Mitchell_Porter comments on Welcome to Less Wrong! - Less Wrong

48 Post author: MBlume 16 April 2009 09:06AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1953)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 29 December 2011 05:14:07AM 4 points [-]

I said

I'll bet US$1000 that this is Will_Newsome.

I think it's time to close out this somewhat underspecified offer of a bet. So far, AspiringKnitter and Eliezer expressed interest but only if a method of resolving the bet could be determined, Alicorn offered to play a role in resolving the bet in return for a share of the winnings, and dlthomas offered up $15.

I will leave the possibility of joining the bet open for another 24 hours, starting from the moment this comment is posted. I won't look at the site during that time. Then I'll return, see who (if anyone) still wants a piece of the action, and will also attempt to resolve any remaining conflicts about who gets to participate and on what terms. You are allowed to say "I want to join the bet, but this is conditional upon resolving such-and-such issue of procedure, arbitration, etc." Those details can be sorted out later. This is just the last chance to shortlist yourself as a potential bettor.

I'll be back in 24 hours.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 30 December 2011 05:30:20AM 12 points [-]

And the winners are... dlthomas, who gets $15, and ITakeBets, who gets $100, for being bold enough to bet unconditionally. I accept their bets, I formally concede them, aaaand we're done.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 December 2011 06:43:43AM 7 points [-]

You know I followed your talk about betting but never once considered that I could win money for realz if I took you up on it. The difficulty of proving such things made the subject seem just abstract. Oops.

Comment author: Solvent 30 December 2011 06:52:21AM 2 points [-]

And thus concludes the funniest thread on LessWrong in a very long time. Thanks, folks.

Comment author: ITakeBets 30 December 2011 05:32:07AM 1 point [-]

Thank you.

Comment author: AspiringKnitter 30 December 2011 06:46:44AM 0 points [-]

What did they win money for?

Comment author: wedrifid 30 December 2011 07:23:49AM 5 points [-]

What did they win money for?

Betting money. That is how such things work.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 30 December 2011 07:58:53AM *  -1 points [-]

You're such a dick. Haha. Upvoted.

Comment author: KPier 30 December 2011 07:36:23AM 3 points [-]

You not being Will_Newsome. (I can't imagine how bizarre it must be to be watching this conversation from your perspective.)

Comment author: AspiringKnitter 30 December 2011 09:07:34PM 1 point [-]

Wait, but what changed that caused Mitchell_Porter to realize that?

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 31 December 2011 06:11:30AM *  10 points [-]

I didn't exactly realize it, but I reduced the probability. My goal was never to make a bet, my goal was to sockblock Will. But in the end I found his protestations somewhat convincing; he actually sounded for a moment like someone earnestly defending himself, rather than like a joker. And I wasn't in the mood to re-run my comparison between the Gospel of Will and the Knitter's Apocryphon. So I tried to retire the bet in a fair way, since having an ostentatious unsubstantiated accusation of sockpuppetry in the air is almost as corrosive to community trust as it is to be beset by the real thing. (ETA: I posted this before I saw Kevin's comment, by the way!)

Comment author: Will_Newsome 03 January 2012 09:44:21AM *  1 point [-]

"Next time just don't be a dick and you won't lose a hundred bucks," says the unreflective part of my brain whose connotations I don't necessarily endorse but who I think does have a legitimate point.

Comment author: Kevin 31 December 2011 06:00:54AM 3 points [-]

I think he just gave up and didn't want to be the guy sowing seeds of discontent with no evidence. That kind of thing is bad for communities.

Comment author: dlthomas 30 December 2011 09:11:48PM 3 points [-]

No idea. Don't have to show your cards if you fold...

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 30 December 2011 09:50:41PM 1 point [-]

Mitchell asked Will directly at http://lesswrong.com/lw/b9/welcome_to_less_wrong/5jby so perhaps he just trusts Will not to lie when using the Will_Newsome account.

Comment author: Steve_Rayhawk 30 December 2011 05:12:30AM 2 points [-]

I'll stake $500 if eligible.

When would the answer need to be known by?

Comment author: ITakeBets 29 December 2011 05:25:36AM *  2 points [-]

I am interested.

Edit: Putting up $100, regardless of anyone else's participation, and I'm prepared to demonstrate that I'm not Will_Newsome if that is somehow necessary.

Comment author: orthonormal 29 December 2011 10:56:52PM 0 points [-]

I'll stake $100 against you, if and only if Eliezer also participates.

Comment author: orthonormal 29 December 2011 10:58:11PM *  2 points [-]

(Replying rather than editing, to make sure that my comment displays as un-edited.)

I should also stipulate that I am not, nor have I ever been, Will Newsome.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 29 December 2011 11:56:33PM 2 points [-]

It's not impossible that I was once Will Newsome, I suppose, nor even that I currently am. But if so, I'm unaware of the fact.

Comment author: Will_Newsome 30 December 2011 02:01:47AM 1 point [-]

I am a known magus, so even an Imperius curse is not out of the question.

Comment author: CuSithBell 30 December 2011 02:47:45AM 20 points [-]

Turns out LW is a Chesterton-esque farce in which all posters are secretly Wills trolling Wills.

Comment author: Normal_Anomaly 06 January 2012 02:32:19AM 3 points [-]

Then I'm really wasting time here.

Comment author: wedrifid 06 January 2012 08:27:49AM 7 points [-]

Yes, I all are!

Comment author: ata 06 January 2012 08:38:15AM 2 points [-]

Or you've been neglecting to treat your Spontaneous Duplication.