A permanent cease fire, not one lasting less than a week for humanitarian purposes. Question is resolved as a yes if there is a cease fire lasting longer than a week prior to the end of the year.
1,000Lol, after yes is right on the cusp of a win, which is (or will be) a monumental real-life achievement of hostages being freed and humanitarian aid entering Gaza, he decides he doesn't like THAT ceasefire.
@RickBlevins As someone who has no stake in this market and just stumbled upon it now, I would strongly recommend cancelling the market (resolving NA or however that works on this site) and creating a new one if you still want a market for this specific question...
That is way too significant of a clarification to tack on after significant trading has happened, particularly considering that the market had reached 98% (meaning people clearly were interpreting it in such a way that the impending cease-fire would qualify).
And particularly because you are personally benefiting from the confusion as the largest NO payout, having bought in around the time you made the clarification
I didn't even see that Rick bought NO around that time. That's a step too far, if @RickBlevins doesn't N/A the market or revert to the original definition, I expect moderators to take action.
@partlygloudy As another no-stake observer I second Jake's take - that's a very significate disambiguation that the market clearly didn't expect. N/A + a new market seems like the only valid path.
Not cool, to add requirements to the market resolution in a way that totally changes it like this.
@Shump There have been cease-fires that were just for a few hours. It is only a true cease fire if there is a substantial stop in the fighting, not a momentary halt.
@RickBlevins those details should be added beforehand, several markets on ceasefire have already resolved yes
@RickBlevins But the title said just that Israel and Hamas need to agree to it. People bet it all the way up to 98% based on that information, even when markets that specified 48 hours were significantly lower. It's fine to define your markets however you want, but people already bet on the previous information, it's too late to change now.
@Emanuele98 I agreed it wasn't fair - that's why I listed it as N/A and everyone got their bet back.
