"upon manufacturing, in the near future." [Rogozin]
I still have doubts about this delivery. Reminds me of a canal ground-breaking ceremony, oddly.
ETA: and another: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=251599 "“[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.”
@gjdrew Please note @morrel's additional evidence above that not only was there NEVER any open source news of delivery, but many open source stories that the sale is still under dispute; hence the question should be either voided or reopened.
What could the objective be of making this game look so bad to your investors, the players, and the public? If this were an IARPA funded effort, I could understand why an experiment might be run to see how players work together to alert the admins to a rogue staffer. Insider threats are a serious problem, especially within the CIA. http://www.scmagazine.com/insiders-are-bigger-threat-than-perimeter-report/article/460880/
But why conduct this in public view, without an explanation that this is an experiment rather than incompetence?
@morrell, thanks for writing this up! We should all be Wordpressing more often, it is less ephemeral than these comments.
I strongly agree that both Russian and Iran have a propaganda (psychological warfare?) benefit to maintaining the impression that the arms transfer could/would happen. Russia to avoid getting sued and look like a reliable partner while still adapting to Western/Israeli/Saudia Arabia concerns, and Iran to avoid losing face and appear like it has the weapons almost in play, for the porcupine effect.
On the other hand, while I have noticed that GJP does have a rather large international audience among some indeterminate community, I think it flies well below the radar of conventional media vs, for example, the pronouncements of Nate Silver. GJ is 1/1000th of a Nate Silver at this point. Maybe it will go up, maybe it won't if the question process loses credibility and regular grinders walk away from the table.
I wonder if this is the time/place to discuss the voiding of questions and/or the creation of a mechanism whereby forecasters and administrators can agree to disagree. . .
While I find it frustrating to invest a lot of time into researching a question that gets voided, I don't find the voiding of questions as frustrating as intransigence by administrators. How about the rest of you?
Would you prefer that a question was voided completely? or that there be some mechanism to void one's participation in it?
Do you have any thoughts about when a forecaster might avail themself of such an option and how a forecaster-voiding option would be triggered? How would you prevent this mechanism from being used by forecasters simply to eliminate their worst Brier score?
@Gjdrew Given how badly this question has been fubarred up (using a programming term in lieu of something rude), it appears that voiding would be better than reopening. As for allowing a forecaster to exit a question, one remedy would to allow a grace period of several weeks for the forecasters to determine whether it might not be forecastable given open sources.
Also, any industrial organization that cares about quality control has a policy whereby if ANY employee reports a discrepancy on the production line, the line HALTS. This motivates management to rush to determine what is going on and to fix any problem. This requires that employees see no danger but rather reward for alerting to problems.
This S-300 episode and everyone's efforts at diagnosing the problem and proposing solutions has been helpful to my efforts to prepare for IARPA's next forecasting competition, the CREATE program. Chances are good that a Broad Agency Announcement for proposals will be issued in January. Any of you who are interested in participating, please email me at [email protected]. If we do proceed with submitting a proposal, it would be with a reputable nonprofit with a substantial history of assisting the intelligence community, and with coordinating the efforts of highly creative and often nontraditional analysts. It has been a pleasure to observe you folks! CREATE overview: http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/create
Noting: http://sputniknews.com/business/20151218/1031951472/s300-russia-iran-lawsuit.html
and
http://tass.ru/en/defense/845214
and
http://vestnikkavkaza.net/news/Rogozin-Tehran-to-withdraw-S-300-lawsuit-after-first-supplies.html
"upon manufacturing, in the near future." [Rogozin]
I still have doubts about this delivery. Reminds me of a canal ground-breaking ceremony, oddly.
ETA: and another: http://www.tehrantimes.com/Index_view.asp?code=251599
"“[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.”
Another: http://irannewsupdate.com/news/nuclear/2494-fault-lines-showing-in-russia-iran-alliance.html
@gjdrew Please note @morrel's additional evidence above that not only was there NEVER any open source news of delivery, but many open source stories that the sale is still under dispute; hence the question should be either voided or reopened.
What could the objective be of making this game look so bad to your investors, the players, and the public? If this were an IARPA funded effort, I could understand why an experiment might be run to see how players work together to alert the admins to a rogue staffer. Insider threats are a serious problem, especially within the CIA. http://www.scmagazine.com/insiders-are-bigger-threat-than-perimeter-report/article/460880/
But why conduct this in public view, without an explanation that this is an experiment rather than incompetence?
@000, @einsteinjs, @annieinak, @Clairvoyance, @praedico, @klin, @aarongertler, @Heffalump, @GL2814
Thought I'd tag "Anne in Alaska" ;-) @Anneinak
Thanks, @einsteinjs, I got Anne's username wrong.
@cmeinel: you're welcome.
I've made the same error (Annie vs. Anne) and she recommended a good way of remembering "Anne in Alaska" -- that's why I wrote it like that.
@GJDrew, natives restless
Wrote up another thought about this: https://morrellk.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/s-300400-redux/
for what it is worth.
@morrell, thanks for writing this up! We should all be Wordpressing more often, it is less ephemeral than these comments.
I strongly agree that both Russian and Iran have a propaganda (psychological warfare?) benefit to maintaining the impression that the arms transfer could/would happen. Russia to avoid getting sued and look like a reliable partner while still adapting to Western/Israeli/Saudia Arabia concerns, and Iran to avoid losing face and appear like it has the weapons almost in play, for the porcupine effect.
On the other hand, while I have noticed that GJP does have a rather large international audience among some indeterminate community, I think it flies well below the radar of conventional media vs, for example, the pronouncements of Nate Silver. GJ is 1/1000th of a Nate Silver at this point. Maybe it will go up, maybe it won't if the question process loses credibility and regular grinders walk away from the table.
Veteran geo-political forecasters,
I wonder if this is the time/place to discuss the voiding of questions and/or the creation of a mechanism whereby forecasters and administrators can agree to disagree. . .
While I find it frustrating to invest a lot of time into researching a question that gets voided, I don't find the voiding of questions as frustrating as intransigence by administrators. How about the rest of you?
Would you prefer that a question was voided completely? or that there be some mechanism to void one's participation in it?
Do you have any thoughts about when a forecaster might avail themself of such an option and how a forecaster-voiding option would be triggered? How would you prevent this mechanism from being used by forecasters simply to eliminate their worst Brier score?
@Gjdrew Given how badly this question has been fubarred up (using a programming term in lieu of something rude), it appears that voiding would be better than reopening. As for allowing a forecaster to exit a question, one remedy would to allow a grace period of several weeks for the forecasters to determine whether it might not be forecastable given open sources.
Also, any industrial organization that cares about quality control has a policy whereby if ANY employee reports a discrepancy on the production line, the line HALTS. This motivates management to rush to determine what is going on and to fix any problem. This requires that employees see no danger but rather reward for alerting to problems.
This S-300 episode and everyone's efforts at diagnosing the problem and proposing solutions has been helpful to my efforts to prepare for IARPA's next forecasting competition, the CREATE program. Chances are good that a Broad Agency Announcement for proposals will be issued in January. Any of you who are interested in participating, please email me at [email protected]. If we do proceed with submitting a proposal, it would be with a reputable nonprofit with a substantial history of assisting the intelligence community, and with coordinating the efforts of highly creative and often nontraditional analysts. It has been a pleasure to observe you folks! CREATE overview: http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/create