Annointing New Top Poster On SMP

[PairTheBoard]

Is he a Brownshirt or aspiring SS member of the Sklansky Youth?

PairTheBoard

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he a Brownshirt or aspiring SS member of the Sklansky Youth?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong on both counts - He is a Blackshirt

Blackshirts

Good thing I take this forum no more seriously than a P.G. Wodehouse story.

-Zeno

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is he a Brownshirt or aspiring SS member of the Sklansky Youth?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong on both counts - He is a Blackshirt

Blackshirts

Good thing I take this forum no more seriously than a P.G. Wodehouse story.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

The name Cowley doesn't sound Italian to me.

[scorcher863]

I enjoy reading vhawk, madnak, and nielso's posts.
Oh and onesandzeros lol

[RJT]

Pretty daring, David, to anoint a poster who doesn’t frequent the “God” threads. You know the God threads are your bread and butter for number of hits.

(Actually, it might be a wise idea - build up your numbers via the drier math threads. God stuff sells itself, like the National Enquirer.)

[TomCowley]

I berated people who, despite clarification, insisted on answering a question I wasn't asking. Anyway, I offered to prop bet the people involved any amount they wanted laying 11:10 (if the non-LT side scored more, they got paid 11:10), money held by a trusted 3rd party, and they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Clarified that situation pretty fast, since if they believed the trade was even neutral for the team, they would have jumped on the free money. If I'd simply made a poll in SE for that prop bet, I would have avoided all the idiocy. Stupid me for thinking people would understand the two questions were roughly equivalent and answer consistently.

As for this forum, um.. neat! I'm not quite sure what I specifically did to get anointed, since there are some consistently good posters who articulate intelligent views well, but I'll take it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I berated people who, despite clarification, insisted on answering a question I wasn't asking. Anyway, I offered to prop bet the people involved any amount they wanted laying 11:10 (if the non-LT side scored more, they got paid 11:10), money held by a trusted 3rd party, and they wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Clarified that situation pretty fast, since if they believed the trade was even neutral for the team, they would have jumped on the free money. If I'd simply made a poll in SE for that prop bet, I would have avoided all the idiocy. Stupid me for thinking people would understand the two questions were roughly equivalent and answer consistently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem in that thread is that in most leagues "collusion" is understood to be an intentional act of cheating. Your league disallows all uneven trades (which, imo, is strange). You should have just asked "is this close" or whatever rather than "is this collusion," since collusion implies things were done in bad faith, and so it's a different question than what it actually seems like you're asking.

I agree with you though that people didn't really get that your league had different rules, and weren't addressing your actual concern after you clarified. I just think calling it "collusion" made the whole thing confusing, if all you really meant was that you thought the trade was uneven.