Will this market get misresolved?
For the purposes of this market, the aforementioned market is considered misresolved if:
a) it resolves YES, when any of the 20 points in 'Trump's proposed peace deal' [1][2][3], are not accepted by Hamas.
b) it resolves NO, when all of the 20 points in 'Trump's proposed peace deal' [1][2][3], are accepted by Hamas.
c) it resolves N/A, when a YES or NO resolution according to points a/b would have been fairly clear.
This is about the initial resolution of the market, a moderator re-resolving it would not affect this market.
I will not bet on this market, but I probably will heavily argue to influence a specific resolution in the original market
@dgga are you ok if I trade in this market? 😉
Seriously, though, reading your criterion (1), it appears you'd consider it a misresolution of my market if Hamas accepts 19/20 criteria, with the remaining 1 being not one of the "big ones", and the revised 19/20 deal is agreed to by all parties. Am I correct about that?
And re. (3), I assume your criterion here means YES and NO ought to be judged in the same maximally strict manner you describe in (1) and (2)?
The original creator in the linked has already stated that some of the points do not need to be accepted in order for that market to resolve YES. There is virtually no way Hamas will agree to all 20 points exactly as written. So if the original market resolves YES, then this market resolves YES. On the other hand, if the original market resolves NO, this market will almost certainly resolve NO as well because this market's creator seems to have a stricter version of what YES means in mind. This is for all practical purposes a copy of the linked market imo.
@Balasar Oh but I suppose the probability of an N/A resolution is nontrivial, and that probability mass favors a YES resolution here quite heavily.
@MatthewKhoriaty in my view this is where the major differences in resolution expectations remain.
1) If we have a comprehensive and clear deal, it will resolve YES, and every participant will agree
2) if negotiations break and the plan is completly discarded, it will resolve NO, and everyone will agree
3) if phase 1 is agreed this week but negotiations about subsequent steps are not finished, then:
3.1) some people will understand it should resolve YES already
3.2) some people will understand it should resolve NO already
3.3) some people will think the market closure date should be extended
3.4) some people will assume the ambiguity and conflicting interpretations justify NA
Terrorist disarmament and army withdrawal agreements have taken years to agree in detail and execute completely in other conflicts.
There are two type of deals:
A) All-in: “nothing is settled until everything is settled”. We make sure all points are detailed, clear and agreed before we start the execution
B) Phased: we agree to a general high-level sequence of goals, where only phase 1 is detailed enough to start execution while we remain negotiating phases 2..n
I see Trump’s plan more as B) Phased:
- Timing mismatch of different points’ expected agreements and execution justifies going for phases:
o Strong pressure for Israel to get hostages released, and for Hams to stop the bombings
o Big gap to be covered yet in other points imply it will take longer
- Personal incentives of peace plan creator. If you are looking for evidence for a Nobel peace prize, which path would you prefer?
o Path A: quick vague deal agreed by everyone, leaving some details for later. “Once in 3000 years historic peace deal” thanks to Trump. Hamas and/or Israel to be blamed in case of later derailment during execution negotiations.
o Path B: wait for all points to be detailed, lowering the chances of getting the full plan signed. If the plan is never signed, it would be seen as Trump’s failure
- Wording of the plan: clear for phase 1 (4: “…72 hours… all hostages…”), more open for phases 2..n (15: “…deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties…”)
- Repeated public messages from Trump that phase 1 will go ahead while details of phases 2..n continue in discussion
Others see the plan as an A) all-in deal.
In my view, it is not up to us to determine whether the negotiators are playing the A) All-in game vs. B) Phased game, and we will only discover it after this round of negotiations.
If within the next days both sides publicly agree to the peace plan, even without detailed agreement for points 13, 15 and/or any other point, they have settled the B) Phased framework and we should resolve 3.1) YES as per the resolution description:
“Resolves YES if Hamas and Israel both publicly agree simultaneously, in apparent good faith, to some version of Trump's plan.”
With regards to the recent resolution criteria update “…resolve YES if the plan's central points remain mostly intact….”
It is hard for me to imagine a change to the plan that would be acceptable for Trump and Netanyahu, but not acceptable for the market creator. @ae central points seem also central for Netanyahu and Trump.
The chances of “Netanyahu and Trump happy” seem to me to overlap the chances of “Netanyahu, Trump and @ae happy”.
@MiguelLM I would amend that to say "@ae resolves yes" rather than "@ae happy". This market has nothing to do with my happiness, and I've given no substantive information about what would make me happy.
@ae we are already in scenario 3) of my model (Phased approach)
Even when I personally think this should resolve as YES (points 13 and 15 of original deal implied a second phase of negotiations, not a deal on day zero), I expect you may not resolve as YES yet if the deal doesn't not include the main points.
In case you are not ready to resolve YES yet,
- Common sense tells me you should extend closure date and let the negotiatiors have time to reach a more detailed deal for the pending critical points
- But I'm somehow afraid you may go for NA. I hope this is not in the radar
- I don't expect the wording of the agreement to be published today to justify a NO
We will see what happens when we have the text