Will the Supreme Court uphold the 9th District ruling, will they narrow it or reverse it?
Non-exclusive resolution criteria (as of 4/30/24)
Resolves UPHOLD = YES if SCOTUS majority affirms the lower court decision in part or in spirit
Resolves NARROW = YES if SCOTUS majority rules that there is some rule that can be more narrowly or selectively applied per municipality than the current ruling
Resolves REVERSE = YES if SCOTUS majority rules that there is no federal basis for laws around homelessness, leaving it to states and municipalities to decide.
These options all resolve independently.
For exclusive resolution version of this market see:
Related questions
Yeah, I had understood them to be mutually exclusive when I bet, and I actually think also that mutually exclusive is the correct way on the merits to understand what the Supreme Court might do here.
@MattLashofSullivan so the other market is for you! sorry I can't fix this one.
My question is whether you would have bet differently in a market with non-exclusive resolution options, or whether you would like to continue to bet now. This input will help me decide whether to reopen or NA this version. Thanks!
Paused trading temporarily until we determine whether it’s possible to change the resolution rules.
Folks, bet here for a market that preserves this market as intended. This market resolves N/A (and current @traders get your Mana back) unless:
Alternative proposal: change these resolution criteria to be non-exclusive.
Resolves UPHOLD = YES if SCOTUS majority affirms the lower court decision in part or in spirit
Resolves NARROW = YES if SCOTUS majority rules that there is some rule that can be more narrowly or selectively applied per municipality than the current ruling
Resolves REVERSE = YES if SCOTUS majority rules that there is no federal basis for laws around homelessness, leaving it to states and municipalities to decide.
These options all resolve independently.
What I’m looking for to decide this is how much weight current @traders put on the original resolutions when they bet, or whether folks would have bet the same way had the original criteria been phrased this way. If the latter, I’ll reopen the market for trades and clarify these revised rules in the description.
PLEASE sound off if you have an opinion, comments requested by midnight 29 Apr 24 PDT.
@BlueDragon I bet as if they were mutually exclusive because by the time I bet it was obvious that you'd meant for them to be mutually exclusive.
I'm happy either way.
@traders as @Vocateur points out, I intended for the options in this market to be exclusive, such that there could be only one answer, but I set it up wrong. My apologies. I have created a duplicate with the right settings here.
I don’t think there is a way to resolve this one to multiple options? However I will keep this market open for another day in case anyone can suggest a good way to do that… otherwise I’ll return all the funds.
@BlueDragon alternately you can leave it up and anybody who buys yes or no on one option can buy opposite on the other options to keep it at 100% and if anybody doesn't somebody will come along and take the other side of the action? I'm a novice, that might not work as well as I think it will but in a perfect market I think it would?