Sounds a lot like Verrit. The whole problem with modern discourse is the inability to collectively establish what the facts actually are. Assigning authority to a company or website doesn’t resolve the conflict.
In practice, the libs would always win because reality has a well known liberal bias, and the cons would demand the site be shut down and the owners locked up.
i only like this idea if i’m the one who gets to decide what’s true. and that’s what i’m already doing, so… i guess i don’t really like your idea.
That Is kind of the whole point and why Kant suggested the idea in the first place.
People are far less like to argue on the facts if they have to put up money. I suspect a lot of the Covid is fake people would shrink away pretty fast if they had to put up some cash to defend their position.
Yeah they would shrink away from “the libtard echo chamber” is what they would tell themselves and anyone else within earshot.
They would just create their own forum where they get to be arbiters truth and it would cost money to try and push back against them.
i would love to see how much $ keed would put behind this 0% vote. there’s a fuckin 1% option, i mean 0% seriously?
Thats stupid though.
Even if it doesn’t happen there still wasn’t a zero % chance.
The people that voted 100%. Even if it does happen doesn’t mean the chance was 100%.
yeah it’s super dumb. and i want him to PAY
What if arbitration was a vote but voting cost money.
Edit. Even better what if you somehow combined a community respect system with money so say you have a high community respect number (e.g, hearts) allowed you to vote for cheaper. Maybe also add proof of expertise in a field reduced voting cost.
If it was a prohibitive amount of money nobody would do it. If it was a small amount of money, you’ve created a way for people to buy the results they want.
I can imagine Sklansky coming up with this idea.
This would be a problem to figure out but I don’t think it’s fatal. People play 1c/2c poker.
Obviously the more it cost to post poorly the less common it would be. However, it seems like nearly any amount of money would dissuade bad faith posting no?
Terrible idea.
Basically the richest get to protect their shit arguments while finding minor mistakes in poor people who can’t afford to get involved.
Kant came up with the idea. I am just adapting it.
Ya this is a pretty fatal flaw.
Voters pay money, but have to pay less when they have a lot of hearts? The person judged to be correct will receive money? This just begs for sock-puppets who like all of each others posts and vote the “correct” way.
or a cult where everyone learns to think and speak exactly like The Arbitrator, or face punishment
Along the same vein as your idea, but not exactly.
I particularly enjoy the “poll the forum” questions with % likelihood something will happen.
There could be a daily (weekly?) forum wide forecasting poll where posters individually predict the outcome of an uncertain binary event and assign it X% probability. Posters would be ranked based off their Brier score (a quick Google shows a few good ideas for modifying this for contests).
Posters would get badges for what percentile they rank in for prediction. Would be much easier to identify who does and doesn’t know what they are talking about, and how confident they are.
To introduce the gambling aspect, maybe you only have the opportunity to earn a badge if you are a paid monthly subscriber, and top X scores each month (quarter?) split the pot.
