Can close the market.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/07/afghanistan.explosion/index.html

A number of civilians have been killed in recent weeks by bombings in Kabul (note the comment about the June 1 bombing in the article cited) however they have been innocent bystanders. While certainly a large number of civilians were killed in this incident, it is not clear that this bombing “specifically targeting civilians”, which is a requirement of the market, or was intended to target the Indian embassy (who knows why) or other nearby government buildings with the civilians again as innocent bystanders.

As I understand it, diplomats by definition are civilians, so I would count this (assuming it’s a Taliban attack).

But my guess is that the market operator wouldn’t see that way. I also would have counted the April 27 attack on Karzai as meeting the terms of the market, since he is a civilian, but the market owner ruled that that didn’t meet the spirit of the proposition, and I decided not to pursue the matter further. He (she?) said the market was looking at attacks on traditional civilian targets, such as crowded markets or schools. The fact that an attack on something else (such as an embassy or a civilian president) may inevitably lead to high civilian casualties isn’t sufficient to result in a positive outcome for this market.

Diplomats are government officials and, accordingly, probably don’t fall under the category of civilians the way it appears the market creator intended.

While the market is somewhat unclear as to intent, it appears to have been started in January 2008 after the Taliban shifted away from targeting security forces and government officals to begin targeting specifically civilians (see here). Frankly, there have been any number of attacks in the last 6 months that targeted police, etc. who, since they are not military, are technically civilian targets as well.

No question it would have been helpful if the market creator hasd been more specific though.

I agree with your comment about the apparent intent of the market creator. But I’d also note that most of the attacks on police have been outside Kabul, which has been relatively quiet, even stable.

What makes this particular incident (at least according to what we know now) a bit tricky is that it’s unclear who/what was specifically targeted. The immediate target appeared to be a car, but without knowing what was in the mind of the attacker we don’t know if the goal was to kill the people in the car (who may have been diplomats or possibly Indian military types) or to kill the many people nearby, many of whom would be civilians by any definition.

Suicide bomber rammed into embassy vehicles entering the emabassy gate. Probably need to wait for the Taliban to take credit and explain their target though at the moment, they are denying involement (second link).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/world/asia/08afghanistan.html?hp

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gcaykJPlLMns4aofsewf8Kkn_N4Q

This one may be Pakistan, not Taliban.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/145071

Now, both India and Karzai are accusing Pakistani agents.

Interesting, I was about to consider this closed but per your conversation I’m reconsidering. I’ll keep an eye on the news.

6 civilians killed
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-13-voa29.cfm?CFID=14203575&CFTOKEN=20092719

Per the article referenced, target was US troop convoy, not the civilians. Per market description, attack must be “specifically targeting cilivians”.

That’s part of what’s made the outcome (so far) of this market surprising (at least to me). There have been Taliban attacks in the Kabul area, but not targeted specifically at civilians. And there have been Taliban attacks on civilians, but not in the Kabul area. And, most recently, there was an attack in Kabul that probably had civilians as the primary target, but the perpetrators probably weren’t Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/world/asia/08afghanistan.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/T/Taliban&oref=slogin

KABUL, Afghanistan — A huge blast from a suicide car bomb at the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul killed 41 people and wounded more than 130 on Monday in the latest sign of a sharp deterioration in Afghanistan, where combat deaths have surpassed Iraq’s in the past two months.
…

The Taliban frequently disavow knowledge of attacks that cause heavy civilian casualties.

I am wary of this market. There have been quite a few articles from reputable sources that have reported civilians being killed by terrorists (Taliban or otherwise) in Kabul. This is the latest…

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=f2424db9-437f-470d-8533-96c6399b0ebc

This one does not indicate whether the civilians were the intended victims of this bomber but who can really know? It was not near a military facility and it is debatable whether the police officer is a civilian. He isn’t a soldier.

ABC also has announced this killing.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5421981

The following day abc reported that the Taliban had taken responsibility for the attack on page 2 of another article.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=5422274&page=2

Yes, there has been a bit a vagueness here that’s frustrating.

But the market description does say that the attack should be one “specifically targeting civilians.” In the first ABC one, it isn’t at all clear that civilians were “specifically” targeted. And in the third link you have, it isn’t clear either that civilians were “specifically” targeted either. We don’t know who the the specific target was and probably will never know.

The market owner has interpreted both “civilian” and “specifically” narrowly. Is a police officer a civilian? It depends on the definition you use. Same goes for the president. But over the course of this market, the market owner has indicated that at least the spirit of the market is that he’s looking for an incident such as an attack on a school or public market, the sort of thing other than when government officers are under attack.

I’m cashing this out as a “no”, because it has not met my definition, but I have noted that in the future I will need to be explicitly clear on the terms of the market. Very educational.

I call BS. You can’t change the rules of the contest after it has started. The attack on the civilians adjacent to the Indian Embassy clearly qualified.

You can make a case to end the market without a clear winner, but you can’t say no attack on civilians occurred. This market resolution needs to be reversed.

I agree with you, Jerry. I sold all my stocks in this market when it appeared that the definition of what constituted an attack “specifically targeting civilians” was crazy (so I didn’t lose much). Even the Taliban aren’t going to admit that they are targeting civilians! And, the government of Afghanistan is unlikely to report an attack as such, even if it obviously is. I think that there were several attacks that any reasonable person would conclude targeted civilians (including one on the president of the country, who somehow is not considered a civilian in this market). Perhaps, it is different in the United States where the President is considered to be the leader of the armed forces, but in Canada (and I believe, the majority of countries, democratic or otherwise) people in the armed forces are soldiers and officers while everyone else are civilians. I believe that 95% of people would classify the attack on the Indian Embassy as an attack on civilians.

I bailed out though for a slightly different reason – ambiguity in how the market was to be cashed out. In other words., how as “specifically targeted at civilians” going to be interpreted after lobbying by folks on both sided of the market.

There are multiple definitions of “civilian”, only one of which being “anything other than organized military”. For example defintion 2 from Dictionary.com based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary (© Random House, Inc. 2006).

ci·vil·ian
–noun 1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.

From Wikipedia: A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country’s armed forces. The term is also often used colloquially to refer to people who are not members of a particular profession or occupation, especially by law enforcement agencies, which often use rank structures similar to those of military units.

Based on the market creators failure to cash out the market based on the attack on Karzai and, subsequently, the attack on the Indian embassy as well as looking at WHEN the market was started (i.e. on the heels of a purely civilian attack by any definition – see link in my 7/7 8:07 comment), not to mention the stream of comments preceding close out, it seems relatively clear that the market creator had been running with a version of the informal/colloquial definition (i.e. military/law enforcement/government employees or operatives were non-civilian). It also appears that in e-mail exchanges in connection with prior prompts to close out the market (see mvguy’s 7/7 7:07 comment, for example), the intent was made clear.

Again, I bailed after the comment exchanges in early July on the basis that even though the intent now seemed pretty clear, heavy lobbying from the “organized military only” faction might push the market creator in a different direction. In retrospect, I should have hung on to my position.

Having said that, at a minimum anyone trading after the early July exchange should have been fully informed of the ambiguity as well as likely intent of the market creator as it was available for all to see.

I do not think our reasons were that different. I have checked several dictionaries, most of which not including the informal definition cited from the Random House dictionary. I believe that markets which do not state otherwise should be settled according to formal definitions and not colloquialisms and/or informal meanings (as these vary from location to location) and Inklingmarkets is not purely an American market. The following definition is tellingly the only definition in my Houghton-Mifflin, “civilian n. "A person not serving in the armed forces.” I bailed out close to the same time that you did.

I did the opposite of bailing out, sinking beaucoup inkles into the market (by selling short) when it became clear how narrowly the word “civilian” was being interpreted. (I would have considered the attack on Karzai an attack on civilians.)

So when the market was refunded this morning, my net worth dropped significantly (strangely, even as my ranking moved up a notch). Even so, I agree with the decision to refund the market. I would also suggest that the companion market be closed and refunded. I think it’s an excellent idea for a market, however, if the definitions were made clearer.