Destry's dashboard

Welcome to all the new users. I hope that you find the game as fun and addictive as those of us who have been here for a while. I look forward to seeing an influx of new players.
You will enjoy the personal response you get to any problems. Hubdub seems to really be trying thier best. A little patience as we all go through the beta learning curve.
I look forward to seeing the new players moving up the leaderboard. Feel free to contact any of the players on here, they are all willing to help.

I am with Rohan on this one. If there isn't already a question about the topic, then I think anyone should be able to write it. The more experience a wide group of users have writing questions is going to help everyone.

I have been very vocal in my calling for the power user system to be rolled out. I however do not think that power users should settle questions. We have rules in place that don't allow category editors to wager on questions in thier category, so I don't think we should allow power users to settle questions. I think the settlement issue can be sped up by allowing power users to suspend and send questions to category editors for settlement. I think giving a very small group of users the power to suspend questions, approve questions before they go live, and send questions to category admins for settlement will greatly enhance the playing experience.
I also agree that all questions in which a settlement request is sent should be alerted to admins, and that admins should have shifts when they monitor those requests. As the number of markets increases and the amount of questions needing settlement increases, we are going to have to expand the number of category editors. Having category editors spread over different time zones would greatly enhance this experience.

Can we please select whether or not we want the new prediction screen. It is a pain in the ass. There is no option to return to question, I have to use back button on browser to go back to question. I don't understand the purpose of the screen, It seems just another chance for us to invite other users to bid on a question.

Did the troch relay and rally go off without any violent outbursts? If the answer is yes, it doesn't matter what the reasons for the peace was.

Can we not get like $50 hubdub dollars for the use of our images and words, that would be kinda fun.

I can't even believe this got escalated. An editoral is not a news report. My paper will print editorials from anyone that can send one in, regardless how idiotic they may be. That doesn't mean they are reporting the news of the upcoming proposed event. Common sense would support that editorials are not news reporting.

Nothing like a resettlement of a question. That way so many more people can win. It seems to me that we are still nearly 3 months after launch of the site still dealing with a consistency problem. There are 10 of you Hubdub admins, I suggest you get together and decide a consistent way to settle questions. I will buy the first round of drinks, take 1,000 hubdub dollars and leave a big tip.

With as much debate as occurs on questions, maybe the settlement details tab should be the default. I like the news tab being default.

Well the good news is that we no longer need to ask the community anything, all we have to do is ask scottay. This is great, no more worries, no more escalating questions, this is gonna be great. Do you have your own website or something to make it easier.
A person would create a question anticipating the word merge would mean that the act had to be done, otherwise they would use the word announce.

How do you know what he meant. You didn't create the question. So now we are to believe that you know. Are you a mind reader, do you have inside information the rest of us don't know. The reason this was escalated is because there was differing opinions about the meaning. And the majority of people decided that the way question was written was to mean would merge be complete or at a point in which it was 99.9% likely completion would be accomplished. I again state that if question creator was so explicit in the meaning why wasn't the word announcement used? Especially with all the controversy.

I agree with Andrew. Unless question specifically asks or states in settlement that an announcement is what is looked for then we should settle when it is 99.9% clear it will occur.
To address Scottay concerns, I would simply say that is why we have the getsatisfaction site so we can discuss as a community what we would like to see. And then as a group make a decision. It was obvious that you were invested in the market and didn't disclose that as was asked by Andrew, and that I believe swayed your outlook on this. Having an opinion is great, and when you disclose your bias, that helps others understand the position a little clearer. I disagree wholeheartedly that the question creator had clear intentions that an announcement would settle this, if that is case adding the phrase, will these two announce a merger would have been all it would have taken. A common sense reading of the question asks will they merge, and merging and announcing a merger are distinctly different.

I'll pay $1,000 hubdub dollars. I am not certain what the current exchange rate is on hubdub dollar to American dollar, but with the crash of american dollar is has to be getting better. I saw a coupon the other day that was 1/10 of a cent, that is twice as good as they use to be 1/20th. So I figure that $1,000 hubdub dollars should be worth $10 real dollars, check with Jersjustrolling or cognos or whatever new name is has this week, as fast as he is losing money he might pay more than that... lol....

What was deleted from the above article was the references to how tricky the dealings will be with the pilot unions, and the anti-trust approval that is needed for this deal to be complete.
I believe if a question doesn't state specifically whether we are wagering on the announcement or the event, it should be assumed we are wagering on the event. And if there is a likelihood of greater than .1% then question should not be settled as it doesn't comply with the 99.9% certainity rules. This simply could have been solved if the question was clear, I when I first read the question and saw the date and gave it a common sense reasoning, assumed it was implied that the merger would have to have approvals from everyone by that date. Announcing you intention to merge without a 99.9% likilihood that the merger will go through doesn't settle this question as it is written.
This is still in agreement with the Spitzer rule, because 99.9% of the time when a person announces a resignation they resign, the examples of it not occurring are very rare.

I don't have a position in the markets.

I feel that when a question doesn't specify whether they are looking for the announcement of merger or the actual merger we should then weigh in with the 99.9% rule. If the announcement leads to a merger 99.9% of the time then the announcement would be enough to settle it. I know that in no case should we settle a market based on the announcement of an upcoming announcement. As was done in this market: http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Who_wi... interesing point is that it was done at 8:16pm a full 30 minutes after this question was escalated. I have asked for the above mentioned question to be unsettled, suspended until a decision can be reached. The above question was settled using a source not in the settlment details.
Back to the point of this thread. It seems that airline mergers don't happen everytime an announcement is made. It seems there are alot of potential problems with an announced merger that must be smoothed out. I think we should either specify a question is about the "announcement" of a merger, or whether a merger will take place. If we were to specify in the question, then there wouldn't be any grey area, if question asked for announcement, it is easy to tell if announcement was made, if question asks for an actual merger to take place, then that is also well documented.

I don't like the idea of there being a huge gap between suspend times and settlement times. I think for questions in which there is no definite settlement date, there shouldn't be a suspend date. Suspending a market locks up that market and thereby takes away the ability to be a market website. Basically you are just guessing about the outcome, that isn't what this site is. If it was we would have 1000 credits and bet 1 credit on the outcome, not buying and selling a market. I don't think having a bunch of questions predicted correctly is a measuring stick of anything. I will wager on 100 questions and close out the position on 95 of them at a profit, the other 5 I will either let settle if I can't get out at a profit and believe the outcome will be in my favor, or cash out and take a loss, rarely will I let a question settle. On some questions in which I do allow to settle are questions in which I have wagered lets say 10,000 dollars at 92%, I am earning 8% on the outcome, but if I cash even it market was at 99%, moving that much money out would put me out at 95%, so only make 3%. I will then let those wagers go to settlement. There are also times I will let a small wager go to settlment, if I have 100 bucks on question and I got in at less than 10%, then I will let it settle cause I might win big and lose just a little.
The problem I have with suspend times being far out, is that you have closed the market. Money is locked up and the market can no longer function and that goes against the foundation of this site. If a question creator wants to create a question with a suspend date far out from the settlement date, more power to them, I won't wager on them, and doubt many other would. Why would I want to wager on a presidential market that wont settle til November, if my money is locked up in June. If a person doesn't have the ability to follow a market closely, then don't wager on it. There are some days I have meetings when dow is closing (I try to schedule meetings around my hubdubbing) and I don't play the markets on those days. I would like the suspend time to be easier to see on the question page. As a hubdubber I read the settlement details before every question but I am sure alot of others don't have that habit.
As far as duplicate questions I would say that in the presidential example if someone wants to create a question about the race and suspend it in June then we shouldn't allow any other questions about the race until that market settles. If someone creates a market that has no suspend date, and someone else want to create a question with early suspend date, then the starting odds of that question should be whatever the other question are at the time of creation. I can guarantee you that the question with later suspend date will get more action. Why would anyone want to wager on the other question? Those that want to see how well they do, still can but also have ability to get out if market is good and can cash out early if they choose.

I don't think we need a rule for this. This is common sense, the editors should be allowed to edit anything they find offensive.

So I have been holding on to this suggestion cause I didn't want to sound like I was complaining about having alot of money to wager. But could we please get buttons for 500 and 1000k bets, and up the 10,000 amount to wager at one time.

I thought the idea was to use common sense. Call me silly but when a quesiton asks if something will happen by a certain date, shouldn't we wait for the date and then if the news reported or didn't report we settle. If a question asks about an event with no date, and we get news reports that seem to provide 99.9% clarity then we settle.
I don't like this 99.9% rule at all. Whether or not a news agency reports on news is either yes or no. Take the Boeing contract question in which Airbus was awarded contract, boeing filed appeal, but question was settled. I agreed with the settling, the question asked who will be awarded the contract, and Airbus was awarded it, taking into account the appeals process seemed silly then. And now fast forward to the OOXML standard question and it was declared the standard, but wasn't settled because of a potential appeal that could be filed (none was filed at the time). I simply am asking for clarity. Lets do it one way all the time.
In regards to news prediction versus event prediction, I have stated many times I like the news prediction side of the argument. What we have to determine is does the news settle the question accurately. If it does settle, if unclear, then suspend question and discuss it and make decision. If it is determined that question is not able to be settled due to an error with question, then we should void and move on.