An example of what I'm imagining would be like if markets added to US Politics or UK Politics also showed up in Politics. Further, markets added to, say, California Politics would show up in US Politics and Politics. In other words, these hierarchies would be arbitrarily deep. Another interpretation of this concept might be if the "Communities" featured on the Groups page were themselves groups that users could create and manage like any other group.
This market resolves "YES" if anything resembling this concept exists by the end of 2024. Otherwise, this market resolves "NO" instead.
1,000
1.00@cos I think this resolves YES. Sinclair implemented this a few weeks ago. Groups have "subtopics", so there's a nested structure.
this isn't quite the maximalist version described in the description. but the description to me seems pretty clear—it outlines two potential versions of this, and says
This market resolves "YES" if anything resembling this concept exists by the end of 2024. Otherwise, this market resolves "NO" instead.
This is not exactly the example described in the description, but it's certain'y "anything resembling this concept". ("subtopics" had been requested for a while)
@Bayesian you’re welcome to buy the rest I think this is straightforward but I require a large risk premium when dealing with subjective resolutions (which I dislike getting bogged down in)
@Ziddletwix sounds good, I'll argue on your behalf if there is need for someone to get bogged down into this... (I don't mind subjective resolutions personally)
This is interesting. Voting YES because this seems like a logical feature to have.
Although I am curious to see how it might be implemented. Could a group belong to two or more parent groups? probably. Would want to make sure though that you couldn't end up with a cyclical recursion relationship between groups. So there might need to be a test for loops or some other validation to enforce one direction hierarchy.