The issue of hedging bets depending on expected outcome doesn't bother me
one way or the other, but the "much harder to judge without controversy"
seems to me a show-stopper because of the suggested reliance on media
consensus. A sizable proportion of Trump's 46% of voters thrilled to the
characterization of what have been considered "well-respected newspapers"
as "the lyin' media - so crooked". Even without that source of controversy
we'd still be reliant on them to report the motive for the action in
question, and it's much more problematic for anyone (including respected
media) to report motives than actions.
So I'm happy with Sam's current proposed wording. I think it's not
necessary (but wouldn't hurt) to add the "not dependent on conviction by
the Senate" clause. I agree that it shouldn't go live before he's sworn in
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:47 AM, chrisran.bma e-mail <
> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I think if he resigns because it is clear he will otherwise be impeached
>> then the claim should be designed to be judged true in that situation.
> I can see the reasoning for this, but I also think (1) it makes the claim
> much harder to judge without controversy, and (2) the alternative still
> allows for interesting hedging of people's bets based on whether they think
> resignation is likely.
> Let's imagine the Democrats take control of the House in 2019 and the
> speaker announces that their first order of business will be impeachment.
> With your variation, the ticker for the claim will go right up to around
> 1.0 and stay there. But if we keep the wording strict, then it would
> continue to fluctuate based on whether people think resignation is more
> But I'm happy to do it either way. I can see the argument that people who
> bought YES tickets would feel "cheated" if at the last moment there was a
> resignation instead.