peterww's dashboard

Initially, I thought that an e-mail warning for the first offense was too lenient, but Nigel's explanation makes sense. He and the other admins have many concerns to weigh and this seems to strike the proper balance.

I don't own the site but if I did, I would feel comfortable with the three-step punishment process outlined above, especially because the admins have demonstrated their willingness to address concerns. If it turns out that this process does not work, I trust the admins will be willing to re-visit the question.

Making all predictions public makes sense too. I can't think of any legitimate reason one might have for wanting to hide a predicition.

I take Nigel's statement about the admins taking action on Monday as a promise. If what they come up with is not satisfactory, then a strike would be a reasonable response.

"then we will take the appropriate action on Monday."

Splendid. I trust you'll make a fair and reasonable decision about all the past instances of gaming and cheating, and I hope you will be careful about applying any new standard retroactively to avoid the unfairness of an ex post facto law. Good luck.

As for protecting the site's integrity in the future, the measures you enact need to be strict and clearly defined. The steps you outlined in your original post are a good starting point but they are too lenient and not swift enough. To prevent gaming, I think you need to eliminate step one, which seems likely only to encourage a gamer to try to be more subtle. Start instead with the proposed second step and make the third step conclusive:

First identified instance/set of instances: Email warning, user placed on public watch list (for 2 weeks) and fined 50% of worth

Second instance/set of instances: Email warning, user placed on public watch list (for 2 weeks) and fined down to H$1,000

Any subsequent instance will result in definite, permanent suspension of their account.

Could Hubdub implement a requirement that questions with dates in them have to include explanations in the background to describe the significance of those dates? It seems that if someone is posting arbitrary dates, the requirement would prompt them to stop. At least it would give the powers that be a basis for voiding markets that seem designed solely for gaming.

I don't understand the rush to close this before something definitive is done. Disenfranchising the voters of Florida is not something to be done lightly and there is a chance that this statement from the state DNC is just a way to underscore the need for the various parties to work something out. Why close it now when there is a chance it isn't settled?

"sub-slime" crisis

That's great. Wish I'd said it.

(Don't worry, I will.)

I bet on silver so I'd be better off if the question were voided, but I don't see how it can be. The tie is purple and since that wasn't a choice, we all lose. Would a bookie give back the money if a horse that no one bet on won the race?

The final option wasn't "none of the above" but "none." That suggests he would wear no tie. Anyone who wanted "none of the above" could have asked for it to be edited in as an option. Or they could have avoided the question. Or started a market "Will the Chancellor wear a purple tie?"