while I bump this, I want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!

I am also shocked by this closure. I'll go searching for the thread where the reason was discussed.
This suggests an improvement/change. Could inactive proposals include a link to the information or at least some details of why it was closed.

grusso7 made this same improvement suggestion in the PPXwishlist thread.

Frankly, I'm a little shocked by the disapproval of this payout. NapkinG and I made our contributions in the CONGESTN thread in this forum several days before the payout. Our comments sat there with no response, no discussion... nothing.

Now the suggestion that this payout be announced well in advance would have been saying "HEY! IF YOU DON'T READ THE FORUM AND YOU DON'T WANT TO DO RESEARCH, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE TO GET A PAYOFF!!!"

No way. That's like a lottery announcing the winning numbers before the drawing date. As it is, NapkinG and I laid out how this should be a long payout in the forum and it sat there for comment or criticism for days... over a WEEKEND, ferchrisake... before it paid out.

There's no excuse for dispute here. Public knowledge was discussed publicly for review, well in advance of the payout.

I would agree with you completely Vulgarian if this prop was closed based on a recent event. But this was very old info and not intended for the spirit of the prop. Otherwise, as you stated in your discussion thread, it would have opened and closed long in the same instant. Spirit of the prop violations deserve PPX commentary.

And the fact that it sat there for days without PPX admin. discussion makes it worse to me. As your thread started to develop, I quickly changed from short to long. But as days went by, it looked like PPX didn't agree due to lack of closure or commentary. So I flipped back to long. Only at the prodding of napkinG at the end of the discussion did I revert back to short.

Following the forums is important if you want to keep up with the game. But closing a prop that has been open for a year or more based on events that transpired before the prop ever opened, that doesn't sound fair to me. At the very least, Taylor or others should have weighed in with an explanation prior to closing.

You're treading a very fine line here chef. I do agree that the admins should begin producing the reasoning for why stocks close the way they do. A simple update to the stock page after it closes with appropriate links would do wonders.

Yes, the proof that the prop would close long had already occurred before the stock went live. Yes, if we had an omniscient overseer this would not have happened but I don't think God would himself get involved with this stock exchange. So, we're stuck with mere humans to run and participate. (unless you believe in vampires among us)

It is a collective job for all involved to continue to research these topics to see whether they have been satisfied or not. It is also the responsibility of every trader to become educated in the stocks which they are trading in. The reason this 'San Diego I-15' knowledge was only discovered now is because the stock is now in the spotlight. Had anyone done the same research back when it went live, it would've closed right awawy. (none of the quotes vulgarian and I showed were released in the past year).

-NapkinG-

PS. (as an aside, this is one reason why I find the 'occurred by' method to be less than ideal [there's always the outside chance that someone else in the world did it first] but we're using it so we need to accept all its consequences)

I lost money on this one. I haven't been checking the forums lately because I'd like to believe that words in English actually mean what the dictionary says they mean rather than the variable translations of English you often see posted here.

Despite that, Vulgarian and NapkinG were accurate on this. After the closing of CNGSTN I did further research and found that the Dept of Transportation has published a document on the their website called "Congestion Pricing: A Primer". I have not put a link as I don't want to be flagged as a spammer by PopSci. If you look up that document it lists multiple examples of existing Congestion Pricing in the US, including the one cited to close the stock.

The last time a ruling was made that determined a stock's criteria had been met before the stock was even written there was a warning given (PASSCRX). However, there have also been times when proof of criteria being met was provided to admins including Taylor for months without the stock closing, to the point where it was discussed that maybe those example didn't count because they'd been going on before the stock was written (PLANECELL). Now this time there was no comment by admins and it closed in a couple days.

Is one way better or "more fair" than the other? Probably not. Does it matter which way it's done? Not really. Is it important that it be consistently handled the same way every time? ABSOLUTELY.

Despite all the technical issues that plague PPX, it's the issues created by the management of the system that create the harshest arguments in this forum. I'll not side with one way of doing it or another, but whichever way is chosen, it MUST be done that way consistently.

ejcassel

Completely agree with ejcassel.

This proposition should have paid based on the statement of the paid out that a city must pass such law (from the time when the stock was announced) until January 1st. So the statement is in future terms no past terms. Dane already mentioned this and is a fact. Whoever was responsible for this stock paying the way it did, again is letting people affect his/her judgment (which in my opinion after several other fiascos demonstrate a total lack of it). So where is the consistency in judgment? Remember when he/she first announces Noseeum to the whole forum on how is going to payout, and now in a very similar situation he/she does not. Do we take the paid out statement and we twisted it around when it favors his/her friends and then in another cases we go by what it says?
I really cannot tolerate this attitude but I have no other choice if none else complains. I’m for raising my voice and complaining when something is unfair at least I get out of me and I feel better because I done my part. I think we all have to come together on this and use the paid out statement as it is posted and nothing else. No strange and twisted interpretations, not on using the mentioned “spirit of the proposition” but the actual words of the payout statement. And as I said on this statement is clearly given in future terms. But even if you go with the related information when it was posted it is clear that HOV lines or adjusted carpool fees were not intended on the “spirit of the proposition”.
So cheft? How about this one? Don’t we need a review panel in cases like this with a fair ruling? You see anyways I was right in Aging and I’m still right on this one. You accused me on Aging for using the paid out statement on my benefit even if it was a mistake when it came out, but now is you the one that gets burned.
And Vulgarian makes me laugh he accuses me on Aging also on his last post and now he is doing the same thing on this one. Go figure.

I agree with just about everything ejcassel said. This was an honest mistake made by PPX in the prop. This is a form of congestion pricing that was already in existence that met the conditions of the prop from the go. In cases, like this, I think PPX should give players notice. Heck, I don't even mind if they give major bonus bucks to those who do the research and find the mistakes. But months of trading has occurred assuming that nothing new has happened. I believe the spirit of the prop was asking will something new happen, and so far nothing new has happened.

My good buddy gru. What AM I going to do with you? I was not burned on this prop. I followed the discussion closely and I came out a winner. Vulgarian was exactly right in his AGING evaluation, and was right to ask this prop to close. Again, I say this ship has sailed. No take-backs. I wrote this to ask for a better way to handle closing flawed props in the future. I'm glad you could vent through this thread, but I consider myself to be "someone", and I complained. And adjusted carpool fees is exactly what this prop had in mind, a way to reduce congested areas. You may argue its success, but not its intent. But don't get discouraged gru, I'm still your buddy!

chef(t?)

chef-
Oh, where do I start?? The problem that grusso and I have with people like vulgarian and others is that in one prop (CNGSTN), he argues for the letter of the law and says it should go long because of laws passed before the prop was even written, and then in other props (NOSEEUM), he argues for the spirit of the law by saying that 99.95% of light is good enough to pay long on a prop that clearly states "all" light.
The 2 major flaws with this exchange are first, there is absolutely ZERO consistency with how props are interpreted and paid on, and the second one is what I think grusso is trying to say: the ultimate decision makers are being influenced by a select vocal few who are also participating in the exchange and are therefore inherently biased in their opinions.
I would love to see a set of rules established to be applied evenly to all props. There are scenerios that are bound to crop up that the writers could not have predicted. Either go with the spirit of the prop or the letter of the prop. Pick one, I don't care which, but stick to just one PLEASE!!

huntjorg; There has been nothing inconsistent about where I stand on prop payouts. I have consistently gone by the payout line, and used the additional information provided to look for clarification on what props actually mean or want... but I don't use that information to change the understanding of the payout line from what the written word actually says.

Now on the 99.95% thing... if you recall, the prop said "all", not 100%. "All" is a looser term. If a few crumbs remain in a pie tin, you would say the pie is "all" gone. If you spilled some sand on the floor and swept it up you would say you got it "all" even though microscopic grains certainly still remain. For all practical usages, if 5 TEN THOUSANDTHS of the original sample remained you would say the sample is "ALL" gone.

And science and technology acknowledge this fact by employing a standard of deviation. If a measurment is accurate within .05%, it's considered in almost all cases to be close enough to 100% to satisfy that standard. (Yes, I know there are machining and technology and chemical standards that are stricter... that's why I said "almost all").

And don't forget, I stepped into the NOSEEUM discussion because I was opposed to paying it out on the basis of a single reference in a Toronto newspaper that claimed a "cloaking material" had been demonstrated. My arguments were 1.) that the article was wrong, and 2.) that the "cloaking" aspect of nano technology did NOT fit the prop's payout line.

Finally, grusso7, the payout line was "This proposition will pay out at POP$100 per share if any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more passes legislation at the city or state level approving a congestion pricing plan before January 1, 2009." It did not specify a start date, and does not specify that it had to be in the future. Really, by this wording if London had charged a fee to enter the city with a horse in the 1800's, it would have fit the prop as well. There is NO stipulation that it had to be in the future.

If either of these props had been closed on a basis other than the payout line or on bad (or misinterpreted) information, I'd be kicking and screaming (as I have done in the past). But in both cases they closed on sound information and by the letter of the payout lines.

Now why don't you go over to my request to close MYSPACE and start looking for something to complain about there. Don't forget to change your positions so the payout goes your way this time.

It's a nice theory, huntjorg, but not easy to put into practice. The problem comes with the nature of the flawed props. In almost all these props, there is a problem with the wording of the prop. And each prop has different types of wording flaws, not all flaws are the same. Therefore, each flawed prop must be judged on the issue of the flaw and treated accordingly.

CNGSTN's problem was meeting the terms of the prop from the start. Letter and spirit were both covered.

NOSEEUM's problem was about what the prop meant. It was debated and found to be close enough based on poor wording. Don't ask me to defend the decision, I'm just saying it had a different issue.

SCRABULOUS's problem is that it has no end date and could go until the end of time. That prop will probably be changed to give an end date. The letter of this prop makes this prop useless, and the letter of the prop will be altered to create an end date.

AGING's problem was the issuing of the incorrect payout statement. In this case the spirit of the prop was needed to correct the obvious flaw.

PASSCRX's problem was a fight between the letter of the prop vs. the spirit of the prop. After debate, PPX decided to go with the letter of the prop. Many disagreed (including myself), but PPX let us know what was going to occur due to the wording conflict.

And these are just the recent props with problems.

Poor wording by the prop writers led to most of these problems. The severity of the problem determines the type of correction. And this leads me to my original point for starting this thread. Since you cannot treat all flawed props the same, PPX should try to give the players a note to inform us about their rulings prior to carrying them out.

And I don't get why vulgarian should be attacked. He is free to make any argument he so chooses, even if he contradicts himself. He doesn't have any special friendship with Taylor (or others at PPX) that gives his ideas special weight. If you don't like the ruling, complain about the judges, not the players.

Vulgarian: "…a population of 1 million or more passes legislation at the city or state level". Passes is the key word here that tells you that this proposition is giving in future terms. London in 1800 was close to a million in population (about 959000 people) but was not a million so it would have not qualified unless we use your approximation method again but neither is within the U.S. boundaries so still would not had worked although you would had argue that it is close enough to be considered an American city.
Also with your point of view if you go to a bank and you withdraw $1,000,000 dollars and they only give you $995,000 and they stiff you with $5000, are you going to be ok? Or will you complain to get all of your money?
No matter how you twisted “all of the light” is just what it means all of it and not 99.95% like you pretend and twisted to be. Also here is clear as rain that the proposition CNGSTN was giving in future terms since it says “passes” and not “has passed”. Anyways I congratulated you on making your tactics work for you.

grusso7: in vulgarian's example, he explained the standard of deviation piece which allows him to say that 99.95% is 100%. This is for science and technology. Your bank example is completely different.

To give you a concrete example: if I have a 1K resistor and I measure the ACTUAL resistance, I might get 0.99K or even 1.002K ohms. However, since this is within the acceptable range (for most applications), it's considered a 1K resistor even though it might not be exactly 1K

I have no opinion on this, I just wanted to explain that your bank example is different than what vulgarian was trying to explain.

ye gods... I've been caught rounding....

Oh wow. Guys-- sorry I am just getting to this now. Catching up post-vacation and all. Anyway, I will read this whole debate (which looks, for the most part, like it's been intelligently and politely conducted-- thumbs up) in detail and do some investigating and considering, and then respond.

First-- I've gotten this far:

"I do agree that the admins should begin producing the reasoning for why stocks close the way they do. A simple update to the stock page after it closes with appropriate links would do wonders. "

I like this idea-- I'm looking into the best way to incorporate this.

Thanks!

t

taylorhengen:

Well is good you finally made it here I hope you got an idea of what I’m going to talk about. I still had a problem as how NOSSEUM, CNGSTN, and AGING were handled. Many like me have been bothered by the lack of consistency and the rushing of paying out on “controversial” stocks or the announcement of how a stock is going to paid out (so people can adjust their positions, inside trading). Now having said that what can you do to make amends? Moreover what can you do so this does not happen again?
Here are a few suggestions:
1st If a stock went live and it has already been purchased by some users please do not change the paid out statement. This is completely out of line no matter if you made a mistake. From the point it went live that is it the payout statement cannot change.
2nd If someone makes a point on why a stock should pay out and you feel that it should pay out do not rushed to a decision. First halt the stock so no more trading can occur and none can adjust their positions. Get a panel or some expert to review the proposition without any bias if needed. At the same time allow the forums to counter any arguments for up to a month. Later after all arguments have been presented announce if the conditions have been met or not and pay or un-halt the stock accordingly.
3rd If the paid out statement deals on absolutes do not approximate. In NOSSEUM “all of the light” means exactly that, all of it, not approximations to 99.95%. Standard deviations are not exact measurements but rather an averaged. In CNGSTN unless the rules of English have changed the paid out statement is giving in future terms “…if any U.S. city with a population of 1 million or more passes legislation at the city or state level approving a congestion pricing plan before January 1, 2009." The word “Passes” and “approving” clearly states that it is giving in future sense specially if taken with the context within the statement is giving. (I did took the time to ask to an English Professor about it) So basically let’s use the paid out statements as it is and not a vague form of interpretation or whatever spirit some people like to summon.

Now I feel that you have the power to make some amendments, perhaps you see eye to eye with me and perhaps not but still I’m going to ask for this. Since you announce to the forum how NOSSEUM was going to pay and people adjusted their positions accordingly that you discretely deposit in my account PPX $100000 to make up for the manner on how this stock was handled by benefiting only those who venture into this forums and had the time to read them every day. Secondly if you realized that the ruling with NOSSEUM and CNGSTN were inconsistent in the way they paid (one using the spirit of the prop and the other not) I’m also going to ask for another $100000 to be deposited in my account. I will not fuzz about it and it will be between us. In exchange I promise not to bring these issues or ever mention them again.
Best regards.

giggle chortle guffaw...

I can't decide which lines made me laugh harder:

"I did took the time to ask to an English Professor about it"

"I’m also going to ask for another $100000 to be deposited in my account. I will not fuzz about it and it will be between us. In exchange I promise not to bring these issues or ever mention them again."

I've gotta give you credit for being ballsy, grusso7. First, you criticized someone for not understanding verb tenses while COMPLETELY butchering verb tenses yourself. Second, you publicly asked for under-the-table hush money.

Unfortunately, you've put Taylor in a bit of a pickle. If you no longer post complaints, we will all assume that you have received your hush money, and we will all complain until we get ours. So to throw us off the scent, you will have to throw in the occasional complaint. But that would defeat the point of the hush money. Hmmm, what's an admin to do?

WOW. My mind is agape in awe.

I already told you cheft in a previous post I just went to a regular college and I’m not an English mayor. This is why I had to ask him. (My ex-English 101 professor does consulting for the same Engineering firm where I work for, he revises our environmental reports).
If making fun of people with not such a great talent as you have for writing is your thing go for it but I find it kind of shallow since does little for the matter of this post. Why don’t you open a new post titled “Grammatical mistakes by grusso7” and then we can argue about it there instead of on this post? You see sometimes I may take time to edit my grammar sometimes I really don’t have it and I just post the way it goes. I thought that I have already apologized for doing so. I apologized again and admit my error if that makes you feel better. And for the 100K you are going to have to eat your heart out because I’m not telling. But I remind you that you gave me de idea in a different post about asking directly for amends and I thank you very much.

gru,

Perhaps making light of your poor grammar was not the best thing for me to do. What I should have done is this:

Grusso7, your grammar is poor. You have lectured me about not knowing how business works. Now it's my turn. In business, it is important to communicate effectively. That means when you type a message for others to read, it needs to be fairly well written. Your grammatical mistakes make your posts hard to read, and that translates into others not being interested in your message. I know this from experience. The owner of my company is Chinese. His English is poor. He is a very intelligent man, and understands a great deal of technical issues that I do not. However, we, the employees, have basically told him to stop answering the incoming phone calls, because his poor English hurts our business. Your poorly written posts detract from your message. If you don't think you can write them well by yourself, then I would ask you to get someone to proofread them for you. Don't worry about how long it takes for you to get your message out. Popsci is not going anywhere. It will reflect much better on you if you take an extra week to get your message out correctly versus rushing something out that is hard to fight through.

It does not matter what school you did or did not attend.

Having said that, I am glad that you are emailing Taylor directly to get what you want. That is the best avenue to take if you are dissatisfied. But telling everyone in the forums that you will stop bringing up issues if you are credited with large amounts of fake money is very poor form. I for one would rather see the issues come out, whether I agree or disagree. And do you believe the best route to take is for everyone to follow your example and bombard the PPX admins with every problem they've experienced playing this game and ask for hush money?

Now how about I get to some of those points you had.

1. Taylor has already said she will make changes to props as she sees fit, whether to clarify, correct obvious mistakes, etc. The game should be about the intent of the question, not about stumbling over someone's poor word choices.

2. You want to halt a stock for a month while it is debated on proper closure? It doesn't affect my account, but it will affect most of the players who don't have extra money, which is just about everyone outside the top 15 players. I agree some discussion might be needed, but only on a case-by-case basis. Long term holds across the board will hurt the quality of the game. Since the PPX admins are not players in the game, they are a neutral party, and can therefore rule impartially on closings. Just because you disagree with the ruling does not mean it is a biased ruling.

3. NOSEEUM has been discussed in another thread, and the ruling has been made. It was a poorly worded prop and was doomed to have problems. Nothing will change. CNGSTN has yet to have a significant comment made by Taylor or other PPX admins.

And whatever megabucks you get from emailing Taylor, please DO NOT tell me, gru. I do not want to know. My ignorance is my bliss.

Grusso,

I appreciate your suggestions for how we can tighten up the game, but not your trying to pressure me (or bribe me with future silence on these issues)... You are not owed 'amends'. We adjust accounts only when there has been a technical error or an extreme circumstance that merits obvious reimbursement. If you were to receive what you're asking for, this game would fall to pieces... everyone would want their accounts adjusted for all kinds of reasons.

What we are doing is looking closely at what hasn't worked in the past, looking at where the inconsistencies have been, and tightening up the game so that it is as fair and fun as possible.

Thanks,

Taylor