The question is stated as delivery of a "S-300 or S-400 missile system." A "system" requires all the major operational components to be delivered (search radar, targeting radar, missile launcher, command post, etc.). Regarding hiding the system, while I agree that generally you don't want to give away the exact location of your military assets, it is important to credibly signal your enemies if you expect to deter them. Most of the Iranian comments to this point are probably inward directed, to create a sense of strength in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with the West. Outward directed statements (to Israel) will come when the system is actually functioning.
@GL2814: I came from a prediction market condition, too. We had 338 participants according to the participant feedback report, but when I double-back to the screenshot I took of my dashboard before we were closed out, it says 359. Also, when I check the screenshot I took of the top ten, I can see some folks did join in here, but haven't been as active. Also, there are some that I haven't been able to find from the top ten, so they could have used different names or decided not to participate.
@einsteinjs Could you please send a copy of your Participant Feedback report to me? I'll gladly trade mine plus my final scores and leaderboard from the prediction polls group I was in. [email protected]
@GL2814 - @cmeinel and I are not the only ones from our group on here. She has probably kept better track than me of who's shown up, but there are at least 25 or so who were on our leaderboards at one time or another. We can only recognize folks from the leaderboards since there was no interaction in our group. (At least, I had none, but it's possible that other people found each other outside of GJP through their names.)
This has been a long grind -- not only for us forecasters, but I'm sure for administrators, too. I thought that the announcement was very well written. One thing that always amazes me is how gracious GJI administrators are, even under such frustrating and difficult circumstances.
I'm not in entire agreement with previous posts by forecasters about leaving questions open without comment when there are significant events. I think that it would have been appropriate for GJ administrators to have announced that they were aware of the press releases by the Russians & Iranians . . . more or less like they did with the OPEC question where they opted to let us know that they didn't consider the events of the early Dec meeting to have satisfied their requirement of an announced decision of change (an interpretation that I strongly disagree with).
I am indifferent as to whether this question should be voided. I just want to reiterate that there is no law of nature that requires a disinformation campaign to end when the underlying event occurs. Who knows if the latest news bits are true? In particular, if you are to believe that the latest constellation of data is the "true story," you must now explain the inconsistency that did not previously exist; namely, the purported fact that the operator training will begin in Russia after the first "regiment" has already been delivered to Iran. Why even send the units if they're going to be sitting idle and unmanned for, what, 2, 4, 6 weeks? As to the lawsuit, its dismissal has seemingly always been conditioned upon receipt of "enough" of something, not just upon receipt of anything. But I'm not seeking to change the current adjudicated outcome. Only to again, for the now third time, remind us all that time disassociation is a basic method of information manipulation.
[Edit: I'm also wondering what the silent @g thinks of all this!]
@000: I very much appreciated when GJP moved to bidding system for the prediction market. There was still the problem of the folks who were able to get to the IFP as soon as it went live, but it felt like this certainly mitigated that 'race.' I also liked the game aspect of trying to figure out where other forecasters were going to peg the IFP and then submit my bid based on that.
@cmeinel: I thought I'd already sent it to you, but I guess not. Earlier this evening, I sent it. I should also say, I don't ever check that email address, so you'll need to ping me on here if there's an error. Hopefully you'll be able to enlarge the pictures, (some of the graphs may not be too easy to read), as I was a bit of an outlier on a number of measures.
Reaffirming my forecast.
The question is stated as delivery of a "S-300 or S-400 missile system." A "system" requires all the major operational components to be delivered (search radar, targeting radar, missile launcher, command post, etc.). Regarding hiding the system, while I agree that generally you don't want to give away the exact location of your military assets, it is important to credibly signal your enemies if you expect to deter them. Most of the Iranian comments to this point are probably inward directed, to create a sense of strength in the aftermath of the nuclear deal with the West. Outward directed statements (to Israel) will come when the system is actually functioning.
@GL2814: I came from a prediction market condition, too. We had 338 participants according to the participant feedback report, but when I double-back to the screenshot I took of my dashboard before we were closed out, it says 359. Also, when I check the screenshot I took of the top ten, I can see some folks did join in here, but haven't been as active. Also, there are some that I haven't been able to find from the top ten, so they could have used different names or decided not to participate.
@cmeinel, apropos of nothing here is a recent paper on how they implemented the pricing mechanism for market format: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~ungar/papers/Marketcast.Atanasov.etal.Final.pdf
@000 Thank you, I had not previously seen that paper.
@einsteinjs Could you please send a copy of your Participant Feedback report to me? I'll gladly trade mine plus my final scores and leaderboard from the prediction polls group I was in. [email protected]
TA DA: Admin is just as bored as we are. They just sent out an email (at 9:40PM EST on Saturday night!) closing the question.
@GL2814 - @cmeinel and I are not the only ones from our group on here. She has probably kept better track than me of who's shown up, but there are at least 25 or so who were on our leaderboards at one time or another. We can only recognize folks from the leaderboards since there was no interaction in our group. (At least, I had none, but it's possible that other people found each other outside of GJP through their names.)
This has been a long grind -- not only for us forecasters, but I'm sure for administrators, too. I thought that the announcement was very well written. One thing that always amazes me is how gracious GJI administrators are, even under such frustrating and difficult circumstances.
I'm not in entire agreement with previous posts by forecasters about leaving questions open without comment when there are significant events. I think that it would have been appropriate for GJ administrators to have announced that they were aware of the press releases by the Russians & Iranians . . . more or less like they did with the OPEC question where they opted to let us know that they didn't consider the events of the early Dec meeting to have satisfied their requirement of an announced decision of change (an interpretation that I strongly disagree with).
I am indifferent as to whether this question should be voided. I just want to reiterate that there is no law of nature that requires a disinformation campaign to end when the underlying event occurs. Who knows if the latest news bits are true? In particular, if you are to believe that the latest constellation of data is the "true story," you must now explain the inconsistency that did not previously exist; namely, the purported fact that the operator training will begin in Russia after the first "regiment" has already been delivered to Iran. Why even send the units if they're going to be sitting idle and unmanned for, what, 2, 4, 6 weeks? As to the lawsuit, its dismissal has seemingly always been conditioned upon receipt of "enough" of something, not just upon receipt of anything. But I'm not seeking to change the current adjudicated outcome. Only to again, for the now third time, remind us all that time disassociation is a basic method of information manipulation.
[Edit: I'm also wondering what the silent @g thinks of all this!]
@anneinak because...?
@000: I very much appreciated when GJP moved to bidding system for the prediction market. There was still the problem of the folks who were able to get to the IFP as soon as it went live, but it felt like this certainly mitigated that 'race.' I also liked the game aspect of trying to figure out where other forecasters were going to peg the IFP and then submit my bid based on that.
@cmeinel: I thought I'd already sent it to you, but I guess not. Earlier this evening, I sent it. I should also say, I don't ever check that email address, so you'll need to ping me on here if there's an error. Hopefully you'll be able to enlarge the pictures, (some of the graphs may not be too easy to read), as I was a bit of an outlier on a number of measures.