Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ118 | |
| 2 | Ṁ100 | |
| 3 | Ṁ87 | |
| 4 | Ṁ48 | |
| 5 | Ṁ47 |
@AlexanderRaymond i realize we had a disagreement in another comment section; i'm honestly unsure about the resolution criteria, and asking for clarification. i do not know the answer to that question already, and i would appreciate clarification on the criteria for resolution.
if there's any way that i can prove to you that i'm not joking/trolling/etc, i'd be happy to!
@AlexanderRaymond i'm not sure.
the FBI's crime and data explorer (link) gives the "location" of each incident, which would include religiously-motivated attacks that happen on the location of a synagogue that don't include "an attack on a synagogue," so i'd guess that the spirit of the market would include religiously-motivated attacks that happen on the location of a synagogue. in other words: spirit of the question seems to say that an attack on a person that happens on the location of a synagogue resolves YES.
however, the precise wording of the resolution is "an attack on a synagogue," which seems to mean that an attack on a person that happens on the location of a synagogue (without any attack on the synagogue itself) would not count as "an attack on a synogogue." in other words: wording of the question seems to say that an attack on a person that happens on the location of a synogogue resolves NO.
that's the crux of my confusion: the spirit of the question seems to exclude an attack on a person that happens on the location of a synagogue (without any attack on the synogogue itself) while the wording of the question seems to include that case.
so, i'm asking about clarification if that particular event happens. thank you!
@SaulMunn the market creator is the only large YES holder and has repeatedly bet it up to 70+%. Maybe they are trying to do fraud? Maybe they have a very strong belief? Maybe they know something we don't?
@jcb I boosted it as well to encourage betting. Just made up a market that I thought was a possibility, but also unlikely. Settle down.
@AlexanderRaymond not unsettled, sorry if I gave that impression! Just offering some possibilities. (I wondered if you would pop in with an explanation!)
@SaulMunn I did. Several times. I also bet myself with the intention of allowing those bets to carry until the market resolves. Why do you keep bothering me?
@AlexanderRaymond i didn’t think i was being rude! if i (unintentionally!) was, i would love to understand that better, so i can avoid being unintentionally rude to you and others in the future. feel free to reply to this chain, or reply to me privately on discord. :)
@AlexanderRaymond i don’t quite understand that. if there’s any way that you can help me understand how i might have been rude or mean or bothersome, i would appreciate an explanation. i legitimately want to understand what i might have done wrong. thank you!
@SaulMunn Well, I already said I used the built-in features, nobody had responded to your first prod about free mana, so you poked again with a second condescending remark implying I don't know how to use the site when I already explained I simply wanted to see how people interact with markets. Now you're just sending comments insisting I have an argument with you about how you were rude when I have no interest. What I would like most would be for you to stop sending me notifications because every time I see your name I feel a wave of anger wash over me knowing that whatever you just said is meant to rustle my feathers and be condescending while wearing the veneer of decorum. Have a good day, Saul.