PolymarketThe reason it’s like this is because they couldn’t close the gap and Americans wanted diplomatic progress
The reason it’s like this is because they couldn’t close the gap and Americans wanted diplomatic progress
Effendi参与话题 0消息总数 351
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 351 条，显示第 201-250 条Sanctions & seized funds as well
Sanctions & seized funds as well
This is a framework that doesn’t lead to a final deal by leaving the most important issues intentionally vague (Lebanon, SOH, Nuclear)
This is a framework that doesn’t lead to a final deal by leaving the most important issues intentionally vague (Lebanon, SOH, Nuclear)
For far longer than 60 days as well
For far longer than 60 days as well
The nuclear file will remain unresolved this deal will not result in a final deal being made but a shaky status quo
The nuclear file will remain unresolved this deal will not result in a final deal being made but a shaky status quo
I just think a lot of this is very vibes based and as the principal party arguing Y it’s more than the argument being made but also the perception of the person making the argument
I just think a lot of this is very vibes based and as the principal party arguing Y it’s more than the argument being made but also the perception of the person making the argument
It’s times like these where I wonder if intentionally starting beef with every Polymarket user is a wise move 😂
It’s times like these where I wonder if intentionally starting beef with every Polymarket user is a wise move 😂
It’s worth mentioning that since I started arguing this market the ENTIRE arguments being used by the Y side have shifted into borderline completely different arguments
It’s worth mentioning that since I started arguing this market the ENTIRE arguments being used by the Y side have shifted into borderline completely different arguments
Not one applicable market is capable of resolving P1 atm only P4 (leaving the market open)
Not one applicable market is capable of resolving P1 atm only P4 (leaving the market open)
The Reuters point is an extraordinarily weak one considering the circumstances at the time that claim was published and later Reuters reporting
The Reuters point is an extraordinarily weak one considering the circumstances at the time that claim was published and later Reuters reporting
I’ve responded multiple times to the various claims made about officials including multiple examples of gross distortions of the actual claims being made
I’ve responded multiple times to the various claims made about officials including multiple examples of gross distortions of the actual claims being made
They think they’ll be able to brigade it but despite not playing this game often I do know the UMA game it’s far better with a clarification I agree and on such a large market and considering the clarification on troops a much smaller market nowhere near as clear as this I’m optimistic about a clarification tomorrow
They think they’ll be able to brigade it but despite not playing this game often I do know the UMA game it’s far better with a clarification I agree and on such a large market and considering the clarification on troops a much smaller market nowhere near as clear as this I’m optimistic about a clarification tomorrow
That is absolutely not clear as either the current status or the intended meaning of the text
That is absolutely not clear as either the current status or the intended meaning of the text
Think sentiment here will quite quickly shift against Y, I have spent a lot of time on this topic and the claims being made here to justify a Y resolve are very baseless and while UMA is “harder” to predict I don’t think it’s enough for UMA, but we’ll see the game play out I suppose
Think sentiment here will quite quickly shift against Y, I have spent a lot of time on this topic and the claims being made here to justify a Y resolve are very baseless and while UMA is “harder” to predict I don’t think it’s enough for UMA, but we’ll see the game play out I suppose
I think this being in the MOU is very bearish for Y both in UMA and a hypothetical clarification > The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal.
I think this being in the MOU is very bearish for Y both in UMA and a hypothetical clarification > The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal.
Except troops was clearly outlined as a condition for the agreement whereas the status of Iranian enrichment was left vague and the only settled variable was the claimed acquiescence on downblending
Except troops was clearly outlined as a condition for the agreement whereas the status of Iranian enrichment was left vague and the only settled variable was the claimed acquiescence on downblending
I think that the troop clarification was bad for this market because it requires logical leaps which are either baseless or impossible to qualify with information / reporting available, I think they’ll clarify by citing the MOU leaving enrichment negotiations pending a future finalized agreement which as of yet doesn’t exist
I think that the troop clarification was bad for this market because it requires logical leaps which are either baseless or impossible to qualify with information / reporting available, I think they’ll clarify by citing the MOU leaving enrichment negotiations pending a future finalized agreement which as of yet doesn’t exist
It’s vague that’s far from clear and the actual clause in reality means not enriching above 60% or attempting nuclear proliferation that’s the specific points they acquiesced on
It’s vague that’s far from clear and the actual clause in reality means not enriching above 60% or attempting nuclear proliferation that’s the specific points they acquiesced on
Except that’s not the status quo when they’ve continually insisted the sovereign right to enrich and preservation of the status quo has been demonstrated at no point to be a clause pertaining to cessation of enrichment
Except that’s not the status quo when they’ve continually insisted the sovereign right to enrich and preservation of the status quo has been demonstrated at no point to be a clause pertaining to cessation of enrichment
Once again, he’s a literal tard buttwiper.
Once again, he’s a literal tard buttwiper.
Dalit
Dalit
What are you yapping about I’m calling <@570563844678877196> a professional butt wiper which is a FACT, woven into the fabric of the universe itself at the inception of creation
What are you yapping about I’m calling <@570563844678877196> a professional butt wiper which is a FACT, woven into the fabric of the universe itself at the inception of creation
Are you illiterate stupid or both?
Are you illiterate stupid or both?
How did you get so addicted to arguing when your true passion is wiping tard butts? <@570563844678877196>
How did you get so addicted to arguing when your true passion is wiping tard butts? <@570563844678877196>
Dalit Dog should buy N
Dalit Dog should buy N
No please
No please
In terms of the market there’s no real differences between the two peace markets due to the existence of this in the rules tbh > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. If we accept the Iran US MOU as qualifying given the phraseology applying to the entire theater of conflict there’s not really a strong argument for separating them into distinct clauses (even ignoring the rest of this stuff)
In terms of the market there’s no real differences between the two peace markets due to the existence of this in the rules tbh > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. If we accept the Iran US MOU as qualifying given the phraseology applying to the entire theater of conflict there’s not really a strong argument for separating them into distinct clauses (even ignoring the rest of this stuff)
It’s already disputed
It’s already disputed
All of this derived from the clear communication on the existence of a deal btw
All of this derived from the clear communication on the existence of a deal btw
They don’t need to be in the rules, and in reality they are, the Americans will force the Israelis to heel if they intend to see the deal to fruition
They don’t need to be in the rules, and in reality they are, the Americans will force the Israelis to heel if they intend to see the deal to fruition
The ceasefire market resolved with the clauses of the ceasefire basically immediately falling apart in April
The ceasefire market resolved with the clauses of the ceasefire basically immediately falling apart in April
And trying to turn this into following through on the agreement is a totally different market
And trying to turn this into following through on the agreement is a totally different market
I think both the bar for the rules is met and that in reality this is a central sticking point between Iran and the Americans
I think both the bar for the rules is met and that in reality this is a central sticking point between Iran and the Americans
I truly believe the shit I argue in here I buy a lot of markets and don’t argue them but I am not arguing in bad faith
I truly believe the shit I argue in here I buy a lot of markets and don’t argue them but I am not arguing in bad faith
This is a completely different market you’re talking implementations rather than the existence of the agreement
This is a completely different market you’re talking implementations rather than the existence of the agreement
If you’re talking about reality this is THE sticking point
If you’re talking about reality this is THE sticking point
And in order for the agreement to actually be implemented in reality the Americans will have to get the Israelis in line and I guess the same could be said of Hezbollah
And in order for the agreement to actually be implemented in reality the Americans will have to get the Israelis in line and I guess the same could be said of Hezbollah
The agreement that applies here is directly between Iran and the US but applies to Hezbollah and the Israelis
The agreement that applies here is directly between Iran and the US but applies to Hezbollah and the Israelis
In reality it’s the central sticking point of this deal happening, it’s very important to the actual reality of what’s playing out
In reality it’s the central sticking point of this deal happening, it’s very important to the actual reality of what’s playing out
> The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. There’s also this element which is very hard to argue against as we’ve already settled (or are close to settling at least) that this is a qualifying permanent peace deal between Iran and the Americans
> The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. There’s also this element which is very hard to argue against as we’ve already settled (or are close to settling at least) that this is a qualifying permanent peace deal between Iran and the Americans
The latter
The latter
They have publicly confirmed the existence of the deal, they’ve said they won’t abide by it not that it doesn’t exist
They have publicly confirmed the existence of the deal, they’ve said they won’t abide by it not that it doesn’t exist
I personally don’t think there’s compelling arguments to resolve them separately
I personally don’t think there’s compelling arguments to resolve them separately
I don’t think it’s a scam with any real tangible differences from US Iran permanent peace in either the rules or reality
I don’t think it’s a scam with any real tangible differences from US Iran permanent peace in either the rules or reality
> A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have ended or will permanently cease This defines the deal which happened in the form of the MOU > Both Israel and Hezbollah provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. This has happened in the form of public confirmation from both parties of the deal existing > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. There’s also this element that you can do what you want with but US Iran is (very likely) settling to P2 as a qualifying permanent peace agreement
> A permanent peace deal refers to any agreement which explicitly indicates that military hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have ended or will permanently cease This defines the deal which happened in the form of the MOU > Both Israel and Hezbollah provide clear public confirmation that a qualifying agreement has been definitively established. This has happened in the form of public confirmation from both parties of the deal existing > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify. There’s also this element that you can do what you want with but US Iran is (very likely) settling to P2 as a qualifying permanent peace agreement
Keep in mind this has been the sticking point of the negotiations for months and a key part of why the original ceasefire was never implemented
Keep in mind this has been the sticking point of the negotiations for months and a key part of why the original ceasefire was never implemented
They’re included in it absolutely
They’re included in it absolutely
I mean I don’t want to focus on this point too much but this is a very cut and dry P2 element of the rules > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify.
I mean I don’t want to focus on this point too much but this is a very cut and dry P2 element of the rules > The inclusion of Israel and Hezbollah in a qualifying peace deal between multiple parties will qualify.
It’s an announcement market
It’s an announcement market
Agreed to abide by it is not the same as the agreement existing
Agreed to abide by it is not the same as the agreement existing