Generally, the report would need to include an intensifier like substantial, significant, or serious -- unless the substantiality is clear and obvious from the report or from the actions taken (e.g., issuance of orders disqualifying most of the trustees). Absence of a public report will cause this to resolve to NO.
For example, this language from a recent report on another charity would qualify, although I view it as a fairly close call:
The Commission has concluded that there was misconduct and/or mismanagement in the charity’s administration by the trustees. This includes a serious disregard for, and/or a lack of understanding of, the importance of proper financial controls and accountability in respect of the charity’s funds.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,438 | |
| 2 | Ṁ1,174 | |
| 3 | Ṁ101 | |
| 4 | Ṁ32 | |
| 5 | Ṁ29 |
People are also trading
Question for users: When I created this market and the "significant regulatory action" market, I viewed them as partially overlapping attempts to operationalize the badness (or lack thereof) of the outcome in a way that was objective as possible. I intended for them to point to a roughly equal level of badness as the threshold.
Right now, the other market is at a higher percentage than this one. I'm curious about what encouraged bidders to bid on one market vs the other, and (currently) with a meaningful difference in expectancy. Is one market a better operationalization of badness, more objective, etc?
Thanks for the feedback!
@berealistic I think this market was easier for me to understand, so I was more confident on the number. The other market seems vaguer so I don't even consider it until I'd read this message properly.