🏅 Top traders

Right everyone, it seems the world has spoken. I'll resolve YES, but please do channel your innner prediction powers to: https://manifold.markets/SebWilkes/will-the-crimean-bridge-kerch-bridg-6b7a0b55fd1a

Will the Crimean Bridge (Kerch Bridge) be successfully attacked once again by 2024?

50% chance. Famous for having been hit twice (even if the amount of damage was not catastrophic), news reports of the Kerch bridge being attacked are widely shared within Ukraine. On the other hand, Russia may well step up their security of the bridge rendering future attacks harder. If by the end of the year the BBC does not report on another a successful attack (hit) on the bridge, then this question is said to have failed. (This is not a re-post of a previous question; I had unintended ambiguity which meant it had to resolve YES, but this one is definitely about it being hit, however light the damage)

I don't have any stake in this market but I think this should resolve yes. There was an attack on the Kerch bridge.

Bing counts this as an attack like the other two examples you provided.

I understand the NO people, because I had also not thought that such an easily failed attack would happen and be interpreted as an attack.

@gigab0nus I would recommend to resolve this as YES tommorrow and then make a new one about the question you wanted to ask for the rest of the year.

Ahh so it seems that
@Halle made a good point. I promise I had thought "attacked" to mean hit. You can see my previous comments that clearly point to that.

It's amazing how easy it is to not think of these edge cases when defining the resolution criteria.

So where does this leave us? Is it not okay to leave it unresolved? Or am I duty bound to resolve YES?

@SebWilkes in hindsight would explain why people thought it was so high. If people were reading the question as firing something at the bridge (but missing) then sure it seemed correctly priced. Ahhh maybe I've screwed up here -- a hit would be a more interesting question to consider :/

@SebWilkes I feel like that was the most logical interpretation based on what you gave us. If other people interpreted it as meaning it had to be hit (I don't think they did though), then, I think the best thing to do is to resolve N/A and make a new one.

Let's wait and see what people think. I feel like most people interpreted it how I did.

@ShadowyZephyr thanks for thoughts. I'll wait until morning to get a couple more replies, but I think you're right.

I'm sorry really wasn't my intention to mislead anyone!

@SebWilkes So in my case, I think I noticed the ambiguity early on, and made decisions while being at least somewhat aware of this ambiguity (but it could be that I remember incorrectly).

Maybe tomorrow there will be more clarity regarding whether or not any hits occurred today.

@SebWilkes Fwiw I did interpret it in a way where a missed/intercepted missile wouldn't count, but I can see how others could interpret it differently as well.

My opinion is that if it's clear there was an attack and the attack was thwarted after it was launched it should count. I could imagine that being controversial if missiles were intercepted far from the bridge, but here we have photos of smoke billowing up from it- seems quite straightforward

@JoshuaWilkes I think that's fair

Does it count if the bridge wasn't hit?

@Halle Nowhere in the resolution criteria does it say the bridge has to be hit. If I try to punch you and miss, can I defend myself by saying I didn't attack you?

It was also reported on by the BBC. They say "Ukraine has not commented on the alleged attack." If it's somehow proven that the attack didn't happen/wasn't done by Ukraine then it can resolve N/A I guess, but there is actual video footage of it...

@ShadowyZephyr He gave two examples to what counts as hit in the description (and implied that that is a complete list). Have there been more events like yesterdays event in the past? If yes, then I would say this did not count.

@gigab0nus I don't understand your argument. There is nothing in the description of this market that implies that it has to be hit. Saying "it's famous for having been hit twice" does not mean attack = must be hit. This was one event (nothing like it happened before) and it was reported as an attack by many different media sources.

For example, this one literally says in the title "Ukraine launches missile ATTACK on Kerch Bridge" with a video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDl7s2Szxqs

Ukraine launches missile attack on Kerch Bridge, Crimea - Russians claim they were shot down

Ukraine has targeted the Kerch Bridge in a rare daytime missile attack on the Crimean Peninsula that Moscow claims was shot down before causing any damage.Vi...

@ShadowyZephyr Yeah after googling a bit I agree that there have been no other failed attacks before so my argument has no point.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66484640
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/aug/12/ukraine-fires-missiles-at-kerch-bridge-connecting-crimea-to-russia

The bridge was not damaged but it was shut down briefly.

Woah, why is this so high?

@SebWilkes maybe some articles in the last 24 hours about the attack two weeks ago?

Cool surname by the way!

@SebWilkes Explosions were reported around the bridge but now it seems like they were targeting a ship?

@ItzNetwork now tbf I think the odds should be higher or an attack because they're successfully attacked a ship but that doesn't mean slam dunk. They may not have that many of these drone boats and / or be saving them for attacking boats rather than risking it against a bridge.

@SebWilkes speculation here but since the drone boats don't actually seem to do such huge damage, it likely seems to me that slamming one of these things into a concrete bridge support would basically so nothing.