🏅 Top traders

Improperly resolved

This market appears to have been improperly resolved.

The year hasn't ended yet, and there is video evidence that riot control methods have in fact been used to crack down on protests.

No current even in China called for resolving this.

It is entirely plausible for the CCP to ease Zero-Covid restrictions while cracking down on protests.

I guess I can understand what you might be thinking: can't have Zero Covid protests without Zero Covid. But... that wasn't written in your resolution criteria, and it would have been sporting to have the market will stay open until the end of the year, just in case China sees massive Covid and decides to reimplement ZC.

Good sir it is not yet 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwHq5DY_hJ8

They used gas wth

Right the central committee said nothing, but this was authorized and acquiesced. The officials that ordered suppression of the protests were not punished or reprimanded, or even mentioned for what had happened.

Those protestors have now been imprisoned and face trial and sentences of years in jail. None of anything that happened is not under the CCP's control.

What a biased market and misleading title.

And riots? You call HOLDING A BLANK PIECE OF PAPER riot?

Apparently so. 'You think we don't know what you want to write on the paper?'

Resolved because CCP has responded to riots ending the most severe zero-covid control methods, rather than escalating to centrally sanctioned military methods.

@JethroReeve To clarify, resolved NO

@JethroReeve Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until the start of 2023 to resolve, since that is in the text of the question?

@JethroReeve That doesn't make sense. Even if China ends the most severe zero-covid restrictions, they can still respond to protests with riot control methods. The two are not mutually exclusive in any way.

@JethroReeve You’re earning a bad reputation here.

I created a new market to resolve the ambiguity in this one.

sinophobe rightwingers stay losing in my imo. its no different from MAGAmoney

@JamieCrom Wut?

It should already resolved as yes IMO.

@JordiCervera The description speaks of the central government / committee. Officially, the protests have not even been mentioned. That is the nature of the CCP.

I expect there will be significant threat of force, but such a policy will not be unambiguously declared centrally. Most of my uncertainty lies around how obviously such a policy will need to "declared"; it seems pretty likely there will be ominous hinting and at least some actual use of forceful crowd dispersal techniques and less likely there will be a central "go home or we'll shoot you" announcement. Buying no but with a wide uncertainty around how the market will actually be resolved.

This is horribly framed. Baton, gas and military force are 3 distinctly different level of control. Police are already using baton, but no gas so far.

Currently big cities are opening up though smaller towns are still under lockdown

[post videos of French and Australian police beating people without masks, California police arresting people for surfing, and a major portion of the US workforce being compelled to inject an experimental therapy that had minor if any impact on transmission of the virus just because]

https://youtu.be/eMvN8Dj4oVI

@Gigacasting Vaccines weren’t meant to stop transmission, but you know that already.

@BTE Not sure I agree. IIRC the stated purpose of at least some vaccine mandates for college students (which were widespread) was to "protect the community". If preventing (or decreasing) transmission wasn't the purpose, what was?

@Boklam Also not sure this has any relevance to a question about covid, protests and policing in China.

this seems like a pretty weak reason for the ccp to abandon their constitution and the 35th article of that constitution.

@JamieCrom What? Constitution? I have never heard of that in my entire life!