提及市场“Ex Why Zee”等缩写与同音词规则引发争议

Lots of issues with the rules re: compounds, broad dictionary determination, portmanteaus

Lots of issues with the rules re: compounds, broad dictionary determination, portmanteaus

BTC counts for bitcoin under abbreviation clause

BTC counts for bitcoin under abbreviation clause

but im just saying that this rule exists to remove the spelling dispute entirely

but im just saying that this rule exists to remove the spelling dispute entirely

There just needs to be a more rigorous framework for transcribing what was said -- whether it's in the dictionary (easier) or not (harder)

There just needs to be a more rigorous framework for transcribing what was said -- whether it's in the dictionary (easier) or not (harder)

Etc. should OBVIOUSLY count for Et cetera

Etc. should OBVIOUSLY count for Et cetera

but should still resolve ex Y :)

but should still resolve ex Y :)

idea: use whisper xl as the official transcriber

idea: use whisper xl as the official transcriber

Khamenei pronounced incorrectly. Not Khomeini

Khamenei pronounced incorrectly. Not Khomeini

I still don't understand why officially Jordyn doesn't count for Jordan

I still don't understand why officially Jordyn doesn't count for Jordan

its a homophone with a different spelling and meaning

its a homophone with a different spelling and meaning

Context def always matters, which they look at in these cases

Context def always matters, which they look at in these cases

Recently when there was a guy in the crowd named Ronaldo, would it have counted when James Corden said his name if he wasn't wearing a nametag of his name spelled correctly? (ie. could have been Reynaldo)

Recently when there was a guy in the crowd named Ronaldo, would it have counted when James Corden said his name if he wasn't wearing a nametag of his name spelled correctly? (ie. could have been Reynaldo)

Ex Why Zee

Ex Why Zee

this has got to be n if u care about rules-based resolutions

this has got to be n if u care about rules-based resolutions

as in, we dont have a bloody resolution source to check frequency of use etc

as in, we dont have a bloody resolution source to check frequency of use etc

i think (and think/hope the exchange does as well) that intentional ambiguity in contract determination based on the ruleset is not a good idea; you should at least theoretically be able to predict market resolution for any situation

i think (and think/hope the exchange does as well) that intentional ambiguity in contract determination based on the ruleset is not a good idea; you should at least theoretically be able to predict market resolution for any situation

I mean the problem is the contract weirdly writes the OED/Merriam clause

I mean the problem is the contract weirdly writes the OED/Merriam clause

It acts like it's for determining compounds in practice

It acts like it's for determining compounds in practice

Now? No one writes it as "ex, wye, zee"

Now? No one writes it as "ex, wye, zee"

its the #1 reason the contract is fundamentally flawed

its the #1 reason the contract is fundamentally flawed