🏅 Top traders

Hi all. This market is resolved as "Yes" based on the technical fulfillment of the predefined resolution criteria. Specifically, the following criteria have been met:

1. Official statement from Ukrainian military authorities

2. Reports from multiple major international news agencies

3. Additional confirmation from South Korean intelligence

While the available evidence may not be as conclusive as initially hoped when setting the resolution criteria, it would not be appropriate to retroactively modify the predetermined criteria. The market terms explicitly required at least two of the listed criteria to be met, which has occurred.

If community members have strong objections or additional evidence that contradicts this resolution, please raise them for moderator review.

@IB Would you mind confirming for us which two news reports satisfied criterion #3?

And secondly, could you please clarify which criterion was satisfied by South Korean intelligence – #1 or #4?

Thank you anyway for running such an interesting market

@a_l_e_x Sure

There were plenty of news reports.
1. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/27/europe/north-korean-soldier-ukraine-intl/index.html
2. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq62qe131d7o
3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/27/i-thought-it-was-fake-news-secrecy-around-north-koreans-fighting-in-kursk
4. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/krieg-ukraine-russland-soldat-nordkorea-102.html
etc

1 & 4 were not satisfied. The South Korean intelligence confirmation adds credibility to both the Ukrainian military statement and media reporting, though it doesn't count as a separate criterion.

Happy New Year!

@IB Thanks for responding. Here's the good news: I don't think you were as constrained by your resolution criteria as you believe.

Firstly, none of these articles report that a North Korean soldier has been captured by Ukrainian forces. They all report that someone has claimed that a North Korean soldier has been captured by Ukrainian forces.

Every relevant piece of information in the CNN article is accompanied by "Zelensky said" or "South Korea’s spy agency said" – there is no suggestion that CNN itself has discovered or verified the information. Likewise, the other articles do not indicate that the BBC, The Guardian or Tagesschau have independently verified the claims.

These outlets are deliberate with their language. When CNN or the BBC can verify the authenticity of a photo, a video or other information, they say so. Often they will report unverified claims made by notable individuals, even Russian officials. This does not necessarily mean that they are giving credence to the claim; they are reporting the claim because the allegation itself is newsworthy even if it transpires to be false. When they do this, they present it as a claim rather than a fact, as they have in these articles.

Furthermore, if criterion #3 can be satisfied by these articles, then it is effectively a duplicate of criterion #2, as it was inevitable that an official statement by Ukrainian military authorities on this matter would receive international news coverage regardless of its veracity.

In effect, this interpretation of criterion #3 means that an allegation by the Ukrainian military can single-handedly resolve the market YES, which is what has happened. This is clearly not a desirable outcome, and I can't imagine that it's what you intended when writing the resolution criteria. If it were, you would have written the resolution criteria differently.

I believe the only logical way to interpret criterion #3 is to do so in a way that makes it functionally distinct from criterion #2. And, in my view, the most natural reading of your words is that "[r]eports from at least two major international news agencies [confirming the capture of a North Korean soldier by Ukrainian forces]" requires those news agencies to report a capture rather than a claim alleging a capture.

Anyway, that was my two cents. I know the re-resolve function is reserved for mods, but I doubt they'd intervene here without your blessing, so this is really up to you. I will understand if you wish to stick with your original resolution. Apologies for the long post and a happy new year to you too.

@a_l_e_x I'd like to make a few points. I'm the one that made the most profit on this market and I definitely wouldn't bother typing them out otherwise but they nonetheless stand on their own merit.

According to the resolution criteria as written, this market has been correctly resolved.

I wrote below in a separate post that these criteria are vulnerable to Ukraine falsely claiming that they captured a North Korean, in the way that you outlined. I don't personally think that is necessarily so bad, because clarity is also valuable, and it's very easy to test if Ukraine says something, but it would have been better if this tradeoff was acknowledged in the description.

However, the chronology of what happened here is not Ukraine announced it and then the media reported it. What actually happened is that first of all leaked photos appeared on social media, then media reported that South Korea said that Ukraine had told them of the capture, and then Ukraine announced it and media subsequently reported that as well.

This really matters to your critique the Ukrainian statement follows media reporting that already satisfied criterion (3). If (3) was already fulfilled and then an event happens that triggers both (2) and (3), it should be much harder to argue that (3) being fulfilled is not legitimate.

I'd also argue that Ukraine telling South Korea something and telling the public the same thing are two discrete events. Ukraine no doubt misleads the global public all the time, for understandable reasons. I doubt very much that they make a habit of doing the same thing in private to allies.

By this logic, the media reporting is further strengthened because there's more reason to think that Ukraine is not lying. They are less likely to lie to the Koreans and seemingly Korea also doesn't think they are lying.

I guess the final point I'd make is that there isn't really any "spirit" argument to question this resolution. If Ukraine had said it, the media had reported that Ukraine had said it, this question was promptly resolved but then OSINT started to question it and the media subsequently reported that there was doubt, then this would have technically resolved correctly but we'd all be (should be) uneasy about it. That's not what happened. The technically correct resolution of this question matches the spirit of it, and so your critique sort of has to argue that the criteria themselves have a narrower spirit that hasn't been fulfilled. Which, obviously, I'm not a huge fan of for various reasons.

@a_l_e_x Thanks for the detailed feedback - you raise valid points about the criteria design flaws. Before resolving, I also had my doubt and thus consulted with the moderator team on discord who confirmed this resolves as "Yes" based on the written criteria. While these criteria proved less robust than ideal in hindsight, we have two reported events (SK intel -> media reports, followed by Ukrainian statement -> media coverage) that meet the requirements.

The criteria proved weaker than intended but changing them post-factum would be unfair to those who placed bets based on the original terms. The resolution stands.

That said, this has been a valuable lesson in criteria design. I'll definitely take it into consideration the next time.

P.S.: I had no investment in this market. I made a small initial trade (Ṁ17) which I sold almost immediately to remain unbiased in resolution.

@IB – if you consulted with mods beforehand and this is your final decision, I accept the outcome despite my disagreement.

We could all improve our resolution criteria (myself included) but, to be clear, I don't think your resolution criteria were the problem. I'm arguing that even a strict adherence to the resolution criteria – and especially a strict adherence to the resolution criteria – does not seem to point to a YES resolution.

I should add that I didn't ever suspect you of deliberately misresolving for your own gain and I can see why you believed a YES resolution would be correct. It's partly my fault for failing to chime in until after the market had been resolved, whereas I can see that some YES traders wisely exercised their influence sooner.

I recognise this is the end of the discussion, but I would like to clarify my contention as I think you have both misunderstood it somewhat, and the issues here are relevant to many markets other than this one.

In my previous comment I mentioned that this was "not a desirable outcome" and, although I do believe that to be the case, I fear I gave the wrong impression. I am not suggesting that we need to bend the resolution criteria to achieve what I believe is the correct answer to the question posed in the title. In fact, I have no strong opinion on the question of whether Ukraine has captured a North Korean soldier – for all I know, it might have. My contention is that the stated criteria for a YES resolution do not appear to have been fulfilled.

There were two parts to the argument I put forward in my previous comment and I will try to separate them here, although they are interrelated:

Part A: The most intuitive interpretation of criterion #3 in the context of the question asked by this market is that a news report of a capture must be a report of a capture and not a report of a claim of a capture. I must emphasise that this is a literal interpretation of the text and doesn't require us to think outside the box at all. The alternative interpretation is far more tenuous and relies on the common misconception that "X reported that Y said that Z happened" is the same as "X reported that Z happened".

Part B: The most logical interpretation of the resolution criteria as a whole is that two discrete events are required for a YES resolution. It was the clear intention of the market creator that one of the four events, on its own, should not be sufficient. I will expand on this later.

To address @JoshuaWilkes's points:

Re: chronology of events

With regard to part A of my argument, it does not matter whether the media first reported a Ukrainian claim or a South Korean claim or a supposed leaked photo. What matters to part A is whether the media reported the information as fact after independently verifying it, or whether they simply reported that someone had said something. I can only refer to the articles cited by the market creator and they all seemed to fall in the second category.

With regard to part B, "what actually happened" doesn't even matter. If criterion #3 is interpreted in a way in which it could potentially act as a duplicate of another criterion, it is clearly an illogical interpretation even if this absurdity is avoided.

Re: credibility of Ukraine and South Korea

It's not too difficult to think of a potential motive for Ukraine to mislead South Korea (or for South Korea to mislead the public) about the involvement of North Korean troops in the conflict. Ukraine has been trying to convince South Korea to change its policy on lethal military aid, but the South Korean public is largely opposed.

Regardless...

By this logic, the media reporting is further strengthened because there's more reason to think that Ukraine is not lying.

Ukraine's credibility is not really the issue here. Again, I am not trying to make some general argument that we should throw out the established resolution criteria because I think Ukraine is lying on the balance of probabilities.

My point here is that, unless Ukrainian (or South Korean) officials are a completely unimpeachable source, there is a fundamental difference between "CNN reported that Ukraine said that something happened" and "CNN reported that something happened". The problem is not that the news report is less credible if it is merely reporting a claim, the problem is that the subject of the report is different.

The subject of this market is whether the capture of a North Korean soldier has been confirmed. There are provisions in the resolution criteria for confirmation by Ukraine (criterion #2) and confirmation by the media (criterion #3). An article titled "North Korean soldier captured, Ukraine says" is evidence of Ukrainian confirmation, but it does not directly address the central question of the market unless it goes beyond the mere reporting of a claim. It seems logical to me that, as far as criterion #3 is concerned, the subject of the news reports should need to match the subject of the market. But the cited CNN article, for instance, clearly relates to the sub-issue of Ukrainian confirmation. The subject of the article is what has been said, not what is happening.

If Ukraine had said it, the media had reported that Ukraine had said it, this question was promptly resolved but then OSINT started to question it and the media subsequently reported that there was doubt, then this would have technically resolved correctly

No, it would not have technically resolved correctly. The media "report[ing] that Ukraine had said it" simply provides further evidence that criterion #2 has been satisfied.

I made a diagram that might clarify things:

I have probably explained my point of view as best I can now and there's no point arguing any further, so I'll exit the conversation here

South Korean Intelligence Agency claiming NK soldier captured alive according to State Broadcaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0eNDzJleZg

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer nothing new here. Same body in a bag propped up with eyes closed, pretty much as good as dead. With a blurred face man wearing a Z on his skull cap/beanie.

Pretty sure it's another major international news agency.

We have criteria 2 unambiguously met with Zelensky's statement.

Criteria 3 is now met (paired with CNN).

Nothing in the question or description says anything about how long they need to survive in captivity, both the statement and reports are unambiguous that the soldier(s) was captured alive.

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer I understand, the creator of the question said yesterday more proof was needed.

What Proof of "Alive" is there other than hearsay?

No photographic proof of alive.

If resolution criteria were ambiguous, the question should be resolved Yes per the question intent, i.e. everything indicates they did capture a DPRK soldier. The alleged Z seems to me as strong evidence as this is an evidence of a UFO

@SirCryptomind The required level of proof is, as stated in the description, two of four from:

1. Verified OSINT evidence (e.g., geolocated photos or videos, intercepted communications)

2. Official statement from Ukrainian military authorities

3. Reports from at least two major international news agencies

4. Confirmation from reputable OSINT organizations or analysts.

We have an official statement from Zelensky (the Ukrainian Commander in Chief) and reports from multiple (>2) major international news agencies that a North Korean was captured alive, fulfilling criteria 2 and 3.

Happy to wait to see if we get any contradictory information or retractions, but quibbling over the photo is, if the question/description is to be believed, irrelevant.

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer Appreciate your detailed view on the market. I don't necessarily disagree. Thanks.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/27/europe/north-korean-soldier-ukraine-intl/index.html

@JoshuaWilkes "could not be resuscitated" - I'm still skeptical they were even alive and see no proof of a living person being captured. Capturing a dead body is kinda a shitty way to resolve off of.

@SirCryptomind this is up to the creator but I think the criteria have already been met. The criteria admittedly don't handle this specific situation particularly well, but that is only because they don't specify the condition of a captured soldier.

It's also pretty clear that the criteria are almost incapable of handling a situation where Ukraine lies about having captured a soldier. The proof you want is unlikely to come and I don't think that's a good enough reason not to resolve yes.

@JoshuaWilkes Solid explanation. Very reasonable.

These resolution criteria would have been enough to "confirm" the existence and feats of bravery of the Ghost of Kiev.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/breaking-first-north-korean-prisoner-34379966

@Dauur the only pic I've seen the guy is propped up inside a body bag, so did they get captured or is it just a propaganda photo opp with a dead person?

@SirCryptomind why are you buying NO? Quick Google and Twitter search fulfils all of the resolution criteria.

@vitamind wait Manifold isn't a news site? Will Manifold post of all 4 requirements as Proof before resolving?

Just being skeptical....

@SirCryptomind you should be a tad more skeptical, the crtieria clearly states that 2/4 criteria are required for a positive resolution:

• "at least two of the following criteria are met"

But nevertheless, from what I can see, reputable (who does the question author consider reputable??) OSINT persons / organisations have reported on it; the South Korean Intelligence confirmation should suffice for "Verified OSINT evidence"; and for "Reports from at least two major international news agencies", I'll let you do your own research ;).

No Ukrainian confirmation as of yet, but this article possibly alludes to it:

• "The South Korean National Intelligence Service said in a statement on Friday: “Through real-time information sharing with an allied country’s intelligence agency, it has been confirmed that one injured North Korean soldier has been captured.”"

@vitamind Feel Free To Bet It To 99% Than!

Is it really a "capture" if the person is already dead? Nahhh

@SirCryptomind >Nahhh

Yes:

• South Korea’s intelligence agency has reported that a North Korean soldier, believed to be the first captured while supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, has died after being taken alive by Ukrainian forces.

@vitamind Is there Proof of said person being alive? I haven't searched beyond the discord post and that guy is definitely in a body bag and looks dead already.

@SirCryptomind in the photos shared by "OSINT" accounts, the solider appears to be alive. There's a possibility that could be dead due to how poorly he was looking, but given that a very trustworthy source has explicitly stated he was initially alive, that is definitely sufficient proof.