My only comment on the subject:
It’s your thing, do what you wanna do
I can’t tell you, who to sock it to
Although I appreciate dark and gallows humor, I limit my involvement with it to fictional characters or fictional situations, unless it’s a scenario of bad things happening to bad people, then all bets are off (or on in this case). The reason I don’t engage in gallows humor online that involve real, good people is because I’d be afraid the victim or their family may stumble upon it, causing them distress.
I don’t particularly enjoy celebrity death-pool type threads because I’m empathetic toward their family’s loss, and I’m often saddened with the loss of certain celebrities. But, I don’t fault anyone for engaging in gallows humor so long as good people aren’t hurt by it.
Participants in my Senate thread @Kolak_of_Twilo and @JKellyMap have summed it up pretty well, but I’ll add my two cents.
My thread isn’t humor, gallows or otherwise.
And my thread isn’t gambling.
Elections are serious and predicting the outcomes of elections in the Politics & Elections forum is one of the main purposes of this forum.
My thread, and other threads I have made like it in the past, gives us a framework to quantify the predictive ability of the thread participants at predicting election outcomes. Serious outcomes. Life or death outcomes.
It’s worth knowing which posters have an accurate view of the political landscape and which don’t because of the seriousness of elections not in spite of it.
Additionally, post election discussion of how successful participants informed their decisions is valuable too. What sources did they read? What pundits do they listen to? These sources of information present an accurate picture of the world.
Finally, people who perform poorly, in an ideal world, would maybe think twice about the sources of information they rely on.
The whole point of the entire exercise is to better understand elections not to make light of them.
And the reason why I want to better understand elections is precisely because they are grave matters.
Then why did you frame it as a “confidence pool contest”? That is what I am identifying as an objectionable trivialization of a grave matter. Why did you define rules for “winning” and “losing”?
Because that is an accurate description.
Because framing it as a contest does not trivialize it, and the idea that it does is, frankly, stupid.
That’s not the only stupidity going on here, either.
In my view that’s exactly what it does. It makes it into a game, which is almost as close as you can get to a synonym for “trivialize.”
It absolutely is not.
Look, you ask, “Why do Dopers start contests regarding grave matters?” and singled me out in doing so.
I answered why.
I’m using a contest to better understand this particular grave matter precisely because it is a grave matter.
You are not required to like it.
Question asked and answered. Now fuck off.
Just contradicting me isn’t going to change my mind. Can you offer an argument how it isn’t?
What if we all posted chances that someone important to you would betray you? Or that your loved ones would suffer horrible injuries or illnesses? Or that you would lose your ability to afford your food, clothing, and shelter? And we made rules about what would constitute winning or losing? You wouldn’t think we were trivializing your possible misfortunes by making a game out of it?
You have made it clear that, at least on this issue, your mind isn’t worth changing.
And to echo Lance_Turbo, fuck off.
The irony! It burns!
Fucking tiresome.
I bet you $10 it could
Just asserting it isn’t going to convince anyone. I’m with pretty much everyone else on this thread who says that the game/contest/betting aspect doesn’t trivialize anything. We understand your argument, but think it’s poorly conceived (and IMO internally inconsistent).
And we’re not even touching on the fact that many people are hoping the outcome of the election is different than your desired outcome. Some of them post here. Even if the intent were a true contest not only wouldn’t it trivialize the election it would be a valid thread it its own right.
Can you offer an argument for how it is?
Is it your position that making something into a game is always a form of trivialization?
~Max
Everything I’ve posted in this thread is such an argument, including the numerous analogies I have posted, which few who disagree with me seems to want to consider. I’m satisfied that I’ve more than satisfied any burden of to present my argument.
To be honest, because your profile is hidden I can’t click on your name to filter just your posts. Also we don’t have threaded mode any more. So it’s a lot harder to pay attention to what you have written.
~Max
Then why are elections themselves so frequently referred to as “contests” in the news and elsewhere?
Elections are games. They have strategy, they have winners and losers, and so on. That they have consequential outcomes does not mean they are not games.