The market resolves yes if an article appears on NYTimes.com or BBC.com that calls some event "absolutely horrific".
The event (which can be anything) must occur while the market is open, and the article must be published no later than 24 hours after the market close.
The exact phrase "absolutely horrific" must appear in the article. It does not matter whether it is a quote or not.
Clarification: The article must not have been published before the market opened, which was Monday Aug 14th.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
# | Name | Total profit |
---|---|---|
1 | Ṁ167 | |
2 | Ṁ128 | |
3 | Ṁ115 | |
4 | Ṁ109 | |
5 | Ṁ103 |
FYI since I had not cancelled the google alert.
There were two occurrences since the market closed:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-66676630
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-66786412
@LightLawliet Wouldn't they call it absolutely horrific, though? Unless if it was the holocaust of conservatives, I guess
@LightLawliet @lukres Probably would be good to at least put quotes around the phrase "absolutely horrific" in the title, to prompt people to check the description.
"Absolutely horrific" has been used here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/09/us/hurricane-dora-hawaii-wildfires.html
The event (Hawaii fires) is still ongoing, therefore this should be resolved as yes. The phrase refers to the fires, which are still burning and the state of emergency is still on.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/maui-wildfires-upcountry-kula-still-burning/
And more specifically to stranded travelers, which is still happening:
@xenochain This article was published before the market was created (in fact it inspired me to create it). The intention was that the article should be published between the market opening date and 24 hours after market close. I apologise that this was not spelled out explicitly.
@lukres So I will not close it based on this article (unless perhaps there is a consensus by Trustworthy users that I should, but I don't think there would be one). I suggest you sell if you bought yes based on this.
@lukres to make the market more clear and avoid irreducible pluralisms in the interpretation of the overlap, I'd suggest omitting the clause "it counts if the event started before the market opened" in the future. In the current scenario, the "absolutely horrific" event is ongoing and meets all your criteria:
1. Not speculative.
2. Coincides with the marketized period.
3. The event (not the article) occurred while the market was open. This should resolve as 'YES' this time. Please consider using more precise language in the future.
@xenochain You are right about the clarity of the current rules and it's completely my fault for missing the case of an article published in the past about an event still ongoing.
That said I am relieved that you exited the market with negligible loss, and any further bets were made after my comment. I will clarify the rules, however I will do it in this market and will use my discretion as market creator to not close it as "yes" based on the NYTimes article. The reasons are as follows:
There are actually great many events that were called "absolutely horrific" in the past and are still ongoing. The market would be absurd if past events counted, so the only way to resolve it now would be N/A.
I believe most people understood the rules as they were intended, as evidenced by the low probability prior to your bet and nobody bringing up any past articles.
So while you are correct on purely logical grounds, I will continue the market based on common sense ones.