PolymarketDon’t offend Saul
Don’t offend Saul
pi参与话题 14消息总数 986
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 986 条，显示第 1-50 条You need to treat markets on polymarket as memecoins unless it’s pm us, and stop pretending like you can do something with your threats
You need to treat markets on polymarket as memecoins unless it’s pm us, and stop pretending like you can do something with your threats
They don’t care about burwick law, the company which whole purpose is to suck out last remaining funds from the people who lost it all in crypto. They don’t care even less about couple of guys who lost couple of bets
They don’t care about burwick law, the company which whole purpose is to suck out last remaining funds from the people who lost it all in crypto. They don’t care even less about couple of guys who lost couple of bets
Such a risky guy <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Such a risky guy <:Bidensmile:1040247925420339251>
Indeed, it’s clear
Indeed, it’s clear
especially after additional announcement of that
especially after additional announcement of that
where is your confidence came from?
where is your confidence came from?
idk how is everyone so sure that they will not send anyone important there considering recent escalation
idk how is everyone so sure that they will not send anyone important there considering recent escalation
Idk how you count time but you are wrong
Idk how you count time but you are wrong
If they will fly in next 3-4 hours they will be in doha till 11 AM local time tomorrow btw
If they will fly in next 3-4 hours they will be in doha till 11 AM local time tomorrow btw
it's not 18 its 13
it's not 18 its 13
it is objectively hard to read
it is objectively hard to read
I'm not injecting a clause anywhere i'm providing my subjective opinion on the matter. What we are discussing here cannot answer the dispute question cause it is covered by the rules only indirectly by "spelled out clearly and in full" and rules do not cover image manipulations. It is objectively understandable that at some point of rotation written text is not "spelled out clearly and in full" and hard to read, and just saying that any manipulations with text is allowed is not correct too. Market should be clarified cause rules gap is real
I'm not injecting a clause anywhere i'm providing my subjective opinion on the matter. What we are discussing here cannot answer the dispute question cause it is covered by the rules only indirectly by "spelled out clearly and in full" and rules do not cover image manipulations. It is objectively understandable that at some point of rotation written text is not "spelled out clearly and in full" and hard to read, and just saying that any manipulations with text is allowed is not correct too. Market should be clarified cause rules gap is real
Everything which can be readed by naturally tilting your head to match the angle is readable. If you need to tilt your head upside down it's not readable
Everything which can be readed by naturally tilting your head to match the angle is readable. If you need to tilt your head upside down it's not readable
I would respond that the main question is whether image manipulation is allowed or not, and what boundaries are set if it is allowed. If we interpret rules strictly - it's not allowed and we just take the image in the post as is. If we allow it we have a bunch of unanswered by the rules questions: P2 on this will lead to that flipping mirrored text, increasing contrast, crop the image, zoom heavily, run OCR, or adjust the image in any other way until a term becomes readable is all valid by the rules techniques to "extract" the needed term from image.
I would respond that the main question is whether image manipulation is allowed or not, and what boundaries are set if it is allowed. If we interpret rules strictly - it's not allowed and we just take the image in the post as is. If we allow it we have a bunch of unanswered by the rules questions: P2 on this will lead to that flipping mirrored text, increasing contrast, crop the image, zoom heavily, run OCR, or adjust the image in any other way until a term becomes readable is all valid by the rules techniques to "extract" the needed term from image.
What boundaries we set on image manipulation if we allow image manipulation under the rules? Upside down ok, mirrored ok or not?
What boundaries we set on image manipulation if we allow image manipulation under the rules? Upside down ok, mirrored ok or not?
That doesnt answer the dispute. Recognizing UFC logo is not the same as the listed term being "spelled out clearly and in full" under the text in image rule. Rule is about **readable text in the posted media** not whether people can identify a logo or brand after mental correction of the image or from the context. So the unresolved question is still whether image manipulation is allowed or not, and what boundaries are set if it is allowed.
That doesnt answer the dispute. Recognizing UFC logo is not the same as the listed term being "spelled out clearly and in full" under the text in image rule. Rule is about **readable text in the posted media** not whether people can identify a logo or brand after mental correction of the image or from the context. So the unresolved question is still whether image manipulation is allowed or not, and what boundaries are set if it is allowed.
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939>
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939>
It's not a bad cuck it's legit dispute because the rules dont say what counts as acceptable viewing versus image manipulation. If the post has to be evaluated exactly as published that points one way, if image manipulation is allowed, that points another, but raises another questions. Since the market never defines that boundary this is a clarification issue
It's not a bad cuck it's legit dispute because the rules dont say what counts as acceptable viewing versus image manipulation. If the post has to be evaluated exactly as published that points one way, if image manipulation is allowed, that points another, but raises another questions. Since the market never defines that boundary this is a clarification issue
<@1272383282687905939> <@941405798096076880> clarify the market please
<@1272383282687905939> <@941405798096076880> clarify the market please
https://x.com/christress/status/2069977815659815249 this guy got abducted can't resolve against reality
https://x.com/christress/status/2069977815659815249 this guy got abducted can't resolve against reality
denizz doesnt need my help he's rugging himself without problems
denizz doesnt need my help he's rugging himself without problems
so we have alien abduction at brazil scotland game market but we dont have iran airspace? <@941405798096076880>
so we have alien abduction at brazil scotland game market but we dont have iran airspace? <@941405798096076880>
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> <@1272383282687905939> I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
<@941405798096076880> <@1212792946341183578> <@1272383282687905939> I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
You know that
You know that
Context matters
Context matters
Okayway clarif: Iran: IMO NYT/Vandals: Made up rule <@941405798096076880> this is what happening on insult markets
Okayway clarif: Iran: IMO NYT/Vandals: Made up rule <@941405798096076880> this is what happening on insult markets
<@941405798096076880> do you see what you have done
<@941405798096076880> do you see what you have done
NYT/Vandals: "Both target a group rather than specific individuals" - even UMA rocks lives by made up rules. We have only one rule which can be referred to groups and it is "A direct reference will qualify even if the individual is not named, **so long as it is reasonably clear from context that they are the subject.**" Group insult was clarified by PM in car precedent as Y, as well as we have clearly identifiable from the context subjects in current case
NYT/Vandals: "Both target a group rather than specific individuals" - even UMA rocks lives by made up rules. We have only one rule which can be referred to groups and it is "A direct reference will qualify even if the individual is not named, **so long as it is reasonably clear from context that they are the subject.**" Group insult was clarified by PM in car precedent as Y, as well as we have clearly identifiable from the context subjects in current case
in one day trump says more insulting things than average president says in year mocking/insulting/attacking: other president, news agency, certainly identifiable pool vandals and we still having this 3 days long dispute. <@941405798096076880> this mess will continue if insults will continue to not be clarified
in one day trump says more insulting things than average president says in year mocking/insulting/attacking: other president, news agency, certainly identifiable pool vandals and we still having this 3 days long dispute. <@941405798096076880> this mess will continue if insults will continue to not be clarified
I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar
Food is good in general in turkey
Food is good in general in turkey
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> there is many insults(3) on 21 June market you need to clarify. Insult markets is a mess and when it resolves it resolves from “vibes”, made up rules or personal opinions, but not from the written rules. There is many legit insults being not resolved, or not an insults at all being resolved. Please clarify it, we need to set precedents so there will be order in insult markets.
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> there is many insults(3) on 21 June market you need to clarify. Insult markets is a mess and when it resolves it resolves from “vibes”, made up rules or personal opinions, but not from the written rules. There is many legit insults being not resolved, or not an insults at all being resolved. Please clarify it, we need to set precedents so there will be order in insult markets.
Airspace markets -> https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/775426315393433661/1518570154953412658
Airspace markets -> https://discord.com/channels/710897173927297116/775426315393433661/1518570154953412658
Yeah, it’s wild that everything is contradicted but what can we do
Yeah, it’s wild that everything is contradicted but what can we do
Mou says perma
Mou says perma
He can say it but it’s not in the mou
He can say it but it’s not in the mou
I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar <@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
I repeat my request, we need new Iran airspace closed by market. Also other Middle East airspace markets would be good, especially Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Qatar <@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939> <@1212792946341183578>
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939>
<@941405798096076880> <@1272383282687905939>
You are overthinking this, if it is not defined in the mou it just means that mou is not the agreement which have bearing on the fees decision after 60 days, and this matter will be defined later, if defined at all
You are overthinking this, if it is not defined in the mou it just means that mou is not the agreement which have bearing on the fees decision after 60 days, and this matter will be defined later, if defined at all
yes i know, preferably i want them to work across all markets, there is technical difficulties though, but solvable
yes i know, preferably i want them to work across all markets, there is technical difficulties though, but solvable
<@941405798096076880>
<@941405798096076880>
i would like to see combo bets on the polymarket across all markets some day
i would like to see combo bets on the polymarket across all markets some day
Drop it in advance
Drop it in advance
Also airspace
Also airspace
Enrichment was good, deep liquidity, highly predictable outcome
Enrichment was good, deep liquidity, highly predictable outcome
Especially in 1 v 10 pvp when you need to answer fast
Especially in 1 v 10 pvp when you need to answer fast
Something to work on cause I feel that language barrier is real, sometimes people tell me that I talk like ai, and my dispute abilities capped to ~30% from what I’m able to do on native language
Something to work on cause I feel that language barrier is real, sometimes people tell me that I talk like ai, and my dispute abilities capped to ~30% from what I’m able to do on native language
Just asking cause your vocabulary is much wider than mine
Just asking cause your vocabulary is much wider than mine
Are you native eng speaker?
Are you native eng speaker?
第 1 / 20 页
下一页 →