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 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.