“We certainly can’t support the election of a man to the position of NATO’s secretary general who previously wanted to force Hungary on its knees,” Szijjarto said.
Current secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg’s term expires on October 1st.
I will resolve YES if Rutte takes the position after October 1st.
I will resolve NO if Rutte takes the position on October 1st (or sooner).
I will resolve NA if someone else takes the position.
By all means, chime in with feedback on the resolution criteria.
https://www.intellinews.com/hungary-threatens-to-block-dutch-pm-rutte-as-new-nato-chief-315767/
1,000
3.00There are plenty of sources stating that Rutte will take office on October 2:
https://www.eunews.it/en/2024/06/20/dutch-rutte-to-be-next-nato-secretary-general-after-romanian-iohannis-surrenders/
https://radiomoldova.md/p/36145/mark-rutte-named-next-nato-secretary-general
https://tass.com/world/1806055
If this is more accurate than NATO's own press service – which was horrifically wrong about Hungary's ratification of Swedish accession – then this question, which is without a doubt about the date Rutte takes office, should re-resolve as YES.
I will resolve YES if Rutte takes the position after October 1st.
We'll see what mods decide if that happens. You shouldn't worry a lot, all things considered.
I mean, I bet YES based on the very unambiguous description, but okay.
I bet on the question based on the criterion I quoted and the news I linked to.
That news might turn out to be wrong, it might be correct - we will know for sure as October 1 ends.
If the more recent news is correct and he does take office on the 1st, this NO resolution is okay.
If the original news was right and he doesn't take office until the 2nd, I would contest the NO resolution - it should be either YES or N/A.
In that scenario, YES would be the clear resolution based on what's written in the description, and N/A would account for the fact that the title and description together don't account for all possibilities - this would be an unforeseen possibility, where Rutte is not SG on October 1 but Hungary isn't to blame (this time). The cause would be administrative convenience or something like that. N/A is adequate for such scenarios of non-exhaustive questions.
Hungary wants a formal apology from Mark Rutte in exchange for supporting his appointment.
I will resolve YES if Rutte takes the position after October 1st.
I will resolve NO if Rutte takes the position on October 1st (or sooner).
I will resolve NA if someone else takes the position.
These criteria don't match the question.
If Hungary really puts its foot down and vetoes Rutte, it sounds to me this should be YES but these criteria say N/A. If Hungary withdraws its objection but Rutte takes office at a later date for some other reason, this should be a NO but by these criteria is would be a YES.
I don't know enough about NATO internal dynamics, but I'm not sure it's worth it to even have markets about someone who, all things considered, is still Just Some Guy in this respect.
@BrunoParga Imagine the premise of this market being: Rutte is wanted for the job, but Hungary will try to leverage its position to broker another couple of fighter jets.
Then imagine a second premise later: NATO pivots to another candidate for unrelated professional reasons, thus voiding the market.
Doesn't the resolution criteria fit these premises? My question is not rhetorical; I might still change the criteria.
What is the market's worth? I think Manifold traders can answer that.
Would you rather see a market with Hungary blocking any secretary-general candidate? That's an entirely different market, in my opinion. This is Rutte-Hungary-specific.