Setting the Terms

[Benvolio]

Today's question on Gambling vs. Investing provoked several irritated responses because the questioner made several demands about what kind of answers he/she did not want to receive.

I don't want to hear/read the answer of "There's not much risk in stocks, because the price only goes up or down a little bit." Technically, there's a 50% chance of getting a sports bet right, which means if I bet on 1000 games, I'm not going to win or lose much money in the end. In addition, if the price on a stock only moves up/down a little bit, you'll be even more encouraged to stick with for a longer period of time, thus adding more risk in the investment.

I also don't want to hear/read the answer even though a Prophet said it, "You are putting money down to receive nothing from it." I would be putting hours of research and study into a sports "investment" (or bet) and receiving money (or nothing) in return. No one is suffering or losing money from me putting a bet down on a NBA game.

I also don't want to hear/read "mutual fund" anywhere near this answer. I am talking about me and "investing" my money.

I'm curious what you all think about questioners "setting the terms" of the answer. My personal opinion is that such restrictions are generally unnecessary, and they often come across as rude. It seems presumptuous to make demands of a gratuitous service. But I also see the need for questioners to clarify what they're looking for, especially when they are looking for the types of creative or unconventional answers that the Board is known for. Thoughts, anyone?

[Fredjikrang]

I think that a questioner can clarify what they are looking for by saying what kind of answers they are looking for, and that can only help the Writers, but I agree that that question was unreasonably rude, and unnecessarily restrictive.

I wouldn't hesitate to say something like "and if you could. . ." or "I already know about. . .so feel free to leave them out of your answer."

[jooniper]

I think in the responses to the question you guys did a good job of showing an acceptable way of presenting what you "don't want to hear" (ie: "I'm familiar with the theories A, B and C but they don't seem plausible to me...)"

[Ramoplot]

It seems presumptuous to make demands of a gratuitous service.

Just asking a question is making a demand - isn't the asker allowed to make more demands if werf wants to? This one in particular went way over the line, I agree, but in a lot of cases I think it's all right. To make the reverse argument, why should I have to tailor my question to meet your specific needs?

[bobtheenchantedone]

The whole motto of this gratuitous service is "your questions... our answers." They're asking for questions, they want questions, the whole purpose is questions. However, it's their answers, so to try to mess with their end of the deal seems ungrateful.

[ahem.]

Ooo! Can I ask for answers without a side of judgment? I would love that!

I recently asked if there was a way to do something that I wasn't sure was possible. The answer that came back was "No, you can't do that. And why are you trying to do that anyway? It's stupid and you should have your priorities lined up with the way I perceive the world and no other way." I was fine with the "No" part, but I was sort of hoping someone could point me in the right direction or give me an alternative way to achieve my aim. Instead I got hasty assumptions and a harsh judgment on me personally.

I would prefer that not happen in the future.

[Hobbes]

The questioner can do anything they want, but there are two important things to remember:

-Writers can also do pretty much whatever we want.

-You get what you pay for.

In other words, we writers are not indebted to the questioner any more than they are to us, so while I think setting the terms of an answer is reasonable enough, don't be surprised if we respond to your rudeness with our superior wit and sarcasm.

We're debating something like this on the Board right now, as a matter of fact. Go us.

[Humble Master]

Ooo! Can I ask for answers without a side of judgment? I would love that!

As has been amply proven both in discussions here and in Q&A over on the Board, the Writers are just human, perhaps you caught someone on a bad day and received a snarkier answer than the situation warranted. With each answer requiring the approval of another writer and an editor one would hope not too many of those would slip through, but I think answers tend to get flagged more for grammar issues than tone issues. There are a lot of different attitudes and personalities amongst the writers and I don't think we want to start flagging personalities so that answers start to sound like the "official" voice of the Board (that would get boring and monotonous pretty quick), so that's probably why sides of judgment sometimes accompany questions that don't deserve them. The system isn't perfect, but we work with what we've got.

[Benvolio]

Looking at some other questions, I think what I have the most problems with is the tone of the demands. When someone asks a question and says "I already tried really hard to find the answer and I got this and this but I'm hoping you guys have a better answer," that's placing some restrictions on the writers but it's more helpful than demanding. Or other times people are looking for some specific authority on a topic rather than just an opinion; I think that's okay. The question I referenced above was a fairly good example of what not to do. I would rather see a questioner say something to the effect of, "I'm already aware of these reasons why the Church opposes gambling but not investing, but I don't find them persuasive. Are there other reasons?"

[A Mom, but not yours]

Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment, I saw nothing wrong with the tone of the question until I started reading the answers. And then my first thought was something along the lines of, "Yeah, I guess you could have taken it that way. Huh." It still didn't feel demanding and rude to me at all. It felt much the same way as the comment posted today in follow-up by the questioner.

[wired]

In my opinion, there's a difference between demanding restrictions and qualifiers.

Qualifiers are those types of requests which ask for an answer to be qualified by having some specific source. Some qualifiers can be too strict and impossible for the 100 Hour Board to do, but I think that so long as the question is asked and answered respectfully, everyone should walk away feeling fine. (e.g. "How many Freshman at BYU own Rolex? Would you be able to get an exact count for a business presentation I am doing?" This is asked respectfuly, has a qualification [exact count], and is probably impossible for the Board to do. It would be rejected. [Also considered a counting question.])

Demanding restrictions are usually attached to questions where people already have a valid answer, but they don't want to accept it. Therefore, they de-validate that answer and say no one can use it as an answer. (e.g. "I want to know why if I drop an apple out of a tree, it falls to the ground. But don't tell me that it's gravity! I've heard enough about how gravity supposedly works, and I don't want to hear anything else about that - the whole proposal of gravity just doesn't hold in my mind.") That's exactly what this reader did - he had PLENTY of valid answers, but just disregarded them because he didn't like them. And he did it in a very rude way.

Furthermore, to directly answer his question, he misunderstands the idea of investing in the stock market as opposed to gambling in the stock market. Yes, if I randomly select a stock ticker, throw down $1,000 into it, determine I will sell in 24 hours no matter what, that is essentially gambling. (It has the same basic mentality and form as gambling - quick money, no work, total randomization.) However, if investing long term in the stock market as opposed to a single stock, you are guaranteeing yourself money back. Over any given 10 year period of time since the start of NASDAQ and S&P 500, there has never been a decrease in stock market investment. That is to say, no matter what 10 year period you pick, if you look at investment in the mark from the start of that 10 year period, any moderately diversified portfolio has a net increase in value.

Another rebuttal is to pull the stock market into understandable terms. Stocks work similar to the following idea: if a friend of mine says, "Hey, on the 4th of July, there are always people thirsty at the parade. I want to set up a lemonade stand, but I don't have money to make the sign, buy the pitchers, or construct a stand. I know you don't know anything about making lemonade, but you do have the money to pay for those things. If you'll pay for those things, whatever profit I make will go to you until your money is paid back. After that, you will receive 10% of the profits made on the lemonade." Depending on how good of an idea I think it is to do this, I can choose to lend him the money or not. Are there factors in play that I can't control or predict? Yes. It could rain on that day, people may not want lemonade (I prefer Otter Pops on the 4th of July!), or my friend my all of the sudden bail out and move to mexico. Those are things not under my control - variables. But they are not entirely random. I can check the forecast for the 4th of July, I can do a poll of people in the area about lemonde preference, and I can be judicious in who I lend the money to.

With gambling, I do not invest in a team. The money I put up is only bet if matched by some other guy who is willing to go the other way. Even though I never meet the guy who is betting on the other side, he or some group of people will lose the amount that I bet. This is money which never helps the team become better, nor is it covering any of their costs. It simply strips money away from one guy guessing one way, and gives it to another.

You can see this is entirely different than gambling

PS. When betting on sports games, you generally do not have a 50/50 chance of winning or losing. (That assumes equal probability for both teams - if they played 100 times, it's likely they'd both win 50 a piece.) The expected value of the Lakers beating the Sonics is much higher than .5... it's probably something like .85.

[arutha1000]

To play devil's advocate, as someone said earlier, it seems to me that the 100 Hour board demands people to consider that they are only human when they respond in an overly snarky or rude manner, but do not extend the same courtesy to those who ask questions. Usually questions asked in this manner have a context that the board members are not aware of. I've done something similar before, so I would assume the questioner has asked this question of many people before, only to have people treat werf's views with contempt or marginalize werf's thoughts and feelings. Then the 100 Hour Board becomes the last bastion of hope to have their view respected, but the questioner has so many strong feelings about it that the question comes out worded wrong. I will agree that the writer could have done more to seem less demanding and angry, I see nothing overly rude or abusive in the question.

I think the qualifiers in this context are neither wrong, nor demanding. Werf seems to be aware of the common arguments why the stock market is not equivalent to gambling, but nobody has been able to explain why in a satisfactory manner. People probably stop short of calling werf "stupid" for having the audacity to have something explained rather than take the answer on blind faith. Werf gets treated with condescension rather than intelligent debate or conversation. What wired wrote seems to be the perfect answer to what werf is looking for.

As for the whole "it's a free service", your are correct. However, wouldn't it be better to ignore the question rather than tell werf that werf is a crappy individual who should be ashamed werf had the audacity to ask such a question? Imagine yourself lost in a strange place and in desperation you ask someone working at a local establishment for directions (a gas station or something). In response, they tell you it's incredibly rude for you to distract them when they have paying customers, and then tell you it's your own fault for getting lost in the first place. They are 100% within their rights. That doesn't make it right.

[Humble Master]

However, wouldn't it be better to ignore the question rather than tell werf that werf is a crappy individual who should be ashamed werf had the audacity to ask such a question?

Please link any questions where you think that has happened. Particularly the points where you think a Writer has called a questioner a crappy individual. I know writers have attacked points of view, but I hope no writer has attacked a person, and not the opinion.

[arutha1000]

Apologies, that came out wrong. What I meant was that just as it's easy to interpret a non-threatening question as being rude and unreasonable, so is it easy to interpret the way the writers respond to such questions as a personal attack. I cannot recall any personal attacks happening when I have read the board. But when you ask a question that is usually answered with a personal attack, only to be censured by those you looked to as a last bastion of hope, it's easy to take it personally.

Again, sorry if what I wrote offended anyone. It is not my intent to cast aspersions on the 100 Hour Board, or those who write thereon.

[Portia]

I think the bottom line is that the writers answered the question, and they did a very good job of it, at that. If we don't answer your question, then fine, I can see being a little miffed, but if we do, and even try to under it under your parameters, then I would say there should be no hard feelings. Often, if we make cmments in an answer, it's more as a general shout-out to readers: i.e., "Hey! It's a question, not a demand" or "Please use a spell check if you want to be taken seriously." It is very, very rarely a personal attack.

The person apologized, and the writers accepted: it all worked out fine.

[Ramoplot]

I think that writers ought to give readers the benefit of the doubt (as far as their intentions, intelligence, illogicalness, or whatever) more often.

[Hobbes]

That one vote for Yes, It Makes Question Answers More Accurate? Yeah, that's me.

Why are there two options for "Yes" anyway? Is anyone going to vote against keeping things reasonable EXCEPT me?