For the purposes of this question, supporting reactjis means there are 2+ options expressing different sorts of reaction. For example, options expressing "like|dislike", "like|neutral|dislike", or a 1-5 star system would not qualify; options expressing "like|laugh|cry" or "like|agree" would qualify.
Resolves YES if I have the choice to react to a comment in multiple ways (as described above) by the end of October and that ability lasts for at least 48 hours (i.e. it's not an immediately withdrawn experiment). Since I'm not perpetually online, this may also resolve YES on multiple reports of this condition from other people. Resolves NO otherwise.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ125 | |
| 2 | Ṁ112 | |
| 3 | Ṁ48 | |
| 4 | Ṁ43 | |
| 5 | Ṁ34 |
People are also trading
Hey folks, sorry for the extended delay on this one. My life got kind of busy (but that's no real excuse; I could have made time to handle this if I were more determined).
I continue to feel that, although the new "reply with a bet" feature isn't what I had in mind when I created this question, the most honest reading of the description gives a YES resolution. If you find this resolution absurd and feel ripped off, ask and I will refund your loss.
I'm sorry about the ambiguity / tension between description and title on this. I thought I did a decent job filling in the details in the description, but turns out, not so much! I'll do my best to take more care in the future.
Thanks all.
@jcb Personally, I don’t feel “ripped off” per se since there was no malicious intent, but I am frustrated by how the “my initial thought is no” comment compounded the existing ambiguity. Would you be able to refund my loss of M518?
Hope your life has been the good kind of busy!
@oh Good point that I added to the ambiguity with that comment. That was before I'd looked at the feature at all and thought I was noncommittal enough, but as market decider I should be more mindful of what I say!
@ian my initial thought is no, but I'm not sure. Will sleep on this and consider it tomorrow
It took me two sleeps, but after considering, I think the new feature does qualify! It's certainly not what I originally had in mind, but I (intentionally) wrote the description to be somewhat flexible/inclusive.
Betting in response to a comment is certainly on a different dimension from "like", so it meets the "different sorts" criterion. The crux is whether bets qualify as "reactions". My conclusion is that in the current implementation, these bets are both replies (in the comment thread) and reactions (icon and number in the bottom right of the comment box), so yes, they qualify.
I didn't expect to be exercising this kind of judgement on this market. It looks this is likely YES unless the new feature gets pulled soon. It seems dishonorable for me to bet based on my own judgement here, but I also don't want to just hand a bunch of alpha to whoever sees this comment first, so closing early while I figure out what to do.
@jcb FWIW I wasn't watching this market until seeing these comments, and it seemed to me this would not count as a "reaction." But it seems like a pretty subjective call, and of course I now have a vested interest in NO.
I'm going to go ahead and leave this closed until resolution.
@oh I'm reluctant to N/A unless the question itself seems broken. Perhaps it could be argued that the description diverges substantially from the title in a way that misleads bettors and breaks the question?
I could delegate resolution (including possibility of N/A) to some trustworthy user(s) if there is demand for that and they are willing. Is that something folks here would prefer?
@jcb “Perhaps it could be argued that the description diverges substantially from the title in a way that misleads bettors and breaks the question?” I guess. Delegation to uninvested users sounds like a good plan.
@jcb Personally I don't like N/A for "something weird but relevant happened", I like it for "necessary conditions weren't met (whether specified in advance or not)". Here it seems like the conditions were clearly met for the question to be meaningful, the question is just how bet reactions count.
Personally I think they don't (hence the NO position). But if someone else decides they do, well, such is the risk I took.
If the decision is that they kinda-sorta count, I think that argues for a PROB resolution. (Which I would likely lose money on, relative to N/A, just so we're clear on my biases here.)