Loading Profile...
Recent activity
Subscribe to this feed
NewsWrangler replied on September 04, 2008 18:23 to the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
MRaleigh -- FWIW, I absolutely agree that emails ought not be used as a settlement source.
That said, in the past, when there has been "no news" on a question at the "Suspend Date", I have, on a couple of occasions, contacted organizations to try to find out if there was "mainstream news" available anywhere that would settle a question. However, even when the result of that contact (email, etc.) resulted in an "answer to the question", I've never submitted that as a basis for a settlement... and only used it as a "clue" as to where to look.
You were right to bring your concerns to this forum, and I hope you were satisfied with the recent settlement.
Disclosure: I had one prediction in this market that I cashed out more than three months ago.-
tisha replied on September 04, 2008 10:22 to the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
Dear MRaleigh,
Our Category Editors and Superusers are required to maintain impartiality when settling and clarifying questions. If you are unsatisfied with the way a question has been handled, you can always let me know.
I'll work with you, Destry and Ryan to look into this question personally and have an official response in 24 hours. -
A comment on the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
I missed the suspend date. That's unfortunate that the question lacks an option. As for the vote as endorsement, I understand an endorsement as something distinct from a vote. The very difficulty in ascertaining her convention vote suggests that whatever she voted, she did not endorse him, in the sense of "formal and explicit approval". – InfernalMachine, on September 04, 2008 03:55 -
Destry replied on September 04, 2008 03:33 to the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
This is a market that kept evolving, and as it did, a vote for the candidate is the ultimate endorsement, especially as a super delegate who is not bound to anyone but herself. As far as the market having a time frame of just til the convention, I just think if that was the case then the suspend date would not be November 3rd. I have no horse in this market either. -
InfernalMachine replied on September 04, 2008 03:27 to the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
A vote for is not an endorsement. I don't understand how that came to be the "decider". I'm with MRaleigh on this one. The scope of the question is until the end of the convention. Therefore, the lack of a known endorsement should settle this as the last option. (This is just my personal opinion on this, and I have no wagers at all on the question.) -
InfernalMachine started following the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub.
-
Destry replied on September 04, 2008 02:52 to the question "Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered on" in Hubdub:
Thanks for bringing this up here. This market has been difficult because there seems to be no place to see who she cast her super delegate ballot for. If she cast for Obama, then we could settle based on that as her supporting him. If she chose Hillary or no candidate, then she would not have endorsed him yet. So what that leaves us with is two possibilities, she endorses Obama after the convention before the election in which the market would be voided (no option for that), or she does not endorse Obama at all and then the last option is the winning option. So what we are looking for is an official vote tally of the superdelegates or just hers. If anyone has that please email to me, or request settlement on that market and include the link. -
MRaleigh asked a question in Hubdub on September 04, 2008 02:41:
Here is the problem with category editors make decisions on questions they have heavily wagered onhttp://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/When_w...
The settlement details states: "Settlement details: As reported by a major mainstream news source. "
So, when the date goes by and no news is reported, you'd think that this would be an easy settlement. Unless of course the category editor (ryanj) is heavily wagered on the outcome and stands to lose big if it settles as it should. The category editor decides to send an email to Donna Brazil to see if she would like to endorse Obama. This is not a Major Mainstream News Source. At best, it's an email from a dubious source from a category editor whom I've had repeatedly negative experiences.
I don't know how to resolve this problem. The new category editor (Destry) has passed the buck and is refusing to do anything about it and states that it is up to the old category editor (ryanj). I also suspect that he or she will be only more than eager to continue this disturbing pattern of simply voiding the question to escape controversy (which also avoids the nasty business of losing a lot of hub dub bucks).
The question was clear. The settlement details were clear. No reason for this to be left hanging. How does something like this get resolved?
