I will not trade.
Update 2025-12-18 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator will distinguish between a summons and a meeting when determining resolution. A foreign minister meeting with the ambassador does not necessarily constitute a summons. The creator is investigating whether specific events qualify as a summons.
Update 2025-12-30 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator is conducting additional research to find an official or tie-breaking source to determine whether the event qualifies as a summons (an official act denoting disagreement and protest) versus a regular meeting. The creator may call for moderator assistance if needed but wants to make a good faith effort at proper research first.
Update 2026-01-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has found new evidence that strongly biases them towards resolving YES. They are awaiting results of an inquiry about whether there is a central record of diplomatic actions, but the new source appears to reconcile previous conflicting reports about whether the event was a summons.
1,000People are also trading
I have found this new link, and also made an inquiry about whether there is a central record of diplomatic actions. Pending the results of my inquiry, this new link strongly biases me towards resolving yes, as it seems to reconcile the disparity between the AP article and the Socialist party organ media view.
@traders I have hit an unanticipated snag in that the library I was going to consult is shut for the parliamentary recess here in Finland. I should have known. But I didn't. Mexican government website for the public is unhelpful. Help is appreciated, but I do have recourse to further resources to consult.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen it is going to come down to your interpretation of the word “summons”.
From my perspective, I linked to an article that called it a summons. You disagreed. That’s fine; that is your right.
I don’t know how you are going to be able to distinguish a meetings from a summons or frankly even why that distinction matters.
I’d suggest doing one of the following:
Resolving to a probability (say 50%).
Pinging mods and asking for an uninvolved person’s opinion.
Deciding the market terms were ambiguous and resolving to N/A.
Any of those options seems reasonable to me.
@MRME I sort of wish I had resolved immediately on the socialist newspaper's headline. But I made a decision to look for a second source, and that second source was AP. At that point I had a problem. Having made the decision to look for a second source, when the second source didn't provide unambiguous support, it would have been problematic to resolve YES then and there, since I had made the initial decision to look for corroborating sources. In my own mind that would have been false dealing.
Where I am at is before calling for mods help, which I will do if needed, I will make a good faith effort at finding a tie breaking source, as close to official as possible. Are you in a rush? If you are in a rush, then of course I have no objection to an expedited resolution through a call by mods.
On the meaning of a summons, it is an official act, denoting specifically disagreement and protest, rather than conciliation per se. It would appear that perhaps there are different messages projected on different audiences, which makes the issue touchy. And purely for fun I would like to practise proper research, unless you are in a hurry.
@JussiVilleHeiskanen I sold out of my position, took the loss, and moved on. So at this point I’m only following to learn something.
In my opinion (obviously given my bet), this should have resolved to yes.
It didn’t and that’s fine. But I don’t feel like I understand the fundamental issue well enough to offer advice.
@traders Have patience. I am taking this as a research challenge. I really don't want a lazy/incorrect resolution.
This frames the situation as the foreign minister meeting the ambassador, not a summons. I will investigate the status of the meeting further
