Time for a Separate HR4411 FAQ/status Sticky?

[S0meGuy]

Many new people come to this forum for basic information on the status of HR4411. These people are part of the poker community and the majority genuinely want to become informed. This should be encouraged.

Often the questions they ask have already been discussed somewhere else, sometimes at length. Sometimes these questions are from people too lazy to find the info, but often the info they are looking for is tedious to locate, so they post questions (after all, isn't that what a forum is for?). As of late, the responses to these types of inquiries are increasingly negative and sarcastic. This is dicourages discourse and is counterproductive.

Suggestion...

Create a separate FAQ, specifically for the most recent info on HR4411. This will help the casual reader of this forum find the majority of info they are looking for.

Another option is to add a reference to the Bill in the title of the FAQ (already stickied) of this forum, since some of this info is already there...I suspect many new people to the forum don't think to look in a general FAQ for info on a specific issue (I know I didn't).

Either of these would be an improvement.

My 2 cents...

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

S0meGuy

[Berge20]

Thanks for the suggestions - I do agree that our tone has gone sour to some degree (myself included to an extent)

Thoughts?

[Uglyowl]

Can we link the Tradesports contract on a thread? This seems to answer the question "What are the odds of this bill passing?"

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the suggestions - I do agree that our tone has gone sour to some degree (myself included to an extent)

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]Part of the problem is that we are all just re-hashing the same old stuff. Nothing new is going on, and probably won't until after Labor Day. Someone new coming in and asking the same questions (without taking the time to review the threads) understandbly puts people on tilt. I like the idea for a sticky that is titled something like "H.R. 4411 Status" or "Online Gambling Bill Status". I think it should cover only the very commonly asked questions, in a concise way. Questions such as: what's the expected timeline, odds of passage (I know, I know we really don't know that),and how do I contact my Senator, and maybe the basic impact of the bill. It would be nice to keep it very short and sweet so that even the lazy people will be able to figure things out without having to read too much (and wear out our patience asking the same questions over and over).

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the suggestions - I do agree that our tone has gone sour to some degree (myself included to an extent)

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]Part of the problem is that we are all just re-hashing the same old stuff. Nothing new is going on, and probably won't until after Labor Day. Someone new coming in and asking the same questions (without taking the time to review the threads) understandbly puts people on tilt. I like the idea for a sticky that is titled something like "H.R. 4411 Status" or "Online Gambling Bill Status". I think it should cover only the very commonly asked questions, in a concise way. Questions such as: what's the expected timeline, odds of passage (I know, I know we really don't know that),and how do I contact my Senator, and maybe the basic impact of the bill. It would be nice to keep it very short and sweet so that even the lazy people will be able to figure things out without having to read too much (and wear out our patience asking the same questions over and over).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be against including numerical "odds of passage." The truth is, any answer to that question is pure speculation, and while I've given my opinion, the truth is there are other valid opinions out there that differ. The best thing to say, if anything at all, about "odds of passage" would be to say that the following:

It is unclear whether the bill will pass this year. Individuals with an understanding of Senate prodcedure and the plans expressed by Senate leadership have indicated that they believe the bill is an underdog to pass this year, though how much of an underdog is a subject of active discussion and debate. If the bill does not pass in 2006, it will have to start the legislative process over again from scratch in 2007.

[stormy455]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be against including numerical "odds of passage." The truth is, any answer to that question is pure speculation, and while I've given my opinion, the truth is there are other valid opinions out there that differ.

[/ QUOTE ]Fair enough, and I actually agree with you. It's just that it's one of the most frequently asked questions and I think it should be addressed in a FAQ. I like your suggested wording.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be against including numerical "odds of passage." The truth is, any answer to that question is pure speculation

[/ QUOTE ]

When dealing with a undecided future event, as with online gambling legislation, we have been speculating in alot in these threads. Just based on the nature of what we are dealing with, speculation is a HUGE part of this. The number just wraps everthing up into a nice little package.

Ultimately the correct answer is 0% or 100%, but realistically people want to gauge how the process is unwinding.

I think you are severely underestimating the usefulness of prediction markets. As poker players we can try to wade through the rhetoric of hundreds of sources, some with ulterior motives, or we can look at what has proven to be the most accurate predictor out there to date. I have been on here long enough to know to trust Berge, Mr. K and a handful of others when it comes to all things politics, but for noobs it takes a while to differentiate them from the "sky is falling" to the "there is no way in hell they can do this" crowds.

If someone has knowledge that the "real chances" of passage are closer to 80%, this contract would not be trading where it is now. When there is money to be made, people act in their self interest.

Mr. K, I think even you agree the chances are somewhere near 25% and that is where this contract has always floated back to, give or take a couple of points.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K, I think even you agree the chances are somewhere near 25% and that is where this contract has always floated back to, give or take a couple of points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points and yes, I happen to believe 25% is the most accurate number out there right now for passage. I concede that this number wraps a big discussion up in a neat package, but I guess it just bugs me to leave the nuance out. I know I am prone to very lengthy posts, so maybe I err too often on the side of details/context, and this might be one such case.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K, I think even you agree the chances are somewhere near 25% and that is where this contract has always floated back to, give or take a couple of points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points and yes, I happen to believe 25% is the most accurate number out there right now for passage. I concede that this number wraps a big discussion up in a neat package, but I guess it just bugs me to leave the nuance out. I know I am prone to very lengthy posts, so maybe I err too often on the side of details/context, and this might be one such case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all Mr. K. I very much appreciate knowing the whys and what to look for of what is happening out there.

Being in finance though, numbers are obviously easier for me to understand, than "holds" and such, although it is great to have this knowledge!

[Berge20]

Thanks for the input guys.

I really didn't feel the FAQ was too difficult to navigate, contained too much information or was missing significant items. If you disagree, please feel free.

Maybe people aren't going there? I'll give the FAQ title gig an upgrade and see what happens.