smidge76's dashboard

Okay...maybe my logic is off here, but I don't think that Maine and Nebraska would be a problem either. Here's why:
Maine has 4 electoral votes, Nebraska has five. Two of those votes represent the senators of the state and are considered "at-large" winner-take-all votes. Those votes go to whoever has the popular vote. Maine as two congressional districts. In order for someone to receive the overall popular vote, he would have to win the popular vote in atleast one of those districts. If someone won the popular vote in both districts, they would also win the overall popular vote. That means that, at the worst, it would be a 3-1 split in favor of the candidate with the popular vote. As for Nebraska, again the 2 votes that represent the senators are given to the candidate with the popular vote. There are three congressional districts. Again, a candidate would have to have the popular vote in atleast 1 district in order to have the overall popular vote. that means that the worst case scenario is a 3-2 split in favor of the candidate with the popular vote. Either way the electoral split is going to favor the candidate with the popular vote for 2008. One of these states would have to grow in population enough to have 6 electoral college votes before the 2010 census before this would change for the 2012 election. Or...Maryland's system would have to go into effect...but that isn't going to happen before the 2008 election either.
Like I said, maybe my math/logic is off, but I don't think so. I think it is a moot point for this election cycle. If hubdub is around four years from now, we may have to resurrect the argument.

Source:
http://theelectoralvote.com/
"The states of Maine and Nebraska have a different method of apportioning their electoral votes than the "winner-take-all" system used in rest of the country. Rather than awarding all of their electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote, in Maine and Nebraska, only two of the votes are awarded to the overall winner of the state. The rest of the electoral votes are awarded individually based on the winner of the popular vote in each of the states' congressional districts."

I don't believe that anyone was claiming an abuse of "super powers." It was about one individual feeling another's language/comments were innappropriate. I was going to clarify further, but frankly, I'm tired, and can't get a clear thought out. I've become far more vested in this topic that I had intended to anyway. For the record, I think the super user idea is a good one. This is precisely why I don't want them getting so much grief that it becomes no longer worth the hassle. I was merely pointing out, above, that there could be circumstances under which there are legitimate complaints, particularly, if the admins do decide to expand the system. I thought I clearly pointed out that my example was hypothetical, and had nothing to do with what had occurred here, but perhaps I was less clear than I had hoped. – smidge76, on June 05, 2008 05:15

Just to clarify, settling markets has been mentioned as a possible super power in the future, after the "beta" period. Regardless of what function they are performing, I would they would treat other users respectfully when there is a disagreement. As I've metioned, I have no issues with any one of them, and think the admins have been very judicious in their selections. I think things were blown out of proportion today. We should all keep in mind that a) "super users" are not "super human," and that b) respect is a two-way street, and they also deserve to be treated fairly. – smidge76, on June 05, 2008 02:16

Oh, I thought I was done here for the night, but since my e-mail box was full of responses, I do think I'll put my two cents in about the resolution. I agree averageamerican in terms of civility. I don't think mork's comments rise to the level of test case here. I know others disagree, but I still believe it was blown way out of proportion. I do want to say though that I understand that super users are not compensated and are doing their job to help make the site better. I really appreciate it, and don't want them to be subjected to so much criticism that it takes the fun out of the site for them. I wouldn't want to devote the time to the task, so I sincerely do mean it when I say it's appreciated. I certainly don't expect them to behave the same way as the admins, and didn't mean to imply that. I did, however, mean what I said about professaionalism. They may not represent hubdub, but if they are settling questions and such, they will be part of the face of hubdub. Now, I want to make it very clear that I am NOT referring to what occurred between mork and epicur when I say this. However, I want to say that, just because they aren't paid, does not mean that I want a super user, for example, cussing me out when I have a dispute over how a question is settled (not what happened in this case, just an example). So, let's not imply that there are no standards. That said, I agree that so far they are doing a great job, and have no beef with any of them. I think it would be condescending to ask anyone to sign a "contract," common sense can rule. I also don't believe that they should be subjected to public attacks just because they are super users...especially when, as in this case, they are responding as acting user of the site, and not fulfilling an official responsibility. I just wish people would keep things in perspective. Now I am done. Life is too short, and "So You Think You Can Dance" is on. Happy hubdubbing, everyone.

Good for you...and how long did that take...and wikipedia which anyone can write and/or edit. My point was and is...context matters. It was big of mork to apologize despite the loaded accusation against him. Too bad we can't all be as openminded and reasonable. Context was, I believe, to imply that you were overreacting...the MORE accepted usage to begin with. As I also said, I believe it was a misunderstanding, and to acknowledge that and apologize takes character. I've said my peace, I have no horse in this race, I'm done with the conversation now. Good night, all. – smidge76, on June 04, 2008 23:19

Okay, I'll concede. I'm sorry that you felt personally attacked. There should be no place for personal attacks...or cursing...by anyone here, let alone those who have accepted responsibilities for the site. I do understand why that upset you, For the record though, I still take issue with the bigot comment. "You're being a drama queen" is usually a comment meant merely to say, "you are grossly overreacting." I don't consider that to be a personal attack, and believe this is just a misunderstanding. – smidge76, on June 04, 2008 22:40

I agree with you meandering...as I said...about the cursing. However, the accusation that his remark was bigoted is ridiculous, and should absolutely not be taken seriously. It wasn't professional conduct, and if the admins choose to take the "superuser" status away as a result of that, then so be it. I feel okay about that. However, for someone to accuse a person of being bigoted without evidence, while at the same time crying that accusations toward him lacked evidence is hypocritical. I would be angry if someone said the same about based on something so flimsy. Like I said, I punched "drama queen" into yahoo and found not one reference to sexual orientation in the results. With all the smut online, it this were the accepted usage, I would expect to see it all over. This is a matter of sour grapes. That was my point. It's unfair to make such a loaded accusation wihout a more solid basis. That is what I do not believe should be taked seriosly. I think I was quite clear at the beginning of my first post, that I agree there should be a standard. Superusers should behave professionally even though they perform the service for free. If I believed for one second that this was the point epicur was trying to make, then I would support him 100%. However, as I also said, he lost a lot of credibility by taking it as far as he did. It sounds to me that his point is merely to make someone look bad because he didn't like how the question was settled. That's no excuse to slander someone this way. It's a serious accusation that he is making...with no good foundation...and THAT should be taken seriously as well.

Maybe you should hang out in nicer circles. The term may be used for a "flaming homosexual," but like I said, it is VERY commonly used to refer to ANYONE who is being melodramatic. That is its root, and that is how I have almost exclusively heard it used. Culture aside, the matter is one of intent. Since there the discussion had nothing to do with sexual orientation, and since mork has no way of knowing your sexual orientation, I see no evidence that he was using it to imply anything. As I said, I don't think any reasonable person would. You are making a mountain out of a molehill in an attempt to make someone look bad. It's juvenile.
Oh dear...now I'm guilty of age discrimination. There goes my shot at becoming a superuser. Shucks, I was really looking forward to it too. That little "s" icon make it so worth taking this sort of flack from all the sore losers. I'm sure the site would be fun for me. – smidge76, on June 04, 2008 21:51

I agree that superusers, if they are to be settling markets and watching for innappropriate postings, should be mindful to be respectful of other users for the sake of the integrity of the site, just as the administrators are. You are correct in that, epicur.
As for the vulgar language, it probably was innappopriate. However, I did read mork's comment history, and it seems extremely out of character for him. He was clearly insited. Still unnecessary, but I'm going to cut him some slack, because it is absolutely impossible for me to take your argument seriously based on your other two accusations.

Webster Dictionary:
drama queen - "a person given to often excessively emotional performances or reactions."
Encarta:
drama queen - "somebody who likes to make a drama out of a situation by acting in an emotional way."

Hhhhmm...I can't find a definition anywhere on the internet even refers to sexual orientation a little bit. Please explain to me how calling you a drama queen should automatically be deemed a bigoted remark about your sexual orientation? I don't believe for one second that mork intended to imply anything about your orientation with that remark, and I don't believe that any reasonable person would. This term is VERY commonly used for people of both genders and all sexual orientations, and YOU have the nerve to acuse HIM of making accusations without evidence?? Give me a break. In fact, by the above definitions, all this complaint has done is prove the drama queen comment correct.
Maybe mork should have kept his cool and chosen some more respectful and professional words over the "vulgar" ones. You might have had a legitimate complaint if you had left it at that, but you lost all credibility when you went overboard with other two complaints. It's petty to slander someone like that over something so silly...you do know the "money" is pretend, right?

I don't think we should be policing the morality of questions...atleast not the topic of the question. It's one thing to void a question that is posed in a way that is vulgar or malicious. However, to void a question on a topic that is a legitimate news item just because the topic offends some is, I believe, a pretty dangerous path to start down. Where would it end. Who decides what is ehtical and what isn't?
Once we "draw a line" somewhere...anywhere...the line is going to forever be moving, because some people can find a "moral" issue with almost anything. Personally, I often can't bring myself to wager on many of the questions that deal with death or tragedy even if I find the question interesting...my heart can't take it. I'm not the most rational of thinkers, and I don't easily separate my emotional response from my cognitive one. That doesn't mean that the person who posed the question, or those who do choose to wager on it, have any less integrity than I do. Nor am I offended that they choose to do so.
I guess what I'm trying to say is this: If someone feels that a question is immoral...they don't have to participate in that market. If a question really is...well, questionable...then I would bet that the question won't get much activity anyway. It's frustrating enough to have questions voided due to poor structuring. I'm afraid that voiding questions based on supposed moral or ethical grounds will discourage people from writing and/or wagering on questions, and it will, ultimately, hurt the site. Some people are going to be upset about certain questions. Oh well. It makes for lively discussion in the comments section. I say err on the side of keeping a question open.

Anyone else having trouble reading the rules? Based on the comments above, I'm assuming it isn't just a problem with my browser. I'm seeing this:

2. Rules At Hubdub we don't really like rules, but we thought we needed a few to keep things fair and fun.

...and then it ends. I can't page down any further.

I'm assuming that this why Beezer can't see item 2.3.4

Actually let me take that back...it would only be impossible to cash out immediately if it were a new question. Still...why can't people just be more thoughtful of the odds to begin with. It isn't always a matter of gaming the system...sometimes people are just lazy and keep the odds 50-50 not matter how ridiculous it is. I'm glad that the admins are atleast trying to do something to keep things honest. It just seems like there must be alternatives

I understand. It sucked. I'm just saying that Hubdub wasn't trying to regulate what you were doing in this case. I also understand why you don't like the 12-hour rule. I understand that the admins are trying to prevent gaming, but it still hurts the short-term markets like you said. Also, I have sometimes had buyer's remorse immediately after placing a bet, and decided to cash out quickly while it was still a $0 loss/gain, and now that would be an impossibility. The sad thing is really that there is any need for this at all. Is it really so much fun to be on the leaderboard because you cheated? It kinda defeats the purpose of "bragging rights."

That's true...I don't like the 12 hour rule either...but as far as I can see, you can still cash out on the Dow question, you just can't place any more bets.

Actually, doloop and infernal, I too voted on the DOW question, although I did not realize until this morning that there were two identicals. Look at the comments on the one that was suspended. The writer of the question accidentally set the suspend date as 1:00 am instead of pm. Hubdub did not decide to suspend the question, it occurred automatically . I hadn't noticed either. Since the question of the DOW being up is posted daily, I didn't think to check. However, if you are going to try to play both questions like that, it probably would be good idea to doublecheck the settlement details in the future, because you just never know. Not Hubdub's fault on this one, just a typo/oversight.

I think Volodya has a good point. I too would like to see the moderators indicated as such on the Leaderboard. If moderators are allowed to vote, then transparency is key. I think some of the backlash is coming from people not knowing that voting was open to the moderators. I don't see an ethical problem as long as it is very clear what the rules are, and people know what they are getting into.I agree with AlanD that it would be interesting to see how well you can compete with the content experts, so I like the idea of them also betting, but this assumes that we all know who those experts are. I don't know how realistic his idea of having separate moderators and experts would be since I don't know all that is involved with the operations and business end of the site.
It does make sense that a person should not moderate a question for which they also placed a bet, but I'm not sure it has to be all or nothing. Perhaps the site should agree to use a "third-party" moderator (someone who has not placed a bet on the particular question) to settle disputes over voided or settled questions. That way, those who put work into this site can enjoy the fruits of their labor, users will have a little more assurance of fairness, and those who find the idea of betting against the "experts" intriguing will be free to do so.
Some will still argue that this leaves "ethical" problems, but only the people who have to have a separate "referee" when they are playing board games at home. This is a free site, it isn't real money. As long as everyone knows the rules of the game, I don't see why we can't all play. Get a grip people. I thought this was supposed to be fun. It's a new site, and a new concept. Let's give the administrators time to work this out.