🏅 Top traders

Payload is listed as N/A on the official webcast, I will resolve this market as NO accordingly.

@quantizor I suggest you update the description section of this market with more clarity over how you plan to resolve it. It looks like this has descended into everyone pointing fingers at each other, which seems to mostly be the result of arguing in the comments about a very under-specified description space.

You've attracted 30 traders on your market, they deserve to be given a better picture of your plans than "read all 50 comments and try to figure it out".

If traders don't like the way @quantizor specifies the market, my best suggestion is that you create your own version of the question with your own criteria rather than betting on one that is not fully specified and may have conflicting statements in the comment section that are hard to figure out.

--

As far as dispute management goes, based on reviewing the current guidelines for moderator actions, this market does not seem to be abandoned by the creator, and they seem to be giving a consistent message over time, it's just not in the description. As long as it doesn't look like intentional fraud, it probably falls under this section, with the question being how ambiguous the situation is:

If a market resolution has some ambiguity and there is dispute over the correct resolution, the creator will have the final say. However, we usually recommend an N/A resolution under these circumstances, especially if the ambiguity is at the fault of the creator.

From what I can tell, the crux right now is whether Chris has demonstrated to the creator's satisfaction that there was a "pez dispenser" on a prior launch. Even if a bunch of people, with the exception of the creator, think this has been demonstrated, it looks like the creator probably has the final say, even if something else might be "recommended".

That's just my reading of the situation -- I'm only looking at the guidelines for moderator actions and telling how I see it. Someone else might claim this is not ambiguous at all and that section doesn't apply, but if the creator is acting in good faith.....

I don't always agree with these guidelines, but it's going to be hard to justify doing anything else without a strong consensus.

@Eliza I think it's not ambiguous at all, I think a misunderstanding lies here:

You said this, but I think that's not actually the crux:

the crux right now is whether Chris has demonstrated to the creator's satisfaction that there was a "pez dispenser" on a prior launch.

There's no dispute about that, and the creator isn't disputing it either. The proof is this video, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDByivmrVuM", titled "Starlink Pez Dispenser Installed into Ship 25".

The creator said "Find proof that it flew previously and I'll discount it", which isn't ambiguous either.

The creator simply changed his mind about whether he wants to count pez dispensers at all, after being very clear that they wouldn't count. There's no ambiguity to it imo.

@Mqrius It seems to me that he always wanted to count a starlink dispenser as long as one had not flown on previous flights. The change is that he now wants to count them regardless, which contradicts his previous clarifications on the matter.

@Eliza

From what I can tell, the crux right now is whether Chris has demonstrated to the creator's satisfaction that there was a "pez dispenser" on a prior launch.

The creator hasn't disputed this, instead they write

It counts, I looked at the original text and the question and thought about it further. My comment on stance is true to the original spirit of the question and how it will be resolved. The PEZ dispenser is an additional structure that is not applicable to all mission configurations.

they're just changing their mind about the requirement that a payload sufficient to resolve the market must be something meaningfully different to what has flown in previous flights.

@Eliza Also,

rather than betting on one that is not fully specified and may have conflicting statements in the comment section that are hard to figure out.

There weren't any conflicting statements until today, and although the criteria and clarifications weren't how I would have defined things, it was reasonably well specified: anything meaningfully different to what has flown on previous flights and not part of the "base" structure.

The creator hasn't disputed this,

Good!

they're just changing their mind about the requirement that a payload sufficient to resolve the market must be something meaningfully different to what has flown in previous flights.

That is the kind of thing that is much, much more likely to be overruled by a moderator, especially when they had previously confirmed it was okay.

@Eliza Indeed, well I'll pin my previous comment saying as much since it has now gotten a little buried.

Traders please note: you can bet with confidence that the starlink dispenser does not count as a payload for the purposes of this question. The creator has previously said that only things

meaningfully different than what they've put in Starship so far

count, and a starlink dispenser was installed in ship 25 which flew in IFT-2, which can be verified by ctrl-f-ing for "dispenser" on this timeline of Starship development:

https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/wiki/General_Timeline

This question will be re-resolved by a moderator if the creator resolves inconsistently with their previous clarifications.

@chrisjbillington You can force override if you want but it isn't in the spirit of the question and you have a stake in this market.

@quantizor other moderators may disagree with me, in which case there would be a vote among three moderators. I predict they will not disagree.

You provided specific clarifications that people bet based on, these become part of the resolution criteria, and resolving counter to them is misresolution.

I might also note that the original criteria would not be interpreted by most to include a starlink dispenser in any case. Only with your clarifications did you communicate to traders that such a thing would count, but only if it was new to this flight.

This is my stance for resolution.

Yes, anything additional and not part of the typical structural configuration excluding the payload door itself.

@quantizor

@quantizor Can you confirm that the dispenser doesn't count, as you previously said? Otherwise this market is gonna be a mess of dispute/misresolve/reresolve/etc

@Mqrius It counts, I looked at the original text and the question and thought about it further. My comment on stance is true to the original spirit of the question and how it will be resolved. The PEZ dispenser is an additional structure that is not applicable to all mission configurations.

@quantizor You can't just change your mind on stuff like that after you've explicitly said that it doesn't count. Especially if you change your mind 2 months later after everyone has changed their bets based on your explicit words.

@Mqrius You're upset because you've thrashed your voting around a bit today. It's understandable. I'm staying consistent to the original prompt though and hopefully you can see the value in that.

I don't care anymore cos I don't have stake anymore. All I care about is consistency, not changing conditions 2 months after you claim something, 3 days before resolution.

@quantizor I would've seen the value in staying consistent to your original prompt it if you had made that decision way back when you had the discussion with Chris.

The only situation in which this market should resolve Yes is if they happened to put a Starlink satellite in the dispenser, but I haven't seen any indication that they've done that.

Edit: Actually, changed my mind, see next comment

EDA says that "there is a Starlink dispenser installed, but since this is a suborbital mission, there will be no payload actually deployed." Timestamp 5:03

Earlier in the comments, quantizor has already confirmed that a dispenser counts as a payload even if there's no Starlinks in it, since it is "meaningfully different from what they've put on Starship so far", and "not part of the structural configuration" of Starship.

Actually, S25 did have a Starlink dispenser, so it's not new.

Proof:

@Mqrius Still counts, the base ship will not have a dispenser in it every time because there are different configurations depending on use case

@quantizor No, you said in your discussion with Chris that if he could prove that it had flown before then it wouldn't count

@Mqrius But uh, maybe I should just not bet on this market if the conditions are so unclear and non-obvious

@quantizor