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.
That the resolution is problematic, does not mean it is incorrect. I'm not saying that it is correct; only that we don't know. I've assumed from the beginning that all information on this topic was subject to maskirovka. I don't see any reason to drop that assumption now. Moreover, we are simply not privy to any evidence that would be determinative. For example, who amongst us can say that the prior claim to "operator training" was made false by the current (more detailed) claim? Can't they both be true? I am comfortable with the idea that something was delivered, and the "contract" has morphed into a series a related contracts. I wish you all expressed such a passion for accuracy on the OPEC question, where we have all the necessary evidence, and the proof of biased criteria substitution is staring you right in the face.
@redacted, Bravo! And what else is staring us in the face? The loss of an Amazon gift card? Why do we do this in the first place? What are we testing in Beta GJI? I don't want to go John le Carre on anyone, but I know the basis for my forecasts. The hours spent reading and translating the open literature online was not wasted. Moreover, it gave me greater insight into the geopolitical pressure for creating the "correct" answer to this question. One take-home lesson: the Fog-of-War extends even to the analysis of who has actually won or loss in the available media; tactical loss, but strategic victory? There is much invested in perceived "correct" outcomes. Good fortune to you!
@redacted makes a good point re: OPEC. The decision to not make a decision has the clear effect of making a decision to lift all quotas. OTOH, they did not say in so many words that they were lifting all quotas. TO be fair, the question ought to be voided, just as the Nicaraguan Canal last year was voided.
@GeneH the "Schrödinger's Forecaster"... :) pretty well sums up redacted's point, that we have no evidence other than conflicting and vague news stories. At least when IARPA was making the final decisions, we could have some confidence that they were making a genuine effort at determining the truth.
The only reason I'm in this game is for research in the hopes of winding up on a winning team for IARPA's CREATE program. You folks participating in this thread are examples of high quality research and analysis, delightfully illuminating for me, thank you. Too bad the admins are treating us so poorly, in particular making errors that preferentially harm the scores of the best forecasters.
Even if I'm not on a winning team, I intend to volunteer for IARPA's next forecasting games. If the admins continue to permit the use of "@", I'll let you folks know via this game when some competent games are ready to run.
The clearest evidence of pressure for an outcome was when they paused FDLR last year in anticipation of a weekend State Department press release declaring victory. So this venue is definitely subject to manipulation.
@cmeinel: So as to not hijack this thread anymore than I already have by interjecting the OPEC question (apologies), I refer you instead to my first December 17th comment on the more appropriate thread, where I describe the specific criteria substitution in detail.
https://www.gjopen.com/comments/comments/66758
@redacted, @000, thank you both in this thread and in the OPEC thread for clarifying issues and proposing solutions. The program manager for ACE/GJP, Dr. Steve Rieber, reports having received many complaints about unfairness issues during the GJP seasons. According to refereed scientific papers written about the four GJP seasons, morale may well have been low, as reflected in the average number of forecasts per question being <2. Lars (000), in his blog, has shown that activity in GJopen has continued this trend of extremely low participation. https://larswericson.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/some-numbers-on-the-gj-open-population/
On the plus side, according to IARPA program manager Dr. Rieber's briefing to proposers, the next four years of forecasting games will include a criterion of providing a pleasant experience for participants.
So, folks, please share more ideas on how these sorts of situations could be avoided or repaired, and what would make these sorts of prediction poll games more pleasant, more motivating?
@cmeinel, we like to gossip and watch each other's action, so for a "pleasant experience" in this context, it would probably suffice to do a few things:
1. Add their best training modules to the "training" section which is currently a decoration.
2. Add the ability for all forecasters to download in some convenient form (base case is Excel spreadsheet .CSV format) all of the data on the site (questions, users, forecasts, comments). This ability is currently restricted to those with some Web programming skills.
3. Add the ability for users to create discussion forum topics outside of questions (we had this ability in the Inkling Markets interface last year).
4. Maybe add some more facetime components like Google Hangouts, and, what Wikipedians do frequently, which is establish local groups that meet in person to discuss. You could extend that to an annual meeting at a vacation destination somewhere, I'm sure there'd be some takers.
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.
That the resolution is problematic, does not mean it is incorrect. I'm not saying that it is correct; only that we don't know. I've assumed from the beginning that all information on this topic was subject to maskirovka. I don't see any reason to drop that assumption now. Moreover, we are simply not privy to any evidence that would be determinative. For example, who amongst us can say that the prior claim to "operator training" was made false by the current (more detailed) claim? Can't they both be true? I am comfortable with the idea that something was delivered, and the "contract" has morphed into a series a related contracts. I wish you all expressed such a passion for accuracy on the OPEC question, where we have all the necessary evidence, and the proof of biased criteria substitution is staring you right in the face.
@redacted, Bravo! And what else is staring us in the face? The loss of an Amazon gift card? Why do we do this in the first place? What are we testing in Beta GJI? I don't want to go John le Carre on anyone, but I know the basis for my forecasts. The hours spent reading and translating the open literature online was not wasted. Moreover, it gave me greater insight into the geopolitical pressure for creating the "correct" answer to this question. One take-home lesson: the Fog-of-War extends even to the analysis of who has actually won or loss in the available media; tactical loss, but strategic victory? There is much invested in perceived "correct" outcomes. Good fortune to you!
"Schrödinger's Forecaster"... :)
@redacted makes a good point re: OPEC. The decision to not make a decision has the clear effect of making a decision to lift all quotas. OTOH, they did not say in so many words that they were lifting all quotas. TO be fair, the question ought to be voided, just as the Nicaraguan Canal last year was voided.
@GeneH the "Schrödinger's Forecaster"... :) pretty well sums up redacted's point, that we have no evidence other than conflicting and vague news stories. At least when IARPA was making the final decisions, we could have some confidence that they were making a genuine effort at determining the truth.
The only reason I'm in this game is for research in the hopes of winding up on a winning team for IARPA's CREATE program. You folks participating in this thread are examples of high quality research and analysis, delightfully illuminating for me, thank you. Too bad the admins are treating us so poorly, in particular making errors that preferentially harm the scores of the best forecasters.
Even if I'm not on a winning team, I intend to volunteer for IARPA's next forecasting games. If the admins continue to permit the use of "@", I'll let you folks know via this game when some competent games are ready to run.
The clearest evidence of pressure for an outcome was when they paused FDLR last year in anticipation of a weekend State Department press release declaring victory. So this venue is definitely subject to manipulation.
@cmeinel: So as to not hijack this thread anymore than I already have by interjecting the OPEC question (apologies), I refer you instead to my first December 17th comment on the more appropriate thread, where I describe the specific criteria substitution in detail.
https://www.gjopen.com/comments/comments/66758
We understand, you lost your heart and your innocence at the OPEC question. Such trauma is hard to walk away from.
@000: It's true. I did.
@redacted, @000, thank you both in this thread and in the OPEC thread for clarifying issues and proposing solutions. The program manager for ACE/GJP, Dr. Steve Rieber, reports having received many complaints about unfairness issues during the GJP seasons. According to refereed scientific papers written about the four GJP seasons, morale may well have been low, as reflected in the average number of forecasts per question being <2. Lars (000), in his blog, has shown that activity in GJopen has continued this trend of extremely low participation. https://larswericson.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/some-numbers-on-the-gj-open-population/
On the plus side, according to IARPA program manager Dr. Rieber's briefing to proposers, the next four years of forecasting games will include a criterion of providing a pleasant experience for participants.
So, folks, please share more ideas on how these sorts of situations could be avoided or repaired, and what would make these sorts of prediction poll games more pleasant, more motivating?
@redacted, as an antidote to your distress, I suggest a cover-to-cover close reading of Bridget Nolan's thesis: https://cryptome.org/2013/09/nolan-nctc.pdf
@cmeinel, we like to gossip and watch each other's action, so for a "pleasant experience" in this context, it would probably suffice to do a few things:
1. Add their best training modules to the "training" section which is currently a decoration.
2. Add the ability for all forecasters to download in some convenient form (base case is Excel spreadsheet .CSV format) all of the data on the site (questions, users, forecasts, comments). This ability is currently restricted to those with some Web programming skills.
3. Add the ability for users to create discussion forum topics outside of questions (we had this ability in the Inkling Markets interface last year).
4. Maybe add some more facetime components like Google Hangouts, and, what Wikipedians do frequently, which is establish local groups that meet in person to discuss. You could extend that to an annual meeting at a vacation destination somewhere, I'm sure there'd be some takers.