# Bricker's betting gambit **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 4, 2013, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992 "2013-09-04T13:41:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/141 "2013-09-05T17:02:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I apologize for being dense, but I don’t understand this. She can call my wagering disgusting classist, because it’s the subject of the thread, but other posts (which are also related to the subject of the thread) cannot be called plaintive, because they’re about other people and not me? > > So… the effect of this ruling would appear to be that shots taken at me or my practice of wagering are fine, but return shots taken by me are off-limits. You originally used the word to describe a hypothetical leftist economist. It wasn’t a defense of yourself or betting. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/142 "2013-09-05T17:04:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Who said this(besides **Shodan** )? I’m sure if one were to cull DerTrihs’s posting history… well, let’s just say I wouldn’t bet against it. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/143 "2013-09-05T17:09:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > IMHO, now – there’s a forum for you! You can say what you please, and if asked to defend it, can simply respond, “Hey, it’s my opinion!” > > What you want is GD to migrate into IMHO. > > I, obviously, oppose such a move. Thanks for the condescension, but no thanks. **Bryan Ekers** got it in one: > [@](#): > > You can define the outcome of a refused wager as lack of confidence, if you choose, but that’s affirming the consequent as I described earlier. So did \*\*Half Man Half Wit \*\*: > [@](#): > > You can use arguments to force people to examine their claims, just like anybody else. Of course, that won’t necessarily have the same effect, and even if people do change their minds, you won’t get any badge of honor (other than perhaps persuading other people participating in the discussion); but the thing is, what you can’t do is implicitly questioning their honesty by forcing them into an inherently inferior position. The inference ‘does not want to put his money where his mouth is’ -\> ‘does not truly believe his opinion’ is simply fallacious, but putting this out in the open like that invites other people to draw it. It’s an attack on the person, not on the opinion, or arguments offered. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/144 "2013-09-05T17:11:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m sure if one were to cull DerTrihs’s posting history… well, let’s just say I wouldn’t bet against it. And would you also bet that, if he said it, nobody labeled it as disruptive? I don’t think he gets a free pass on his statements most of the time, so I don’t see how it pertains to this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/145 "2013-09-05T17:25:57Z")
Idea for new forum: **DTB** Only Der Trihs and Bricker can post. Open to all for side bets or for comic relief. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/146 "2013-09-05T17:28:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And would you also bet that, if he said it, nobody labeled it as disruptive? You’re missing the point. Even if it were disruptive, no mod action will ensue. “One hijack per thread, with no consequence beyond that no matter how many times it happens” is the rule. I would ask that this rule be applied to **Bricker** ’s bets. > [@](#): > > I don’t think he gets a free pass on his statements most of the time, so I don’t see how it pertains to this conversation. It’s not really a question of what you think. The mods have made clear that the poster of whose hate speech I have given an example, can repeat this kind of behavior as often as he likes, provided he does so only once per thread. It’s inflammatory, it’s disruptive, it insults, but not enough to warrant anything beyond a Mod Note. No escalation, IOW, and no incentive to cease the behavior. Well and good. People are claiming that **Bricker** offering to bet is inflammatory and disruptive and insulting. Maybe it is. More than accusations of mass murder? Hardly. Less? Obviously - and therefore should not be dealt with any more strictly - less, if proportion is desired. So, simply apply the existing rule (‘one disruptive, inflammatory post per thread, as long as you knock it off until the next thread’) to **Bricker** ’s wagering. That’s fair. Or else make the case that wagers are more disruptive, and therefore cannot be passed over with a nod and a wink. Like accusing people of mass murder. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/147 "2013-09-05T17:30:08Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > Thanks for the condescension, but no thanks. **Bryan Ekers** got it in one: Yay, validation! Personally, I think _lack_ of validation (with accompanying ridicule or indifference) should be the “consequence” of making claims that turn out to be false or exaggerated. This betting thing is just a variation on a red-faced response of “Oh, yeah? Oh, _yeah?_” in lieu of counter-argument or the will to just shrug and walk away. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > And would you also bet that, if he said it, nobody labeled it as disruptive? I don’t think he gets a free pass on his statements most of the time, so I don’t see how it pertains to this conversation. Well, Trihs has been pitted often enough, so I guess there are people willing to complain about him, and it wouldn’t shock me if someone had once used “disruptive” as a descriptor, but I don’t think he (or Bricker, for that matter) is actually objectively disruptive. Somebody who flooded the board with off-topic commentary or tried a denial-of-service attack… that would be disruptive. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/148 "2013-09-05T17:30:15Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You originally used the word to describe a hypothetical leftist economist. It wasn’t a defense of yourself or betting. Ahhh! Then, point well taken, and I apologize for my denseness. Gratuitous swipes at imaginary economists are indeed out of bounds. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/149 "2013-09-05T17:39:42Z")
I’ll take your bets, **Bricker**. Your slick flim-flammery doesn’t scare me. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/150 "2013-09-05T17:54:54Z")
We cannot have a free form casual debate forum! We must have clear winners and losers! “Two men enter! One man leaves!” It’s **Brickerdome**! I’d be up for that! I’d also like to point out that this victory that Bricker keeps crowing about - the one for which he has a bullet point list of scorn and derision he has been saving? It had to do with the effect of Virginia allowing concealed carry of firearms in bars. Anyway, his evidence of victory was a local newspaper article conducted six months after the law went into effect. Color me convinced! That’s as comprehensive an empirical examination as you’ll ever see! I keep trying to find actual data on the rate of firerms incidents in bars in Virginia over a relevant time period, but I cannot. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/151 "2013-09-05T18:01:52Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > …I have labeled this tactic as an attempted coup d’état to try to forcefully remake the culture of the Great Debates forum. It’s fine if Bricker would wish for a debate forum in which “weak” arguments are banned or heavily discouraged or if anyone expressing an opinion were required to back it up with money, but that’s really not what a lot of participants in Great Debates seem to be interested in. > > In [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=700990), Marley gave Bricker a warning for playing his betting card with insults, but stated that the betting gambit itself is not against the rules. I\*\* would like to put forward the proposition that this tactic is inherently belittling and humiliating and it perhaps should be against the rules to try to strong-arm participants in Great Debates using this tactic\*\*. (Shortened and boldened for clarity) I assume you’re sitting down because you don’t have a leg to stand on. A “coup d’état”? Really? The forum is basically a “run what ya brung” situation and you make it sound like you didn’t or couldn’t bring much to counter the point being made. How does one member actually “strongarm” another member of an internet talk forum? If you somehow feel belittled or humiliated, I can only suggest that you search yourself for the reason(s) you allowed yourself to feel belittled or humiliated. Personally, I would hitch up my big boy pants and carry on. I bet you can do it if you try. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/152 "2013-09-05T18:08:35Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I’d also like to point out that this victory that Bricker keeps crowing about - the one for which he has a bullet point list of scorn and derision he has been saving? It had to do with the effect of Virginia allowing concealed carry of firearms in bars. You just lost in Brickerdome. That claim is absolutely untrue. Each and every quote on that list came from the threads discussing the lack of any change to domestic violence prosecutions following the adoption of the same-sex marriage amendment in Virginia. But don’t worry. Your position is the liberal one. No one will criticize you for saying something blatantly and provably untrue. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/153 "2013-09-05T18:08:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Thought experiment: Sylvia Browne, John Edwards. Well? See, this is the disconnect, and it’s interesting that you didn’t respond to my earlier post along the same lines. I mentioned earlier that there are issues–e.g., the constitutionality of voter ID laws–on which legal experts in good faith could disagree, and that that’s worth keeping in mind in threads on these subjects. I’ve made that point before. I dislike it when anyone approaches these contentious subjects with an attitude of “I’m right, and if you can’t see that, you’re a moron or a liar.” When a subject is before the Supreme Court, it’s almost a matter of definition that there are two opposing, legally defensible views on the subject, and so it’s a fair matter of debate. (Some rare issues, like SSM, come up because there’s so much tradition on one side, and so I provisionally make an exception for these issues, but I’m not happy doing so). Sylvia Browne’s predictions are not in this category. They’re some ugly nonsense, and there aren’t two legitimate, defensible takes on them. If you limit your bets to situations in which one side is so contemptibly stupid that no self-respecting legal scholar could possibly take it on, then you’re probably better not making the bets in Great Debates, but whatever. But if it’s a situation in which intelligent, good-faith people can legitimately disagree, I don’t think the bets help anything. Do you see the difference? Edit: I also want to add that, while you’ve certainly got an advantage in legal discussions given your training, a layperson’s board like this one necessarily allows laypeople to offer opinions that are informed, if less-informed than yours. We’re allowed to rely somewhat on other legal scholars we can cite. If we are going to limit legal discussions to attorneys, on the other hand, then I’m gonna make everyone else shut up about education policy :). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/154 "2013-09-05T18:09:49Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I’ll take your bets, **Bricker**. Your slick flim-flammery doesn’t scare me. Great. Wanna bet on Hentor’s accuracy in his claim above? I’m offering 50:1. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/155 "2013-09-05T18:10:12Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > How does one member actually “strongarm” another member of an internet talk forum? By insisting. (joke stolen from a _M_A_S_H\* episode) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/156 "2013-09-05T18:10:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > you make it sound like you didn’t or couldn’t bring much to counter the point being made. So you’re just going to assume that it’s because Bricker has challenged me personally to accept a wager. ---
**Author:** ![Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tastes_of_chocolate/32/3232_2.png) [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tastes_of_Chocolate)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/157 "2013-09-05T18:16:37Z")
I rarely post in GD, but I do read there quite a bit. Sorry **Bricker** , but you’re coming off like a grade school kid who screams at the top of his voice “I TOLD YOU SO. I TOLD YOU SO” because he needs validation of his correctness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/158 "2013-09-05T18:19:45Z")
> [@Tastes\_of\_Chocolate](#): > > I rarely post in GD, but I do read there quite a bit. Sorry **Bricker** , but you’re coming off like a grade school kid who screams at the top of his voice “I TOLD YOU SO. I TOLD YOU SO” because he needs validation of his correctness. And without doing that, the inaccurate information stands. If this place is about fighting ignorance, then the trump card should always be, “I was right.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/159 "2013-09-05T18:20:33Z")
This imbalance problem that **Bricker** thinks betting is a solution for-does it actually exist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992/160 "2013-09-05T18:23:02Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This imbalance problem that **Bricker** thinks betting is a solution for-does it actually exist? Yes. > [@CannyDan](#): > > We do outnumber you, and our ‘culture’ may indeed impinge upon conservative sensibilities, but that’s just how SDMB rolls. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brickers-betting-gambit/667992.md?page=9)