Dang! Let me clarify lol...
1) "Extend to Yemen" = Boots on the ground in Yemen...
2) "Israel/Hamas conflict" = Israel directly or indirectly attacks Yemen...
Is that okay ?
Related questions
@AitchKay I think the conlifct extended to Yemen the minute someone launched missiles at Yemeni targets in Yemen.
This happened when the US and UK attacked.
But you already described the resolutiom criteria three weeks ago as: "When Israel officially announces, or makes a military strike against Yemen."
It is unclear. Israel have declared they have deployed vessels in the Red Sea to deal with the Houthi-attacks. But they have not made any military strikes. Note: military strikes does not require "boots on the ground" which is snother unclear criteria. And what is the difference between announces a military strike and make a military strike?
Judging from the title of the market you should resolve to YES already.
Your new criteria 2 does not make sense. How can Israel/Hamas conflict be equal to Israel attacks Yemen? And what is an indirect attack?
Either way, it is too late to change the criteria now.
@AitchKay I've bet on this market so I am biased. And not for me to decide. But I think you should go back to your initial criteria set in the comments. Once that is reinstated, consider whether it has been fulfilled.
@GazDownright Israel hasn't hit targets in Yemen. The market specifies a requirement that both Israel get involved and that it puts boots on the ground, neither of which has happened. I don't think this is close.
@ShakedKoplewitz Indeed, Israel hasn't made strikes. But, the goalposts of this market shifted every time we reexamined them. And we're all biased 😃
Looking at the market headline alone, however, we'd all have to agree this conflict has extended to Yemen. But I know there's more to the resolution criteria.
@GazDownright I don't think it can be reasonably said to have "extended to Yemen". There was already an (unrelated) conflict in Yemen and one belligerent in it using Israel as a justification for piracy doesn't by itself imply it's now part of the same conflict.
Anyway, we have the specific definitions now for requiring Israeli boots on the ground (which I think are reasonable, even if you could slightly change them). Specifying the exact definition of a market after opening is fairly common, and I think this definition is well in line with the spirit of the market.
@ShakedKoplewitz It is unusual if you have been reading the comments on this market. While it might be expected to add criteria after a market starts, it is uncommon, and bad form, to respecify resolution criteria on several occasions and after several bets were made based on former criteria.
You are correct that there is a civil war in Yemen. However, these new attacks have been made specifically as a response to the massacres in Gaza via a formal declaration of war on Israel and were acknowledged by Israel as such. The air strikes on Red Sea shipping lines, and the retaliation against Houthi targets on land is a direct consequence of the Israel/Hamas conflict. If that's not an extension, then nothing is.
Alright this market is a mess, either @AitchKay needs to stick with his original resolution criteria as discussed in the first comment chain, or mods should just N/A this market. Everyone is just trading on the market creators comments now and trying to convince him to change his mind to benefit their bets.
@mint creators can override the criteria in the title/description in a comment in good faith
@BTE Probably should, but creator already said this market is about Israel making military actions against Yemen, not the US. Creator even said they would have to see boots on the ground.
@AitchKay Houthis are mostly attacking ships which are not related to Israel. Israel is not attacking the Houthis. The Houthis have not attacked any Israeli targets in a while. Operation Prosperity Guardian is a response to attacks on international ships, not to Houthi attacks on Israel .I see no reason to this would qualify.
Also, you said before that boots are the ground are needed. There are no boots on any ground.
@Shump It’s 100% related. The Houthis are an Iran proxy. Just like Hamas and Hezbollah. nd they weren’t attacking ships like this before the conflict started so it’s related for sure.
@AitchKay You already said that boots on the ground are required for this market to resolve YES and people have been betting with that in mind this whole time. It would be unfair to change the resolution criteria now.
@BTE Sure it's related but it's not the same conflict. The Korean War and the Vietnam war are two related proxy war conflicts, but you wouldn't call them the same, would you?
An aside but calling Hamas and the Houthis proxies is not very accurate. These are not client states of Iran. They have their own internal motives. They're just members of the Axis of Resistance, which is led by Iran.
@Shump There was a 10-15 years gap. And Korea was a United Nations army under MacArthur's command, Vietnam was just the US.
You could include Hezbollah in that aside, but I get your point. By my logic Israel would be a proxy of the US, which is clearly not true.
@Shump Incorrect. Israel have deployed vessels to the Red Sea to deal with the problem, and made official remarks acknowledging it as an act against them. The Houthis have also declared formal war on Israel because of the Gaza massacres and make these Red Sea attacks as a part of their war effort. This categorically qualifies Israel as more than "barely imvolved."
@GazDownright According to this interpretation, the conflict extended before this market even began.
@Shump You mean an interpretation saying Israel is more than 'barely involved?' Yeah, it would arguably already have happened. However nothing physically in Yemen yet at that point in time, as far as I know. Unless they entered Yemeni national waters.