Loading Profile...
EMPLOYEE
Contentious questions (part 3)
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?
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?
4 people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The best answer from the company
-
I don't understand why people are so offended by death. In no way are we making the death occur sooner, if anything we are making people aware about pancreatic cancer and therefore maybe saving a life. News is not all about puppy dogs and lollipops. I have been in situations where I have had to face the question of taking someone off life support and never did I worry about the company I was going to keep. If you don't like the question simply don't wager on it.
If the story will make news headlines then it is something we should be able to forecast on. Whether that is how many abortions will take place in 2008 or how many soldiers die in war this month, it is opening our eyes to the news events around the world, and once we are aware of the news we can take our own small steps to do what we think is right. You don't like something going on in the political world, then show up and vote, you don't like a company sponsoring a television show, then don't buy that product or watch that show. So if you don't like the questions don't wager on them.
I have alot of money on Nigel living so Nigel if you are reading this please stay away from elevator shafts. I am not sure about jerjustrolling, he might try and push you down one to move up the leaderboard.
Freedom is a tough acto to balance, being able to say what you want, but not allowed to scream fire in movie theater, it is all about the fine lines in the sand. The courts constantly addressing these issues and with our availability to immediate access to news around the world, we have to be aware of when we cross that line. I like to error on the side of too much speech instead of limiting freedom.
4 people say
this answers the question
The best answer from everyone
-
I support the rules amendment referred to in the OP:
An amendment I propose making to the rules is as follows:
All questions should provide context in which they are created (e.g. through linking to a relevant news story). If the question is potentially contentious (e.g. about loss of life) then it must be in the context of a mainstream news story
As a news site we need to be able to follow the news that other news sources are following however we also need to avoid the risk of becoming considered a 'death casino'.
In my view, virtually any question has the potential of becoming contentious. A partial, and random list:
capital punishment
child slave trade
killing animals or torturing pets
gun control
sex offenders
electoral college
abortion
genocide
civil rights
drug testing
national identity card
religion
censorship
stem cell research
gays in the military
life support and/or removing life support
child abuse
European Union
school prayer
Guantanamo Bay
same sex marriage
whaling
DNA database
animals used for testing
official language for a country
That users care about death, war and life is "a good thing" -- and ought be encouraged.
To try to eliminate it from "the news" is unlikely.
3 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Wow, I just looked up Swayze in the news and it says he has five weeks to live. That is so sad! These markets are legit, but the question is whether or not Hubdub wants to encourage it. It's rather tabloid-esque to stir up issues regarding human life like this, but at the same time, it's free speech. I'm torn.
I’m sad
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?the question should be does hubdub have a target market that they are encouraging to participate ? a ruling to define morality by establishing question parameters that some may find distasteful may also limit the numbers of people that don't like to have their morality judged. from a marketing perspective, this quandry could swing two ways.
2 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I think "torn/confused/worried" sums it all up.. I don't see Hubdub as tabloided, yet this Mr. Swayze voting is SO there! Like seeing a New York Times editorial when one thinks those ideas belong at the grocery store news counter.. Yet some of "us" are voting yes, so 24% of Hubdubbers are willing to wager pro death? I am appalled but not surprised. I guess free speech means you're allowed to be obnoxious or ignorant (Is that too strongly nasty of me?). Nigel, you're earning the real bucks (I hope!), so I'll trust your decision call... I will not vote on these sad issues unless I am, as jersey strolling, trying to make a point.
I’m sad
-
Inappropriate?This one has multiple sides.
In the first, I read the question and read the news published and I thought, "OK, someone makes a little PR for Swayze, he doesn't have cancer at all, and in summer, when his new film comes out, everyone knows already about it." And I put in on the "NO" option.
The problem here is, that I bet on "NO" _not_ because I want to bet on him living or dying, but because I thought about this as "does someone try to fool the pulblic yes/no". If that would be the case, I didn't have any concerns about the question - at first glance, because, sadly, if the outcome of that question would be "no, no public fooling, he has cancer", it would turn to be betting on live/die - I didn't take that in account at that time.
At this point I'm willing to say: Void the question.
That's my personal opinion.
To be objective, there are three other things:
1) What about questions, which imply (directly or indirectly) any casualties like the ones about the earthquakes? If you bet on "5-8 Earthquakes above 5.0 on the richter scale", your forecast implies the loss of human life and injuries. Is this one a moral one?
2) What about questions, which imply direct harm of people. Just not in this extreme. Lets say this one:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_H...
Isn't it immoral to hope for a divorce? It could be the proverbial end of somebody's life.
3) Why does nobody take offence on this simular question having the death of a person as an option:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Britne...
So where do you draw the line if a question touches the integrity of a person:
a) physically or mentally,
b) directly or indirectly,
c) a single concerned person or masses of simultaniously concerned people
d) more or less severe
e) liked or disliked people
Let me state this: By putting money on the option "YES" in this question, nobody really says he wishes Swayze's death. He just says "he has cancer and I regrettably think he's not going to make it." Nobody really looks forward to people to getting hurt by earthquakes by putting money on that question. Nobody really wants Hillary and Bill getting divorced.
People make prognoses. They don't state desires.
So I consider this questions legitimate.
2 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Adressing the questions about the losses in iraq mentioned elsewhere in this context:
I think, this is a way of free speach to bring suchs topics into the mind of the HUBDUB users.
I do not know much about the media in the US, I must admint, but for what I've heard about news coverage concerning the losses of US troops in iraq the US Army seems to be quite incommunicative, or am I wrong?
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?imho, any 'company' i'm associated with, be it a president of a small country or a poor filthy bastard, or both, if he bets on dead pools, I will no longer associate with them.
this is so caveman-like! sry you geico wanna-bee cavemans out there! your sooooo much better at this than I.
i'd rather have my company ("hubdub") stand for something! Hey, " we don't do dead pools!" sounds a whole lot better than ": Hey, we do any dead pool you can dream up ", and btw, if you happen to knock off the dead pool subject, we'll give you a bunch of hubdub dollars!!! And even if you don't, you'll probably win good money because the starting odds were'nt set exactly right, if you know what I mean. wink, wink.
You know, for all the PC bullshit regarding first amendment rights being discussed here, your missing the bigger point. go back to journalism 201, if you haven'nt been there yet.
inform, do not inflame.
I’m frustrated
-
Inappropriate?hey, wanna make some big H$? Just knock of Britany Spears before May 2nd. or maybe, if Patrick Swayze looks like he might make it past the 15th of April, golla gee, I'll lose a whole lot of $H.
Pretty soon we'll have:
Will NIGEL of HUBDUB die over the weekend because of a sports car wreck with his best friend and two close relatives? I'm sure we can start this one with an 80/20 split. I'll bet H$100 and get some great odds. Hey guido, wanna make a few real bucks?
Sorry Nigel, but now youi may get the point.
jmvho
-
Inappropriate?I don't understand why people are so offended by death. In no way are we making the death occur sooner, if anything we are making people aware about pancreatic cancer and therefore maybe saving a life. News is not all about puppy dogs and lollipops. I have been in situations where I have had to face the question of taking someone off life support and never did I worry about the company I was going to keep. If you don't like the question simply don't wager on it.
If the story will make news headlines then it is something we should be able to forecast on. Whether that is how many abortions will take place in 2008 or how many soldiers die in war this month, it is opening our eyes to the news events around the world, and once we are aware of the news we can take our own small steps to do what we think is right. You don't like something going on in the political world, then show up and vote, you don't like a company sponsoring a television show, then don't buy that product or watch that show. So if you don't like the questions don't wager on them.
I have alot of money on Nigel living so Nigel if you are reading this please stay away from elevator shafts. I am not sure about jerjustrolling, he might try and push you down one to move up the leaderboard.
Freedom is a tough acto to balance, being able to say what you want, but not allowed to scream fire in movie theater, it is all about the fine lines in the sand. The courts constantly addressing these issues and with our availability to immediate access to news around the world, we have to be aware of when we cross that line. I like to error on the side of too much speech instead of limiting freedom.
4 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?A short thought:
Not allowing people to post questions like "How many soldiers will die in iraq" is the same censorship which the Bush administration applied at the beginning of the iraq war.
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?When it was reported that Partick Swayze has cancer, it was also reported (probably incorrectly) that he had five weeks to live. His prognosis is a key part of the story; so tasteless or not, it is a legitimate question.
2 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?Just to note here that I voided the questions created about whether I myself was going to meet a nasty end. And before I get accused of double standards let me explain why.
Hubdub has always been aimed at being a news site. The Patrick Swayze question, while you may consider it distasteful, is a news story carried by nearly all other news organizations. My premature death, while would be tragic for my family (and not a barrel of laughs for myself), is not news.
As a community led site, the rules come from rational debate and agreement between members of the community. If there is a consensus that the rules should change in a certain way then they will.
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I have to agree that I wrinkled my nose when I read the Swayze question. However, it pretty clearly falls into the 'news' category and has been one of the most active questions for several days in a row now. I may avoid all of the death questions (Iraq and Brittany included) myself, but I don't think I should enforce my morals on everyone else. Unless Hubdub becomes flooded with these questions where they are somehow hampering the play of the 'happier' questions, I say let them stay.
I’m somewhat ambivalent
-
Inappropriate?I support the rules amendment referred to in the OP:
An amendment I propose making to the rules is as follows:
All questions should provide context in which they are created (e.g. through linking to a relevant news story). If the question is potentially contentious (e.g. about loss of life) then it must be in the context of a mainstream news story
As a news site we need to be able to follow the news that other news sources are following however we also need to avoid the risk of becoming considered a 'death casino'.
In my view, virtually any question has the potential of becoming contentious. A partial, and random list:
capital punishment
child slave trade
killing animals or torturing pets
gun control
sex offenders
electoral college
abortion
genocide
civil rights
drug testing
national identity card
religion
censorship
stem cell research
gays in the military
life support and/or removing life support
child abuse
European Union
school prayer
Guantanamo Bay
same sex marriage
whaling
DNA database
animals used for testing
official language for a country
That users care about death, war and life is "a good thing" -- and ought be encouraged.
To try to eliminate it from "the news" is unlikely.
3 people say
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?destry, destry, destry ... :)
I'm not going anywhere near an elevator shaft for a long, long time, after that question i posted. I certainly do not want any harm to come to Nigel or others, even it the $H were just right. :)
the H community has been kicking issues like this around, and, in light of the sensitivity of some (i'm not alone here) regarding the death pools, it was important, imho, to spice up the conversation to ensure that all rational vantage points and opinions are collected before Hubdub makes their policy statement. Don't want this fine site to be seen as 'flip-flopping', do we?
Please note that not once in any of my posts regarding Death Pools, did I mention religious reasons. Most of my discourse has been meant to stimulate hubdub corporate thinking (ala) 'who are we?' and 'who do we want to be?' as we continue to grow into a respectable news aggregator and prognosticating web site with millions of users worldwide.
I’m anxious
-
Inappropriate?How about a new market segment titled "Tabliod Media", with it's own leaderboard.
I’m excited
-
Inappropriate?a Tabloid Media segment would allow those competing in those markets all the freedom of speech they could possibly want. They can make bookoo $H there, and use those $H to move up the overall leaderboard. But, alas, we would know where they made their $H, and can hold our own opinions regarding their prognosticating abilities.
I’m amused
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?One feature we were considering developing was to have better filtering on the site. Therefore users could select which types of questions they did and did not want to see. When a user creates a question that involves death then they put that in as a tag. Other users can elect whether or not they want to see questions with that tag on it.
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?i vote for the tabloid section. it would separate the hard news from the frivilous. it would also be nice to see our hit/miss percentages by catagory
I’m happy
1 person says
this answers the question
-
Inappropriate?I think jerry's proposal is a considerably good one. Make up a separate section as a playground for those questions.
I think, to differ between hard news and weak news is the easiest and most comprehensible way for filtering. Think about this as it is implemented on
http://www.newser.com/
(see the "adjust the grid" - "news preference" slider in the section just above the articles-teasers)
You could call that section "Tabloid Media", "Fun District", "Sandbox" or whatever wording you prefer as long as it does not sound too negative, nothing like "Death Pool" or similar. Put flowers on those pages to make death-question look really silly.
Tell the people who create question which should not be taken too serious to go there (jerry: I still don't believe there are many people who take such questions serious. And to be honest, I think someone else should take care of them - but that should not be our problem here)
The questions referring to HUBDUB itself should also be taken there instead of residing in the Technology section. But the questions about dead soldiers in iraq do not belong there. These are about hard facts, and they have a political dimension.
People who want death pools could go to rotten.com too though. -
Inappropriate?I like the tabloid section and support the rules amendment referred to in the OP.
Would love to see tags as Nigel described.
TruthWrangler. I humbly commend you on your partial, and random list: I agree w/ your view- virtually any question has the potential of becoming contentious.
I’m learning alot reading the comments here.
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE