This market will resolve to YES if any evidence (however tenuous) suggesting the incident on August 10, 2019, involving Jeffrey Epstein involved fowl play is released by December 31, 2025, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to NO.
Fowl play includes (but may not be limited to) any involvement of chickens (both live or rubber), eggs or other game, land or water fowl related business. Non-fowl related poultry will not count (I see you Señor Struthioniformes).
Statements from the U.S. government indicating that there was fowl play will qualify for a "Yes" resolution.
The primary resolution source for this market will be official information from any US government agency, gossip rag, and Instagram stories, however a consensus of semi-credible comments may also be used.
For more information about the various forms of fowl see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowl
Update 2025-07-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator notes that this is not a serious market. As an example of the resolution criteria's limits, they stated that a very tenuous link—such as an allegation that Epstein had an egg-shaped penis—would probably be insufficient (but not by much) to resolve the market to YES.
Update 2025-07-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a user question, the creator has clarified that this market is strictly about fowl (e.g., birds, eggs).
Reports of foul play, in the common sense of wrongdoing, will not be sufficient to resolve this market to YES. The creator noted a separate market exists for that specific term.
Update 2025-07-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a user, the creator has specified how a typo of 'fowl play' (when 'foul play' was intended) would be handled:
A typo in a print publication would resolve the market to YES.
A typo in a digital publication may be sufficient, depending on the prominence of the source and how long the error remains uncorrected.
Update 2025-07-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): In response to a user question, the creator has stated they are leaning towards not accepting parody/satirical sites (e.g. The Onion) as valid sources for a YES resolution, but are open to persuasion.
Update 2025-07-12 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has clarified that sources on the level of InfoWars, TMZ, or CNN would be accepted for a YES resolution.
They are still seeking user feedback on whether to also accept articles from satirical/parody sites.
1,000
1.00Make your cases for accepting satirical/parody site articles here!
I'm bias towards sources needing to be at least somewhat real (if not completely credible*) but I feel like the market will be more fun if it didn't instantly go to zero.
What sayeth the gallery?
*Sources on the level of InfoWars, TMZ or CNN would definitely count.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer Private Eye should definitely count. What about Daily Show and The Late Show?
@JussiVilleHeiskanen I'm on board with Daily Show, Late Show, The Onion, Click Hole, and any other arguably well known outlet counting for this market.
At the very least, I believe that if I held YES shares (and for the record, I hold NO shares currently), and if I saw any comedic/satirical article or piece covering this story involving avian shenanigans, I would definitely be broadcasting what I found and preparing my best Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney impression for you all.
I will not be the fun police on an obviously satirical market. I formally argue for and side with validating the satirists.
If you want a more supported argument for why I think my point of view is strong, I point to the loose, wishy-washy wording seen here:
This market will resolve to YES if any evidence (however tenuous) suggesting the incident on August 10, 2019, involving Jeffrey Epstein involved fowl play...
@Quroe maybe draw the line at not accepting pure punning spelling, and only counting actual fictive birds
For clarification (it's the internet) this is not a serious market
Thus - Epstein allegedly had an egg shaped penis -> his penis is what got him in trouble -> if he were not in trouble he would not have died - Would probably be insufficient to resolve YES, but not by a massive amount...
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer If they instead say there was, "foul play," but not, "fowl play," would that count?
@Quroe - There's a market for that - https://manifold.markets/evan/jeffrey-epstein-foul-play-confirmed?r=UGF1bEJlbmphbWluUGhvdG9ncmFwaGVy
@Quroe I would definitely accept a print publication declaring 'fowl play' when they meant foul play, unsure where I'd stand if digital only (would come down to the major-ness of the publication/how long it took them to correct the error...)
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer You know what? I'll take that chance. I'll set this market to match the other at time of comment.
@PaulBenjaminPhotographer Do Click Hole or The Onion articles count? (I don't think such an article exists yet, but just checking.)
@Quroe I'm thinking no (to parody/satirical sites) but open to persuasion?
On one hand, it seems like both shenanigans and open to abuse, on the other YES needs all the help it can get?
I'll make a top level question and see what the vibe is?