The language in the thread title is taken from Ed’s draft rules. I think it’s overbroad, but then I would since I’ve always believed that bets are a tax on bullshit and friendly bets a tool for fighting ignorance.
I accept that POV. I’d like to discuss best methods for narrowing the scope of the title’s proposed rule. For example:
“No onboard bets. If you want to make an off-board bet, knock yourself out.”
That would permit posters to retreat to eg longbets.com, wagerlab, predictit.org, and other ignorance fighting adjacent websites online. It would also give us greater flexibility moving forwards, in case someone invents a terrific friendly betting website.
I concede there are legal issues involved. I welcome other attempts to narrow the scope of the proposed rule in the title.
I think the punchline is that you’re not wanting to bet elsewhere. You can already do that.
You’re wanting a mechanism to solicit bets with, or to issue a challenge in the form of a bet to, other dopers using SDMB as the vehicle of communication. IOW, throw down your gauntlet here and challenge them to a duel over there. I think the challenge itself is the part that TPTB find (or will find) objectionable. A bet is (or can be) a form of personal insult, and doubly so if not accepted.
How about this idea:
You want to bet me abut something, communicate via PM to exchange emails or whatever. But don’t do it like:
Hey @LSLGuy I saw your claim that Hannibal used rhinos to cross the alps. I think you’re full of rhino poop. Wanna bet? Contact me at M4M@example.com to set that up. If I don’t hear from you I’ll think you’re a wimp.
Instead the PM needs to make no mention of betting at all:
Hey @LSLGuy I saw your claim that Hannibal used rhinos to cross the alps. I think that’s wrong. Contact me at M4M@example.com to talk more about this.
And quit right there. What happens over email later is legitimately not TPTBs’ concern, either legally or morally. And If I elect not to respond to your PM at all, or respond but decline to share my email, so be it.
Off board bets wouldn’t be a tax on bullshit though, right? The only way a bet suppresses bullshit is through public shaming. If I refuse your bet, I appear insufficiently confident in my position to everyone else. A private bet can be ignored, and no one is the wiser.
Yes exactly. And I submit that the “public shaming” is exactly the part TPTB object to after any honest concerns they may have about legal trouble in fussy jurisdictions.
We could try to split that baby by some sort of rule that bet challenges are limited to the Pit, where public shaming is already an accepted norm. But then how do you notify the challengee of your challenge without that notification effectively becoming the challenge? I see turtles all the way down there.
Betting is a norm for some people and some cultures. Others not at all. I lived in Vegas for 10 years and did no small amount of gambling there. I’ve certainly played a decent amount of small-stakes poker with the boys at various times of my life when I ran with a suitable crowd. I’m no bluenose.
Conversely, I have issued or responded to a “wanna bet?” challenge probably twice in my adult life. It is simply not part of my personal culture. To me it’s grade-school playground bravado & nothing more. IOW not something to dignify with so much as a reply.
I would be discomfited were someone to make such a challenge here when my reason for declining to participate would be assumed by an audience to be because I was caught BSing when the truth is I simply decline to play a game I utterly disdain. We can resolve the difference of opinion by any other means, including a duel to the death. But bet? Fuggedaboudit.
Resolving this cultural difference would be … problematic … as the kids say.
Late add: I suppose I stumbled on the issue at least for me up there. Dueling is illegal worldwide because it represents a toxic level of honor before sense. Challenge betting is one of the remaining vestiges of dueling in the modern world. Another vestige is the bar fight. Both are socially corrosive in much the same way albeit not to the same degree as was dueling. In an environment explicitly dedicated to inter-cultural civility, dueling and bar-fighting has no place. Betting doesn’t either.
Many years ago now (too far back for me to bother looking) I was warned off betting others on the SDMB. The notion being not all had the same financial resources so if I bet you $100 but you really do not have $100 to spare then I have made you choose financial ruin or backing off your position for no other reason than you cannot afford the bet (or some like @LSLGuy refuse to play no matter what).
There are many times where I think someone is being disingenuous and want them to put their money where their mouth is. Have an actual consequence for playing word games and/or being evasive. But, I get how this is really problematic and not a good idea for this board.
The “tax on bullshit” part, sure. But I don’t see how bets fight ignorance.
Suppose two people present their conflicting (claimed) facts and make their conflicting arguments, but both are ultimately intransigent, holding opposite views on a matter. At that point, how does placing a bet fight ignorance?
The willingness to take a bet of a given size is irrelevant. It’s even weaker than an argument from authority. It demonstrates personal conviction, but for two people with equally strong conviction the size of bet they are willing to make is just a function of how wealthy they are. And a wealthy person with low conviction (a bullshitting troll) can make themselves appear more credible than they really are.
When a bet is settled, we know who was right. But in order for a bet to be settled, we need a definite outcome. And it’s that definite outcome that tells us the truth of the matter, the prior existence of the bet is irrelevant.
You could argue that a private bet accepted then won or lost is a dollar-denominated version of Hemingway’s excellent maxim:
Always do sober what you said you’d do drunk. It’ll teach you to keep your mouth shut.
Upvote for what @Riemann said.
Bets over FQ-type matters don’t fight ignorance. The cites necessary to settle the bets do. For non-FQ matters I don’t see bets as having any relevance at all on the ignorance front.
I suppose the most you might say is that over time, someone who wins most of their bets is more reliable, and someone who loses most of their bets is ignorant or a bullshitter.
But then “I have won most of my past bets so I’m right about this” becomes a pure argument from authority.
[ETA: that wasn’t a response to @Fear_Itself, just an additional comment on the thread topic. Discourse doesn’t differentiate. ]
There was a former poster here who was probably the biggest proponent of betting on politics. I accepted four $100 bets with them, and won three, netting $200, plus an additional $100 to my favorite charity.
Conversely, this poster claimed to have engaged in 14 wagers in total, winning nine.
I was just going on probabilities combined with the House principle*. They claimed that while they lost 75% of their bets with you, they won 80% of their other bets.
I’m willing to bet you have encountered some who play word games or nitpick definitions or dance around the obvious with that one exception or engage in JAQing and so on. (Pretty sure I have done it a few times myself)
Point being, it is easy for people to just ask a question and hard for you to keep providing the level of detail demanded. Providing the level of cites necessary can be a LOT of work and it gets tiring and, often, circular. I think that’s where you (general “you”) want to ask the other person to put-up-or-shut-up.
But at that point we’re simply substituting that other person playing JAQ- or similar games with you (generic you) playing “If you won’t bet me you’re a coward, a liar, or both” games.
And of course the same dishonest quibbling that drove the discussion to the point of the bet challenge will continue at and past the point the bet might settle. Nothing useful has been accomplished. Lucy will keep yanking away the football you’re failing to kick.
I don’t see what is gained by using the challenge “put up or shut up”. In fact, i suspect it is usually the tactic of the bullshitter who had thrown out more crap than anyone wants to bother refuting, piece by piece.