Bricker's betting gambit

[Shodan]

@Marley23

Yes, it’s a joke. And it’s a joke about an unrelated issue, so that hijack is over with.

FWIW, it was not a joke.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

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.)

Do you want to know how well this betting idea of yours will work, and how it will change what people think of you?

Read this thread.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Do you want to know how well this betting idea of yours will work, and how it will change what people think of you?

Read this thread.

Your touching concern for my public image is much appreciated.

Unfortunately, I feel I am in a better position to manage my arguments than you. So I will decline your kind invitation for me to modify my behavior in order to help liberals win arguments and thus become more popular on the SDMB. Although I have no real doubts that it would work.

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Your touching concern for my public image is much appreciated.

Unfortunately, I feel I am in a better position to manage my arguments than you. So I will decline your kind invitation for me to modify my behavior in order to help liberals win arguments and thus become more popular on the SDMB. Although I have no real doubts that it would work.

Is that what you got out of my post? How about a counter proposal. Instead of all this betting hoopla, why don’t we just add a gold star to your signature every time you are right?

[Rachellelogram]

Wanna bet I won’t totally eat this sandwich?

No? What are you, scared?

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

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.

And what does it do if they decline to enter into a wager in the first place?

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

Is that what you got out of my post? How about a counter proposal. Instead of all this betting hoopla, why don’t we just add a gold star to your signature every time you are right?

I am not persuaded you have my best interests at heart.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Frank

It’s not new. I recall making a bet with him on the 2004 elections. (And losing.)

Honestly, I think I may have started it way back when. I ended up on the wrong end of a Bush-Kerry bet made way early (in fact, it may have been Field v. Bush in the 2004 elections). In DC it’s easy to get some action on the outcome of races.

[Bricker]

@Rachellelogram

Wanna bet I won’t totally eat this sandwich?

No? What are you, scared?

No. But I believe you’d eat the sandwich.

See how this works? It’s so easy!

[Bricker]

@Acsenray

And what does it do if they decline to enter into a wager in the first place?

I have no way to force anyone into anything.

[Acsenray]

@Bricker

I have no way to force anyone into anything.

And thus …

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

I am not persuaded you have my best interests at heart.

My best interest in this case is with this message board, so that’s why object to your silly betting hijacks. I could care less about your imaginary unleveled playing field.

[John_Mace]

@moriah

Is the poor forum user forever going to have to bow out of debates because they can’t put up the ante to debate?

No. So, now that that strawman is out of the way…

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.

Not necessarily. In the case at hand, Bricker accused the person of that, and got a warning. I think the warning should have been for accusations of lying, not insulting a poster, but that’s another matter. A person might put forth a position he doesn’t really believe in not to get a rise out of people (which is what trolling is) but because they simply don’t want to admit they are wrong. Happens all the time around here.

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

My best interest in this case is with this message board, so that’s why object to your silly betting hijacks. I could care less about your imaginary unleveled playing field.

Would you say that in your opinion, this message board works best when it leans left?

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]

Do you want to know how well this betting idea of yours will work, and how it will change what people think of you?

Read this thread.
[/QUOTE]
Other suggestions don’t seem to have worked. “Be the change” doesn’t do it. Pointing out when others are wrong gets a whole lot of whining and resentment from those that are wrong.

It’s odd - Bricker is one of the posters more likely than others to admit when he is mistaken. And still we get this pissing and moaning about the times when he is not mistaken.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Bricker

Would you say that in your opinion, this message board works best when it leans left?

I think it works best when we have a healthy discussion of the issues, and I think your little betting distractions work against that goal.

[John_Mace]

@Czarcasm

I think it works best when we have a healthy discussion of the issues, and I think your little betting distractions work against that goal.

It only works against that goal when other people make a stink about it. If you don’t want to bet, simply decline and move on. If Bricker makes a big deal about it, report him for hijacking the thread. If he stops, problem solved. If he persists, he gets banned.

Whining is not going to do anything, especially with Bricker. You can bet on that!

[Shodan]

@Czarcasm

I think it works best when we have a healthy discussion of the issues, and I think your little betting distractions work against that goal.

Don’t you agree that part of a healthy discussion includes finding out definitively that a given position is right or wrong (when that is possible)? That’s a good way of determining, not merely who won the argument, but who should have won.

And a bet is one way to raise the probability that an issue is clearly settled, one way or another.

Bricker is such a meanie - he doesn’t let the Left get away with its hypocrisy, he won’t let them look the other way when he is right, he won’t let them ignore it when the real world refutes them.

Boo hoo.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

I think it works best when we have a healthy discussion of the issues, and I think your little betting distractions work against that goal.

I also think it works best when we have a healthy discussion of the issues, and discussing possible wagers on the outcomes is an excellent way to assist in the health of the discussion.

[Karrius]

Bricker and Shodan, if you feel that liberals specifically aren’t allowed to get away with wrong predictions, and allow each other to get away with being blatantly wrong, how the hell do you explain adaher?