Minnesota’s State Emblem Redesign Commission has been tasked with selecting a new state flag. They are down to six finalists:
(the light grey borders are an artifact, not part of the designs)
Their deadline to select a finalist is January 1, 2024.
This market is more focused on which design is selected rather than whether the specific deadline of January 1 is met, so if a new design is selected before February 1, 2024, it resolves based on that design, otherwise resolves “None”.
If the new design is slightly altered from one of the six designs, but it is still obvious which design was the main inspiration, it resolves to that number (for example, the curviness of the line in design 2 being changed).
EDIT
Based on “it is still obvious which design was the main inspiration”, if the commission selects any of the official 86 numbered variations, the base number of the variation is considered the main source of inspiration, and the market will resolve 100% to that option. It will only resolve fractionally if they come up with a different variation, and don’t make an official claim about which one is the main inspiration.
END EDIT
If there are major elements or design inspiration taken from multiple of the finalists, it resolves in equal fractions to all contributing designs (For example, if it was the foreground of 6 on the background of 5, it would be 50% for each).
If they propose multiple flags for multiple purposes, each flag selected for at least one purpose resolves to an equal fraction.
If the flag incorporates any major element that constitutes a substantial alteration from all finalists, it results to “Other design“, even if it includes design elements from some of the finalists (for example, any design which includes a loon (for the purpose of this statement, I am not considering any shapes in design 6 to be loons)).
EDIT 2
I’m not counting the river bank in some of the Old Wavy variations as a “major design element that constitutes a substantial alteration from all finalists“.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ613 | |
| 2 | Ṁ66 | |
| 3 | Ṁ49 | |
| 4 | Ṁ35 | |
| 5 | Ṁ16 |
The commission officially selected design F1953 A2, which is formally a variant of Polaris Tricolor (aka F1953, or "3" in this market).
https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-state-flag-native-americans-bf20ba7d36b5f0929fb2ef87d2a36d65
@JimHays Just when you think Minnesota is finally going to get a well-designed flag, they redesign their new flag to be a worse version of itself.
To reiterate, while I tend to agree with Grey’s tweet here, based on the way I wrote the market description and edit-therein, if they select this, I will still resolve to Polaris Tricolor rather than the Other:
@PlasmaBallin I’m going to wait to resolve until they make the final decision Tuesday of a single flag, but it seems almost certain to be a variant of Polaris Tricolor.
@JimHays I kind of feel like at 99.3% it would be reasonable to purchase some No, so I am selling all my Yes shares.
No process with this many people invited is guaranteed to do anything 😂
@JimHays Apparently it's because they want a star that is more "M"-like for Minnesota
@JimHays Are they going to finalize it today or have another meeting next week? I tried to listen in but it was excruciating. People wanting to add the word MINNESOTA. Or going back to the stupid designs everyone hates.
There is such a clear winner that it's not even funny.
Just wanted to clarify, and I’ve updated the description say this as well, if the commission selects one of the official variations, I’m going with the base number of that variation. So in the two examples below the first would be 6 (Old wavy), and the second would be 3 (Polaris Tricolor).
The fractional resolution clause was designed to handle a situation where they released a flag sort of like one of these, but without any additional context.