Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[seattlelou]

Originally Posted by krmont22

It is pretty annoying to get an e-mail that says, "We can not win, but we would like more of your money."

More honest then saying "Our plan is working send more money" if the campaign doesn't believe it don't ya think?" I think its more honorable but I am not a supporter and felt that the campaign was kind of shining people on about its chances.

[krmont22]

I appreciate the honesty, but it is annoying none the less. He could just say we can not win without asking for more money.

[seattlelou]

I can understand that for sure.

[dessin d'enfant]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Any objective measure that isn't subject to the whims of Wikipedia's editorial staff(which, just to remind you, is rigorously selected to include EVERYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION)? Plurality of votes, plurality of delegates, whatever.

I don't really see a problem with it. It was a place where we knew the results would eventually be posted and is generally accurate.

[FlyWf]

I know you didn't see the problem with it at the time, but given the benefit of hindsight? It seems clear you did not put any thought into "what if Wikipedia changes the way they display primary results." It's kinda weird that you added that layer of editorial control in between the actual results and bet on how one individual website would choose to display those results. When I bet on a baseball game I don't bet on how the ESPN scoreboard will look the next day, I bet on the actual game. It's your money so whatever, but at least me and pvn find it amusing.

[bgomez89]

Why does it matter

[dessin d'enfant]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

I know you didn't see the problem with it at the time, but given the benefit of hindsight? It seems clear you did not put any thought into "what if Wikipedia changes the way they display primary results." It's kinda weird that you added that layer of editorial control in between the actual results and bet on how one individual website would choose to display those results. When I bet on a baseball game I don't bet on how the ESPN scoreboard will look the next day, I bet on the actual game. It's your money so whatever, but at least me and pvn find it amusing.

But the whole point is that this is much harder to bet on than a sporting event. Like if you look at the wiki for the 2008 primary it lists "estimated delegats"....so it seems possible that different news sites could come up with different numbers etc. In the event that there is some ambiguity, wiki seems like a reasonable way to decide.

[zikzak]

Just FYI for future bets, wikipedia was founded and continues to be heavily influenced by Libertarians. Jimbo Wales and Ron Paul are like Crunchy Jif and Fluffernutter. If there's ever a subtle, pro-Libertarian slant to be found, it will be found on wiki.

[krmont22]

Those damn libertarians providing a basically free market of information! God damn them!

[zikzak]

Hey, I'll give credit where it is due. I was wicked skeptical of wikipedia for many years, but it has turned out to be a pretty damn cool, useful thing. That doesn't change the fact that it contains subtle biases and inherent flaws.

eta: Wikipdia is not a free market. It's a charity that relies on volunteer labor.

[General Tsao]

max,

i'm fine with counting the maps as running it twice.

fly - the "i knew this wouldn't work but i just didn't say anything because i wanted to keep it really really secret" speech is boring me more than your usual posts.

[FlyWf]

Originally Posted by dessin d'enfant

But the whole point is that this is much harder to bet on than a sporting event. Like if you look at the wiki for the 2008 primary it lists "estimated delegats"....so it seems possible that different news sites could come up with different numbers etc. In the event that there is some ambiguity, wiki seems like a reasonable way to decide.

OMG I love Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but lol that you're citing to wiki to show that it is BAD AT DISPLAYING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE BETTING ON.

Intrade, for example, has its contracts on the actual results of these primaries, not the Wikipedia display of that. In a possibly related story, there's absolutely no confusion over what the ending value of the various Ron Paul to win... contracts should look like.

[dessin d'enfant]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Intrade, for example, has its contracts on the actual results of these primaries, not the Wikipedia display of that. In a possibly related story, there's absolutely no confusion over what the ending value of the various Ron Paul to win... contracts should look like.

Actually I think there is. The market used to just be "paul wins 1 or more states" now it's "paul wins 1 or more states (excluding Maine). We could have bet on the intrade contract....but it also isn't exactly (at this point) what we were trying to bet either.

[dessin d'enfant]

Originally Posted by zikzak

Hey, I'll give credit where it is due. I was wicked skeptical of wikipedia for many years, but it has turned out to be a pretty damn cool, useful thing. That doesn't change the fact that it contains subtle biases and inherent flaws.

But what source of information doesn't have at least subtle biases? I don't use wiki because it is perfect....it's just really convenient for many, many things.

[dessin d'enfant]

Originally Posted by General Tsao

max,

i'm fine with counting the maps as running it twice.

Sounds good.