Update 2026-01-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Any ICE killing of a civilian within the 30-day period will count as a result of the Minneapolis shooting, regardless of whether there is a direct causal connection to the original incident.
Update 2026-01-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has indicated that current protests are fairly small compared to the Floyd ones and are more comparable to typical anti-ICE protests seen in 2025. This suggests a high bar for what would constitute "George Floyd-level protests" for resolution purposes.
Update 2026-01-08 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): George Floyd-level protests will count for resolution purposes if they become violent, regardless of their size.
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Border Patrol killings of civilians will count the same as ICE killings for the purpose of resolving "ICE kills another civilian."
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): For the purpose of resolving "ICE kills another civilian," ICE is being used as a catch-all term to describe all DHS officers on the mission, even if they are technically from other agencies (such as Border Patrol).
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Border Patrol killings of civilians will count the same as ICE killings for the purpose of resolving "ICE kills another civilian."
Update 2026-01-24 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that "ICE" in the answer option "ICE kills another civilian" was intended to mean federal agents broadly, not just ICE specifically. This confirms that killings by Border Patrol and other DHS officers on the mission will count for resolution purposes.
1,000People are also trading
@shankypanky Hi ! could you please take a look at the “ice kills another civilian “ resolution? Wasn’t it Border Patrol?
@GuyCohen Wait... but the question very clearly states "ICE", not border patrol. Regardless of what they're doing, the option very clearly specifies ICE, not border patrol.
@Qoiuoiuoiu ICE has kind of been used as a catch-all term to describe all of the DHS officers on the mission, even if it's technically not true.
@Qoiuoiuoiu Quibbling about which exact team did it, doesn't seem productive, useful, nor in the spirit of the question
I (and I assume at least some other traders) were trading by what it said - ICE agents. I think it would have been vanishingly easy to have put "Federal Agents" if that's what you actually meant.
Also, the issue of whether "ICE" means ICE or simply Federal Agents has been raised several times before in this market. Had you meant the term to include Federal Agents, I feel like you should have at least mentioned it in your market instead of having expected traders to simply have known it.
@Sketchy for others lacking context I assume we are referring to https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426
@Qoiuoiuoiu this maps to “ICE” on the public consciousness. I see my friends blaming ICE for it and these two agencies are doing similar work, I’m in favor of keeping resolution as is.
@KJW_01294 In the "Our Mission" section of "About Manifold", it states, "Combat misleading news by incentivising traders to be fast and correct".
While I agree that ICE and Border Patrol are quite similar, the fact remains that they are two separate agencies. By resolving this market YES, we are disincentivizing trading by what the answer actually says, and making future trading potentially less accurate.
@Qoiuoiuoiu the market creator is already using more precise terminology going forward, so I don’t think this resolution disincentivizes future accuracy. People who lose will raise a stink, future markets will get corrected and be more accurate, and life largely carries on.
@Qoiuoiuoiu exiting this market, resolving based on "this feels like it's close enough even though it doesn't meet the criteria" shakes my faith in correct resolutions from this creator on political markets going forward.
I have no dog in this fight, but I agree with @Qoiuoiuoiu.
Market creators (including me!) have a natural, but incorrect instinct to interpret our own words according to what we intended them to mean, when what really matters is their apparent meaning.
The unexpressed intentions of the market creator are irrelevant for the simple reason that traders are not mind readers, and have made trades on the understanding that the meaning of the text is as it appears.
It may be common for ICE and Border Patrol to be conflated or confused with each other in everyday parlance, but this is not the case in more formal contexts – e.g. if a major newspaper made this mistake, it would ordinarily correct itself. The level of factual precision expected of a prediction market is surely much closer to that of a news report than that of an informal conversation.
How Ukranians defeated their ICE in 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LF4ENh-8e0 Trump will ask asylum in Israel
ICE already shot civilians in Portland a day after the Minneapolis shooting.
Must the events in this market take place in Minneapolis count for YES, or should other areas count? I think that anywhere should count. ICE agent behavior is changing throughout the country in response to the MN shooting, so there’s at least a weak causal link.
ICE supposedly shot two more people in MN. Early indications are they’ll survive
(Sorry didn’t mean to @ you)