| Put your money where your mouth is!26-12-2015 13:36 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
To the owner,
This is an idea that I would appreciate and think would be a very enjoyable thing, and make you some money!!
Where 2 people are in an argument they can post a thread where they alone can post and others can read only. Perhaps a side thread with everyone else's comments might be liked somehow...
The two people put in their stake, say $100.
The claim or whatever is being fought over is stated and off they go. When the issue is obviously sorted, judged by you or something, that's the tricky bit, perhaps nominated or invited judges, The winner gets his money back and the 70% of the loser's. You keep the rest.
Plenty of legal disclaimers would be needed etc but hay, what is there to lose? Limited company time probably....
Edited on 26-12-2015 13:37 |
| 27-12-2015 16:57 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
Edited on 27-12-2015 16:57 |
| 20-12-2022 22:36 |
DawnMassey☆☆☆☆☆
(1) |
Not a very good idea, honestly.
I argued with my ex until hoarseness together and could never convey to him a single adequate thought. But an outsider from the side was always right for him, so that he would not tell my ex.
The presence of a third party always inclines the dispute in one of the parties.
My last argument with my ex was about how long does a divorce take in texas. I turned out to be right, but after getting a divorce, I didn't care anymore. I got the most important. |
| 21-12-2022 11:11 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
Yes. |
| 24-12-2022 03:22 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 24-12-2022 03:23 |
|
| 24-12-2022 14:28 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully. |
| 24-12-2022 23:41 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.
Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 26-12-2022 12:58 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.
Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.
True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things. |
| 26-12-2022 21:33 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.
Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.
True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.
No, it won't. No matter who you use as a judge, nothing will change. All it will turn into is a flame war over the judge's decision. Awarding money on a blind forum isn't practical. You have to give personal information including banking information to third parties to accomplish this.
Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name. You and anyone you know is under threat of this. Imagine the further damage someone can cause because someone you don't know on the internet has your bank account information. You only need look in the UK itself to see how people are being harassed and even arrested simply for saying something politically incorrect.
No. The best way is for people to judge for themselves, which they will do anyway. That's really what blind forums like this one are all about.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 26-12-2022 21:41 |
| 27-12-2022 12:24 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.
Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.
True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.
No, it won't. No matter who you use as a judge, nothing will change. All it will turn into is a flame war over the judge's decision. Awarding money on a blind forum isn't practical. You have to give personal information including banking information to third parties to accomplish this.
Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name. You and anyone you know is under threat of this. Imagine the further damage someone can cause because someone you don't know on the internet has your bank account information. You only need look in the UK itself to see how people are being harassed and even arrested simply for saying something politically incorrect.
No. The best way is for people to judge for themselves, which they will do anyway. That's really what blind forums like this one are all about.
You have just given a rational as to why there can never be any sort of workable legal system.
Yet we have a working, if imperfect, legal system. |
| 27-12-2022 19:08 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14389) |
Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.
It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.
. |
| 27-12-2022 19:36 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.
It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.
.
Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble. |
| 27-12-2022 21:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hi Tim
Thanks for the new idea!
But there is exactly a "the tricky bit", as you put it. Who should judge, and when is the issue settled? So if you invite an authority as a judge, say a climate scientist, there will be a lot of disagreement about his/her credentials.
It could be fun with some bets on Climate-Debate.com, but I can't see how I should find the winners in a fair way...
Best,
Jeppe
How about if both of the parties involved must agree with the choice of judge first. There can be a few questions sent back a nd fourth to sound out the person etc..
It is the kind of thing where very often you would not want a climate scientist particularly but more often a high school science teacher would be best as if it's cutting edge stuff then it's probably not resolvable outside of a full scientific disscussion/experiment/many papers thing.
It's things like the situation on a different forum where I am having an argument about how many people rely upon glacial ice melting for their water supply. It would be nice to invite them here and resolve such things.
The problem is that most high school teachers are illiterate when it comes to science...even 'science' teachers.
Science isn't papers, or experiments, or discussion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
Should be good enough for this.
I would like, ideally, a school teacher, a civil engineer and a layer to act a legal judge.
The engineer makes sure that the school teacher can't act stupid. The teacher is there to point out the utterly obvious, no need for a Phd. And the layer will make sure that the process of the reasoning is rigourous, hopefully.
Anyone can act stupid, even an engineer or a lawyer.
True, but all we can hope for are good systems not perfect ones.
The process being clear and public will help stop people doing silly things.
No, it won't. No matter who you use as a judge, nothing will change. All it will turn into is a flame war over the judge's decision. Awarding money on a blind forum isn't practical. You have to give personal information including banking information to third parties to accomplish this.
Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name. You and anyone you know is under threat of this. Imagine the further damage someone can cause because someone you don't know on the internet has your bank account information. You only need look in the UK itself to see how people are being harassed and even arrested simply for saying something politically incorrect.
No. The best way is for people to judge for themselves, which they will do anyway. That's really what blind forums like this one are all about.
You have just given a rational as to why there can never be any sort of workable legal system.
Yet we have a working, if imperfect, legal system.
Not really. Legal systems concern a set of laws that people can be jailed for or pay some other penalty for. Juries are real people, and you appear an in actual court of law. Evidence is presented by both sides. The jury is made up of everyday people (at least in the United States). There is no requirement for any degree, education, or license to be a juror.
In other words, it is AGAIN just people judging for themselves the evidence being presented.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-12-2022 21:29 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Doxing is a real problem. You have already revealed your true name.
It's only a potential problem if THIS is where Tim either lives or works or both.
.
Or if I think anybody with the lack of balls to dox me would be any sort of trouble.
Brave words. You should consider, though, the cost of having to bother to defend yourself this way.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |