Another commercial airline evacuation before March?

Are you guys sure it resolved to 'No'? It doesn't say so on the FAA website, specifically [link removed]

My PnL is saying it resolved to No

How long for final resolution? I want my 0.00

Thank you. Than another 48 hours?

Thank you. Lol

My dick fell off the plane

A few hours to go for the vote to be finalised to P4 then the resolution link can be opened again so No can be proposed. Will anyone be brave enough to dispute this and risk $750 because they believe they have a new argument that can turn the 5% of UMA votes that thought this should be Yes to now be 50.1%? We will see! Two things I've learnt from this market though are: "scammers" means people with views and positions different to your own (and usually with a higher PnL) and that a resolution source in the rules is there for entertainment purposes only - you are free to insert your own source with no boundaries placed on it if the market is going against your position.

I still don't understand what the yes argument is even supposed to be

Neither do 95% of UMA voters

The vote is done - 95% of the UMA votes disagree with you. You can either keep trying to fight reality, or dump your position now into the liquidity that is still there and walk away with $85. Money that you won't have very shortly if you don't act.

how does this work?

When?

I wonder who's nervous now lol

P4 has hit the over 50% consensus level in both disputes and is still tracking at 95%. It's over

Well, lost 20 bucks but gained a fair warning about how corrupt this game here is.

So what makes a "no" outcome more likely now than it was 12h ago?

Early vote reveals are in and already showing about 5.8M votes for each dispute - 100% votes as P4

[link removed]

That is for the 2 previous votes that were disputed. The final vote does not have information released yet

It's not rocket science, and a lot of people are misunderstanding. It's not that events in the timeframe don't count. It's that events reported on FAA before creation don't count. If an incident dated February 18-24 were to be retroactively added and specify an evacuation or unconventional exit, then it would have counted.

about the timing (assume for a moment there is the entry had "evacuation" so there is no argument there): if there is no reasonable way to exclude an event that happened within the rules specified timespan but before market creation, priority should be given to explicit rules. solved-at-arrival markets are undesirable, but the lesser of two evils. P2 (Yes) is consistent with precedent you cite.

Start time explicit in the rules should take precedence over market creation time. If Polymarket disagrees, it can insert the market creation timestamp in every ruleset.

After all the moral crusading he did I will consider @Gena selling all his shares as a signal to get out so sold my lottery tickets as well

I switched to Yes. I am stupid.

If the timewindow would not had been explicitly specified starting on February 18th, there would even be plausible room to argue that only incidences reported after the market started can count, despite giving the example of February 17th as the last evacuation. This way, this cannot be a possibility. Any heuristic to determine the legit timewindow (like use the market start as default) is less specific than what gets clearly specified in the rules. More specific rules prevail over more general rules, since over 2000y (google: "lex specialis derogat legi generali")

The FAA report from hours before the market started did in fact not hint any details, and the rules explicitly specified a timeframe that started before the market happened. There also was a specific other event named as the "last evacuation" on 17th. If it was impossible for polymarket to identify the "already resolved market" in the first place based on the FAA reports level of detail, the argument to not let that count because it happened hours before the market cannot make any sense. It can only be explained with double standards if so. The only other solution than to call a "YES" would be to resolve the market completely because it contradicts itself - but a "NO" can in no possible scenario be the case.

As the FAA report from 24th did not specify a evacuation, the media evidence could still had turned out to be a hoax. So, there was no already resolved market and the yessening event clearly happened.

Polymarket fucked up here by making a DOA market, the incident had been reported just hours before market creation, and the team were not aware. However, the incident still satisifies all rules including the timeframe. Just because Polymarket were unaware they had made a mistake creating the market should not by any means mean that it should resolve against both the rules and the truth. It doesn't matter if there's a DOA market UMA precedent that 3 whales know about that may or may not apply here, it's immoral and alienating to users. Polymarket's reputation hangs in the balance here.

The P4 Argument is also going nowhere: If there was an incident that the FAA would not had reported, the Rules would point to "NO". That also means, that it cannot play a role if the incident in real life happened before the market existed.

Because the question is: 1. Incident after Flight 4819? 2. FAA reporting it? 3. reported incident resulted in unusual exit of passangers? all 3 a clear YES.

Anyway, good luck to everyone. I'm checking out of the chat now as it's all in the hands of the UMA voters anyway so nothing we can influence here anymore. For interest though, the chat I've read on Discord by the voters and verifiers in the voting discussion are all for P4 then P1 though a small sample size I admit, but aligns to where I see this market going else I wouldn't have the position I do. Haven't sold any shares, but may add more if the liquidity is there to support it for the size of the buy I would want otherwise will just let this play out to its conclusion. If it does go to P4 then it is saying that the UMA voters consider that the Delta incident doesn't count to resolve the market so Yes holders who may want to challenge a No resolution, think hard about it that you'll need a new argument case to put forward on Discord - copying and pasting what the UMA have already read won't cut it.

You atm could double down on the full amount you own in NO and still make 3% profit.

I ran the rules as they stand and all the text on the resolution source through one of the new deep reasoning AI models and it said that the conditions for a Yes resolution have not been met. Looks like AI chat bots are in on the scam too

It would had been easy to write the rules in a different way, that the outcome would be "NO" - by putting the "as described by the FAA" behind both the evacuation and the other causes. Simple semantics. The way its written, the "as described" is a special case of yes by wording evacuation, and in addition there is a general case of "yes" by resulting in. I doubt the AI chat bots are invested and I doubt that they would arrive at the same answer every time you query.

GREAT argument though ;) Why do you even bother writing that if its so clear? :D