InfernalMachine's dashboard

I have 3 currently open questions that do not have specified suspend dates/times. They are all related to the NHL playoffs. What I have done is to specify a "logical" suspend time in the question background., with the understanding that I will alert the sports editor to the actual suspend date/time when the NHL releases the info required to pin it down. The logical descriptions are "at the start of game 1 of the finals" and "at the start of game 4 of the finals". I feel these are fairly specified, and there is certainly no intent to "game" with these questions.

I'd like to see this be an option when creating a question, where a logical event can be specified, but a actual date/time is not yet available.

I like the screen/page grab ability. That would be great. Can you fix the game clock though, so the page grabs aren't an hour off? This or something like it would be great for Hubdub-related questions too. I've got a bunch of these questions that I'm holding onto until there's a fair way to decide them.

For RCP questions, I'm fine with the question writer setting a time and then HD grabbing the page at that time. The only reason I brought up this problem was that in checking the page used for settlement, the results had changed.

This is a great idea. – InfernalMachine, on April 27, 2008 03:56

That's a good point. I was going to mention it but forgot. Copying a question is a great way to get started in creating questions. It teaches you the mechanics of the question creation page. – InfernalMachine, on April 23, 2008 18:52

I think the answer to this question depends a little on the infrastructure that Hubdub affords the question creator. If there were enhanced functionality with regard to daily or weekly questions - a way to easily create a series of questions - then there's a good argument for owning a question. It also adds an element of confidence to the questions (provided they're not about Roadies and brought to you by satyaki :-}), that they come from a reliable source. It's also a way to establish a presence on the site. People remember you as the person who maintains that topic, which imparts a little personality to the site.

But as things stand, it's not always possible for someone to keep up the questions as the weeks go by. You get busy, or you lose interest. Personally, I'm more interested in inventing new types of questions, than in keeping them going from week to week. In most cases, I'm happy if a repeatable question becomes popular, and am thrilled that someone else would want to ask it again, as I find it becomes a chore after a while. It's nice to get credit when someone takes it up, but beyond that I feel that my questions at least are GPL. But I can also understand that other people may feel more possessive of their efforts.

One idea might be a check box on the question creation page that "claims ownership" of a question series. This would display somehow with the question (a copyright symbol?) and it would be understood the creator doesn't wish others to take over future versions.

I think, however, that we should also consider when repeated questions are a good thing and when they become problematic. A bad question repeated ad infinitum is an irritant. That's one of the great things about someone else picking up a question "thread" and repeating it -- it indicates an actual interest out there in having the question repeated. Maybe we need some mechanism for designating such popular questions (a heritage classification), and these are the questions that are most easily repeated at the creation page and also the questions which may be owned by the creator (or passed on to someone new)?

Also, while certain questions create communities of interest that are entirely beneficial to the site as a whole, there is always the danger of becoming swamped by the familiar at the expense of new approaches and new questions.

I agree with Destry. Also, Orlin's point about the potential to unleash the power of a thousand thousand Spitzers is right on target.

I think, as the number of questions increases, you may need more admins or editors.

I agree with the above people on this. Editorials are not reports.

I don't know if anyone else has seen the recent NYT article "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand" on the weekend. It basically shows how a significant number of "military experts" who appeared as commentators on most of the major networks and cable news channels during the earlier phases of the Iraq War were actively guided in their positions by the Pentagon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/was...

They are retired armed forces people (independent from the military and not subject to rules about speaking to the media, but "expert" in that they have served, know the issues and entities involved, and possibly have active connections and information sources within the forces). Their job, for which the media organization pays them an appearance fee, is to put the news in perspective from a militarily knowledgeable point of view, and this point of view is implied to be their own (and not their former employer's).

Turns out the Pentagon had an expensive program to guide these commentators in talking points and angles, giving them high-level access (to Rumsfeld and Cheney) in exchange for putting out the Pentagon's ideas or spin as their own.

Why did so many go along with this? Well it turns out that most of them are lobbyists for or owners/employees of companies intending to do business with the Pentagon. The access to the Pentagon and White House upper-levels was effectively the way that they were paid by the administration for putting out White House-approved talking points as their own expert opinion.

It's a really interesting (though long) article, and I highly recommend it.

It illustrates exactly why ANY editorial comments, even by the staff of the media organization, should not be construed as reportage.

That doesn't mean a person here can't ask a question about an editorial. Just that printing an editorial is not included in the list of things that are understood to be "reporting".

the question has a link to itself on the prediction screen - that's how you get back – InfernalMachine, on April 19, 2008 03:23

oohhh wiki! That sounds dangerous...

Two more ideas, (I've mentioned elsewhere):
1. Tagging your own questions.. for instance tagging all the VP questions as VP so in when you're reviewing your bets you can look at all of them at once.
2. Rating or digging questions so there is some way to see good questions other than amount of h$ running through them.

IF the death toll reaches 50, then of course the question should be settled as is. But if not, then I don't really "get" the idea of just letting it go.

This question could easily have remained open for weeks or months more. So where is the need to rush to settlement?

It reminds me of the questions about temperature reaching a certain amount in a certain place on a certain day. If someone reads the forecast on the morning of the day in question, and submits that for settlement (reasoning that the forecast is probably correct. so why wait for the official data), then is that okay? The initial reports, when no-one could have known the actual death toll, are essentially forecasts, guesses, estimates. The particular situation demonstrates how those guesses can be wrong - they were based on the estimated number of people on the plane, which is not where the majority of deaths occurred.

It suggests to me that for questions that relate to disasters and counts, it's more than reasonable to wait for official confirmed figures. Maybe it's just me, but I've never felt that "getting it right" ruined my experience at Hubdub, while I have felt that dubious and incorrect settlements have.

It's interesting that there's no user at Hubdub called newscollecter or newscollector, and that they haven't disclosed their Hubdub name here. So they are able to accuse other players of cheating (with zero evidence), go on about making investigations (while preventing any investigation of who they are and their own question creation, prediction, and commenting history), and make a specious case for tolerating Satyaki (oh well, too little too late), all effectively anonymously.

Please disregard all comments made by this person unless they identify who they actually are (this goes doubly for the HD staff!).