PolymarketNah we winning this chat
Nah we winning this chat
Anacondasqueezzzzzzzzzzzzze参与话题 2消息总数 124
该用户的聊天记录定位。
聊天记录
共 124 条，显示第 101-124 条Had you there for a split second it was a prank no is not winning lol
Had you there for a split second it was a prank no is not winning lol
I’m going to sleep this one out now. Hopefully when I wake up something shifts within polymarkets decision
I’m going to sleep this one out now. Hopefully when I wake up something shifts within polymarkets decision
Relatable 😂
Relatable 😂
Same here. But either way even if I was on the buy yes side. Id still be reasonable about it and take no is side due to lack of a lot of things
Same here. But either way even if I was on the buy yes side. Id still be reasonable about it and take no is side due to lack of a lot of things
It’s like smoking cigarettes. You can stop or not.
It’s like smoking cigarettes. You can stop or not.
Maybe they’ll say “after further review, the tear was emotionally present but visually unavailable” 😂
Maybe they’ll say “after further review, the tear was emotionally present but visually unavailable” 😂
Not really
Not really
I just want to see how they are going to explain this one lol as in how are they going to word it out to us
I just want to see how they are going to explain this one lol as in how are they going to word it out to us
Maybe both lol 😂
Maybe both lol 😂
Even if it was 0 % I’d still take it. Because 0 is still a number lol 😂
Even if it was 0 % I’d still take it. Because 0 is still a number lol 😂
Yeah I can’t wait for the day they get sued lol 😂
Yeah I can’t wait for the day they get sued lol 😂
This would be funny if we all just wait till the next day and it drops 😂
This would be funny if we all just wait till the next day and it drops 😂
Yeah I hear you bro, that’s probably the most fair way to put it. It wouldn’t be the cleanest YES, especially if everyone’s still debating what the “tear” even is. But yeah, it might come down to how UMA interprets “visible tear shed.” For me, I still think if it needs that much interpretation then it wasn’t clearly observed, but I get what you’re saying. Unfortunate either way, but yeah it is what it is. Let’s just see how they resolve it.
Yeah I hear you bro, that’s probably the most fair way to put it. It wouldn’t be the cleanest YES, especially if everyone’s still debating what the “tear” even is. But yeah, it might come down to how UMA interprets “visible tear shed.” For me, I still think if it needs that much interpretation then it wasn’t clearly observed, but I get what you’re saying. Unfortunate either way, but yeah it is what it is. Let’s just see how they resolve it.
Yeah I get what you mean. I’d be careful calling it “insider trading” straight up, because that’s a legal term and people will argue over that. But the fairness issue is real. If YES relies on unaired/unreleased footage or photos that only certain people had access to while the book was still open, then that’s a massive transparency problem. Public traders were betting off public evidence. So the resolution should be based on evidence that can be publicly verified by UMA voters/traders, not some hidden source that only a few people maybe had. So I’d frame it like this: maybe not “insider trading” unless proven legally, but definitely unfair/unverifiable if unreleased evidence is being used without showing the exact source, and original frame etc etc.
Yeah I get what you mean. I’d be careful calling it “insider trading” straight up, because that’s a legal term and people will argue over that. But the fairness issue is real. If YES relies on unaired/unreleased footage or photos that only certain people had access to while the book was still open, then that’s a massive transparency problem. Public traders were betting off public evidence. So the resolution should be based on evidence that can be publicly verified by UMA voters/traders, not some hidden source that only a few people maybe had. So I’d frame it like this: maybe not “insider trading” unless proven legally, but definitely unfair/unverifiable if unreleased evidence is being used without showing the exact source, and original frame etc etc.
If the tear only exists in the edited/enhanced version and not the original stream, then it’s not qualifying evidence. The rule requires authentic photo/video, not a manufactured tear streak.
If the tear only exists in the edited/enhanced version and not the original stream, then it’s not qualifying evidence. The rule requires authentic photo/video, not a manufactured tear streak.
Yeah exactly, that’s the honest position. If you went frame by frame through TSN/cable stream and still didn’t see one clear actual tear being shed, then the public evidence hasn’t met the rule. I’m not saying unreleased footage is impossible. Maybe a photographer or videographer had a better angle, fair enough. But we can’t just assume that. If YES depends on some exclusive footage, then show it. Give the source, timestamp, camera angle, and the clear frame where the tear is actually visible on his face. Otherwise we’re not resolving this off evidence anymore, we’re resolving it off “maybe evidence exists somewhere.” The rule says visible tears clearly observed on his face. So the standard shouldn’t be “maybe another camera caught it.” It should be “show the actual qualifying photo/video.” It’s like VAR in football. If the TV angle doesn’t show handball, but someone says “maybe VAR has another angle”, cool then show the VAR angle. You don’t just give the penalty because another angle might exist. Same thing here. If the unreleased angle exists, show it. If nobody can show it, then the public evidence we have still points NO.
Yeah exactly, that’s the honest position. If you went frame by frame through TSN/cable stream and still didn’t see one clear actual tear being shed, then the public evidence hasn’t met the rule. I’m not saying unreleased footage is impossible. Maybe a photographer or videographer had a better angle, fair enough. But we can’t just assume that. If YES depends on some exclusive footage, then show it. Give the source, timestamp, camera angle, and the clear frame where the tear is actually visible on his face. Otherwise we’re not resolving this off evidence anymore, we’re resolving it off “maybe evidence exists somewhere.” The rule says visible tears clearly observed on his face. So the standard shouldn’t be “maybe another camera caught it.” It should be “show the actual qualifying photo/video.” It’s like VAR in football. If the TV angle doesn’t show handball, but someone says “maybe VAR has another angle”, cool then show the VAR angle. You don’t just give the penalty because another angle might exist. Same thing here. If the unreleased angle exists, show it. If nobody can show it, then the public evidence we have still points NO.
Good question though. You had me in a choke hold for a minute
Good question though. You had me in a choke hold for a minute
Nah bro, I’m not saying teary eyes and shed tears are the same outcome. I’m saying the opposite. Teary eyes could lead to tears, sure. But under this rule, watery eyes alone don’t win YES. The rule says Ronaldo has to visibly shed tears that can be clearly observed on his face. That means the tear itself has to be visible on his face, not just moisture in his eye, shiny skin, sweat, lighting, or him looking emotional. So the question is simple: does the image clearly show an actual tear being shed on his face? If we still have to debate what it is, zoom in, add arrows, and guess sweat vs tear, then it is not “clearly observed. Teary eyes = maybe emotional. Shed tears = visible tear on face. The market requires the second one. So no, they don’t automatically produce the same outcome. YES only wins if the teary eyes turn into a clear visible tear on his face. This image still doesn’t prove that.
Nah bro, I’m not saying teary eyes and shed tears are the same outcome. I’m saying the opposite. Teary eyes could lead to tears, sure. But under this rule, watery eyes alone don’t win YES. The rule says Ronaldo has to visibly shed tears that can be clearly observed on his face. That means the tear itself has to be visible on his face, not just moisture in his eye, shiny skin, sweat, lighting, or him looking emotional. So the question is simple: does the image clearly show an actual tear being shed on his face? If we still have to debate what it is, zoom in, add arrows, and guess sweat vs tear, then it is not “clearly observed. Teary eyes = maybe emotional. Shed tears = visible tear on face. The market requires the second one. So no, they don’t automatically produce the same outcome. YES only wins if the teary eyes turn into a clear visible tear on his face. This image still doesn’t prove that.
They provided
They provided
This is the evidence
This is the evidence
A photo existing isn’t enough. The photo has to clearly show the tear. That’s the whole point. I know what you mean though
A photo existing isn’t enough. The photo has to clearly show the tear. That’s the whole point. I know what you mean though
Everyone that bought yes has provided no evidence either besides that picture with the red arrow which is laughable
Everyone that bought yes has provided no evidence either besides that picture with the red arrow which is laughable
Can anyone tell me if there’s proof of Ronaldo crying please because bruh what
Can anyone tell me if there’s proof of Ronaldo crying please because bruh what
← 上一页
第 3 / 3 页