Bricker's betting gambit

[Debaser]

@Marley23

It’s not that hard to see why people don’t like it, actually. Some of them have made valid points and I’d rather not see threads get hijacked by arguments about whether betting is smart or dumb or by negotiations of the details of a bet. It’d be smarter to handle those details by PM. But I said very clearly that the betting thing isn’t against the rules and I also don’t think we need to consign it to another forum. In the post you quoted, Bricker is talking about my instruction that in this forum he keep the partisan commentary in check (when talking about specific posters rather than the general atmosphere).

Yes, I know what your instruction was. I’m joining Bricker in saying that instruction unfairly constrains him just as he called it: A bear in a cage.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

Indeed, organically evolved from the thread topic into a discussion of universal principals via a debate about wagering. Which underscores my point about hijacks.

No, CannyDan, not “via.” Indeed, you and Czarcasm have different objections to the characterization.

The question of universal principles as opposed to normative law is an absolutely organic direction to take; in fact, it’s almost inevitable when I continue to question what authority underlies a demand to erase a law that the courts have upheld and the legislature passed and the governor signed and for which there is strong majority support. “Universal principles” is about the only card left to play.

[Bricker]

@Bone

I am also guessing that if board consensus came down against incorrect predictions equally for both liberal and conservative positions, then Bricker’s desire to have a specific individual unambiguously admit there error would be reduced. In the absence of that, at least the poster that makes the wrong prediction should be held to account - by their own admission of error.

Absolutely. What rankles is this business of addressing an error with some uncomfortable shifting and throat clearing, rather than an ability to simply own up to the error.

But if you have to pay off a bet, you have no choice.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

a demand to erase a law that the courts have upheld and the legislature passed and the governor signed and for which there is strong majority support.

What do you mean by “a demand to erase”? What form does such a demand take? What would be its mechanism?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

Yes, I do. And notice that your skin did not burst into flames. You survived.

I see my acknowledgement was accepted with all the grace of someone committed to counting coup rather than discussion.

I’m offended by this since it implies I have not acknowledged fault in the past. In fact I do, and just did a month ago when I made an incorrect statement regarding Bush’s signing statements. I even explicitly apologized to Bricker, since my error made him waste time searching.

Given this, I’m suspecting that Brickers complaints and characterizations about board culture are the product of selective recall and confirmation bias.

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I see my acknowledgement was accepted with all the grace of someone committed to counting coup rather than discussion.

I’m offended by this since it implies I have not acknowledged fault in the past. In fact I do, and just did a month ago when I made an incorrect statement regarding Bush’s signing statements. I even explicitly apologized to Bricker, since my error made him waste time searching.

Given this, I’m suspecting that Brickers complaints and characterizations about board culture are the product of selective recall and confirmation bias.

My comment was not directed at you, Hentor, but at readers who seem to believe that burning skin awaits them at the first confession of error.

I never intended to suggest that you personally were reluctant to admit error. If I did, I unreservedly apologize.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Bricker

But if you have to pay off a bet, you have no choice.

But of course, for the bet itself, the public challenge to a bet is wholly unnecessary. So what, exactly, is the problem you have with proposing the bet via PM, announcing it only if it comes to pass?

[Bricker]

@Acsenray

What do you mean by “a demand to erase”? What form does such a demand take? What would be its mechanism?

It varies with the thread, and the individual. Some people simply state that the Voter ID laws are unconstitutional, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, as though they can make the laws become unconstitutional by frequently repeating the claim that they are.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Bricker

My comment was not directed at you, Hentor, but at readers who seem to believe that burning skin awaits them at the first confession of error.

I never intended to suggest that you personally were reluctant to admit error. If I did, I unreservedly apologize.

Thank you for saying so; I do appreciate it. I.did mistake your comment to be about me in particular.

[Bricker]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

But of course, for the bet itself, the public challenge to a bet is wholly unnecessary. So what, exactly, is the problem you have with proposing the bet via PM, announcing it only if it comes to pass?

We write – or at least I write – for both the active participants and for the lurking Teeming Millions.

A bet offered and arranged via PM denies the Teeming Millions their chance to say, “I’ll take some of that action!”

[CannyDan]

@Bricker

No, CannyDan, not “via.” Indeed, you and Czarcasm have different objections to the characterization.

The question of universal principles as opposed to normative law is an absolutely organic direction to take; in fact, it’s almost inevitable when I continue to question what authority underlies a demand to erase a law that the courts have upheld and the legislature passed and the governor signed and for which there is strong majority support. “Universal principles” is about the only card left to play.

The discussion might or might not have reached the present point if left to its own devices; I fail to accept the inevitability you ascribe. But in actual fact it got there via a hijack into the world of wagering, and a kick in the pants by a Mod. So we’ll never really know how it might have evolved, will we?

[Bricker]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Thank you for saying so; I do appreciate it. I.did mistake your comment to be about me in particular.

Yours was a fair read. I should have said: And notice, oh ye reluctant, that his skin did not burst into flames. He survived. At least that would have been clearer, if not perfect. Sorry again.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

The discussion might or might not have reached the present point if left to its own devices; I fail to accept the inevitability you ascribe. But in actual fact it got there via a hijack into the world of wagering, and a kick in the pants by a Mod. So we’ll never really know how it might have evolved, will we?

Heh. We can dig up threads of years past which ended up in the same place without either mod of wagering as factors.

[CannyDan]

@Bricker

Heh. We can dig up threads of years past which ended up in the same place without either mod of wagering as factors.

And while suggestive, they will not be proof.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Bricker

We write – or at least I write – for both the active participants and for the lurking Teeming Millions.

A bet offered and arranged via PM denies the Teeming Millions their chance to say, “I’ll take some of that action!”

You could easily keep it open for side bets.

The problem with writing a thing like ‘wannabet’ for the teeming millions is quite simply that it’s a shoddy debate tactic; only if the other person agrees to a bet do the two of you stand on equal ground. For things to proceed fairly, I’d thus expect that matter to be settled beforehand. Anything else looks, frankly, just like a cheap shot.

[Bricker]

@CannyDan

And while suggestive, they will not be proof.

Correct.

So?

[Bricker]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

You could easily keep it open for side bets.

The problem with writing a thing like ‘wannabet’ for the teeming millions is quite simply that it’s a shoddy debate tactic; only if the other person agrees to a bet do the two of you stand on equal ground. For things to proceed fairly, I’d thus expect that matter to be settled beforehand. Anything else looks, frankly, just like a cheap shot.

Then I advise you not to participate. Or maybe go further: share that view in the thread when it happens. “Don’t fall for it, person who’s claiming something utterly wrong! It’s a shoddy debate tactic!”

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

@Bricker

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.”

Even with a bet, the inaccurate information or incorrect prediction, will stand. It’s not like your bet erases previous posts.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Bricker

Then I advise you not to participate. Or maybe go further: share that view in the thread when it happens. “Don’t fall for it, person who’s claiming something utterly wrong! It’s a shoddy debate tactic!”

I’m probably not motivated enough for that; but at any rate, I’m grateful for this thread. At least I hope that somebody will include a link here whenever you propose another bet, such that everybody can form his own opinion. I’m content with that, not needing the validation brought by my opponent repenting at my feet.

[Bricker]

@Tastes_of_Chocolate

Even with a bet, the inaccurate information or incorrect prediction, will stand. It’s not like your bet erases previous posts.

True, but that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s when an inaccurate post stands with no subsequent refutation that problems exist.