You make some really nice points. And you are correct.
I wish we could.
In real life I have made and won and lost many bets; it’s part of the give and take of contact with other people. The bar bet can be a fun game.
There have been so many negative experiences and fistfights regarding bets, making of bets, collecting of bets, refusal to cover bets, etc. so much that cleaning up behind the wreckage of Bets Gone Bad is more than it’s worth.
Like many rules on the SDMB this has happened because we got pushed into it. And I regret that it has come to be like this.
It may actually have been worse than that. I learned a different variant of this in high-school Driver’s Ed: If an underage occupant of a car is caught with his/her girlfriend/boyfriend with shoes off, you can get arrested for statutory rape. The actual rule, as alleged, was that you could be arrested for stat if you are caught without any item of clothing that would normally be worn in the circumstances.
Please. A bet’s a bet, doesn’t matter how it pays out.
That you (eventually) got away with it doesn’t make Chronos’ stated reasoning any less sound. And I say this as someone who is decidedly not a fan of his.
But he also stated a belief that it is allowed if the proceeds go to charity. Taking the post as a whole, and not cherry picking lines, he states a belief that it was within the rules.
And I’ve stated a belief that no-one actually thinks that.
He was attempting to game the system he thought was in place, hence the “If I’m wrong…” disclaimer. That’s not the kind of disclaimer you put if you think you’re right, it’s the kind you put when you think you’re wrong and want to cover your posterior. It’s from the “I’m sorry if you were offended” school of hedging your, you know, bets.
It’s moot since he got away with it, but I still don’t think Chronos was in the wrong to mod the way he did.
In retrospect, I should have included the whole post. I wasn’t trying to pull a fast one, but you’re not the first person to focus on the clause I left out, and my point works fine with it there anyway.
The honest reason I left it out of my post was that I figured that anyone reading this thread would have read the relatively short post it was about, and that I was specifically intending to focus on the parts that disproved Chronos’s characterization of his post as “a clear statement” of anything.
To paraphrase the original post: “I know we’re not allowed to do X, but maybe we’re allowed to do Y? Anyway, if we are, Y, if not, then forget I said it” is not a clear statement of knowing wrongdoing. It’s a muddled mess. The opening clause that’s clear by itself does not add up to clarity when followed by a bunch of qualifiers and statements of ignorance.
Again, it was a mistake on my part to not include the context, but I wasn’t trying to be disingenuous: I thought that anyone participating in the thread would read the original post and I was highlighting the parts that didn’t fit with Chronos’s claim. With the context included, my point still stands. The post as a whole was not a clear statement that UV thought he was breaking the rules.
And I’ve stated a belief that no-one actually thinks that.
Many people do draw that distinction, though. Betting to win money yourself is seen as low-class and vulgar and sinful, but betting with proceeds to charity is something that public intellectuals regularly engage in, because removing the profit motive and making the whole thing “for a good cause” is a way of having the fun of a public statement of disagreement without the stuff that many people find distasteful.
It makes sense for the board rules to treat them the same, but people do actually think that they’re different.
I understand your position about the modding here, but I have to say, I completely disagree with it.
What Chronos should have said was something like:
"Actually, I just looked up the rules, and the only places that betting is explicitly banned is in the Great Debates and Politics and Elections forums, so you didn’t actually break any rules.
Here’s a friendly reminder for the future, though: a pre-emptive disclaimer or apology is never an excuse for breaking the rules, and if betting had actually been banned in the Game Room, you would have received a warning for this post."
It would have had the benefit of both accuracy and equity. Of course, it also would have required the moderator in question to know the damn rules that he’s responsible for enforcing.
If you believe the rule stems from not wanting posters paying each other, then it’s perfectly reasonable. This board is the only place I’ve encountered these third party arrangements, and I thought they were a way around some rule. A bet between two individuals has always meant one pays the other in ever single circumstance I’ve ever witnessed elsewhere. Which is not common among my peers anyway.
And while you don’t have to believe his words, the sentence he wrote is not an acknowledgement that his offer is against a rule. Not in English, at least.
Such a funny phrase, given that he gained nothing and harmed no one with the offer.
