PASSCRX

The bold blue question at the top of the prop reads:

Will any 2008 production car achieve a higher gas mileage than the 1987 Honda Civic CRX?

Clearly, this prop was meant to cover cars and not motorcycles. Closing the prop now violates the spirit of the question. But leaving the prop open violates the letter of the question. What to do?

I would recommend freezing the prop for a week, and at the same time reword the prop to say exactly whatever PPX means it to say. Unfreeze it, and then let the market react accordingly. And the home page of PPX needs to have a big bold section discussing prop freezes and prop changes to let everyone know what's going on. And if you can't check your prop in 7 days, then you weren't following the game close enough anyway.

Maybe it's not the best solution. But we all know several props have bad wording. Why not fix them and give everyone a fair chance to rethink their respective positions?

"It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how!" (From the Cat in the Hat)

NO NO NO. a stock should never be reworded after it has went live. Granted the heading and the text indicate intent, but the payout statement is what the stock should halt and payout on. No stock should ever payout on what people are supposed to believe is its intent, it should only payout by what the payout statement says (whether it agrees with the intent or not).

Chef changing the prop once it is live does not give everyone a fair chance, it has the potential to punish those who read the payout statement. Now granted in this case it would have caught a lot of us off guard had ejcassel not alerted us before alerting admin, but that's part of the game.

Well that's alot of work that we'll have to do for alot of existing stocks, including ones that have already closed. Therefore, unless we are going to start going back and reopening stocks that closed based on their criteria, to see if they should have closed based on the "spirit" of the stock... well... let me know, cuz THAT is gonna be fun...

ejcassel
(ppxchat[dot]com... if the idea is twisted enough, we've discussed it there)

this is from the old forums posted by rabbit:
"It does say "production car" in the payout statement. I think there's a fairly standard definition that goes along that and the subsequent use of the more vague "vehicle" would refer to a vehicle that falls in the car category."

I submit that there is a comma seperated list of independent entries listed.

production car-hybrid, plug-in-electric or any other type of vehicle

Are we now moving from interpretive dance to interpretive English? At what point do we start honoring what we wrote and learn to write better the next time?

any other type of vehicle doesn't seem to be written ambiguously.

ejcassel
(ppxchat[dot]com... come to the chatroom and debate the definition of the word "is" with me)

ej, what's done is done. No going back.

roy, if you freeze it, fix it, keep it frozen for a week, MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT on the home page that indicates what's going on, most active players will be ready to react as soon as it's reopened. Maybe even try changing the color of the stock on the portfolio page to let you know something has changed. We all have been on a wave ride or two and know how to flip our stock position as necessary.

I'm just looking for a way to reconcile the letter of the stock with the spirit of the stock. Is that really so wrong?

i don't think it's a list of independent entries...they are all describing types of cars
(notice the hyphen, which would indicate a list of things that are cars)

any other type of vehicle would be some other kind of car besides a hybrid or plug in electric car...CAR

I think the point where we "learn to write better the next time" is right now. This prop is months old, possibly even written in 2007, just let this one go.

Again a live stock should never ever change. It should either be stopped and everyone made whole, or payout according to the payout statement.

pso7025 there is a clear difference between a car, and a vehicle, car being a subset of a greater category of vehicles. the Payout should not have included a general category if it was only specifying a subset.

Rabbit should have clarified the payout clause when it came up the last time. It says production car... OR any other type of vehicle.

While the old forums are still up, and a few people continue to post there, the current PPX system stopped linking to them 8 months ago. I don't think it's reasonable to expect players to continue searching there for information.

Under the law, typically any mechanical transportation device including bicycles counts as a vehicle.

I'm currently long, but don't much care what determination is made as long as folks understand what the payout clause means before it closes. (If motorcycles and bikes count, it's an obvious long, if they don't, it's an obvious short)

An example of a clarification I asked for that was posted on another prop is in MARSLIFE.

...2008 production car [HYPHEN] clause [HYPHEN] achieves a higher...

a clause set apart by hyphens in that manner is used to elaborate on the subject, in this case a 2008 production car. reading such elaboration to significantly alter the fundamental nature of the subject (production car becomes any damn thing, up to and including a child's tricycle) is not sensible, and should be discarded.

Chef:
So if I take vacation for two weeks and miss the chance to change or partake in the discussion because I was gone, but had purchased the stock based on the published criteria, now what? Changing wording in active stocks is bad. Remember the STS stock that couldn't close for months because they changed the wording after it was in progress.

Pso:
So because it might have been written in 2007 means the words had different definitions? Man... that brings a whole new meaning to having to keep the latest version of the dictionary or encyclopedia. The wording is bad, so what. We should follow the wording and write better in the future. OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF VEHICLE does not change it's meaning from year to year.

ejcassel
(ppxchat[dot]com... are we having fun yet?)

Hi Everyone--

I just visited PPXchat for the first time and discussed this with those of you who were in there--

The spirit of this prop, and the wording in its closeout criteria, do conflict, but the language is clear "any other type of vehicle"... So, we're going to close it and payout at Pop$100. We'll avoid this type of conflicted language in the future because I'll be watching, and so will you (we'll all be reviewing the language before stocks go live).

I'm gonna give this until Friday morning, so that there's plenty of time for everyone to collect themselves and adjust to the news. It was requested in the chatroom that I make what's going on known before closing. I'll post something on the stock itself and on the PPX homepage tomorrow, too.

xot

no what i meant was that it was written awhile ago therefore let it go...it's not like it was written yesterday...let's just go with roygbivs suggestion and give everyone their money back since it's not obvious what the solution should be since a past admin made a decision that the wording meant such and such...you may not agree with what the interpretation was but that's what was handed down as how the prop would be decided/closed.

Hmmmm... I don;t know if we can give everyone their money back. I will investigate. I kind of like that idea. We can certainly reimburse individuals when something's gone awry in computerland, but I'm not sure how labor-intense it is. In any case, if it's possible to do that on a large scale, that may be the best answer.

They gave us all our money back on the STS stock that they changed the wording on after it was active and trading.

It took months to do, and word was that it had to all be calculated by hand... have fun!

ejcassel
(ppxchat[dot]com... letting everyone know which way it's gonna pay accomplishes enough)

PLEASE don't give everyone their money back.

They did it once before, (on the STS stock) and it took months to get it done.

Almost anything other than closing it and not paying either way would be better.

also, since I've purchased and sold PASSCRX several times, sometime long, sometimes short... how do you tell which purchase price to reimburse?

ejcassel
(ppxchat[dot]com... reimbursement questions go on forever)

I'm okay with this solution. It does not address ej's point of being on vacation for two weeks. I guess mine didn't either. If you get to go on vacation for two weeks and completely walk away from the internet, then good for you! Sure, you'll lose some fake money, but ahhh the memories....

ejcassel: i would like to refer you to this comment you had earlier: "So if I take vacation for two weeks and miss the chance to change or partake in the discussion because I was gone, but had purchased the stock based on the published criteria, now what? "...so someone left for vacation and had it short, now they come back and lose a bunch of money? doesn't seem right to me...

when i said give them their money back, what i meant was if the stock is currently at $40, give them $40 per share. So it doesn't matter if you bought at $20 or $60, you're going to get $40 back

i wouldn't want to wait months again either for this to go through like sts but i don't think closing the stock on friday is the most fair thing to do

I don't like the idea of giving money back in an instance such as this. Instead, just payout based on the criteria.

Going by the only other "refund" we've had, I don't think this is a good idea. It took forever for it to happen, and some people (like me!) didn't get it at all.

I think that closing it at 100 is the best solution. Friday gives everyone a chance to switch it to long.

Props have been decided by the header at the top of the page first, and the payout line second, since the days of the aptly named Yog Sothoth. Anytime there was a discrepency between the two, the header at the top of the prop page took precedence.

Changing that now would be fine, but reserve that only after there's been a stated policy change. Don't enact the change without forewarning.

Also, whether motorcycles and ATV's would count was hashed out before. If I recall correctly, I started that argument shortly after this prop was released in a thread that has since been deleted from this forum. At that time I believe rabbit stated that only vehicles that would be registered as "automobiles" would count.

Getting a prop clarification on this would be nice, but paying it out would be silly since the issue of what vehicles are included had been decided long ago.

Vulgarian - I don't recall the earlier discussion from the old forums, but the old forums haven't been linked to the main site for 8 months.

I am surprised you would advocate ignoring the words in the payout clause when deciding how to pay on a proposition.

It's just not logical.

Taylor is the new admin, and she's shown interest in fixing things to the way they should be. Lets help her make things consistently correct.

Because of the confusion of how the prop would be interpreted, I suggested giving people advance warning of what would happen so everyone could fix their positions.

It seems like the fair thing to do since the wording was ambiguous.

Rayman from the ppxchat chat room wasn't able to post in this thread, but this is what he wanted to say about this topic:

_______________________________________________________________
23 September 23:48:51 PT in #ppx Rayman wrote:

Vulgarian, I quote you:
*************************************************************
Props have been decided by the header at the top of the page first, and the payout line second, since the days of the aptly named Yog Sothoth. Anytime there was a discrepency between the two, the header at the top of the prop page took precedence
*************************************************************
Cite please? My guess is this is anectdotal evidence

Please disregard the previous post, I didn't receive the entire message before I posted it. Upon receiving his email I will post the entire message.

I have to agree ejcassel on this one, it states exactly that and this is the part that ends the argument

"any other type of vehicle available for purchase in North America in numbers greater than 1,000 models-achieves a higher gas mileage than the 1987 Honda Civic CRX."

It says any and that the end of the story, unless somebody changes it? it makes no statment about not allowing Bikes or scooters.

I would normally stay out of this kind of thing but it says it in clear english

I have to agree ejcassel on this one, it states exactly that and this is the part that ends the argument

"any other type of vehicle available for purchase in North America in numbers greater than 1,000 models-achieves a higher gas mileage than the 1987 Honda Civic CRX."

It says any and that the end of the story, unless somebody changes it? it makes no statment about not allowing Bikes or scooters.

I would normally stay out of this kind of thing but it says it in clear english

Hey Guys,

We're going to close the stock on Friday because of the "any other vehicle" thing, and also sweep these "wretchedly" worded stocks out of the game by having our stock review period go live (also Friday).

Funtana, no need to stay out of this kind of thing-- this is what community's all about, and it's good to get all perspectives. Welcome to the discussion.

Thanks to you all for your flexibility and help figuring this out.

Best,

t

NOSEEUM is one of those poorly worded ones. It says that scientists have announced a material that absorbs all visible light then goes on to talk about bending light and how difficult that is, but then the win/lose prop is if scientist announce a material that absorbs all visible light which it says above has been announced.

Hey Dakota,

Hmmm... Good point. I'll ask our prop writer and team here what the thought was behind this and what'll determine the clouseout (if, in fact, it's acknowledged in the stock as having already happened).

I'll get back to you on this.

Thanks!

Taylor

I logged one day to find that I lost money and found that PASSCRX was de-listed as long. Why? There was no car on sale that exceeded the CRX mileage so I checked this forum to find out why it was de-listed.

I rarely check the forums and wasn't even aware that this stock was being closed as a long because it was poorly worded (like so many other propositions). There was no advanced notification anywhere.

Saying that this stock will close on Friday to give everyone any opportunity to change to long doesn't make any sense, either. Not everyone checks PPX daily. So why should those who weren't aware that this was guaranteed to be a long be punished?

Sorry, I don't like it when that happens either. But what I've learned is that situations like these are why you check the forums at least once a day. It's a game just like any other game: if you don't move fast, you get left behind.

There's no use getting upset about it. Just use it as a learning experience. The notice was several days in advance. The payout was based on a literal understanding of the prop, as you can see in ejcassel's original post above.

Look, kaiibz, if that is your name, your planet has been on
the demolition chart for 43 million years for this hyperspace
bypass, if you would have bothered to step by the planning
office you could have complained. It's to late now.
Keep up to date. This is a game you know.

Hi Kaiiibz,

I'm sorry you didn't see this coming; it was a weird one and we could have gone either way with it... Anyway, it's closed now, and we've implemented a new prop review system wherein we clarify stocks before they go live so that a) you don't have to get used to unclear wording in stocks, and b)this doesn't happen again.

Have you signed up for the PPX news RSS feed? My update in the news section last week was the first in months, but there'll be more regular updates now, and if you get the RSS feed, any big announcements will be sent directly to your inbox.

I also welcome you to come rock the forums more often, especially in reviewing new stocks. Thanks for your feedback, and again, I'm sorry this one came outta left field for you. We did what we could to alert members ahead of time.

Best,

Taylor

Closing this long CLEARLY shreds the intent of this prop, even if you can find techinicalities that support the screwed up wording.
The entire prop, less the closing statement repeatedly refers to cars, so using mototrcyles to "prove" the prop true is complete garbage.
Anyone who originally bought this stock was clearly thinking of passenger cars/trucks when they saw it. Only later did some people look for an opportunity to make money and start arguing in favor of the long position.