Then I’m still confused. My behavior can be called “nauseatingly classist,” but in reply to this characterization, I cannot invoke any partisan commentary?
That seems a bit uneven to me.
Not to point out the obvious, but you have no right to even treatment, here.
Neither a gain nor a loss was in play. Instead, the claim was:
This claim was adopted by other posters.
Wasn’t about a statistic. It was about whether the new provision would have the legal effect of making it impossible to prosecute domestic violence “…unless you’re married or related to a person.”
Good idea. I thought of it:
I’m happy with the results.
I’d propose something simple. If one poster wants to ask another poster to bet on a particular prediction, fine. If the person declines, then the proposer (and anyone else) isn’t allowed to comment on it (since it’s a hijack). If the person accepts, they can either accept basic terms offered (I’ll bet you 5 bucks Bill doesn’t win - OK, you’re on) or, if there needs to be some discussion of the terms, it needs to be taken to either PMs or another thread in MPSIMS or whatever (to prevent hijacking the thread in question).
Either way, there should be no discussion of the concept of betting itself or lengthy discussion of terms to get in the way of the thread in question. And if no one responds to the offer of a bet, it must be accepted as a tacit rejection and is also not up for conversation within the thread itself. If someone wants to discuss the non-acceptance of a bet, it should be in its own thread, not hijacking the conversation at hand.
I’d propose something simpler: nope.
Upon reading the thread, I’m a bit confused. I don’t see any predictions offered by Bridget. Betting aside, this seems to be another legalistic threadshit where there’s a deliberate conflation of the way the law will be decided and the way the law ought to be decided. Note that noting the way the Justice Department feels about it is not predicting how it will be decided in court.
Yes, it’s entirely possible that this is what’s going on. This wouldn’t be the first time that I’ve been frustrated when Bricker took a discussion about what ought to be true and tried to twist it into a discussion on what the law currently is or what the definition of a particular word is.
And in that Texas/V.R.A. thread right now Bricker has claimed that people who oppose the Texas law are somehow seeking to be dictators and overrule the democratic system. So, maybe this betting thing is part of a larger set of problems.
What do you take her statement here to mean?
Perhaps a betting thread could be established in the Games forum. That’s where all the other forum games go, right?
We could have all the side bets there. It would be like the betting books held in gentlemen’s clubs of old. “Mr. Carlysle bets ten pounds that he can beat Lord Randalt at whist, three nights running.” That sort of thing. That way all the action is one place for future reference. We could have said bets going (Mr. Stevenings bets Mr. Carlysle will lose his next three bets in a row.) If someone wanted to start offering odds it would be easier to keep track.
Instead of interrupting a discussion, the bets would be handled with a simple request to take it to the betting book thread.
I broadly support the concept of friendly wagers, as they fight ignorance. Personally, I would likely turn one down if Bricker offered one to me, because of the difficulties of online bets involving pseudo-anonymous posters. I have entertained hypothetical betting negotiations with Bricker.
I think Bricker has a point with the politics, but I advise him to shy away from it or take it to another thread, as fighting ignorance is the key consideration here. Not whining. I confess I don’t follow Marley’s last moderation post.
Valid point. Indeed, negotiating the specifics is part of the ignorance-fighting goal. But it can be solved by taking the betting particulars to another thread after a certain point, perhaps in marketplace. Once negotiations are complete or at an impasse, a report can be made back in the original thread. If the 2 posters can’t agree on a characterization of negotiations, they may link back to their preferred description in the marketplace thread.
I would also recommend a prediction track record thread and a betting track record thread. Or maybe a website.
The above is expressed briefly: I can elaborate.
ETA: Ah, the games forum. That might be a better location than marketplace.
Taking it elsewhere, like the Game Forum? Great Idea! Despite his paranoid fantasies about me wanting him to lose arguments because he is conservative, all I really wanted was for the hijacking to stop.
I’m honestly baffled that you’re interpreting Bricker’s posts in this thread that way.
Once again, I cannot respond to this post without breaching the moderation instructions provided above.
Yet this doesn’t seem to constrain anyone else.
And again: this seems unfair to me.
It seems entirely straightforward: she seems to be suggesting that legal experts of good faith can differ on the constitutionality of the law, and that the folks arguing against the law’s constitutionality aren’t arguing an inarguable position. What do YOU take her statement to mean?
I went back and looked in that thread, in which you seem to think that other people suggest that the amendment will “will destroy domestic violence protections for unmarried couples.” The only person I could find who consistently defended anything like this position said:
You responded eventually with:
And this is what you hold up as a great example?
Look: at best, tomorrow when I go to McDonald’s I’m going to have a mediocre meal. At worst, I’m going to get food poisoning from the grill.
If you offer to bet me that I’m not going to get food poisoning, of course I’ll reject your offer: I’m not remotely certain that the worst-case scenario will happen, any more than SteveMB was. That doesn’t mean I think the worst-case scenario is impossible; it just means I have no confidence in it.
That’s a lousy bet, and you proved nothing by it. If you’re happy with the outcome, then sure, by all means continue; but that happiness is entirely in your head, and you could equally choose to be made happy by looking at pictures of puppies. It certainly does nothing to improve the quality of debates; on the contrary, by misinterpreting something a person says, creating a stupid bet off of it, and then continuing to talk about the dumb and ignored bet offer seven years later, I think there’s an excellent case that it diminishes the board’s ability to fight ignorance.
Challenging someone to a wager based on a prediction of the future is more a game than a legitimate tool of rhetoric. So long as the had content is nothing more than a link to the GR thread, “click here for betting challenge in Game Room,” then that might work for me.
There is after all no tradition in debate that requires participants to stake anything, so it really doesn’t belong in GD.
Unless you’re into trial by combat. Which I totally support.
This is what I hold up as a great example:
That’s a clear and unambiguous prediction. And it clearly and unambiguously has not come to pass – not even the “at best” part. And it was “established fact,” according to him, too.
In your McDonald’s example, you used “mediocre meal” as one end of the spectrum. But that DOES happen, routinely. See the difference?
I can’t judge whether Bricker has used the betting tool in a skillful and constructive manner while fighting ignorance. I’m going to need an example where his comments represent a hijack though. Do you agree that some betting discussion belongs in the core thread, while the details should be worked out in another forum?
I might add that there might be a standard GD or pit thread where (to put it provocatively) we can discuss whether people who make expansive statements but won’t back up their words with material consequence are blowhards. Seriously, I’m not accusing anybody in particular of this. I’m just arguing that betting can focus minds in a helpful way. Now to the extent that Bricker confuses normative and positive or layman constitutional interpretation with a description of legal practice, the betting tool may be misapplied. But I still insist upon its potential utility.
ETA: We could title the Game Room/Marketplace thread: “Betting fork:Poster A vs Poster B on Issue C”.
The earlier assertion, Bricker, that you had “happily” taken $2 bets - I found that fascinating. Because I saw the interplay between you and Bryan in the Wisconsin thread. And I believe you indicated that the low dollar amount that he offered was indicative of his lack of confidence. So, in your mind, it appears that the bet itself isn’t enough - it has to be sufficiently high to meet your standards. Is this correct?
The bolded part is a false characterization of what SteveMB said in the text you quoted.