Perhaps we can make a Der Trihs kind of exception. Bricker can make bets even if they lead to a hijack, as long as he doesn’t do it more than once a thread.
Regards,
Shodan
The bet, itself, does not hijack the thread. But silly discussion about the value of making some poster bet does hijack the thread. My suggestion would be to issue a mod note to Bricker not to engage in discussion about the pros and cons of betting in a thread that isn’t about betting. If the behavior continues, then a warning would be warranted.
The comparison hadn’t escaped me, and I almost posed something along those lines.
Bricker is the direct cause of any “silly discussion” hijacking the thread. He won’t drop the subject after people refuse to bet, and even if someone actually agrees to his silliness all the terms of the bet have to be worked out between the two(or more) people involved(and all the others putting in their two cents on the event). All of this distracts from the actual topic of the thread, and I think Bricker is fully aware of that fact.
edited to add: Only allow him to bet once per thread? Is this a joke?
It’s not new. I recall making a bet with him on the 2004 elections. (And losing.)
Yes, it’s a joke. And it’s a joke about an unrelated issue, so that hijack is over with.
An excellent question.
I sit corrected.
In the thread that prompted this thread’s birth, I related the following:
“Be the change,” did not produce meaningful results.
In my estimation, the culture of the board shields a “…specific liberal poster…” from much in the way of criticism for their confident, wrong predictions. The feeling seems to be that while they were wrong, it was acceptable, because it was wrong in the right way. Their heart was in the right place.
A confident conservative prediction is gleefully recalled and held up when wrong.
Betting levels that playing field. It creates a tangible consequence for the confident predictions that are wrong, and causes those predictions to get made with much more attention to actual accuracy.
Betting is nothing but a distraction. The proposal-the acceptance or non-acceptance, the pushing for acceptance if not immediately give, the terms and conditions, the amount, the judging-all of this distracting from the actual topic of the thread.
My advice to you would be to ignore it if it bothers you. And since the bet will presumably involve some aspect of the matter under debate, why wouldn’t you be joyful at the prospect of seeing an eventual ruination of the side claiming that with which you do not agree?
Is that what this is all about to you-ruination of the opposing side? You keep talking about leveling the playing field, but the field is pretty well level when it comes to debating on this message board-everyone has access to the same set of facts. Just because you can’t convince someone of your point of view is no reason to gimmick up the process to make you feel better about yourself. BTW, it’s hard to ignore your betting hijacks because they are very successful at, well, hijacking threads.
I think this is the most salient point against “wannabet?”
With wannabet, you’ve stopped debating the point and started to debate the sincerity of your opponent. Which is a back door accusation of trolling.
And what amount of wager will prove that sincerity? $1? $10? $10,00? Anyone who gleefully takes the bet opens themselves up to criticism for not betting enough.
“Wannabet?” is a tactic for shutting down debate. It’s not even a tactic for deciding the debate.
Is the poor forum user forever going to have to bow out of debates because they can’t put up the ante to debate?
Taking a stand and debating a point one doesn’t believe in is worthwhile in debating forensics and devil’s-advocating and legal representation. But it is not worthwhile if it’s not understood as such. Taking a position on the forums without believing in it and not making that clear is known as trolling.
Whether someone chooses to not take the bet should be considered nothing more than a desire not to bet. I wouldn’t bet the on the fact that the sun was hot. My reluctance isn’t based on my lack of confidence in my position, but a desire not to turn a thread into a carnival side show.
Not remotely. I have been happy to enter into a $2 wager. I’m happy to consider non-monetary terms. The amount, or presence, of money is not the key factor here, much as you attempt to make it so. It’s the concrete admission of error that settling a wager forces the parties into.
No. Or at least, that’s not exactly what’s happening here. No one is advocating a position they don’t wish for, or believe in as a matter of policy. They are instead extrapolating their desires and beliefs about wise public policy into factual predictions about future events. That’s not what’s meant by “trolling.”
Sure, everyone has access to the same set of facts. And that equal access led a poster to predict that Virginia’s passing the same-sex marriage prohibition amendment would gum up domestic violence prosecutions. I said it wouldn’t.
So how did “access to the same set of facts” help that argument? The only way to settle it, since the poster refused to be moved by the detailed refutation I posted at the time, was to wait and see.
And then after the waiting and the seeing, the most common reaction was not, “You were right,” but rather, “Why do you still care?”
How did access to the same set of facts help then?
You were right, huzzah! Is it not enough that you can feel good about that, that you can point out that fact to others if the subject comes up again? Do you not feel satisfaction unless your opponent publicly surrenders at your feet?
Heh. Romney did the “wanna bet?” thing in one of the [Republican primary?] debates, too.
I think, in general, it made him seen out of touch (since he set the wager at several thousand dollars) and a little cocky & pushy, IMO.
Clearly ‘wannabet’ is a veiled accusation of trolling and is itself a serious distraction from the thread. Furthermore, it requires reconfiguring the thread from a discussion into a black versus white prediction. The current example is titled “How does TX requiring State ID violate VRA?” and included first dispositive facts then (being moved to GD) a debate encompassing the possible effects, potential motivations, and guesses of eventual outcomes. Perhaps some of these were intended as actual predictions, but others were clearly wishful or “in my preferred universe” statements. Bricker trying to morph this back-and-forth discussion into concrete forecasts and something that could be settled by a black/white wager with “consequences” for the poster(s) has pretty much completely derailed all other discussion. I cannot stretch my brain around his contention that this somehow improves the quality of debate.
Srsly. And he seems to assume that (because that’s what he wants) surely everyone else must want that, too. That’s what I’m getting from his posts in this thread, anyway.
See – this is precisely the attitude I’m talking about. Before the thing is definitively settled, you’re happy to let the absurd prediction stand – who can know what might happen, after all?
Afterward, it’s a grudging admission. “Yes, you were right – why must you be so pushy about being right?”
One reason is that when it counted, beforehand, you didn’t agree I was right.
When I’m wrong, I’m perfectly willing to acknowledge the error. So while I don’t know about “surrenders,” it’s true that I want a mechanism by which my opponent will be forced to acknowledge the error. (Which, to this day, the poster in the SSM domestic violence thread has never done, and for which he receives absolutely no social consequence; adaher is excoriated for his errors. Why? Because adaher’s errors are being wrong predicting conservative outcomes, a clear evil which must be mocked and vilified.)