Loading Profile...
Terrorism
Will the U.S.A. suffer another terrorist attack on their homeland before the end of the 2008 election?
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_t...
This market has created much debate in the Hubdub community. I think the most recent incident that has gotten people talking about "terrorism" was the Times Square bicycle bombing.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
Talk continues within Hubdub that this was an act of "terrorism"; however, admins did not come across major mainstream media coverage labeling this as an act of terrorism--we're talking NY times, CNN, etc.
How is it plausible for Hubdub to declare that an act of terrorism has occurred in the United States when this cannot be verified in widespread print? Technically, we cannot settle a question based on personal opinion.
Let's open the discussion.
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_t...
This market has created much debate in the Hubdub community. I think the most recent incident that has gotten people talking about "terrorism" was the Times Square bicycle bombing.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/200...
Talk continues within Hubdub that this was an act of "terrorism"; however, admins did not come across major mainstream media coverage labeling this as an act of terrorism--we're talking NY times, CNN, etc.
How is it plausible for Hubdub to declare that an act of terrorism has occurred in the United States when this cannot be verified in widespread print? Technically, we cannot settle a question based on personal opinion.
Let's open the discussion.
3 people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The company marked this problem solved.
-
Inappropriate?I regret not making this question more specific when I made it. This was one of the first questions I created upon joining the hubdub community and have since recognized how extremely important it is to be as specific as possible when posing questions.
I was hesitant to pose this question because it brinks on the 'death pool' theme. Please allow me to explain why I made it.
Upon watching a news report that pollsters believed another terrorist attack would bolster John McCain's position, I wanted to pose a question on hubdub to somehow tie in with that information. I enjoy making questions that inform hubdub users of news items but had difficulty figuring out a question to serve this purpose so I decided to pose the question as it is and use the background slot to inform of the link with McCain pollsters. I felt the simplicity of the question would appeal to the predictors and thus have the most potential to be viewed by the user base.
When posing this question I did understand that terrorism is not easily defined and some could argue that it happens very frequently but I considered the settlement detail: "as reported by a major news source" to make the outcome easily definable because I can only think of a handful of incidents in history where media reported that America has had an incident of terrorism.
The incident in New York with the suspected cyclist may be the worst case scenario in terms of settling this question because of it's relatively minor nature and because the perpetrator was never caught. I did not anticipate this.
When this incident occurred it did not qualify as a 'terrorist attack' in terms of the spirit of the question because I do not think it has had any impact on John McCain's ratings. Although it does not qualify according to 'spirit' of the question I think it does qualify as a terrorist attack.
As the question is worded I feel that it must be settled as yes. In the future if someone were to ask "how many terrorist attacks occurred on US soil in 2008?", this incident would be considered as one.
I hope this helps settle this matter soon.
Regards;
rnork -
Inappropriate?The problem here is that if the news didn't report it as an act of terrorism, but some people on the site have an opinion of terrorism as one thing while other view it as another thing.
I'd want to keep on the track of having nominal acts such as the NYC pipebomb (late at night, no casualties, just a loud bang) not seen as terrorism. This is because with this definition, acts like throwing acid on the Japanese whaling boats or political protests can be seen as terrorism. A possible definition would be
"The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends or premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."
It is such a subjective term that when we settle we will have people on each side arguing one way or the other. In my opinion the terrorist activity should be seen as violent in nature. The NYC "attack" was not really violent it was more or less protest.
The problem is that the definition I'm using in a way make all types of political violence terrorism, which isn't always the case.
I’m unconcerned
1 Comment
Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
I really am a slow typer.. Didn't even see this one.
I still think we should rely on news instead of any internal definition of terrorism (or any other word for that matter). After any significant event, the newspapers always ask "Is this terrorism??" and 99 times out of a 100 there is a response from Homeland Security that it is not. (I'm thinking about something like the Florida blackout here). -
Inappropriate?1. Settlement rules: As reported by a major mainstream news source. There was no act of terrorism reported by a major news source, therefore I do not think this should be settled.
2. The reclama to this argument has been the Spitzer decision whereby the newspapers all said he resigned, but Hubdub did not. At the end of the day, I think the resolution was that this was a _wrong_ decision. Therefore, saying this needs to be settled like that one was is backwards thinking to me. The quality of the questions and settlements are hopefully spiraling to some happy nirvana in which everything is clear and we never argue. However, this is an iterative process and history is to be more often learned from than repeated.
The goal should always be common sense solutions. If you feel the need to get out the dictionary, you're probably reaching.
As an aside, in this and other markets it seems like some users feel that they louder or more vociferously they yell, the more likely they will get their way. I hope I am not alone in not being swayed by the length or number of such protests and instead evaluate each only on merit.
I’m hungry
-
Inappropriate?Since my previous post here I have been doing some Googling and have come to a different conclusion due to this news article from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOn...
Two excerpts:
-"We're treating it as if it were an incident of vandalism," Army spokesman Paul Boyce said at the Pentagon.
-Homeland Security Department said there was no sign of an immediate threat to the United States from the incident and White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said there was no initial sign of any link to terrorism.
I cannot find any article stating that the US government has changed their opinion on this matter.
We would be false to conclude that this was a terrorist attack when the victim of the attack clearly says otherwise.
I now conclude that this question should be allowed to continue as it is. -
Inappropriate?When I first read this question, I took it to mean just what Mork said s/he intended it to mean (in his/her first post, above). Further, I immediately related it to the pundit's comments floating around that "a terrorist attack would be a big boost to John McCain" (as was noted in the background of the market question).
That said, it is difficult to write great questions like that. And, when there is a vocal minority raising objections it creates, in my view, a chilling effect on users willing to risk creating new, great, questions. (OTOH, debate is a "good thing".)
I do think that both if there was a "terrorist attack" that the Department of Homeland Security and/or The Pentagon would weigh in on it as such -- and, at the same time, I don't trust either to tell us the truth.
Bottom line, for me, I don't think this was a terrorist attack, and the market ought go on.
[Disclosure: I have no predictions, past or present, in this market.] -
Inappropriate?very nice resolve and discourse solution here.
mork, I truly hope you know I did not in any way think you were gaming the question with the starting odds.
If the question was going to settle by the incident in N.Y., that would make it unreasonable to have the odds set as such.
Relieved that it looks like all will workout, and hopefully will settle as "no".
thanks for posting on my shouts in hubdubland to draw my attention back to my comments posted on this fine market you created.
I’m needin' a hug...
-
Inappropriate?Well since we seem to be in agreement, the market will stay open until "the end of the 2008 election?" or god forbid a terrorist attack.
Regards,
Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor
1 person says
this solves the problem
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
