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.
Purely my understanding, not in any way official: GJI runs internal tournament for supers from seasons 1-3 in a hope to attract business to the "Superforecasters Analytics" (or something like that). If things take off there, I imagine that this tournament will provide an additional pool of supers. The question was the same there but the date was a year longer, Dec. 2016. I expect it to be closed here as well. Given the size, things probably move slower here.
So, then why keeping the forecast low? Assumption that it will either close true retroactive to Nov 23 or continue to end of year and close false? (Which is similar to what I'm doing with the ballistic missile question.)
Potential divergence of closing criteria is interesting in itself.
I think that it would be completely wicked if the resolution or the resolution date is different. Just don't believe GJI would pull something like this. Hence, everything starting from Nov.24 does not matter.
Dima K,
Is the question exactly the same on the other platform?
And is the resolution criteria exactly the same?
Do they cite any sources?
Why do you agree with that resolution? Where's the proof? How do you defend it?
I'd like for it to close as "Yes", but I don't think that I can put together a strong enough case to defend it.
Wow - thanks for the heads up. Sounds like I am too late to change my forecast. I agree with @anneinak though, how could you defend this as being resolved to "yes"? And relatedly, do they have a system, or do they have components of a system? It seemed to me like at best even their claims in the press were that they had begun to receive components of the system.
I can defend resolving one question as YES: *If* the intent of the question was to find out if/when Russia finally decides to show middle finger to the US/NATO/Israel and make good on its promise to supply S-300 to Iran. If that is the question, then it is perfectly reasonable that the official claims of the two sides participating in the transaction ought to be sufficient. Requiring judgment(s) by a third country seems arbitrary and capricious in this context.
*If*, however, the intent was to find when (approximately) Iran will have a functional S-300 so that it can start shooting Israel planes should it want to do so, then of course the resolution is indefensible. Other than the vague verbal claims, there is no evidence that anything more than a set of screwdrivers was delivered to Iran. Something more tangible/actionable would be required then, and in this context the opinion of Western intelligence sources would be essential if Russian/Persian claims continue to be evidence-free.
The flaw of the question was a lack of explanation/clarification why the question is being asked to begin with.
Okay, I agree with this 100%. I thought I was answering #2, not #1, but I take your point that clearly the declaration is something, and it obviously has happened. Whether anything resembling a functional "system" has changed hands or will by end of year is dubious at best.
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.
Why did it close as yes there & what is difference in question here?
"Superforecaster platform"???? Where's that?
Purely my understanding, not in any way official: GJI runs internal tournament for supers from seasons 1-3 in a hope to attract business to the "Superforecasters Analytics" (or something like that). If things take off there, I imagine that this tournament will provide an additional pool of supers. The question was the same there but the date was a year longer, Dec. 2016. I expect it to be closed here as well. Given the size, things probably move slower here.
So, then why keeping the forecast low? Assumption that it will either close true retroactive to Nov 23 or continue to end of year and close false? (Which is similar to what I'm doing with the ballistic missile question.)
Potential divergence of closing criteria is interesting in itself.
I think that it would be completely wicked if the resolution or the resolution date is different. Just don't believe GJI would pull something like this. Hence, everything starting from Nov.24 does not matter.
Dima K,
Is the question exactly the same on the other platform?
And is the resolution criteria exactly the same?
Do they cite any sources?
Why do you agree with that resolution? Where's the proof? How do you defend it?
I'd like for it to close as "Yes", but I don't think that I can put together a strong enough case to defend it.
Wow - thanks for the heads up. Sounds like I am too late to change my forecast. I agree with @anneinak though, how could you defend this as being resolved to "yes"? And relatedly, do they have a system, or do they have components of a system? It seemed to me like at best even their claims in the press were that they had begun to receive components of the system.
I can defend resolving one question as YES: *If* the intent of the question was to find out if/when Russia finally decides to show middle finger to the US/NATO/Israel and make good on its promise to supply S-300 to Iran. If that is the question, then it is perfectly reasonable that the official claims of the two sides participating in the transaction ought to be sufficient. Requiring judgment(s) by a third country seems arbitrary and capricious in this context.
*If*, however, the intent was to find when (approximately) Iran will have a functional S-300 so that it can start shooting Israel planes should it want to do so, then of course the resolution is indefensible. Other than the vague verbal claims, there is no evidence that anything more than a set of screwdrivers was delivered to Iran. Something more tangible/actionable would be required then, and in this context the opinion of Western intelligence sources would be essential if Russian/Persian claims continue to be evidence-free.
The flaw of the question was a lack of explanation/clarification why the question is being asked to begin with.
Okay, I agree with this 100%. I thought I was answering #2, not #1, but I take your point that clearly the declaration is something, and it obviously has happened. Whether anything resembling a functional "system" has changed hands or will by end of year is dubious at best.
You tell me :( Here, for most of the question's duration I forecasted 2%...