Might distill it when (if) it's up, find out what's hiding.

Apparently it's more likely to be about mexicans than be about immigration? 🤷‍♂️

edit : That's better :) people moved the market so they're the right way round now.

If it’s a redirect, would “it contains at least some text” resolve NO?

@Lovix unless otherwise clarified, it will be judged based on if the redirected page contains text.

I think this market has more faith in the USA government than me.

@AlanTennant Just the landing page, or anywhere on the site?

@Quroe Anywhere aliens.gov, X.aliens.gov, aliens.gov/Y, or X.aliens.gov/Y where the X and Y can be anything.

The banner/notice must be prominently displayed to the user upon landing on the page. For example, if it is subtext at the bottom of the page, and the user may need to scroll to get to it, it doesn't count.

Any VPN is valid as long as it is set to tunnel to any location within New York state.

@creator The intent is to resolve this NO if the site doesn't have anything on it at all before the deadline unless it conflicts with any other default rulings you have stated.

@creator Is my intent in alignment with your comment here? If not, yours understandably overrides mine.

@Quroe had you not said anything I would have N/Aed, but I’m happy to resolve to whatever guideline you want. Let’s just decide so traders have clarity.

@benmanns I would rather the market answer be consistent with the rules you are laying out for all of the other ones, but I'll be honest and say that there is a driving force to chase new trader bonuses. If it N/As, the bonuses are clawed back.

Is there succinct wording we can incorporate into my market answers that would make it obvious to traders that it defaults to NO?

This is also the intent behind the redirect market answer too. I imagined in my head that it would default to NO if there is no site at all before May 1.

I don't have edit powers for my answers, but I would like to suggest adding this line to my 2 answers on the board:

(If no site before deadline, resolves NO.)

@benmanns You're the best. ☺️

@LoganTurner Heads up. You're the biggest YES holder on the redirect market. Does this clause affect how you view your position?

@Quroe I'm good with the added clause. Thanks for checking!

"unequivocally state UAP craft exist" is too high; assuming "craft" is defined as some sort of machine or vehicle. I hope this isn't going to be resolved yes because it is unequivocal about the phenomenon having an objective explanation.

I'm assuming "It's about extraterrestrial life" resolves as YES, even if ETs are only referenced obliquely in the context of a popular explanation for UFOs/UAPs?

@DylanRichardson Yes, I think it should.

Aliens as a legal term meaning foreigners is so embedded in official processes that I seriously doubt any UAP content will be hosted directly at that domain. Redirects from colloquial words at dot gov do happen: flu.gov is an example. Willing to bet kṀ that this will end up either as nothing, as a redirect only, or as stuff for foreign nationals.

@LoganTurner a redirect seems plausible, but with literally every single news article and public conversation about this assuming UAPs, this would have to be a massive troll to be foreigners. Admittedly that's not impossible, but still.

Would generally being about illegal immigrants count as being about Mexicans?

@AAR discussed somewhat here. General illegal immigrants include Mexicans, so Yes. If it's about Haitian immigrants eating dogs in Springfield, but not Mexicans, then no.

@PhantomHazard just to be clear for all the new traders on this question, these are the terms that we are betting on:

If the site unequivocally (explicitly, without any doubt) states that aliens or any other form of advanced non-human intelligence (NHI) exist as a confirmed fact, this resolves NO.
This applies even if the site also confirms the existence of UAP craft. The “but does not” clause is strict, so any definitive confirmation of NHI disqualifies a YES outcome.

• If the site unequivocally states that UAP craft (i.e., physical drones, weapons systems, or vehicles) exist, but does NOT definitively state that aliens/NHI exist, this resolves YES.
  This includes cases where aliens/NHI are discussed, hypothesized, suspected, or considered likely, but not confirmed as fact.

• Unequivocal standard:
  Aliens/NHI must be explicitly and definitively stated to exist (as a factual claim) to trigger a NO resolution.
  Statements such as “possible,” “likely,” “believed to,” “suspected,” or similar do not meet this standard and therefore do not trigger a NO resolution.

I assume all the answers that are not "site has content by …" resolve N/A if the site never appears.

@AlanTennant I think N/A if the site doesn’t ever appear is fair, but I’d say an extended close date, such as a year since registration, would make sense. Any strong opinions @traders?

@benmanns I'd prefer an NA over waiting a year personally since I bet with the expectation of a short term investment, but I'll defer to the majority opinion.

@benmanns A bunch of us answer-makers have been baking the May 1 deadline in to ensure that the close date of this market means something. I've been hoping the close date implied a deadline for default resolutions, but it hasn't been made explicit in the description, so I've been hesitant to trade on most of these up to this point.

@Quroe Ok, fair. That was a concern. Let's leave it as May 1 unless otherwise specified.