other you’d apparently prevent those who could benefit monetarily – and who, in your scenario, actually need it – from doing so. And to what end? Just so that they are made to stay here rather than accept what in their judgment they apparently actually do need or want more than posting here – some money.
In any event, you’re positing some slippery slope worst case scenario that ain’t never going to happen. IMO, that hypothetical scenario does not justify either adding to the mods babysitting duties or overriding the judgment of consenting adults about how they should or can handle their own personal affairs.
What Exit, I appreciate you trying to stop it from happening, and for protesting it. I agree that it’s terrible, though some of the posts in this thread have convinced me that it’s not the travesty I originally thought.
One of lib’s friends needs to privately tell him to cool off. He’s got his good points and his bad points, but his bad points have been really shining through lately and he apparently will ignore friendly criticism except from someone whose opinion he values. I try to forgive people for a lot unless they’re total jerks but he’s really sliding down on my scale of jerkitude (Apparently it’s the kind of scale where the lower you go the more of something you are).
I’m one of the one’s who wouldn’t take $500 to leave. I have pretty much the same perspective on it as Miller.
I understand **PRR ** pissed off a lot of people. I get it. Maybe the tied and true method of trying to goad him into a meltdown could have worked. But as long as he was mainly pissing people of with his views in GD and the Pits, he should have been tolerated. **PRR ** is gone because he wanted to be gone. $500 made his mind up. Do not worry anymore about him. He is really gone.
You have been here longer than me, you know being unpopular does not get warnings. Why should it have in this case?
How is that dishonest ? I just said I’d take the money and not leave; if I now took the money and left, that would be dishonest. Under what definition is doing what I said I’d do dishonest ?
Oh, and calling me dishonest doesn’t sting much, since the usual complaint I get is that I’m too honest.
I think **Tom ** has finally cleared this up. Apparently this will be a one time event or at least nearly one time. So we are both wrong. There is no slippery slope and the mods will add this to their babysitting duties.
If someone made you the offer of X dollars to leave and never come back, you would either have to accept that offer or decline it. If you said, “Yes, I will accept that offer and never come back,” and then you came back, you would be dishonest. If you said, “I will take your money but I won’t promise not to come back,” then you have actually declined the bargain (because you have refused the key condition to it). Under those circumstances, the offeror is obviously not going to give you the money, because you haven’t agreed to do what he was offering to pay you to do – go away and never come back.
Therefore, the only way you could “take the money that was offered up front and then not leave” would be by promising to go and then not going – IOW, by being dishonest.
Well, I get myself peripherally pitted, and get a chance to become an official Straight Dope Fucking Moron at the same time. This must be my fifteen minutes!
My participation in the event is limited to bagman. I take no stand on the ethical, moral, or rhetorical significance of the exercise. I have met both of the principals face to face, and I have no particular reason to deny them the benefit of what they perceive to be trustworthiness. Neither asked me to make a judgment on whether any of this was a good idea.
I suppose the fact that I have a long standing friendship with Liberal is the reason my name was mentioned originally. We will have to just remain in the dark about why PRR found that acceptable.
My understanding of the deal is not two years of absence, but permanent absence with full payment given after two years. I have no part of anything that happens after that.
A few side points: PRR gets his money even if Lib dies. I’ve been here since 99, so go figure the chances that I am going anywhere. If I get myself banned and can’t search, I will email someone for help, and still pay the money.
Now, really, if you cannot see the Doperishly Sublime Humor in this, you haven’t been paying attention.
Hey, by the way, did Manhatten ever get his money? How did the Mellen Lawsuit turn out?
Ok, so in the great legend I end up being a spear carrier. But when I am old and feeble, and you whippersnappers are asking about the Big Payoff, I can sit back and laugh. I had the fuckin’ money in my hand, man! In my hand!
I just think his “absolutes”… should have been… discouraged, early on.