1,000
3.00Hi @Bruce54df, you said:
>Axios is not in the same league as NYT and WSJ--recognized final confirmation sources. To my knowledge, neither Iran or Israel has confirmed.
I'm gonna take a leap here and say that the BBC and Reuters are in the same league as the NYT and the WSJ:
BBC: Israel hit part of Iran's nuclear programme, Netanyahu says
"Israel’s prime minister says it hit part of Iran’s nuclear programme last month, despite pleas from the US not to do so during the strikes it carried out in response to a missile attack."
Reuters: Netanyahu says Israel's October attack hit a component in Iran nuclear programme
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel's air attack on Iran last month hit an element of Tehran's nuclear programme while degrading its defence and missile production capabilities."
"It's not a secret," Netanyahu said in a speech in parliament. "There is a specific component in their nuclear programme that was hit in this attack,"
I really hope you are not making a criterion that Iran has to confirm these attacks, because that would make no sense given that Iran would never admit something as top secret as this and I would argue is completely unfair given you are now retroactively adding questionable resolution criteria.
Bear in mind also that the Axis article simply quotes information from Israeli and US government officials. I'm utterly confused why you think Axios is not an acceptable source - can you elaborate on this?
"The Israeli attack on Iran in late October destroyed an active top secret nuclear weapons research facility in Parchin, according to three U.S. officials, one current Israeli official and one former Israeli official."
FYI: The Telegraph also reported on the same day Axios first reported on the strike which used the same Axios sources.
@mods I think there is a difference between e.g. Reuters claiming:
A happened, according to X
A happened
And it would be great to have a "Manifold standard view" on how we deal with this difference.
@Primer the real issue is that when users create a question, there is a prompt for a question title, then description, but no resolution criteria. It just makes no sense; it should be mandatory alongside the question title.
@vitamind Yes, yes, so much yes! This wouln't solve every issue, though. For example not for this market, one might write "credible sources", "credible sources like x, y, z" or "credible sources according to Ketaculus' definition", and then you still run into ambiguities.
Also, and maybe more importantly: Markets without good criteria often get way more interaction, as traders read the market differently and bet heavily. The market is listed more prominently, thus attracts more traders, has more liquidity, more engagement.
And provides more trader bonuses!
And is quicker and easier to create!
But yes, I've been waiting for mandatory resolition criteria while creating a market for quite some time. Here's my current market on that:
@Primer I don't think mandatory resolution criteria would've helped, it's much easier to write resolution criteria that don't help than criteria that do. Axios is IMO pretty credible. Anyway it looks like OP resolved it
@jacksonpolack For this particular market, I agree with you on mandatory resolution criteria.
But I'm wondering: Is it your general view that making resolution criteria mandatory is net-negative?
@jacksonpolack Thanks! I'm surprised and I disagree. Would you say you (consciously or subconsciously) notice ambiguities and stay clear of markets with potentially ambiguous resolutions? Do you think your status as whale / mod(?) (indirectly) protects you?
@Primer If you make resolution criteria mandatory people who would've written no criteria will instead just write 'resolves YES if israel attacks one of iran's nuclear facilities' or 'consensus of credible reporting' and that's not actually better?
@jacksonpolack that's quite a cynical take. Of course a lot of people are just gonna do that, but many others will actually add decent criteria which is light years better than none.
Regardless, there should be a resolution criteria input box when creating questions - what harm would that do? It's a win / win.
@Bruce54df please address this issue. This evidence has been enough to resolve similar markets. If it is not enough to resolve yours, please explain why and add clear resolution criteria.
@DanielFox9fff BTW, you have a similar market where it's sitting at 48% so why haven't your resolved?
@Bruce54df my market started counting only after the last strikes. Otherwise I would certainly have resolved it to YES.
@Bruce54df all reporting here seems to trace back to the exclusive report from Axios. Given the nature of the report it seems unlikely we'll see confirmation from other news sources.
It seems reasonable to require such confirmation for a positive resolution but you haven't written resolution criteria beyond the market name. A reader may see such a report from a well-respected source such as Axios and trade accordingly, not knowing your resolution criteria require multiple sources.
Would you please take a few minutes to clearly state your resolution criteria in the market description? This will help clear up the current ambiguity and may resolve other issues before they arise.
@DanielFox9fff Axios is not in the same league as NYT and WSJ--recognized final confirmation sources. To my knowledge, neither Iran or Israel has confirmed.
Parchin is not a nuclear facility.
The work that was alleged to have happened in Parchin up to 2003 is regarding nuclear detonators. Despite the name, nuclear detonators are NOT nuclear technology. They direct energy from a CONVENTIONAL explosion to generate enough pressure for a nuclear reaction. So the work itself does not involve fissile material, nuclear energy, nuclear reactions or anything of that sort. The fissile material is brought in only when a nuclear bomb is actually tested, which Iran has never done.
The IAEA has additionally examined the site and found no evidence of fissile material. Of course, some claimed this was due to sanitization efforts. However, it is extremely difficult to remove all trace radiation from a site that handled fissile material.
@SaarWilf looking at the Axios article it appears that Parchin actually was active until struck, despite those activities being secret. While not processing fissile material, detonation is a difficult technological challenge directly connected to the development of a nuclear bomb.
Can we please get calcification? There is ambiguity here, but this has been enough to resolve other similar markets to YES.
WMD allegations are regularly made against countries adversarial to the West. Sometimes they're true, but mostly they are exaggerations and misinterpretations used for political purposes. Absent any evidence, these claims carry little weight.
But as explained, even if true, it is not nuclear technology, as no nuclear processes are involved at these stages of research.
@SaarWilf these are credible allegations from independent, well-respected news sources. Would you dispute that? If so please be clear in your disparagement of Axios' reporting.
The development of detonation devices is a crucial step in nuclear weapons technology. It is as critical to the functioning of nuclear bombs as the casing or any other element of not itself made of fissile material.
I admit there is some ambiguity here. It would have been nice to get clearer resolution criteria from the start, yet here we are.
@DanielFox9fff In general, anonymous Israeli officials using language like "could be used for", is far from good evidence for a nuclear weapons program.
I agree it is a crucial step in nuclear weapons technology, but nuclear weapons technology is very different from nuclear technology.
@SaarWilf first point: three US officials, one Israeli official, and one former Israeli official, stating the installation was used in the development of nuclear weapons technology. The explosive devices they say were being designed there are not things which "could be used" in a nuclear bomb, but rather "can only be used" in one.
Second point: nuclear weapons technology and civilian nuclear technology are certainly different. The question is ambiguous, and I would like to hear from @Bruce what the precise resolution criteria actually are. I don't think a firm judgement can be made until then.
@DanielFox9fff the quotes in the axios article are "could lay the ground for", and "could be used for".
There is one quote "destroyed sophisticated equipment used to design the plastic explosives that surround uranium in a nuclear device", which is just a reference to equipment for manufacturing shaped charges, and that has multiple uses.
My general impression is that they attacked dual-use equipment that was not used for nuclear detonators at the time.
And even if it was used for that purpose, that does not qualify as 'nuclear technology', because there is no nuclear process involved there. It's like saying rocket engines are nuclear technology because they could carry a nuclear warhead.