Recently active topics in Hubdub tagged with rules

Just after we launched we placed the limitation on category editors that they couldn't place predictions on questions in their category. That was to ensure that there was no hint of a conflict of interest when settling questions.

At the same time I placed the restriction on myself that I would predict on any categories as I thought questions would get escalated to me for resolution. In actual fact questions that get escalated go to Get Satisfaction so I don't play that role. Additionally, the tech category is now handled by Tom.

Not being able to make predictions has meant that my understanding of how the site actually works isn't as good as it should be. I've no idea how challenges work and I generally only find about about bugs from contact notes and emails. Our focus over the next month is to really improve the core game element of Hubdub and it is tough to do that without actually playing it.

So I am proposing that I release myself those self-imposed constraints. All my predictions will be public so you can have full insight into how terrible a predictor I think will probably turn out to be.

Any objections?

We haven't updated the rules for a month now. We've had to escalate a number of questions in that time and I thought it would be a good idea to build the resolutions to those questions into the rules. Most of these are common sense but I think it helps to formalise that. The proposed additions are:

2.2.3 Time, Time Zones and Geography

• Unless otherwise specified, the relevant time period to which the question refers begins from the date of creation of the question

2.2.5 Types of question

• Questions should have a clear resolution and not be open to gaming. Questions that have failed this criteria include number of Google search results for a certain term (varies by user), eBay listings, home page tickers and whether a particular picture will appear on a news site’s home page. [last part added]

2.2.7 Disputes

• In identifying the common sense meaning Hubdub admin may draw on the final resolution of previously disputed questions

2.2.8 Voiding Questions

• A question will be considered a duplicate if its true forecast probability is 95% or greater similar to an existing question (e.g. ‘Will candidate X drop out of the race by March 3rd?’ would generally be considered a duplicate of ‘Will candidate X drop out of the race by March 2nd?’)

2.2.10 Gaming

• Gaming of the system is explicitly not allowed. Gaming includes creation of multiple accounts and creation of questions with deliberately inaccurate estimates however we cannot provide an exhaustive list of what is considered gaming. As a guide, if you believe the wider Hubdub community would consider an activity as gaming then it probably is.
• In the event that user is considered to be gaming he/she may receive a warning, get publicly named as a gamer, get their account fine and/or have their account closed. In general, users will receive a warning before other measures are taken.

2.3.1 Politics Category

• Unless specified otherwise, a question asking when a public figure will resign will be settled on the date the figure announces their intention to resign rather than the date the resignation becomes effective (the Spitzer clause)

2.3.3.2 TV Shows

• Questions may be asked about television programs where results are announced live, for example, American Idol. Questions may also be asked on television programs which are pre-recorded, but for which the outcome is not known (for example, if two different outcomes have been recorded). However, questions related to pre-recorded shows were the result is known are banned.
• All questions relating to the show "Roadies", spin-offs or variants of it are banned outright
• Settlement will be based on the final outcome of the Show as televised either as live or recorded on the official associated television network.

That's it! Any comments, suggestions, amendments or additions?

Over the past 24 hours we have received votes on the question of what action we should take with regards Satyaki. The votes are now all in and counted.

In total we had 25 verified votes. The final votes were:
Option 1: fine of H$8,300 - 0 votes
Option 2: 50% fine - 7 votes
Option 3: fine down to H$1,000 - 5 votes
Option 4: close account - 13 votes

Therefore option 4 has the majority and Satyaki's account has been deactivated. As previously discussed the procedure on gaming is:
1st instance: Email warning
2nd instance: 50% of net worth fine
3rd instance: Account closure

Note that we have dropped the 2 week question ban as we haven't yet implemented that functionality. If we feel that it is necessary we may implement it later. Secondly, if the instance of gaming is particularly blatant (e.g. multiple linked accounts creating questions at wholly incorrect prices) then we may skip immediately to steps 2 or 3.

My own lesson was that we should have been more on top of this from the start. Over the next couple of weeks we are planning on doing a number of calls with users so we can be more in tune with what you think the major issues are and how we can make the site better. I look forward to speaking to as many of you as possible.

*Admissions and Observations*

1. We do take gaming seriously however with all the other demands of running the site we probably haven't given it the attention it deserves. Part of the reason was we had hoped to deliver question approval functionality (which would eliminate most forms of gaming) sooner.
2. In the case of Satyaki my initial proposed resolution was obviously insufficient (my mistake)
3. One reason that Satyaki has stood out is his interest in Indian sport and entertainment. We have significantly less Indian than American users which means (a) they stand out and (b) questions at initially poor odds are much more likely to benefit the question creator. The Indian cricket questions were made significantly in advance of both the event and Satyaki making a prediction. If these had been about US sports other users would have shared in taking advantage of initially poor odds.
4. That said, Satyaki was obviously aware of this and repeatedly created starting estimates for a team at 48% which he subsequently thought were good value at 90% plus. Additionally, Satyaki is the only Hubdub user to be previously fined for gaming.
5. There have been other low level gamers that have received warnings and placed on an internal watchlist however no one else has progressed to a fine. Thanks to all the users for highlighting gaming.
6. (Jenniandboys point) Category editors always review flags. The current process is not to respond to the person who flagged the issue.

*General Resolution*

1. Revised procedure for dealing with gaming:
- First instance: Email warning
- Second instance: 50% fine, public notice and 2 week block on ability to create questions
- Third instance: Account closure

We could make this more aggressive (e.g. closure on first instance) however there are three issues with that.
(1) Most users just don't read the rules before they play and also for most social sites/games the accepted rules are unwritten therefore there is no point looking for them.
(2) I have emailed users (including some in this forum) about suspected gaming who have convinced me of their innocence. It can sometimes be very difficult to prove gaming between accounts.
(3) In usability studies we have done we have found new users very hesitant to create new questions. Basically they were scared they would do something wrong. Adding in the threat that they will potentially get their account closed would make that worse.

We won't at this time ban at IP level however if we do start to encounter a problem of account re-openings we will implement a more rigorous approach to user verification (e.g. banning of web mail etc)

2. To help make user activity more visible, we will list all users participating in a particular question on the question page. We are still working out the details of that.

3. We will implement question approval functionality by April 28th.

4. We will publish the new rules on gaming being discussed here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

5. (Jenniandboys list of potential gamers) Some of these we have already identified but I will review this to see if we need to take further action here. Thanks for your diligence.

6. We will review how the site currently links to the rules to ensure they are more widely read (good point newswrangler)

7. We will improve integration between Hubdub and Get Satisfaction (another good point newswrangler)

*Resolution re Satyaki*

This has been the third time that Satyaki has been caught gaming. His one defence is that he has complied with the letter of the rules, although clearly not the spirit by which the vast majority of the other users adhere to. The discussion above is finely balanced between people who think he should be banned outright and others who think he should be heavily penalised. A smaller proportion of users feel he has been unfairly targeted.

As we don’t have a consensus I propose to put this to a vote. At 8pm BST I will create a question in the Hubdub category asking for users vote on what we should do. The options will be:
1) Fine of H$8,300 (the amount earned from the gamed cricket questions) and 2 week bar on question creation
2) Fine of 50% of net worth and 2 week bar on question creation
3) Fine down to H$1,000 and 2 week bar on question creation
4) Account closed

The question will remain open for 24 hours and I will request users to place one comment each stating their vote (e.g. vote using the comments, not the market). Votes from accounts that have been created after this post or are from accounts suspected of gaming will not be counted. If no option has a simple majority then we will average and round to the nearest integer option number (round up on 0.5). E.g. votes of 1, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4 averages to 2.667 and therefore we would apply option 3 (fine down to H$1,000).

*Question*

Users can currently make public or private predictions. Making private predictions obviously reduces the ability for other users to identify users who are gaming the system. So the question is: Should we change the system so that all predictions are public?

This concerns the market: Will CIT Group Inc. be purchased by 3/21/2008?

This was settled today as "No".

HD Rules, "2.2.10 Creating Questions", state, in part:

* The term ‘by’ will be considered to be inclusive of the date referenced. E.g. ‘Will the satellite hit earth by March 25th?’ will be settled as a ‘Yes’ if it hits on March 25th or on any date prior

It would seem, then, that this market ought run until the end of today.

Was this market settled too soon?

[Disclosure: I staked H$100.00 on "No" and gained H$1,731.57, plus I got my stake back, for being correct.]

There has been some discussion on the Patrick Swayze question as to whether it should be voided as it is considered distasteful:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_P...

There has already been some discussion on what questions are acceptable:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

The consensus then was that we shouldn't be policing the morality of each question. Since then we have proposed a slight amendment to the rules detailed here:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...

We will make that rule change in the next couple of days. However some of the commentators on the Patrick Swayze question think that all questions like it should be banned. Views?

can someone change the category of this question ?
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/will_t...