Gitmo here means all detention centres in US controlled Guantanamo Bay.
Cecot here means the Centre for Confinement of Terrorism in El Salvador.
Being a full blown extermination camp here means that there is verified evidence in mainstream media that >10% of US deportees sent there have been killed or sentenced to death, with killing including not only direct execution but also deaths from overworking, neglect, starvation, and disease where it is intentionally brought about by the operators of the facilities.
Update 2025-04-02 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Resolution Timing:
Initial Resolution: An initial resolution will be made soon after the market close date to avoid locking up mana unnecessarily.
Re-resolution: The market will be re-resolved if new, verified, reputable evidence emerges after the initial resolution.
Foreign Media Criteria:
Acceptable Sources: Foreign media reports are acceptable provided the sources are reputable and not known for blatant bias or untruthfulness (for example, sources that deny widely acknowledged events like the Tiananmen Square massacre or Uighur genocide would be disqualified).
Reputability Standard: Sources should ideally be reputable enough to be accepted as references for Wikipedia articles.
Edge Cases: In borderline situations, a poll of the manifold community may be used to gauge the reputability of the source.
1,000What resolution criteria will you use?
Often these things can take multiple years to come to light. USA’s first waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah was August 2002; the public didn’t learn about this practice until more than three years later in November 2005. How long will you wait to resolve?
If it’s reported in foreign media but not reported in US, is that sufficient? What if it’s foreign media from a country with adversarial relations?
@KJW_01294 good questions
I will probably do an initial resolution soon after the close date so mana isn't needlessly locked up, but re-resolve if new verified reputable evidence comes to light later.
Foreign media is fine, but they must not have a reputation of blatant bias and untruthfulness (e.g. a Chinese government source that blatantly denies the Tiananmen square massacre and Uighur genocide would be disqualified). Ideally they should be reputable enough that they are accepted without controversy as a source for Wikipedia articles. In edge cases I may ask the manifold community to decide reputability via poll.
@TheAllMemeingEye waiting till at least a few weeks into a potential next administration might increase the likelihood of finding out what really went down.