Annointing New Top Poster On SMP - Page 2

ALawPoker · #11 10-28-2007, 02:26 PM

[ 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.

hitch1978 · #12 10-28-2007, 02:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

DON'T BRING IT HERE!! THERE'S PEOPLE HERE!!

ALawPoker · #13 10-28-2007, 03:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

DON'T BRING IT HERE!! THERE'S PEOPLE HERE!!

[/ QUOTE ]

We need some DRAMA here.

Sklansky's newest pick is a disappointment, at least to me, since I read probably way less than half the threads in here and have never really even noticed this poster with 318 total posts. So this thread has to go somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

hitch1978 · #14 10-28-2007, 03:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Sklansky's newest pick is a disappointment, at least to me, since I read probably way less than half the threads in here and have never really even noticed this poster with 318 total posts. So this thread has to go somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you accusing Sklansky and TomCowley of collusion? You are crazy. Just because you don't agree that Sklansky's pick is +ev it doesn't mean he has broken any rules. He might just have seen something you haven't! :P [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Phil153 · #15 10-28-2007, 04:17 PM

Cowley did manage to flame the hell out of PTB's thread while flying under the radar. Very solid poster and I approve of your choice Mr. Sklansky, even though it may be a little premature (funny how that comes with both youth and age...)

David Sklansky · #16 10-28-2007, 04:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Cowley did manage to flame the hell out of PTB's thread while flying under the radar. Very solid poster and I approve of your choice Mr. Sklansky, even though it may be a little premature (funny how that comes with both youth and age...)

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize of course that you could have won the title long ago-if not for that comment to Saura about wrinkly skin.

PairTheBoard · #17 10-28-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Sklansky's newest pick is a disappointment, at least to me, since I read probably way less than half the threads in here and have never really even noticed this poster with 318 total posts. So this thread has to go somewhere. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you accusing Sklansky and TomCowley of collusion? You are crazy. Just because you don't agree that Sklansky's pick is +ev it doesn't mean he has broken any rules. He might just have seen something you haven't! :P [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I've had TomCowley on ignore for some time now due to his abusive language toward me in previous threads. I know of at least one other well respected poster here who he has similiarly abused and who has him on ignore. Taking him off ignore long enough to see what this is all about I see this most recent post by him on my thread, Persuade rather than Therefore

[ QUOTE ]
TomCowley -
There is one poster who repeatedly posts the same anti-real-life-application-of-logic drivel that's not news to anybody. He refuses to accept that posters who use "therefore" to describe real world situations, actually mean "I am caused to believe with extreme confidence", and for obvious reasons, communicate with "therefore" because there is no practical difference. This persuades me that said poster is a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the timing of his coronation by Sklansky is coincidental. It looks like David would like to recruit a cadre of Sklansky Blackshirts on SMP who argue by the intimidation of insults rather than reason, following Sklansky's lead in the way he enjoys labeling certain DS defined categories of people morons, idiots, imbeciles, etc.

Or maybe this was just David's way of calling me a moron, being to shy to do it directly.

PairTheBoard

Chunwah · #18 10-28-2007, 04:54 PM

You seem to know almost nothing about science or philosophy and have little formal math training. Yet you presume to grant
anoitment? Phil###, can you or some other smart dude explain the inside joke here?

Chunwah

Subfallen · #19 10-28-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cowley did manage to flame the hell out of PTB's thread while flying under the radar. Very solid poster and I approve of your choice Mr. Sklansky, even though it may be a little premature (funny how that comes with both youth and age...)

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize of course that you could have won the title long ago-if not for that comment to Saura about wrinkly skin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. Phil is so...um..."hardcore"? Is that the word I'm looking for?

chezlaw · #20 10-28-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to know almost nothing about science or philosophy and have little formal math training. Yet you presume to grant
anoitment? Phil###, can you or some other smart dude explain the inside joke here?

Chunwah

[/ QUOTE ]
The inside joke is DS making posts that would be necessarily wrong if he didn't make them but only possibly wrong once he makes them.

chez