kruijs's dashboard

kruijs replied on April 05, 2008 23:41 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

thx for this post lucidstates. i think this sums up the situation best. i've been out of the discussion a few hours and could not get back in reasonably.
i hope we are getting a step forward. i also hope we can return playing the HUBDUB after all.
i'm quite sure the hubdub responsibles have learned from this lesson.

kruijs marked one of lucidstates' replies in Hubdub as useful. lucidstates replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming". kruijs and 2 other people think it's one of the best replies.

anaverageamerican's reply to "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" was just promoted to the most useful! kruijs and 3 other people think it's one of the best replies.

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.

kruijs marked one of anaverageamerican's replies in Hubdub as useful. anaverageamerican replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming".

kruijs marked one of jenniandboys' replies in Hubdub as useful. jenniandboys replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming". kruijs and 2 other people think it's one of the best replies.

kruijs marked one of Orlin's replies in Hubdub as useful. Orlin replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming". kruijs and 3 other people think it's one of the best replies.

jenniandboys' reply to "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" was just promoted to the most useful! kruijs and 3 other people think it's one of the best replies.

Have my coffee and have worked through most of the 70 posts that came in while I was sleeping... (Must go get some chocolate first...) Ok. Here I go...

Still a couple of disjointed thoughts here:
1. I am greatly looking forward to the power vetting feature. I think it will drastically reduce a lot of heartache on this site, although I'm sure there will be growing pains with implementing it as well. *(Rohan's note about regional markets needing someone with knowledge of the issue is a VERY good one).*

2. There has been a level of trust that the admins are actively working to eliminate gaming. I and many other users regularly flag suspiscious users and markets to the admins. I have never received any feedback on these flags and just assumed that it was being taken care of and the admins were trying to be discreet with their anti-gaming activity. Many users now feel that trust has been betrayed. More communication across the board (not just Satyaki related) on gaming issues is neccessary at this point to regain that trust.

3. If the issue in question is setting inaccurate odds and then benefitting from them, I could list a number of other markets and users I think have been regularly gaming the system this way. Why aren't we talking about them and posting nasty messages on their boards? Three partial answers:
a) They aren't as active on Hubdub's comment board so it doesn't seem as blatant
b) Most of them aren't in the top 20 of the leaderboard
c) Everyone doesn't know about it

I will wager my entire hub"fortune" that he is not the first to do something like this. We just happen to know about his actions and so he is becoming the focus of the anger.

4. In regards to satyaki, the original call was to have his h$ taken away, but as the mob got louder, the demands changed as well. A complete ban is not warranted, in my mind *for this offense*. I still think a temporary suspension will help both sides calm down a little.

What I don't know, and hope the admins are looking into, is if the question practice extended beyond the ICL markets.

(There have been another 6 posts while I was composing this one...)

Now I'm going to go spend my 20$ and stop thinking about this whole mess.

kruijs marked one of Nigel Eccles' replies in Hubdub as useful. Nigel Eccles replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming".

kruijs marked one of Jerry's Just Trolling's replies in Hubdub as useful. Jerry's Just Trolling replied to the problem "I am on STRIKE".

kruijs marked one of jenniandboys' replies in Hubdub as useful. jenniandboys replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming". kruijs and 2 other people think it's one of the best replies.

kruijs replied on April 04, 2008 22:56 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

just to ascertain: is it technically possible to reduce one's wealth to 1K from 350K (with 323K predictions) without massively affecting markets?

kruijs marked one of anaverageamerican's replies in Hubdub as useful. anaverageamerican replied to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming". kruijs and 3 other people think it's one of the best replies.

kruijs replied on April 04, 2008 22:24 to the discussion "Proposed new procedure for dealing with gaming" in Hubdub:

to get it right in a current matter:
sd would be on stage 2: 50% penalty?

kruijs replied on April 04, 2008 22:13 to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub:

a percentual penalty on the stake when cashing in, maybe 3%, could help. what do you think?

kruijs marked one of jenniandboys' replies in Hubdub as useful. jenniandboys replied to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times".

kruijs marked one of anaverageamerican's replies in Hubdub as useful. anaverageamerican replied to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times".

kruijs marked one of crudsy's replies in Hubdub as useful. crudsy replied to the discussion "The Golden Rules for successfully playing the HUBDUB". kruijs and 2 other people think it's one of the best replies.

kruijs marked one of meanderingsearcher's replies in Hubdub as useful. meanderingsearcher replied to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times".

kruijs replied on April 03, 2008 05:05 to the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub:

I like the idea of setting a time range in which the question is open for bidding.
Maybe it should be possible for this to become more attractive when long term stakes pay out better than short terms?
This should be close (whatever that means) to the settlement date though, because of the lock up of the wagers.

kruijs started following the problem "Suspend v Settlement Times" in Hubdub.