Resolves yes if the Kremlin officially say the Ukrainian government was behind today's attack in Moscow? Resolves to NO if they just say the people behind it were pro-Ukraine but not affiliated with Ukraine or if the person who makes the claim is someone in the Russian government but is not Vladimir Putin, or an official statement from the Kremlin.
1,000
3.00Based off of the information provided in this comment I believe this should be resolved as YES
https://manifold.markets/mb/will-russia-accuse-ukraine-of-being#izxkzv1boai
@mb they have numerous times referredto Kyiv and government officials.
Also found on the link Chris Billington shared:
"In this regard, the Russian Foreign Ministry has put forward a demand for the Ukrainian authorities, under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to immediately arrest and extradite every person implicated in the above terrorist acts."
@alieninmybeverage I think you are probably right but I still want to see if I can find some third party to help me resolve it because I am not yet 100% certain and I do not fully trust myself to make the most intelligent assessment.
@mb If you're on the Manifold discord you can solicit moderator (or other) opinions in the #mod-help channel. If you're not on discord, I could post a message there if you want and people can come here to comment if they want to chime in.
It's totally up to you if you wanted to delegate resolution to someone else if they are happy with it. For what it's worth the process if you decided not to resolve your market at all (such as if you were not active on the platform) would be to get three random mods to vote on resolution, but as long as you're around, delegating to a single other person or pretty much anything else is fine.
I've already emphasised that you shouldn't doubt how you would otherwise resolve on my account, but if you're uncertain about resolution regardless, then by all means solicit some other views.
I've taken the liberty of closing the market for trading, since it's usually not great if people are trading during ongoing resolution discussions.
@mb I posted a message, but it didn't get much attention, just the one comment so far. I might try to get it some more attention.
@SemioticRivalry I'm expecting to probably lose the bet (on NO), but worth pointing out that the criteria are a little more strict than your market - this one resolves on statements from Putin, and official statements from the Kremlin that directly say the people involved were affiliated with Ukraine.
When I last checked it seemed plausible to me that statements at that time didn't meet the threshold. Unsure what the strongest statements from Putin or the Kremlin to date are, haven't been keeping up.
@chrisjbillington I struggle to see a valid way out of resolving YES on several met criteria, only one of which is more strict than the other market with the others being less so.
The important LESS strict criteria:
The key phrasing of "accuse" "behind" and "by the end of April" should resolve YES on an official accusation alone as opposed to the criteria of a conclusion of blame in the other market. Even if the Kremlin were to reverse its position, the criteria here for YES would still stand but it would change the outcome of the other market.
What was more strict for this market is WHO had to say it, and this criteria has been met numerous
Headline literally reads: "Russia's FSB chief accuses Ukraine, US and UK of being behind Moscow shooting."
Such an accusation that Ukraine is "behind" is sufficient to meet the criteria even if the accusation is shared. ("Behind" is important because the Kremlin has acknowledged the shooters were not themselves Ukrainian). This was also the FSB Director, the FSB which is officially part of the Executive Branch, so not "just someone in the government." I can't access the full article, so someone else would have to confirm the "official statement" aspect.
And this is all before the nonsense about finding Ukrainian flags on phones. On what criteria could this be resolved as NO?
@chrisjbillington in case that isn't enough,
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-says-evidence-links-concert-153526254.html
The Investigative Committee of Russia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigative_Committee_of_Russia.
Another Executive Federal Agency reporting directly to Putin.
@alieninmybeverage are any of those statements making direct accusations from Putin, or are any official statements from the Kremlin? per the criteria, nobody else's statements count. I don't see kremlin.ru in any of the URLs. Can you find where the quotes are published in official statements?
Quotes I've seen from Putin are less definitive. Indeed one of your articles does cite Putin, but when I read his actual words at the time, they were hedged, it was all "may" this "could be" that. And I found this official statement from the ministry of foreign affairs, but it's not super direct in its accusations:
On what criteria could this be resolved as NO?
The criteria say
Resolves to NO if [...] the person who makes the claim is someone in the Russian government but is not Vladimir Putin, or an official statement from the Kremlin.
@SemioticRivalry that is what I think makes more sense but @chrisjbillington makes some good points. Do you know if there are any mods I can contact to make sure that it is resolved fairly?
@chrisjbillington it feels like there are a couple additions and Semantic stretches here. "Directly" is not found in the criteria, and even if it were, the link you just shared states:
"The brutal terrorist attack committed in Krasnogorsk on March 22, which shocked the whole world, is far from the first act of terrorism targeting our country in recent time. The investigative actions carried out by the competent authorities in Russia indicate that the trails of all these crimes lead to Ukraine."
This also fits the criteria of "accusation of being behind."
I'm also wondering how several of these links I have shared are not considered "official statements" from the Kremlin. They are heads of executive branches that report directly to Putin. "Official statement" held to the level of "formal statement" seems overly restrictive, and still the link you shared meets that criteria.
I would also point to your post 25 days ago that says:
There are definitely direct accusations coming from high-ups in Russia:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68663043
Top Russian officials have directly accused Ukraine and the West of being involved in the deadly Moscow concert hall attack, after it was claimed by the Islamic State (IS) group.
Also:
Then the head of Russia's FSB security service, Alexander Bortnikov, went further.
"We believe the action was prepared both by the radical Islamists themselves and, obviously, facilitated by Western special services. Ukraine's special services themselves have a direct connection to this."
"Official" reasonably means an "official" speaking from their post, not issuing a formal document of accusation, which what you shared looked like they did anyway!
@mb when you said "official statement" in the criteria, did you mean something so specific as a formal document published by the Kremlin declaring the accusation? I would think most intuitive readings of "official statements" from the sources you mentioned would include statements by heads of those sources of statements speaking in their official capacity and making the accusations.
The more precise the criteria you intend, the more precise and airtight the criteria need to be, such as linking to where "official statements from the kremlin" would be posted.
@alieninmybeverage you are correct. It does not imply that it has to be a formal published document.
@mb whilst you could kick resolution to a moderator vote, I don't think you should do that on my account if you would otherwise have resolved YES. I took a gamble that you might have very strict requirements, but if that's not what you had in mind that's totally fine and I'm not going to kick up a stink or leave you a bad review over it.
@chrisjbillington I think as @alieninmybeverage pointed out my requirements are not extremely strict about what the official kremlin source is because if it were I would have put more specific information about what would count as a resolution source. However, I am still not certain whether it is the Ukrainian government that is being blamed or some Ukrainian groups acting independently of the government. I am certain that what has been said so far is definitely an accusation aimed at Ukraine.
Which Chris shared. The full statement:
Press release on Russia’s demands for Ukraine under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism
589-31-03-2024
The brutal terrorist attack committed in Krasnogorsk on March 22, which shocked the whole world, is far from the first act of terrorism targeting our country in recent time. The investigative actions carried out by the competent authorities in Russia indicate that the trails of all these crimes lead to Ukraine.
Other barbaric bomb attacks took the lives of journalists Darya Dugina and Maxim Fomin (Vladlen Tatarsky), seriously injured writer Yevgeny “Zakhar” Prilepin and killed his driver, Alexander Shubin; five people were killed by an explosion of the Crimean Bridge, and 42 were wounded in an explosion in a café in St Petersburg. The killing and mutilation of civilians, including children, was accompanied by raids by the terrorist organisation known as Russian Volunteer Corps.
In this regard, the Russian Foreign Ministry has put forward a demand for the Ukrainian authorities, under the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to immediately arrest and extradite every person implicated in the above terrorist acts.
One of the demands is to arrest head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Vasily Malyuk, who cynically admitted on March 25 that Ukraine was behind the bombing of the Crimean Bridge in October 2022 and revealed details of the organisation of other attacks in the Russian Federation.
The fight against international terrorism is the responsibility of every state. The Russian side demands that the Kiev regime immediately cease any support for terrorist activities, extradite the perpetrators and compensate for the damage caused to the victims. Ukraine’s violation of its obligations under the antiterrorist conventions will entail international legal liability."
@mb also, the actual stakes are low for me as well, since I'm just going to be shipping my mana to UNICEF before the end of the month.
My exit has less to do with Manifold changes and more to do with the fact that I don't really like the effect prediction markets apparently have on how I think about world events. I found myself arguing technicalities and losing all perspective of the real world stakes. At least that's how it felt.
@alieninmybeverage I definitely feel that. It's hard to make good markets that don't hinge on uninteresting technicalities whilst not relying on too much subjectivity either. I think it's a balance the community is still learning, and I hope that in future, markets on serious topics that get some traders can get some early review to anticipate corner cases and firm up the criteria (or loosen them to remove the dependence on noticed technicalities). Seems like Manifold is moving in that kind of direction, at least!