Re: 6 new messages in 3 topics - digest

[Andrew Jones]

"That isn't going to change anything, since it's already linked into the
TradeSports discussion board on the topic. They've already looked that
over, and don't see anything in it that looks like the DOD being more
specific about where the missiles landed.

I feel a lot of sympathy for TradeSports on this one. One of the things
we've found through lots of experience at Foresight Exchange is that if
you don't write clear ending conditions, the controversy about edge
cases never end. If you do write clear ending conditions and stick to
them, most people learn to read the claims carefully. Occasionally you
get a heart-breaker like this; if you don't follow the clear rules you
set down earlier, then no one ever trusts your clear statements again,
and everything turns into a close call."

I don't think the problem is with the wording as much that the judge
here, the U.S. Department of Defense wasn't contracted to judge on
this case. It isn't required to issue a statement resolving the bets
made on intrade.com etc. Was there any previous evidence to suggest
that the DOD would issue a statement confirming North Korea's missles
left their airspace? It seems like a bad choice to choose an instution
that might be tracking the issue, but isn't necessarily going to
officiate. After all you could bet on a baseball game with NBC news'
scores as the final judge, but if NBC decides to cover the North
Korean missle launch instead of airing the scores then you lose out. A
better ending condition is one that is officiated by an instutition
guarnteed to report the needed outcome or something verifiable by
independent means.

Peace,
A

[vancheeswaran]

Andrew Jones wrote:
> I don't think the problem is with the wording as much that the judge
> here, the U.S. Department of Defense wasn't contracted to judge on

> this case...

Really good points.

But Tradesports can still fix the problem they created for themselves
by contacting DOD now and asking for a ruling on the facts in question.

One Tradesports member already did this (there is a "Contact Us" form
on dod.gov), referencing the Hadley-Snow press briefing posted on
whitehouse.gov and state.gov.

The DOD reply was, "We will let the White House comments speak for us."

Q.E.D.