By "gagged" I mean will he be ordered to cease all public communications about the case or anybody involved for any amount of time.
1,000
3.00
I know this has been resolved, but had it been open, this would make it a YES, imo.
@SirCryptomind This still doesn't meet the standard of "ordered to cease all public communications about the case". Among the standard parsing as well as the three implausible-but-linguistically-not-ruled-out parsings of "ordered to cease all public communications about the case or anybody involved", nothing about these quotes changes any of the outcomes.
@Jai It does actually meet that bar. I don’t know why you are arguing otherwise. Trump was fined a second time for not even mentioning the court clerk by name but implied. You don’t any sense. Trump absolutely cannot make any public comments about the judge's clerk.
@Jai I do not see a need any longer to debate on the resolution of this market. What was done here is over and while slightly controversial to some (due to the close-ness of BTE trades and resolving time). It was resolved correctly when you look back at all the facts and continued facts that have came out that would have resolved this YES regardless.
You can still get in on this version which is more strict:
@jack if I reopen this market would you be willing to take over as the trustworthy resolver?
@BTE at this point, the market is resolved and having markets open and close and resolve and reopen and such is even worse
@BTE thanks for asking but in general I have stopped taking over resolutions individually. The method I have been using is to hand the resolution to a council of trustworthy volunteers.
I have re-read every comment, looked at timeline of trades side by side.
It should N/A since it was not resolved YES at the initial release of the gag order pertaining to Judges staff. It is my belief it is in the best spirit of the market to N/A (nobody loses and nobody wins). And we all can learn to have better descriptors and/or adding clarification that arise from comments into the description with a timestamp.
@BTE I have absolutely no idea about what the market is even asking, I can't in good faith take the judgement responsibility
@BTE @Joshua @MarcusAbramovitch @WieDan I'd be willing to put up 50 mana for a bounty for a judge if everyone is comfortable with that. To be paid on BTE putting them in charge of judgement, and before they've made any decision. I know that even with those rules there's a risk of introducing bias, but maybe someone invested in YES could offer a twin bounty to balance it out?
Right now, with all the comments, this market has had too much betting that isn't about the market, too much back and forth comments and betting on the comments in this market.
I advocated for N/Aing this market before it resolved, after it resolved Yes and now. N/A is to be used basically for this case.
I don't object to an N/A, although I think it would be good to set a precedent of passing off judgement to an unbiased trustworthy-ish volunteer and see if they decide to N/A.
Like I think @BTE could just post the thread in the trustworthy-ish channel and ask "will anyone unbiased agree to be the judge here? Please don't say what your opinion is until after you volunteer and I agree to trust your judgement."
@Jai If it resolves N/A, any profits gained is taken back. Locking away profits wouldn't matter.
@higherLEVELING That's what I'm saying. If I sold and then re-bought at the market price at the time (50-65%), I would be getting refunded at the market price at the time. But because I bought NO when the market was at 99%, an N/A is very close to a NO.
N/A is punishing/rewarding depending on when you bought. If I'd cycled out my holdings so they were "new", the N/A would be much more valuable.
@BTE @Joshua @SirCryptomind @MarcusAbramovitch It's been a week now. We're due for some proper resolution, whatever it is.