I agree that, if taken literally, the question would resolve as "No" at this point, as OPEC has not announced any change to its production quota (and seems unlikely to do so before the end of the year). That's why I'm at 0% on this question. But I think the intent of the question was to ask us to predict any change in the output quota, not to ask us to predict how, when, or if it would be announced. That's why I think it will be a void. If GJO wants to be consistent, it won't resolve on the most literal interpretation of the question.
The NRF question asked: "Will the National Retail Federation report....?" The information to resolve the question was there. But NRF did not include any reference to it in its press release. So, literally, the answer to the question was "No". Question was voided.
@praedico: OK. Thanks for having kept coming back on this. I did not participate in the NRF question, so I've been slow on the uptake. What you say makes sense. If I understand, NRF, no report = void. OPEC, no announcement = void. Are there refunds?
@redacted. I agree, this is about judgment. The question is still very much alive in my mind. You have made convincing arguments as to what may have happened in that mtg. If it did in fact happen, they will have to announce it. This is another piece of information that allows one to forecast will they clarify the position within the timefame. If one truly believes that a clarification is forthcoming within the timeframe, then you would stay at 100pc as I see it. The timeframe element is the critical part to closure of these judgments. One q i see being a total disaster is the impeachment q. the guidance implies 2/3 by CoD is impeachment, but the person who wrote that assumed she would be on an impeachment charge that would be requiring the courts, not senate. That may not actually be the case, and if it goes to senate then the constitution is that she remains sitting president with all powers until the senate vote, as opposed to the civil where she if forced to vacate until trial closes or 180 days / 6 months. They should clarify if the q is based on the constitution that they reference, or the potential wrong interpretation of the constitution in the event the impeachment progresses on a non civil matter.
@praedico: thanks, in my mind not strictly the same as this q as this is not will they announce a number, but will they announce a change: that said I see where you are heading.
No need to beat up on me anymore..... busy trying to figure out why I am messing up the TTIP q.
@redacted: The question is posed as (Yes/No) "will OPEC announce any changes?" They did not. Based on prior 4 years of GJP experience, which should have lead to a document on tradecraft of posing falsifiable questions (whether unambiguous or "fuzzy", a term they were tossing around last year), this could have been a multi-bin question, with answers like:
A. Announced Increase in quota
B. Announced decrease in quota
C. Announced same quota as last year
D. Quota not mentioned in any official written OPEC announcement
and then we could happily resolve on "D".
This is 20/20 hindsight but that's where the 4 years of experience over maybe 1000 questions should come in.
@000: A demonstration is worth a thousand words. Well done. They should run questions by you first.
@clinton: I think you've identified a MAJOR potential problem. We really need to know what they consider to be impeachment. Depending on what that is, we may have totally different forecasts. That is, we are all not forecasting the same event. Kind of calls into question the aggregate forecasts doesn't it? For example, I'm already anticipating that if the lower house does indeed go 2/3 against Dilma, that the question will not resolve; which would violate my notion of impeachment but may not violate others.
@000: I love the clarity your bins provide.
@praedico: I agree the intent of the question is an important consideration but should it determine the outcome? I don't know. Right now the intent and the wording may not be in agreement so I am not sure what the judges will do. My husband calls forecasting my psychic hot line training. It does feel like that right now on this question.
@clinton and redacted: I need to look at the impeachment question again. I'll find you over there to discuss.
I'm finally understanding why some forecasters are saying "there's been no announcement". (I was taking this statement literally and thinking, "Yes, there has! There was a press release of the minutes of the meeting.") Now, I'm understand that what you mean is that "There has been no statement that the production ceiling has been abandoned."
What evidence is there that OPEC considers a production ceiling to remain in effect until it is increased or decreased?
I find ample evidence in the minutes of past OPEC meetings that a production ceiling must be agreed to at each meeting. Since no production ceiling was agreed to at the most recent meeting, then it ceases to exist.
@anneinak...... sucked back in due to that last sentence...... or another interpretation could be: no one could agree to change the previously agreed to and announced number, therefore the previously agreed number remains unchanged. Unless in that meeting they actually agreed to abandon ceilings and in which case ceilings will cease to exist through that announcement. But that, as its a decision to abandon what they have done historically would require a unanimous vote. I argue, that they took no such unanimous decision to abandon ceilings, they were just in a state of discord, and as they could not agree to the change the pre-existing agreed number it remains unchanged, it does not cease. Naturally I understand that the counter view is a decision was taken to abandon, but I would see that needing to be announced, not inferred...... We are all agreeing to not agree though right?
Re: GJ creating questions... While I'll admit, I've been frustrated with some of the questions from GJ, on a question like this one (and the NRF question, for that matter), I have to give them at least a little bit of a pass. Here's a quote from one of the articles I included in this thread: "Ministers finally agreed for the first time in decades to drop any reference to the 13-member group's output ceiling." First time in DECADES. From GJ's perspective, it seems natural to expect that there would have been SOME announcement about production quotas after this past meeting. And on the subject of the NRF question, they've been publishing that figure for years. Why would GJ expect that (all of a sudden) they'd stop doing so (and/or change their methods).
Don't get me wrong, of course, these kinds of things could be included in a 'question creation deliberation,' but if I try to put myself in their shoes, I can see how these very unlikely scenarios weren't accounted for.
~~
@Annienak/@clinton: (the two comments above this one) -- I think the quote that I included just above "Ministers finally agreed for the first time in decades to drop any reference to the 13-member group's output ceiling," *kind of* addresses what you two are discussion. However, I tend to agree with @clinton in that I *think* we're all agreeing to not agree. That is, unless new information comes to light, I don't think anyone on either side of the truther/denier (ha!) dichotomy will suddenly switch based on something we say in one of these threads.
OPEC fails to agree production ceiling
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-meeting-idUSKBN0TM30B20151204
“We have no ceiling now.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-meeting-ends-with-no-production-cuts-1449248892
"failed to agree on an overall crude output ceiling"
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/vienna/opec-fails-to-agree-crude-output-ceiling-to-meet-21568484
"We cannot put a number now"
http://m.apa.az/en/news/235976
"sheds symbolic output ceiling" ... "abandoning an official output ceiling"
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/12/04/opec-to-keep-pumping-crude/#36898101=0
"Ceilingless" ... "The ceiling of 30 million barrels a day, in place since 2011 and now abandoned"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-04/opec-unity-shattered-as-saudi-led-policy-leads-to-no-limits-ihs9xu51
I beg to differ with some. If they have eliminated, or failed to agree upon, a so-called ceiling; that would indeed be a change.
I agree that, if taken literally, the question would resolve as "No" at this point, as OPEC has not announced any change to its production quota (and seems unlikely to do so before the end of the year). That's why I'm at 0% on this question. But I think the intent of the question was to ask us to predict any change in the output quota, not to ask us to predict how, when, or if it would be announced. That's why I think it will be a void. If GJO wants to be consistent, it won't resolve on the most literal interpretation of the question.
The NRF question asked: "Will the National Retail Federation report....?" The information to resolve the question was there. But NRF did not include any reference to it in its press release. So, literally, the answer to the question was "No". Question was voided.
@praedico: OK. Thanks for having kept coming back on this. I did not participate in the NRF question, so I've been slow on the uptake. What you say makes sense. If I understand, NRF, no report = void. OPEC, no announcement = void. Are there refunds?
@redacted. I agree, this is about judgment. The question is still very much alive in my mind. You have made convincing arguments as to what may have happened in that mtg. If it did in fact happen, they will have to announce it. This is another piece of information that allows one to forecast will they clarify the position within the timefame. If one truly believes that a clarification is forthcoming within the timeframe, then you would stay at 100pc as I see it. The timeframe element is the critical part to closure of these judgments. One q i see being a total disaster is the impeachment q. the guidance implies 2/3 by CoD is impeachment, but the person who wrote that assumed she would be on an impeachment charge that would be requiring the courts, not senate. That may not actually be the case, and if it goes to senate then the constitution is that she remains sitting president with all powers until the senate vote, as opposed to the civil where she if forced to vacate until trial closes or 180 days / 6 months. They should clarify if the q is based on the constitution that they reference, or the potential wrong interpretation of the constitution in the event the impeachment progresses on a non civil matter.
@praedico: thanks, in my mind not strictly the same as this q as this is not will they announce a number, but will they announce a change: that said I see where you are heading.
No need to beat up on me anymore..... busy trying to figure out why I am messing up the TTIP q.
@redacted: The question is posed as (Yes/No) "will OPEC announce any changes?" They did not. Based on prior 4 years of GJP experience, which should have lead to a document on tradecraft of posing falsifiable questions (whether unambiguous or "fuzzy", a term they were tossing around last year), this could have been a multi-bin question, with answers like:
A. Announced Increase in quota
B. Announced decrease in quota
C. Announced same quota as last year
D. Quota not mentioned in any official written OPEC announcement
and then we could happily resolve on "D".
This is 20/20 hindsight but that's where the 4 years of experience over maybe 1000 questions should come in.
@000: A demonstration is worth a thousand words. Well done. They should run questions by you first.
@clinton: I think you've identified a MAJOR potential problem. We really need to know what they consider to be impeachment. Depending on what that is, we may have totally different forecasts. That is, we are all not forecasting the same event. Kind of calls into question the aggregate forecasts doesn't it? For example, I'm already anticipating that if the lower house does indeed go 2/3 against Dilma, that the question will not resolve; which would violate my notion of impeachment but may not violate others.
@000 - this is absolutely correct. I didnt enjoy how people could be predicting a rise but may get it "right" on a decrease and vice versa.
@000: I love the clarity your bins provide.
@praedico: I agree the intent of the question is an important consideration but should it determine the outcome? I don't know. Right now the intent and the wording may not be in agreement so I am not sure what the judges will do. My husband calls forecasting my psychic hot line training. It does feel like that right now on this question.
@clinton and redacted: I need to look at the impeachment question again. I'll find you over there to discuss.
I'm finally understanding why some forecasters are saying "there's been no announcement". (I was taking this statement literally and thinking, "Yes, there has! There was a press release of the minutes of the meeting.") Now, I'm understand that what you mean is that "There has been no statement that the production ceiling has been abandoned."
What evidence is there that OPEC considers a production ceiling to remain in effect until it is increased or decreased?
I find ample evidence in the minutes of past OPEC meetings that a production ceiling must be agreed to at each meeting. Since no production ceiling was agreed to at the most recent meeting, then it ceases to exist.
@anneinak...... sucked back in due to that last sentence...... or another interpretation could be: no one could agree to change the previously agreed to and announced number, therefore the previously agreed number remains unchanged. Unless in that meeting they actually agreed to abandon ceilings and in which case ceilings will cease to exist through that announcement. But that, as its a decision to abandon what they have done historically would require a unanimous vote. I argue, that they took no such unanimous decision to abandon ceilings, they were just in a state of discord, and as they could not agree to the change the pre-existing agreed number it remains unchanged, it does not cease. Naturally I understand that the counter view is a decision was taken to abandon, but I would see that needing to be announced, not inferred...... We are all agreeing to not agree though right?
Re: GJ creating questions... While I'll admit, I've been frustrated with some of the questions from GJ, on a question like this one (and the NRF question, for that matter), I have to give them at least a little bit of a pass. Here's a quote from one of the articles I included in this thread: "Ministers finally agreed for the first time in decades to drop any reference to the 13-member group's output ceiling." First time in DECADES. From GJ's perspective, it seems natural to expect that there would have been SOME announcement about production quotas after this past meeting. And on the subject of the NRF question, they've been publishing that figure for years. Why would GJ expect that (all of a sudden) they'd stop doing so (and/or change their methods).
Don't get me wrong, of course, these kinds of things could be included in a 'question creation deliberation,' but if I try to put myself in their shoes, I can see how these very unlikely scenarios weren't accounted for.
~~
@Annienak/@clinton: (the two comments above this one) -- I think the quote that I included just above "Ministers finally agreed for the first time in decades to drop any reference to the 13-member group's output ceiling," *kind of* addresses what you two are discussion. However, I tend to agree with @clinton in that I *think* we're all agreeing to not agree. That is, unless new information comes to light, I don't think anyone on either side of the truther/denier (ha!) dichotomy will suddenly switch based on something we say in one of these threads.