anaverageamerican's dashboard

anaverageamerican replied on April 08, 2008 22:16 to the question "Result of the vote" in Hubdub:

Well done Hubdub admins, you took an issue that threatened to tear your community apart, and ultimately used it to bind the community together more tightly. And props to the community, as far as I can tell despite some acrimony during the debate, things never turned _really_ nasty.

It wasn't the result I voted for, but it is the result I expected, and as a believer in Democracy all I can ask for is that my vote be counted. I _am_ surprised that only 25 votes were counted. I thought destry and lucidstates would find a way to vote multiple times ... settle down, I'm just teasing 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on April 08, 2008 02:30 to the question "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming (part 2)" in Hubdub:

I just made most my predictions public (my clicking finger is tired 8^). I still have some private predictions that I feel should already have been settled, but that's another thread ... or not.

anaverageamerican replied on April 07, 2008 23:33 to the question "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming (part 2)" in Hubdub:

I forgot making all past and future predictions of convicted gamers public. As far as making all predictions public, I was thinking of that as well. I'm somewhat concerned that making all predictions public would lead new users to follow the leaders, but markets are correcting a lot faster now than they were when I first raised this concern. So I'm on-the-fence on that issue.

Over the weekend I considered making all of my predictions public (they are currently all private because once-upon-a-time I _was_ near the top of the leaderboard with something like H$25k ... I'm less concerned about anyone following my predictions now 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on April 07, 2008 23:19 to the question "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming (part 2)" in Hubdub:

I apologize for responding without having read through this thread, but several important points appear to be missing from the new proposed rules for gaming. Forgetting about satyaki for a moment (I'll vote at the designated question ... if I can decide on _how_ to vote):

I did not see anything that would address kruijs' concern about the effect on markets of fining a user several hundred thousand H$.

I did not see anything about voiding questions that are being used to game Hubdub, which are still open when it has been determined that gaming has occurred.

Nigel mentioned looking at banning IPs later, but I question whether banning IPs can ever be done fairly. Can HD detect any difference in Skipper's and my IP?

anaverageamerican replied on April 06, 2008 18:25 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

One final (okay, probably not 8^) addition to the rules about gaming that I'd like to see,a is that any open questions identified as being part of a user's gaming be voided.

Heh, I just noticed that we're playing a game but we're users ... and 'gaming' is a bad thing in this game 8^)

anaverageamerican replied on April 06, 2008 18:21 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

Your making a lot of assumptions. Just because someone cheats it doesn't mean all of their H$ came from cheating.

Having said that I do agree with this statement, "if they don't get the message after the first warning, are they really going to get it after the second".

I think there have been some excellent points raised in this thread by users (BTW, it may have been me that first started using that term here) from all sides of this issue. I appreciate the different perspectives, and at this point I cannot really say _what_ side of this issue I'm on.

The only consensus we seem to have reached is that cheating by anybody diminishes the Hubdub experience for everybody, and that something should be done about it. I don't see a clear consensus about what the something is though.

anaverageamerican replied on April 06, 2008 18:13 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

I don't think IP banning can work in any reasonable way. For example, if I cheated (I don't) and were caught and my IP was banned, Skipper would be banned too, because we use the same cable modem. Lots of players are probably behind proxy servers (corporate or educational) and appear to the outside world as the same IP.

In addition, some of us play from multiple IP addresses such as home, work, Starbucks, etc.

anaverageamerican replied on April 05, 2008 23:27 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

I did notice that many (possibly all, I looked them all up this morning and now can't recall) of those users are friends of satyaki, I wonder if he has created multiple accounts (in direct violation of the existing rules).

Perhaps the admins will take a look at the IP addresses of all those suspicious friends of satyaki. I understand that there are legitimate reasons for multiple users to originate from the same IP address (skipper and I do, we access the 'net through the same cable modem, but _we_ don't cheat) such as behind a proxy server. But the admins should investigate nevertheless.

AnAverageAmerican (aka AAA; this user is _not_ on strike)

anaverageamerican replied on April 05, 2008 22:27 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

Why haven't all satyaki's open ICL questions been voided? If he's using them to "game" the system it seems pretty inappropriate for the admins to leave them open.

anaverageamerican replied on April 05, 2008 21:08 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

I had another idea that might be worthy of consideration. How about after the first offense the gamer's predictions (including historical predictions) be made public in their profile. That way the non-cheating users can form a Hubdub Neighborhood Watch to keep an eye on them.

anaverageamerican replied on April 05, 2008 00:08 to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub:

Markov,

I've lost a lot of H$ taking unpopular positions before they became (err, didn't become 8^) foregone conclusions ; and I have no problem with question creators leaving questions open until settlement is possible. I do have a problem with Hubdub deciding that question creators cannot set early suspend dates. I say, "Caveat emptor", it is up to the user deciding whether to invest in a question to look at the settlement details and decide whether they are willing to tie up their H$ on a long-term prediction that suspends early.

Of course question creators could be more explicit about how to settle questions so it is less of a judgment call for the admins. For example, the Honus Wagner baseball card question I referred to earlier states. "on May 3rd", in the question, but, "as reported by the auction site", in the settlement details. So if, as has occurred, the site is reporting the top bid as $150,000 ("Yes"), but the auction runs through May 3rd, should the admin settle the question now, or wait 'til May 3rd?

Also, I agree with your comments that early predictors will outshine late comers to a foregone conclusion, and that H$ 'velocity' rules Hubdub at this time.

Lastly, the thing I like the most about Hubdub is that I amable to disagree (at least initially) with other users, and have a reasoned and civil conversation with them, without it turning into a "flame war". Props to the Hubdub community for maintaining a high-level of flame-free discourse.

anaverageamerican replied on April 04, 2008 23:26 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

Good point kruijs, I hadn't thought of that. Perhaps the Royal Escrow Bank of Hubdub should take over convicted gamers' open positions. If the accusations against satyaki are true, I'd bet that the Royal Coffers of Hubdub could use an infusion of H$.

This would keep the markets stable, and prevent some rather far-fetched, "be caught gaming the system to game the system further", scenarios from playing out.

anaverageamerican replied on April 04, 2008 22:46 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

Nigel,

I think this policy looks like a good starting point, and as you are still in beta, you can tweak it as circumstances require.

I do have a follow-up question though (hey, I'm getting to interview you 8^), does Hubdub have written guidelines for the admins to follow regarding voiding, suspending and settling markets? I ask because the decisions of the admins on these matters appear pretty arbitrary from my perspective.

OTOH, it's beta, and I'm enjoying the community more than the leader board (18th in Overall Quarterly Gain last time I checked 8^), so please take my comments as constructive criticism ... that is the spirit in which I offer them.

anaverageamerican replied on April 04, 2008 21:27 to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub:

On the other hand, what value is there in "predicting" a foregone conclusion. Is Hubdub, "The World's News Predictor", when a bunch of users "correctly predict" an outcome that has already occurred?

Here's an example, if the creator of this question:
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_a...
had not set a suspend date soon after the auction opened, this question would be at 100% "Yes", and yet have provided no evidence of the predictive potential of futures markets. In fact the question _was_ open past the time that the outcome was certain, so it is surprising that it did not reach 100%.

Where's the predictive value in that?

anaverageamerican replied on April 03, 2008 23:10 to the question "Proposed rule amendments" in Hubdub:

That's a good idea. There should be a PST/PDT clock on the site. OTOH, I'm not opposed to Zulu time (GMT) either, but there should still be a Hubdub-time clock like on Ebay.

anaverageamerican replied on April 03, 2008 22:57 to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub:

I believe the choice of suspend date should be left to the question creator. Not all Hubdub users are seeking the same experience, some want to trade, some want to predict, and some want to a little of each. If a user of the predict-only variety wants to create a question with a suspend date that requires the participants to either "put up or shut up", or stay out of the market, why should that not be allowed. Conversely, if a trader-user want to create a question where the suspend date equals the moment the question can be settled, that should also be allowed. Those who trade-some, predict-some, probably would like both types of questions to be permitted.

I don't think Hubdub should restrict the question creators wishes in anything that does not _truly_ allow gaming of the site. In my opinion, neither type of question confirms that gaming is occurring, and neither confirms that gaming is not occurring.

In fact, I'd be much happier if I didn't keep finding questions that should have been settled days ago, but were overlooked by the admins because the question creator failed to set any suspend date at all. There is a caveat there for question creators though, since I believe there is a long outstanding bug in which the question creator requests a suspend date, but the system does not register it.

anaverageamerican replied on April 01, 2008 22:32 to the discussion "Brand New Leaderboards Live!" in Hubdub:

The new leader boards are great! Good job Hubdub. Now there's a way for new users to get on the front page right away. And for average joes to get on the front page with a good week of investing.

anaverageamerican replied on April 01, 2008 22:20 to the question "Am I gaming the system?" in Hubdub:

InfernalMachine,

I just checked and you have around H$436,000. Pretty good for playing only, "a little less than a week" 8^)

Seriously, I don't think Hubdub sees itself as a site which only allows users to predict the news and wait for settlement ... it's a news prediction market. If you weren't allowed to cash-in early it really wouldn't be a market at all.

bcguelph,

I think your final statement belongs in this thread:
http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/top...
It's a cardinal rule of investing to not bail out in bear markets, but to try and wait them out ... or if you can buy while everything is discounted.

anaverageamerican reported a problem in Hubdub on March 29, 2008 22:08:

Bug: Display of Challenge Response Incorrect on Friends' Profile

My friend ltmod, responded to my kid's (Skipper) challenge about what MLB team would be first to have a seven game winning streak. On ltmod's profile this response appears as. "movie comes out on Frfiday, July 11th, I believe.". There seems to be a ghost in the machine!

anaverageamerican replied on March 27, 2008 01:11 to the idea "Leaderboards: the new solution" in Hubdub:

Dude,

Forty is a number in English, I think that make is a noun 8^)