I will use the Cambridge dictionary definition of invasion to determine the outcome and i will update the description: "the act of entering a place by force, often in large numbers." and "an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country" ~https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/invasion
So if the Israeli military enters Lebanon in big numbers in an aim of invasion/take control of parts/the entirety of Lebanon it will be resolved to yes. Like Russia is invading parts of Ukraine but for Lebanon.
EDIT:
According to the definition I used to determine if it is an invasion which is the Cambridge dictionary definition the market is resolved to YES.
EDIT 2:
I know i have worded the original question too broad it shouldve been a ground invasion but most of the people has invested just judging on the title and the definition.
EDIT 3:
Everything after the defenition was an attempt to rephrase and i admit it was badly written. But what is happening is a massive air invasion and attacks on the capital so the market must resolve to YES
EDIT 4:
I am ready to repay everyone who thinks it is unfair or judged my market on the last* part.
EDIT 5:
To those who asked what was meant by "Like Russia/Ukraine" it was meant to be a suddent attack no matter what the aggressor calls it in this case "special military operation" but it was clearly an invasion and this is clearly an invasion
1,000
3.00@AlexTurney invasion is the act of movement of foreign military forces into a nation , annex is what happens when that invasion leads to holding of that land.
@LolPopb5f2 Let me start with: Thanks for returning to Manifold for this question. It can be reasoned that this market should resolve Yes, but it was also easy to read a different interpretation into your description.
It's rather obvious that the dictionary definition gives some wiggleroom. For example, I don't see how airstrikes qualify as "entering a place [...] in large numbers". Same for using force to "take control of another country".
I read the aditional description clearly as a means to clarify that something like airstrikes would not suffice. And I took the Russia/Ukraine example as meaning there needs to be combat for, or loss of, control over territory. I just wasn't sure how you'd handle an operation which doesn't aim for permanent territory occupation (like Russia in Ukraine), but instead for temporary control (to combat Hezbollah and afterwards hand control back to Lebanon).
Understandably, as Yes bettors are in the majority here, you'd have gotten more pushback by not resolving Yes. And probably within days or weeks, the problems with this resolution will apparently disappear, as there might well be boots on the ground and territory controlled by Israel by then. It's just: The probability for that wasn't 100% at the time this market closed.
@Primer boots are getting to be in the ground and i understand where you are coming from but i just wanted to solve this issue as i am very overwhelmed with my real life but manifold did a good job in coordinating with me the need to a response. i have seen what is given at the moment and reflected that the answer is yes these airstrikes + isreal preparing to a ground assault cant be counted as an invasion and as i said i badly worded my original description so if you see re-imbursements as i have said in my edit i will re-imburse you i have 14k mana that i dont need anymore and im willing to distribute them to everyone who is unfairly treated
@LolPopb5f2 Again: Thanks for returning here at all! The task of fairly resolving a market which hinges on interpretation of wording is, frankly, impossible. Not sure why there is this broad consensus against resolving N/A in such cases.
A reimbursement would be nice, but I alone lost >3k. This market quite hit it off with hundreds of participants.
@Primer i have read the comments most of the market agreed to be a YES so you think it is more fair to solve it as N/A?
@Primer https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-military-has-begun-limited-raids-against-hezbollah-targets-border-area-2024-09-30/
"Israel's elite units launched limited ground raids into Lebanon on Tuesday." can we count this as invasion?
@LolPopb5f2 Yes, I think so (re: N/A).
As far as I understand there are 3 reasons against N/A in principle:
I could create a market, bet against all odds and when I lose just N/A it
Market creators also lose their bonuses
"It doesn't look good" as in: people who bet "correctly" (according to their interpretation) don't get their reward, which makes Manifold less interesting.
Those don't seem very convincing to me. #1 could be solved differently and #3 is the way Metaculus uses way way more often than Manifold, and they don't seem to have any relevant reputation problems.
But beware: I argued for N/A once, in a market where I would have profited from the resolution, and faced a lot of opposition. I wouldn't recommend this.
Edit: I don't think "limited raids" are remotely close to what Russia does in Ukraine. I suppose we will see more than limited raids, so this resolution will turn out correct sometime later this year.
@LolPopb5f2 I'd recommend keeping the resolution. I think that you should stick what what you originally decided, not just resolve to N/A to return mana to people who lost out (and thus also take away mana from people who won it).
@Gabrielle Man, if only your wisdom was present in this thread: https://manifold.markets/shankypanky/rfk-address-the-nation-prop-bets-sh?play=true#cuo1ez3tdyd, where I won the bet but then later re-resolved to N/A (weeks later, without elaboration, and contrary to reliable sources). There needs to be tougher penalties for unclear markets, they're poisoning the platform
IDF now confirms it already performed dozens of covert ground operations inside Lebanon since October 8
Traded based on the “big numbers” and “taking control of territory” criteria, which I don’t think have been met.
@ShakedKoplewitz but you cant argue that they did an air invasion which does not reflect my original bad wording
@LolPopb5f2 Don't have a big stake here, but it seems obviously an invasion. Best of luck on the arguments.
@LolPopb5f2 although when i left and requested my account to be deleted @Manifold Didnt do so. So i appologize for everyome who had to wait
NYT calls current operation an invasion: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/30/world/israel-lebanon-hezbollah/cabinet-ground-op?smid=url-share
https://x.com/IDF/status/1840890054819864776?t=ZaTlll78T3mgi8KlsCtviA&s=19
"Limited, localized and targeted raids". I think we need to wait more before this can be resolved. It's clearly not yet "in an aim of invasion/taking control of part of Lebanon".