🏅 Top traders

17M views 8 days ago
Over a week

I think the lesson from this market is that it’s better to have resolution criteria based on words uttered rather than concepts mentioned.

@soweliSon thanks for all of the effort you've put into resolving and ensuring everything is fair and accurate 🧡 I appreciate that you're patient and thorough and open to discussing the differences of opinions on some of these.

(and thanks for the market of course)

@soweliSon your market was awesome! some options ended up ambiguous but that's bound to happen, and I hope you don't feel discouraged from running similar markets because of it. sometimes the ambiguity in necessary, and the market creator's choices are final 🙏 ty!

oh I second this, too ☝ try as we might, it's most often unavoidable to find a difference of opinion, even when things seem clear at the beginning. great market 🧡 and it was great to be able to talk through some of these things and see how differently we all see/interpret things!

also, id go a bit further and say that if you have overly "precise" and "unambiguous" resolution criteria, it can kind of make the option unintentionally uninteresting. like if you ask "will they mention the word "european union"" and they talk about the EU for 1 hour without mentioning that specific phrase, that'd clash with the spirit of that question; it's nice when stuff is vague enough that a general category of stuff count, but the line is drawn somewhat precisely in general; I would propose something like, having "will X be mentioned" options, and then in the description describing a rough idea of where the line is drawn on whether something counts as being mentioned, like "implicit references to a thing doesn't count as mention, but pretty much anything more than that counts". it's not gonna make every single edge case ever clear, but it's gonna let us bet on more meaningful things than whether a word was uttered or wtv. lmk if what i just said doesn't make sense

okay I'm likely to just keep agreeing with everything Bayesian says so just assume everything he says here and in any other comments is a +1 from me 😄 especially this part about minor ambiguities adding life to the market!

http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411

Here’s the Russian transcript. Can anyone read Russian lmao.

@soweliSon

This market will resolve based on the official full interview released by Tucker Carlson.

Is the transcript just for curiosity?

@soweliSon I think if I listen to the non-dubbed version, I can follow enough to know if there was proverb, then confirm in the written transcript, but can't do that until tomorrow at the earliest (and maybe there is someone better qualified)

@AlQuinn I'm genuinely asking (and glad to hear from others who see it differently) if looking at things other than the official video released by Tucker Carlson should count for resolution. Based on the market criteria I bet on what I got from the video yesterday. I doubt there will be a proverb that was entirely written out in the translation but still, if there were, is it relevant to this resolution based on how the market is defined?

@shankypanky https://manifold.markets/soweliSon/what-will-be-true-of-the-tucker-car#rcjire8mhy

@AlQuinn I've seen that comment and I still disagree with it based specifically on this

https://manifold.markets/soweliSon/what-will-be-true-of-the-tucker-car#p6g00tucqmk

@shankypanky also, I'm pretty sure a native Russian speaker could understand what Putin said in Russian in the dubbed official release; it's just much easier for me without the dubbing since I'm no longer fluent

@AlQuinn lol this is all such a stretch. searching for Russian transcripts and alternative (non dubbed) videos and assuming that if there were a russian bettor they could determine alternative answers potentially isn't in the spirit of the market or resolution criteria.

@shankypanky if we limit the "full interview release" to be strictly the translated transcript, I agree with you; otherwise I disagree because Putin is (mostly) intelligible in the video (to a fluent speaker who isn't too distracted by dubbing).

@AlQuinn that's the full official release. that's it. the one posted at the release time yesterday on X/YT/Tucker's website.

@shankypanky yeah my point is I can often understand exactly what Putin is saying in Russian in spite of the dubbing, and someone with better Russian could probably understand it nearly perfectly

@AlQuinn I feel relatively confident this won't be an issue anyway but I guess I'll just stay tuned. I just think a niche case of someone listening through the dubbing and pulling something out is a bit of a reach, that's all.

@shankypanky yeah the English version (which I listened to at 2x speed so definitely didn't follow the Russian) didn't have proverb vibes

I realize this resolution is controversial, but I’ll explain my reasoning. Mentioning involves either directly naming or otherwise directly referencing. I would have resolved this YES if Putin said “Soviet president” because that would be directly referencing Gorbachev. “Soviet leaders” or “Soviet leadership” is too vague in my judgement.

@soweliSon from my side the controversy if there is one is that I took Soviet Era to mean a period of time, not leaders of the Soviet Union. there were more than 3 leaders from the era who were mentioned by name specifically.

Putin is talking about 2024 US presidential elections by mentioning Colorado and other states trying to disqualify Trump from the 2024 Presidential Ballot.

@soweliSon where does he mention colorado and other states trying to disqualify trump

@Bayesian Sorry, he didn’t mention Colorado. He just says that states are can disqualify someone from elections, which is specifically about the 2020 presidential elections.

@soweliSon this isn't a discussion about the 2024 elections this is general talk about how the US is organised politically

@shankypanky This market is phrased “They talk of the 2024 US Presidential Elections”. This is an edge case, but I believe that talking about states disqualifying candidates is talking about the 2024 presidential elections.

@soweliSon sorry my mistake on this one - ineffective multitasking. scratch that.