Breaking story. Unsubstantiated but picked up by legacy media already.
Will resolve N/A if there was no attack.
If there was an attack but it wasn't a stabbing the title will update (ditto other conceivable variations)
https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1712737562853507334?s=20
Update (resolution):
I want to address how this will resolve:
Ideally we would wait until that individual was found guilty, or at the very least charged. However, this is China and that process can be long and opaque (especially when politically sensitive).
So.
I will resolve NO if the individual ('the foreigner') is named and this ID is not disputed by relevant parties (let's say embassies in Beijing, the Palestinian Authority and major media outlets).
If the individual is not named by the end of the year, I will search for other ways that might satisfy me, a reasonable person that the question should resolve NO or YES. Only as an absolute last resort will I resolve N/A.
To this end I am taking the two following steps:
I am extending the close date from November 8th to December 31st.
I am selling all my shares, so that at closure I can make an uninfluenced decision.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ347 | |
| 2 | Ṁ108 | |
| 3 | Ṁ94 | |
| 4 | Ṁ20 | |
| 5 | Ṁ13 |
@JoshuaWilkes , If a proposed resolution can't meet a predefined criteria, it's not a resolution.
You said that you have little doubt in you mind. Given that "little doubt" have a probabilistic meaning, you decided to resolve an unresolved question, not by measuring facts but by debating with yourself how good a probability is. ( "Little doubt in my mind" to quote your words )
@Brunosecreto To expand a bit on my reasoning:
Firstly, what were the resolution criteria actually? This can be seen in three phases. Initially the question was bare, without good criteria (I think in these cases there is an assumption that a resolution should be without controversy). Then I added a criterion, the naming of the suspect, because it became more likely that a straightforward resolution would not be possible. But note that at that time I also said it might be necessary to seek other ways to resolve it if he wasn't named by the end of the year, because I didn't want to NA unless there were no other options. This is the phase I found myself in this week, and the path I chose was/is my attempt to avoid an NA whilst treating participants fairly.
I could have NAed, or I could have extended the market close date. Both reasonable options, but both unsatisfying, the first because it just nixes the market (obvs), the second because it isn't obvious when a 'better' resolution would be possible, and I think an indefinite lack of closure is very undesirable.
That leaves the option I chose, to resolve the market to what I think is the most probable answer.
In this case, it was widely reported that the attacker was a foreigner, and to the best of my knowledge this hasn't been credibly challenge. That for me is the driving motivation to find a way to a NO resolution rather than NA. However, I accept that there is a part of this that is non-desirable, especially for YES holders. That is why I've taken the unusual step of guaranteeing from my personal mana that I will reimburse (human) YES holders if it is subsequently shown that this market should have resolved YES (if Manifold won't change the resolution, which I guess they would).
I wish to extend my apologies for my previous rudeness. It's evident you are deeply engaged in articulating your reasoning, and I mistakenly interpreted your query and conclusion as a political stance, something I, as a game enthusiast, despise.
I am sorry for this misunderstanding.
However, I'd like to highlight that, similar to other discussions concerning the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, there are certain flaws in your reasoning.
To illustrate my point, I'll employ the "Cui Bono?" approach.
The incident in question is geopolitically sensitive due to its timing. The countries involved, thus far, have significant stakes. Let's simplify the analysis by breaking down the incident into three potential scenarios:
1 - If the incident was politically motivated and the perpetrator was not of Chinese origin, then both the Chinese Department of State and Israel would have reasons to reveal the aggressor's nationality. Curiously, they have not done so.
2 - In the scenario where the incident was politically motivated and the perpetrator was Chinese, both Israel and China would find delaying the indictment's publicization advantageous. China, in particular, might benefit from creating confusion regarding the perpetrator's nationality.
3 - If the incident had no political motive (stemming from personal issues like love, debt, a poker dispute, misunderstandings, etc.), then it would be in both countries' interests to withhold details at this time.
Regarding the incident's footage, the videos show a man in casual attire, without a beard, and wearing sunglasses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNm7Oh2eLmc
YouTube video link of the suspect's arrest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGCxCDUN8lo
Given these observations, I'm not convinced that the attacker is not of Chinese nationality, and I'm puzzled by your certainty in this matter.
@BrunoRodrigues thanks for your reply.
Broadly speaking, I disagree with your second point. In the current climate, if the suspect was Chinese I don't think that everyone involved is at all aligned in wanting to maintain a public misconception that he is a foreigner.
Firstly, it's not obvious that China would want to run the risk of being called out on this. Being shown to be evasive or misleading on this is not a great look. However, it's at least conceivable that they would.
Much more important, in my eyes, is that I don't believe Israel, or Israeli actors, would let such a false Chinese claim stand. China has been pretty firmly in favour of Palestine throughout this conflict and I think that must rankle Tel Aviv, which would be exacerbated if they were not taking responsibility for one of their own.
I don't think, or am not confident, that the Israeli government would publicly call China out on this, but I do think that someone would leak it.
Finally, whilst it would be impossible for Chinese media print something like this if the government didn't want them to, they would all know, and I'd be expect that that knowledge would have filtered out by now (I haven't seen that it has)
Finishing with a broader point that's not directly related to your second, my sense (with a not very high degree of certainty) is that the initial reporting of this, and the fact it was a foreigner, was done without an immediate media push to sell that narrative. Chinese media is not a perfect all powerful machine. It takes time to build up a narrative that is, shall we say, massaged, and media workers often have to go by a sense of what they are supposed to say rather than being given explicit directives. In this case there were lots of very fast reports and the video and I don't think (again caveats about confidence) that media workers would have had much sense that they should lie and say he wasn't Chinese so early.
(Incidentally I totally accept your point that from the video it's unclear what ethnicity the attacker was. I've never taken that as a significant evidence point given the poor quality of the footage)
@BrunoRodrigues as to what I think is actually happening, I infer that the attacker is not from a Western country. That's how we usually find out that someone has been detained in China; to my knowledge, it's not uncommon for China not to reveal this information until pressured to do so by the individuals country announcing it unilaterally after getting consular access.
I have resolved this NO.
I know that any resolution criteria have not been met, but equally there is little doubt in my mind that NO is the correct resolution.
I will personally undertake to refund the Mana loss of anyone (not including bot accounts) who subsequently proves that this should have resolved YES.
(Assuming of course that I am unable to get Manifold to change the resolution)
Now that the market has finally adjusted to reports, I want to address how it will resolve:
Ideally we would wait until that individual was found guilty, or at the very least charged. However, this is China and that process can be long and opaque (especially when politically sensitive).
So.
I will resolve NO if the individual ('the foreigner') is named and this ID is not disputed by relevant parties (let's say embassies in Beijing, the Palestinian Authority and major media outlets).
If the individual is not named by the end of the year, I will search for other ways that might satisfy me, a reasonable person that the question should resolve NO or YES. Only as an absolute last resort will I resolve N/A.
To this end I am taking the two following steps:
I am extending the close date from November 12th to December 31st.
I am selling all my shares, so that at closure I can make an uninfluenced decision.
Multiple sources say that China is saying that the suspect is a “foreign national”.