Buy a watch… winder, help save the world? #5 (Wolf Blake Double Winder w/Storage)

As much as I’m concerned my wife could have a strong opinion to my sending $$ off to HotWatchChick69, I’ll us off at $200. 

Off to a roaring start!  Thank you, sir!!!

May I ask why you are complicating what is in essence an auction for charity when they already work so well and so often??

Kindest

Bob

England

Happy to answer your question, but not quite sure I understand what the question is?  Can you clarify?

Thank you, my man!

You know what’s funny? I finally went through all my receipts yesterday, and realized that I’m a lot closer to the pledge goal than I’d previously thought. Apparently I had an auto-deduct thing set on my payroll that I hadn’t taken into account!

So, probably only a couple more this year, will hit my employer’s match cap for the calendar year, and then… there’s 2023.

OK, why all the polls etc. when charity auctions work jut fine without all the preamble your are involved in? Enquiring as wondering if it boots your sales or if you just enjoy it all? No damning criticism intended.

Bob

Key lesson here: The structure of polls can greatly influence respondents’ votes - that’s how all these different opinion survey companies game polls to give whatever results they think their clients want to hear!

I still get votes for "I like cheese" on the poll I put up like 3 weeks ago.  

We're looking into sponsorships from Big Dairy.

Ah, okay!

1. I put up a poll, because I've done a number of auctions for watches that I feel have been incredibly  successful, but had no idea if anybody might be interested in winders or not.  If there weren't interest, then I suppose I would have simply listed the winders on eBay or some such
2. The preamble...  If I hover over your handle, it says that you joined WatchCrunch relatively recently, yeah?  Well, there are a bunch of folks here who've been on WC for a little longer now, and we've all typecast ourselves.  For example, @Deeperblue is always and forever known for bringing up interesting topics and using nothing but GoT memes.  @Aurelian does nothing but make erudite and obscure 1-line quips.  @Ichibunz just posts this annoying dancing watermelon gif in every thread.  My schtick is long, autistic ramblings.  Gotta stick to character, you know?
3. Yes, I enjoy it.  I'm engaged in the age-old, Silicon Valley tradition of "resting and vesting" now that my career ends with a whimper.  So, it's either alcoholism or long autistic posts on WatchCrunch...  so, WatchCrunch it is!
4. I don't know if it boosts the final winning bid amount or lowers it.  But, partially, my calculation is that if I can entertain anyone with the long rambling, it will significantly signal boost GiveDirectly and GiveWell, so why the hell not?

Hope that answers the question!

"I am triggered."

-Tacitus, De vitus et moribus lulii Agricolae

Hey man, I've been thinking more about your commentary with regard to WC's moderation policies.  I have a totally contrarian take:  I LOVE WC's moderation practices and wouldn't have it any other way.

• Yes, I want all of us - including, and perhaps most of all, myself - to engage in self-censorship
• In every other social situation, we self-censor, so why should online behavior be any different?  Half the time, if somebody spoke to me face-to-face the way they speak via social media, it would require Herculean will power not to punch that person in the nose.  Self-censorship is the mark of good behavior
• If I spoke freely with my friends, neighbors, and community members, I would immediately be socially ostracized, fired, my wife would divorce me, and my children would disown me.  Potentially, the only ones who would stick by my side are my pups, and that's only because I constantly feed them raw steak.  So I'm glad that half the time I'm forced to reconsider what I say here on WC

And, finally, I would say the proof is in the pudding.  WC is the only online community worth being a part of.  Don't know what the magic ingredient is.  But, I'm almost certain that its strict moderation policies are part of the enchantment.

I’m here for the cocaine. 

You don't have a contrarian take.  You have an establishment take.  You are siding with the authority.

In my day job I require the government to prove a violation of statute before they get to impose punishment.  It must, or usually must, be a knowing and intentional violation.  There is a mens rea element that it is the power's burden to prove.

Here nothing need be proven or shown, merely alleged.  The criteria is vague. The policy is probably implemented fairly in most instances. However, there are times that are perhaps not so clear.

It takes all types and we should be a little more tolerant of everyone, even if they offend us.  In the end we only control our response, not the behavior that provokes our response.

Are you enchanted by opinions over the relative merits of Tudor's recent release? That's your brave new world if we travel too far down this path.

Dude!  Come on!

1. I have signed a social contract - not really, but let's just say implicitly I have by being born into this society - whereby I have granted the Leviathan a monopoly on violence.  So, yes, I require the state to prove a violation of statute BEFORE the Leviathan can deprive me of life, liberty, or property
2. A technology platform / site IS NOT the Leviathan.  As far as I'm aware, Instagram, FB, Google, et al, have no ability to deprive me of my life, liberty, and property!  These are simply services provided by profit-maximizing corporations.  Corporate entities can and should moderate their sites howsoever they deem appropriate.  If I somehow run afoul of a nebulous set of moderation policies and get myself "de-platformed" or "canceled" then so be it.  I'd probably be sad for about an hour...  and then get back to trying to hit my goal of 6 Marvel Comics a day, and finally sitting down to get through Squid Game
3. If a given platform's policies / content become too egregious, then they will see users defect, and they will fail to make profits, and invariably potential competitors will sniff out a profit-making opportunity to jump in.  Witness the collapse of traditional print media and the rise of Substack.  Or, going back even further, to the 90's, witness the rise of the most profitable news channel in the world - the Big 3 were serving a very particular audience, to the detriment / exclusion of a very large customer base, a new entrant emerged, and quickly dwarfed the original Big 3 oligopolists
4. Take Twitter, for example.  My understanding is that Twitter has a very strict set of moderation policies, and that they are generally known to favor a particular worldview.  Take a look at this chart...

[Yellow line is Google.  Blue line is Twitter.  When users don't like a given platform's offerings, they defect and the platform suffers, which paves the way for new entrants to provide better offerings.]

So, in the end, I really don't worry about platform moderation too much.  Can't get worked up over it.  Either they'll 1) get it right, and 2) users will voluntarily continue using the platform, and 3) the platform providers will make money.  Or 1) they won't, and 2) they won't, and 3) they won't, and then new entrants / competitors will emerge.

I do agree with you that we all should be more tolerant and that we should control our responses.   But, by the same token, we all should lead lives of rectitude, we all should only ever tell the truth, and we all should treat all animals kindly.  Until that day filled with rainbows and puppy dogs comes to pass, I'm perfectly happy having moderation policies that ENFORCE good behavior through self-censorship.

Unless and until WC has the ability to take my life, liberty, and property, the way the Leviathan does, I will continue to be absolutely enchanted by opinions over the relative merits of Tudor's recent release!

I promise you that once @Aurelian and I are done arguing about the Leviathan, we will get back to the regular programming of fart jokes.  In the meantime, to keep you interested...

Nope.  You are wrong.  

You think that what matters is tiny details, and categorizing, and coming up with perfect taxonomies.  And that makes sense.  That is your training as a lawyer.  

However, when it comes to the big picture, the greatest gurus the world over have come back to reveal the true purpose of life and the secret to happiness:  Maximize the net present value of all future income streams. 

That's it.

Twitter's total market cap could be equal to Google's today.  Google, I can tell you with frightening authority, is NOTHING more than a search engine.  Twitter is nothing more than a social graph.  Both are, fundamentally, simple technologies that you can monetize.  The former effectively monetized by giving consumers what they wanted.  The latter did not.

The analogy is thus:  If a technology does not give its user base what the user base wants, it will perform like Twitter.  If it does give its user base what the user base wants, it will perform like Google.  That is why I am not fussed in the slightest about any given private company's policies.  If it gets its policies wrong, it will go out of business, and someone else will emerge to provide a better service / experience / product.

So, in conclusion I have shown that your market based approach does not answer the fundamental question that I have posed and you have responded with a Cindy Brady gif.

It's Brian's fault.  He started it.

Ha!  I love it!  

In fact, this discussion perfectly illustrates just how well WC's moderation policies are working.  You and I can fundamentally disagree on any given topic, and yet neither of us has resorted to name calling yet.  (I'll DM you to send profanity your way.)

If, in fact, this thread has been "downgraded" due to you and me scaring everyone away, I'll create a new post tomorrow morning, and continue the auction in that post.  Ha!

Argh, stop finding new ways to be wrong.

That we haven't been banned is not a validation of any specific content moderation policy.  Neither of us use profanity, demean or degrade the other, use language that is obviously sexist, homophobic, racist or anything else that could offend.  We are not going to report each other because we each 1) respect healthy debate, and 2) are not easily offended (me, because I am usually the one offending, you because you are a flautist.)  Anyone, who might be offended stopped reading this post a long time ago.  We are safe, not because a policy is working, but because we are boring and self-indulgent.

I use Twitter every day. I own shares in Google.

Now about the watch winders? The $200 opening bid seems low. I'm sure the community can do better. Maybe a clean thread is needed.

OMG...  my worst fears have come true...  CliveC...  

Hmmm...  that name sounds really familiar!  Probably just a coincidence that I happen to know a CliveC IRL, who doesn't even need a watch winder!

Okay, I'm going to create a new thread, so as to extract everyone from the cesspool that is the debate between @Aurelian and myself.

Good plan! As the original bidder, I think my bid was low too, I was just trying to get us into three digits right away! Come on all, let’s see less 🗣 and more 💰!!

Screw this thread!! … it requires me think…

peace…

This thread appears to have gone a tangent which I could not follow.  I think our Kenyan moderator did too much cocaine and questioned the integrity of the government and is now living in poverty and needs a watch winder to supplement his income.  Was that it?

Bidding is now taking place in this new thread:

https://www.watchcrunch.com/HotWatchChick69/posts/take-two-buy-a-watch-winder-help-save-the-world-5-wolf-blake-double-winder-w-storage-11918

If anyone needs a basic summary of the @HotWatchChick69 and @Aurelian debate just think....

... and the battle over the sokovia accords, and you've basically got it, except @HotWatchChick69 is richer than iron man and @Aurelian is better looking than Steve.

You're welcome.

A silenced thread without my input? 

Just set a price for the winder and forget the rest!!!  

These are very good pieces.

Bob

England

Well OK I enjoyed your answer but still too many words? You have identified the 'deal' and then advetised it all over the site to those who cant be bothered to do the research??

Just offer the cash!!!!??

Good hunting

Bob