Will resolve to multiple answers and you can add your own
To clarify client/friend/associate is referring to this list
"US Judge Loretta Preska ruled on Monday that documents relating to more than 170 people who were either associates, friends or victims of disgraced financier Epstein should be made public."
1,000
3.00@TheAllMemeingEye Pushed the wrong button but all that handful was resolved and at the same % they were sitting at
@vVv I see you're doing some resolutions, can I get your take on Trump? In the set of documents I had checked I thought the few mentions of him were innocuous, but it's subjective so I don't know how much to bet on that without hearing your thoughts.
@Joshua Also curious about how you're judging Hawking, if you've looked at that yet. No one seriously thinks that happened based on an off-hand reference to it in one email, do they?
@Joshua Yeah I'll be honest, apart from the other sexual assault allegations outside of this case - I can't find anything that implicates Trump in this set of documents
I'm using this link to resolve the NOs as well
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeffrey-epstein-list-names-b2482483.html
"Former US presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are also named, with neither accused of wrongdoing."
There doesn't appear to be any significant business dealings either (politics aside I think he owes money to hundreds of people anyway) so ATP - it's likely I will resolve No
@vVv Agreed! TBH I'd do Clinton to no as well, based on that same article and ones like it. I had kind of given up on convincing people of it but he really isn't implicated in anything by the documents.
Going to do all my sources across comments
Resolving Virginia L. Giuffre to YES - she was mentioned already.
1320-3.pdf - PDF file containing the videotaped deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell in the case against Virginia L. Giuffre
Resolving Sarah Kellen to YES
1320-8.pdf - Subpoenas for Jeffrey Epstein, Sarah Kellen (aka Sarah
Kensington and Sarah Vickers) and Nadia Marcinkova
@Joshua Oh wait, should it be resolving to YES? I thought that would close the question. My assumption was if I resolve to current % that's the same as YES and allows me to resolve multiples.
I'll wait for confirmation from a mod (i.e you) - should I be resolving as YES and that'll allow me to resolve individually?
@vVv This is an independent multiple choice market, each option can resolve to yes or no individually. No reason to resolve to %, people do that for dependant multi choice.
Been reading all your comments/feedback - here's how I plan to proceed:
On subjectivity/wokeness - I've purposely tried to avoid that, given this is a prediction market and it would affect the integrity of the pool. There's no political bias here either, I added two names - the rest were up to the public. The market either resolves fairly or all participants get refunded at no loss.
On "the list" - it's clear there is no specific list but rather a trove of documents related to associated/friends/victims. There was never going to be a list of abusers per-se - the ruling specified a trove of documents being released so I have said we will always go off that set of documents - if the documents did not come out then I would have to resolve as N/A.
On resolving names - unless there are compelling reasons, an innocuous/unrelated mention (are you friends with X, have you ever met Y) won't resolve, however if a name is implicated in any wrong doing by a measurable standard - i.e deposition transcript, communication log, listed as a co-defendant, or anything that implies accusation then I will resolve the name to yes. We all know Epstein conducted business with lots of people to try and blackmail them - so I will also be including names that had significant financial involvement with him. This includes things like individuals having their debts paid off, receiving large/repeat donations. I acknowledge this is where some subjectivity may come in but a standard business tx vs a favour that needs to be repaid will look fairly obvious & each name/reference will be taken into respective context + this ensures no one is left at a loss due to any subjective interpretation of the question/market. An example of trying to keep it fair would be if someone received a one time donation from him and nothing else, it wouldn't be fair to resolve that to YES, however if someone was receiving consistent/large donations for no clear reason then that's clearly enough for Epstein to hold against them.
I've also waited for all the documents to come out so all market participants have the same edge in terms of information to bet on. I've purposely not posted the link here to avoid any subjective bias - i.e I could post the link late, change my reply later, edit the document etc etc.
Finally, on resolving early - I have yet to go through all the documents - have just finished through the first batch but if a name is mentioned early on then I see no reason why it can't be resolved early.
As of today - all documents have come out so as soon as I've reviewed the 100+ files I will being resolving with justification for each name.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67930662
Feedback is welcome - I've done my best to try and provide a fair resolution but I am happy to take any further points into consideration.
@RuiRodrigues These metrics weren’t clear from the creator to begin with so I don’t think it’s fair to resolve based on this other market. This market seems like a bit of a mess in terms of resolution criteria, I think it should either resolve to N/A on most of names or I’m very much considering just selling all my positions here at a loss bc I don’t trust it will be resolved fairly.
@drcat I understand what you are saying and I almost fully agree with you. I don't like markets where the criteria ends up being subjective and I feel like this question doesn't need to be one, but it ended up being because there isn't a "simple list" where we check if the name is there or not. Still, I believe that when we bet on a market we are also equating the subjectivity of the person that is the decision maker, that can be especially seen when there are questions using terminology which is vague/biased, such as "wokeness". In that way, I believe ithis question will completely change depending on whatever is the criteria the author takes. Considering that, as is done in law, I thought that seeing what similar markets have done/are doing might be helpful to all.
PS: The fact that the question mentions a "list" and the author has decided to wait for the other "numerous documents" further demonstrates what I wanted to.
By the way, twitter is saying dumb shit based on some old articles written before the new documents today. I will reluctantly give up my alpha and post the actual pdf for those of you that haven't found it:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24253239-1324-epstein-documents-943-pages
You can ctrl+f through it and see what names do and don't appear.
Maybe I'm missing something like part of the document not being searchable or something because it's a screenshot of handwriting, and that's the only reason I'm not buying everything to 99% or 1% bc I've ctrl+f-ed every name in this market now.
@Joshua does the document actually contain an unambiguous client list or is it all incidental innocuous mentions in correspondence?
@TheAllMemeingEye Actually... he does appear in one email:
This is talking about a rumor though, not saying this happened. I also don't know if this is a mention that's newly unredacted or if we already knew about it, and it's certainly not a "client list".
@Joshua wow, that's crazy, I agree that it doesn't seem like it would count as part of an actual client list, comes across like a poor taste joke or something, given the physical implausibility and all
@TheAllMemeingEye it's definitely not a physical implausiblility. Disabled people are capable of having sex. They can even have kids.
Besides that, Hawking, Freedom Acres, and strip clubs are not a new rumor.
@33 it still seems pretty unreliable (tabloid newspapers say just some guy told them), but I concede that it didn't occur to me that, as those articles claim, he could have had complicit carers assisting him due to inability to move