This has closed as YES on superforecaster platform, backdated Nov.23. I agree with decision but really wish that the question's intent were made clear from the get go. I still don't expect any remotely functional S-300 in Iran this year.
I object to resolving this as "Yes" without any evidence. The question is "Will Russia deliver", not "Will soandso say that Russia will deliver at some point in the future." If the intent of the question was to ask if Russia would make good on its promise to sell an anti-aircraft system to Iran, as Dima K. suggests, the question could resolve when the contract is signed. But that wasn't the question. Kozhin has not even stated that anything has been delivered, so where would GJO get the idea that a missile system has been delivered? Even the Israeli press, which has been all over this story, has no information beyond Kozhin's vague statement. And what comes out of Kozhin's mouth is rhetoric, not policy. I'm new to GJ, but if the powers that be are going to resolve questions on frivolous criteria, what would be the point of participating? Asking what someone will say and what someone will do are entirely different questions with different answers. Who doesn't know that?
@Dima K. Iran has been making such a big deal, I expect that they will put the things on display once they have them. And I expect satellite photos to show up somewhere. We might not need Western intelligence sources to verify the missile system has arrived in Iran. But verifying what date they arrived, well, that's trickier. Perhaps this type of question is too risky for GJ, now that it does not have any relationship to the intelligence community. Whether or not there will be sufficient information to resolve the question is anyone's guess.
@praedico
Stick around and you will discover that 1) asking good questions is very hard, 2) mistakes happen. Over the few years, there were a number of questions where I disagreed with resolution. Alas, I don't think that I would be able to do a better job asking questions given the total number of them and their range.
I now think that "yes" is defendable. Sometimes things are clearer in retrospect. When you said the question was resolved retrospective to 11/23 as "yes", I found a whole ton of news reports about the Iranian Ambassador to Russia, Mehdi Sanai, announcing on 12/3 that they had been delivered. The one I liked best was in an Italian newspaper (and dang, I forgot to copy the link); it told about how the ambassador was just beaming with delight at the press conference when he made the announcement.
As I mentioned in another comment thread somewhere, there's a saying, "Nobody can get your goats if you don't let them know where you have them tied." I think that S-300 missiles are at least as valuable as goats. Is it realistic to think that Iran is going to tell the world (including Israel) "Oh, by the way, we have 5 operational S-300 missiles at these coordinates." Nor are our intelligence people going to tip their hand by telling the world what they can see, where.
So, I accept that the announcements by the Iranian Ambassador and Russian Defense Secretary may be as definitive as we're going to get.
About question formation and resolution: I also have had my share of frustration with GJP decisions; if you forecast on enough questions (and I did every single one for 2 yrs), it's inevitable, because we're all human and the world is complicated. So, I agree: question formation is dang difficult, and I wouldn't want to be doing it.
However, given all that, I think there should be a mechanism where a forecaster can appeal to have their forecast(s) on a question voided . . . maybe forecasters should be able to void the same percentage of questions as the administrators do.
In the question thread about the OPEC decision somebody suggested that there should have been 4 bins (increase, decrease, abandon, no change), and others thought that that was a good idea, but what if OPEC had agreed to keep the current limit until the sanctions on Iran were lifted and then increase it? Which bin would THAT have fallen in to? Think about how much easier the refugee question would have been if it had simply been "Will there more than 710k refugees arrive in Europe by sea?" Sometimes the devil is in the details.
So, hang in there praedico. You'll find lots of sympathy for your frustration, and every now and then you just may persuade the judges to change their mind!
First, there was at least one question in GJP Season 3 (something on Eurozone finance which I wasn't participating in) that was reversed a few weeks after initial resolution, and re-scored. This could still happen here if it turns out the gun has been jumped.
Second, the "super site" - no commercial organization would voluntarily disband its biggest asset, so though its existence came as a surprise to me, it shouldn't have. I don't think our "Open Beta" is merely a control group, more likely a secondary source of predictions and potential supers. This may also explain why some of the self-identified super forecasters from earlier seasons haven't been very active on this site, as they must be busy on the other one.
My impression compared to the two GJP seasons I participated in is that this time communications from admin to us aren't as extensive, though this is offset by the free flow of information between active participants ( I do wish we had a separate forum for general discussions, though). At least in my groups, Terry Murray (now GJI CEO) was GJP's Project Manager and she seemed to keep us better informed than now, though even then it took a long time and a lot of guess work and internet searches for me to realize how many different experimental groups were being run simultaneously.
I know the S-300 question is closed, but I thought I'd share this information confirming that the first S-300 system hasn't been delivered. I have no doubt that the people overseeing GJ are really doing their best with this difficult question, but I think they should reconsider the resolution.
According to Russian officials, Iran has NOT dropped the lawsuit against Russia because the FIRST S-300 has NOT been delivered as the manufacturing has not been completed.
"Tehran is due to withdraw its lawsuit against Moscow once the FIRST Russia-produced S-300 air defense system is delivered to Iran, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Friday [December 18th 2015]."
VLADIVOSTOK (Sputnik) — According to Rogozin, the "unconditional withdrawal" of the lawsuit is one of the conditions for delivery of the S-300 systems.
"[Iran] is due to withdraw [the lawsuit] after delivery of the first unit," Rogozin told reporters, adding that this was due to happen soon, following the completion of the manufacturing process.
Iran expected to drop lawsuit against Russia after first missile systems are supplied
Military & Defense
December 18, 11:08 UTC+3
The condition for the supplies of russia S-300 missile systems to Russia is that Tehran drop the lawsuit
VLADIVOSTOK, December 18. /TASS/. Iran will withdraw the lawsuit against Russia’s arms exports agency Rosoboronexport after the supplies of the first division of the S-300 missile systems take place, Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin said on Friday.
"[Now the lawsuit] has not been dropped. They should withdraw it after the supplies of the first division. When? Upon manufacturing. We can say in the near future," Rogozin told reporters.
The condition for the supplies is that Tehran drops the lawsuit, he said, adding that this issue should be decided by the Iranian parliament. "The Russian and Iranian sides have a full understanding: the contract cannot be implemented without dropping the lawsuit."
I welcome all the other forecasters thoughts and comments about this new information.
@Clairvoyance@morrell Thanks for keeping up with the news on this question. It sure looks like it was closed incorrectly. Funny that Russia and Iran are still bickering over the delivery, though. Since 1999.
Thanks @Clairvoyance and @morrell for pointing this out. It looks to me more and more that if there is no announcement of a delivery by 31 December (and I think we can count on at least one party in Russia or Iran to confirm this publicly), GJOpen will have to change their decision early next month. It may be too complicated for them to re-open this question now, which is another option.
Clairvoyance! WHAT A SCOOP!
Since we've not been able to update our forecasts, I think GJI may have to void this question.
Thanks for pursuing this with Help/Clarify! Good luck to you.
This has closed as YES on superforecaster platform, backdated Nov.23. I agree with decision but really wish that the question's intent were made clear from the get go. I still don't expect any remotely functional S-300 in Iran this year.
I object to resolving this as "Yes" without any evidence. The question is "Will Russia deliver", not "Will soandso say that Russia will deliver at some point in the future." If the intent of the question was to ask if Russia would make good on its promise to sell an anti-aircraft system to Iran, as Dima K. suggests, the question could resolve when the contract is signed. But that wasn't the question. Kozhin has not even stated that anything has been delivered, so where would GJO get the idea that a missile system has been delivered? Even the Israeli press, which has been all over this story, has no information beyond Kozhin's vague statement. And what comes out of Kozhin's mouth is rhetoric, not policy. I'm new to GJ, but if the powers that be are going to resolve questions on frivolous criteria, what would be the point of participating? Asking what someone will say and what someone will do are entirely different questions with different answers. Who doesn't know that?
@Dima K. Iran has been making such a big deal, I expect that they will put the things on display once they have them. And I expect satellite photos to show up somewhere. We might not need Western intelligence sources to verify the missile system has arrived in Iran. But verifying what date they arrived, well, that's trickier. Perhaps this type of question is too risky for GJ, now that it does not have any relationship to the intelligence community. Whether or not there will be sufficient information to resolve the question is anyone's guess.
@praedico
Stick around and you will discover that 1) asking good questions is very hard, 2) mistakes happen. Over the few years, there were a number of questions where I disagreed with resolution. Alas, I don't think that I would be able to do a better job asking questions given the total number of them and their range.
Dima K,
I now think that "yes" is defendable. Sometimes things are clearer in retrospect. When you said the question was resolved retrospective to 11/23 as "yes", I found a whole ton of news reports about the Iranian Ambassador to Russia, Mehdi Sanai, announcing on 12/3 that they had been delivered. The one I liked best was in an Italian newspaper (and dang, I forgot to copy the link); it told about how the ambassador was just beaming with delight at the press conference when he made the announcement.
As I mentioned in another comment thread somewhere, there's a saying, "Nobody can get your goats if you don't let them know where you have them tied." I think that S-300 missiles are at least as valuable as goats. Is it realistic to think that Iran is going to tell the world (including Israel) "Oh, by the way, we have 5 operational S-300 missiles at these coordinates." Nor are our intelligence people going to tip their hand by telling the world what they can see, where.
So, I accept that the announcements by the Iranian Ambassador and Russian Defense Secretary may be as definitive as we're going to get.
About question formation and resolution: I also have had my share of frustration with GJP decisions; if you forecast on enough questions (and I did every single one for 2 yrs), it's inevitable, because we're all human and the world is complicated. So, I agree: question formation is dang difficult, and I wouldn't want to be doing it.
However, given all that, I think there should be a mechanism where a forecaster can appeal to have their forecast(s) on a question voided . . . maybe forecasters should be able to void the same percentage of questions as the administrators do.
In the question thread about the OPEC decision somebody suggested that there should have been 4 bins (increase, decrease, abandon, no change), and others thought that that was a good idea, but what if OPEC had agreed to keep the current limit until the sanctions on Iran were lifted and then increase it? Which bin would THAT have fallen in to? Think about how much easier the refugee question would have been if it had simply been "Will there more than 710k refugees arrive in Europe by sea?" Sometimes the devil is in the details.
So, hang in there praedico. You'll find lots of sympathy for your frustration, and every now and then you just may persuade the judges to change their mind!
Two thoughts, now that this has closed.
First, there was at least one question in GJP Season 3 (something on Eurozone finance which I wasn't participating in) that was reversed a few weeks after initial resolution, and re-scored. This could still happen here if it turns out the gun has been jumped.
Second, the "super site" - no commercial organization would voluntarily disband its biggest asset, so though its existence came as a surprise to me, it shouldn't have. I don't think our "Open Beta" is merely a control group, more likely a secondary source of predictions and potential supers. This may also explain why some of the self-identified super forecasters from earlier seasons haven't been very active on this site, as they must be busy on the other one.
My impression compared to the two GJP seasons I participated in is that this time communications from admin to us aren't as extensive, though this is offset by the free flow of information between active participants ( I do wish we had a separate forum for general discussions, though). At least in my groups, Terry Murray (now GJI CEO) was GJP's Project Manager and she seemed to keep us better informed than now, though even then it took a long time and a lot of guess work and internet searches for me to realize how many different experimental groups were being run simultaneously.
I know the S-300 question is closed, but I thought I'd share this information confirming that the first S-300 system hasn't been delivered. I have no doubt that the people overseeing GJ are really doing their best with this difficult question, but I think they should reconsider the resolution.
According to Russian officials, Iran has NOT dropped the lawsuit against Russia because the FIRST S-300 has NOT been delivered as the manufacturing has not been completed.
http://sputniknews.com/business/20151218/1031951472/s300-russia-iran-lawsuit.html
"Tehran is due to withdraw its lawsuit against Moscow once the FIRST Russia-produced S-300 air defense system is delivered to Iran, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Friday [December 18th 2015]."
VLADIVOSTOK (Sputnik) — According to Rogozin, the "unconditional withdrawal" of the lawsuit is one of the conditions for delivery of the S-300 systems.
"[Iran] is due to withdraw [the lawsuit] after delivery of the first unit," Rogozin told reporters, adding that this was due to happen soon, following the completion of the manufacturing process.
S-300 PMU-1 air defense missile system
© Sputnik/ Vjacheslav Afonin
And from Tass:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/845214
Iran expected to drop lawsuit against Russia after first missile systems are supplied
Military & Defense
December 18, 11:08 UTC+3
The condition for the supplies of russia S-300 missile systems to Russia is that Tehran drop the lawsuit
VLADIVOSTOK, December 18. /TASS/. Iran will withdraw the lawsuit against Russia’s arms exports agency Rosoboronexport after the supplies of the first division of the S-300 missile systems take place, Russian Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin said on Friday.
"[Now the lawsuit] has not been dropped. They should withdraw it after the supplies of the first division. When? Upon manufacturing. We can say in the near future," Rogozin told reporters.
The condition for the supplies is that Tehran drops the lawsuit, he said, adding that this issue should be decided by the Iranian parliament. "The Russian and Iranian sides have a full understanding: the contract cannot be implemented without dropping the lawsuit."
I welcome all the other forecasters thoughts and comments about this new information.
@Clairvoyance - I noted these and a couple others in a reply to my final forecast on the question: http://www.gjopen.com/comments/comments/57881
I think that the resolution is probably not correct, yet anyway. Sent a note to GJ/helpdesk about it.
@Clairvoyance @morrell Thanks for keeping up with the news on this question. It sure looks like it was closed incorrectly. Funny that Russia and Iran are still bickering over the delivery, though. Since 1999.
Thanks @Clairvoyance and @morrell for pointing this out. It looks to me more and more that if there is no announcement of a delivery by 31 December (and I think we can count on at least one party in Russia or Iran to confirm this publicly), GJOpen will have to change their decision early next month. It may be too complicated for them to re-open this question now, which is another option.
Clairvoyance! WHAT A SCOOP!
Since we've not been able to update our forecasts, I think GJI may have to void this question.
Thanks for pursuing this with Help/Clarify! Good luck to you.