Of the next thirty-odd posts in this thread, about a dozen of them are bickering back and forth over the odds, over who trusts who, over the terms of the bet, blah blah blah. And it may well continue once the parties in question wake up.
Now, I know some people believe bets raise the level of discourse, or keep people honest, or whatever. I disagree with them, but whatever.
What I do know is that this sort of bickering is very common whenever the prospect of a bet arises, and it tends to hijack a thread that I’m reading for analysis and information, not for watching people beat their chests with wads of cash.
So, I propose a simple solution: just as we link to the Pit when we feel we have to insult someone personally, people should link to thread games when they feel they have to have a wager. Single post with the link, and that conversation can go elsewhere for folks who are interested in it, leaving the thread free to go on its course.
But maybe a better solution would be for the mods to break up such discussions, as I believe they have in the past. If a bet is offered, take it or leave it, but don’t hijack the thread discussing the nature of betting or what it means if someone won’t take a bet, etc.
If we moved betting to Thread Games, we’d end up politicizing that forum.
If someone offers a bet, etc. we have typically only moderated offers or challenges of betting for hijacks or harassment. If someone declines a bet, that should be enough to put a stop to further requests, and if there are no takers, repeatedly pushing a bet would also not be appropriate.
I did read through the sequence when I awoke and while there was some back and forth on the whole betting thing, it didn’t seem like a hijack at that point. The thread is quite long, but I see it as a bit of current events for political related topics so a bit of conversational back and forth including potential wagering seems in line with that. The normal life rules of buyer beware always apply.
Feel free to report any potential hijacks or harassment.
Fair enough. I find them annoying enough when it’s a one off, but I know that’s not how everyone approaches it.
As a voluntary measure, would bettors consider maybe starting a separate thread for bets and gloats in Elections? That way, people concerned about their track record of win/loss would be able to track it better; and those of us who are irritated by it would see it less. Strikes me as win/win.
I don’t know that I agree with bone’s moderation in that thread.
Firstly, contra the OP’s suggestion, RickJay himself did not say, when challenged on it, that his offer to bet was not a serious betting offer. Rather, he implied that it was a serious offer, but that he objected to betting with Okrahoma specifically, because he didn’t trust him. In that context, Okrahoma offering to have a third party escrow wasn’t harassment; it was just an offer to remove the ostensible reason for declining. ISTM that bone’s moderation presumed that RickJay was just weaseling out of the bet and that his proffered reason was bogus. I tend to agree with that, but I don’t think it’s fair to moderate Okrahoma for taking RickJay at face value.
Secondly, RickJay impugned Okrahoma in asserting that he couldn’t bet because he didn’t trust him. IMO, in such cases, the guy being attacked should have some latitude in being able to show that insult for the snarky CYA excuse that it was, and not the legitimate concern that it purported to be.
I also don’t think much of the OP’s suggestion. The whole point of the betting is to keep people’s assessments of the likelihood of this or that future event - which is itself highly tied to people’s assessment of current situation - legitimate versus partisan hot air. Having bets in separate threads would undermine the entire point. [The OP says he disagrees with this rationale “but whatever”, but the “but whatever” is inappropriate. Because if you do agree with the rationale, then the only way that end is served is by having it in the same thread as part of the same discussion.]
I profoundly disagree that it does any such thing–but the “whatever” means that I don’t want to rehash the issue here. The point is that if the wagers are moved elsewhere, by links, the folks who think that money=speech or whatever can do that, whereas those of us who’d rather evaluate arguments by the evidence and logic put forth, instead of by the wealth of the people making them, can do so without having to read the “I have $100 to spare for a bet on my predictive powers, and I think that means something” posts that clutter up political threads too often.
Putting them in a separate thread might mean people couldn’t crow as successfully about their profits in the same thread, but it’d also make it easier for people to crow about their consistent success at winning bets for anyone who’s interested in said crowing.
You’re reiterating that you disagree with the rationale for having bets, which is fine. But that’s the rationale FWIW. And the relevance here is that this intended purpose is only served by having the bets in the same thread as the assertions which spawn them.
When people say “I disagree with X but whatever …” the implication of the “but whatever” is that the “I disagree with this” part is a side comment and that your main point stands regardless of whether your disagreement with X is correct. That’s not the case here.
Bottom line: you can’t say “let’s not discuss/rehash this rationale here” while simultaneously making a proposal that’s predicated on the rationale being invalid.