jenniandboys![[Admin]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_admin.gif "This user is an admin"){kind=icon}
ryanj
kruijs![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
melmel07
Net worth: H$6,336
Predictions made: 478
Member since Tue 29th Jan
Comments
melmel07 left these comments.
I think it's really weak that this question suspends on Christmas Eve. It would have been a good question if it had suspended on Inauguration Day--that would have made more sense.
So if say, Obama gets the nomination sometime during summer, and Pelosi supports him (since she will obviously support whoever gets the nomination), will it be settled as Yes? Because she has said she will not ENDORSE before convention because she runs it since she's speaker, etc
Larry King interview:
PELOSI: I'm the chair of the convention. And, as such, I think it's important to remain neutral. And, again, as speaker of the House, as well, I have many members who are still undeclared. And I want them to make their own decisions about the race.
Larry King interview:
PELOSI: I'm the chair of the convention. And, as such, I think it's important to remain neutral. And, again, as speaker of the House, as well, I have many members who are still undeclared. And I want them to make their own decisions about the race.
hmm tough...but i just can't see this one grossing more than the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe-- the first one is just so much more read than the rest of the series. and the economy sucks people are seeing less movies anyway. but we'll seee
i agree with jenniandboys definitely!! Cause it's how much will they SELL for. which means if they are bought at all, which they will be, then that amount is teh answer. it's basically a given taht they will donate all the money to charity, so that is a moot point
i think it should be rewritten with specific types of cancer
but i won't put money on it probably cause its just WAYYY too ambiguous. like wow.
but i won't put money on it probably cause its just WAYYY too ambiguous. like wow.
o it is set to suspend the 31st of may, so by the 1st second of June 2008, will they have added this feature?
this should just be voided...our money has been tied up long enough and no one will be happy with the settlement unless all get their money back. since there is no definite answer for how many pints.
syesha does NOT deserve to go home, or even be in the bottom 2. i'm kind of over american idol...especially the ridiculous amount of commercials!! (doesn't stop me from betting on kristy going home though!)
if this settles as No, that is frustrating. the little line chart on http://www.gallup.com/poll/105664/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Clinton-Remain-Nearly-Tied.aspx shows an obvious upward trend since the date of his speech. he was going down at a semi-alarming rate, then he gave the speech on the 17th, and like a day later his numbers began going up up up. I realize the background info says .29 blah blah so i won't freak out if it is settled as No, but this situation should be considered in the creation of future questions/regulations
why does it suspend at 4am on wednesday? what time PST will it settle, midnight at the end of thursday? could we extend the suspend date to allow bets all day wednesday, then suspend for all of thursday?
My original thought was that if they most recently hold office and live in DC, in a national position like VP or cabinet, that it would be settled as DC, but thats up for discussion if anyone feels strongly that we should go by something else. options would be where they are registered to vote, where they hold/held public office, home state, etc
i would take it that the settlement depends on the supreme court's decision in DC v. Heller. Perhaps wording the question using the case specifically would help.
Ryan, i think you should DEFINITELY look at both question and background, as sometimes the background clarifies ambiguities that could arise from the question. Furthermore, bidders should critically consider the question before staking their money, and if there are any questions ask them or flag for review BEFORE bidding.
Also, things that seem too good to be true usually are, so if you come across a question where the current market percents make you say WTF? Sweet, let me bid a ton on it cause i KNOW everyone else is wrong, you should definitely take a moment to reconsider.
Also, when creating questions, getting facts right, such as the fact that both states hold primaries and not caucuses, is very important.
Also, things that seem too good to be true usually are, so if you come across a question where the current market percents make you say WTF? Sweet, let me bid a ton on it cause i KNOW everyone else is wrong, you should definitely take a moment to reconsider.
Also, when creating questions, getting facts right, such as the fact that both states hold primaries and not caucuses, is very important.
Yeah... I used my US wall map and a google region map, and i knew i had forgotten some..which is why i added the last thing. It was intended to play on the geo-political value... many expect him to get someone from the South to get the conservatives to come out, but others like my dad and i think he should go for someone from the north, especially someone near ohio, since he needs to win the south anyway and it will come down to the north. the Carolinas and Dakotas were intended to include both the states, as they are in the same region. I will just remake the question, and clarify all this. =)
Considering that neither of them can possibly reach 2025 delegates (w/o some scandal or major upset), is it assumed that if one drops out before the convention, the settlement is Yes, but if neither drops out, it settles No?
it can be any combination w/o going against yourself..since the odds may change. i voted yes on the 2nd, and if i vote no on this one, i'm saying that i'm right on the 2nd one but the current majority is going to be wrong. this is awesome.
Now that redo's are a major possibility...could this question be clarified a bit? The way the questions says "with or without a lawsuit, with or without new caucuses" is pretty ambiguous. I originally assumed it would be settled as Yes only if she was awarded delegates based on the results of the first go-round of primaries (I think both states do primaries, not caucuses). If they redo them, she will obviously get some but the phrasing and especially the word "awarded" seems to imply that it would count only if she were given delegates that she originally was not going to get at the time of the primary. Clarification would be great, thanks.
yeah this is fun...and even if you only bet like 20 or 50, you still have a chance to win like 300. i bet this becomes a common type of question
Yeah! He has NOT conceded yet. This is totally not right. They said he would probably officially do it tomorrow. I want my money back.
Okay some people need to learn some basic manners. Just because you disagree with someone, there is no need to get rude or attack them. And historyteacher, your analogy that me voting on a gun ban has similar implications as voting on actual deaths is just absurd. We should be able to disagree without resorting to such ridiculous assertions.
As someone with a cousin (who is more like a brother to me) in the Marines, who has been to Iraq once and is up for his next deployment in April (this time to Afghanistan), I have a major problem with this question. For everyone defending the question, please just take into consideration that for the 36th soldier needed to die for one bet to win, there is a family who will be DEVASTATED and whose lives will never be the same. I am against the war, as are most of the people defending betting on this question as a way to make people realize that people are dying. But the people betting are not the stakeholders in this issue. The soldiers and their families are, who are wagering their LIVES here. Most Marines I know want the war to end too, and none are excited to get deployed. I'm trying to not ramble, but as someone with a close family member in the armed forces and many friends in it, I really think questions of this sort should, in the future, be voided. i understand that there is too much at stake/it is too late to void it now, but in the future it should be. A compromise would be how many CASUALTIES instead of DEATHS, because at least that is far less traumatic for the soldier and his loved ones. I have friends in the Marines who have been shot and are going back again soon, so I could deal with "casualties" (which includes deaths, i believe), if you guys are going to insist on having questions like this. But there are soo many other things to bet on, why do we have to bet on this? I'm not mad at anyone...when i first saw the question, i wasn't outraged or upset at all, til i realized a minute later that MY cousin could one day be a statistic in one of these. I'm not angry, I just want y'all to look at this from the side of someone who has more at stake in such a bet than some HubDub dollars. Thanks.
are we assuming she loses all four, or will it apply if she loses ANY of the states, etc? will the question be voided if she sweeps or only loses 1 or 2?
Eastern...since that is Ohio's timezone. i thnk that will make it more interesting a bet...cause 5 and a half hours is a long time
This is a really good question! He really ought to, but he's acting like he won't...what a scumbag. And by the way, Ryan, you do such a great job with admin'ing the politics boards!! Keep up the good work!!