An idea from @redacted:
We’re getting to the point where we almost need someone like @000 to construct a mirror tournament. In such a mirror tournament we could outline our interpretations, vote on the one we believe is best, and forecast upon that. Otherwise we are all forecasting different things. It’s no fun for me to waggle around too long on the semantics when we could be focusing on the activity. If you look at my recent cyber-sanctions forecast, I tried to define a working definition of a triggering event. I guess one can do no better than that. So, someone called the truth on Putin, apparently. Unless someone can convince me otherwise, my conception of truth is that special forces are combat troops.
[Edit: Or, alternatively, forecast upon each variation of the, say top three, interpretations.]
Except for it being a tremendous bore to set up and find free hosting for a free and open forecasting platform, and a bore to set up Wikipedia-style dispute resolution mechanisms among a contentious set of independent actors (or maybe that’s the interesting part?), I think it would be a good idea to set up an autonomous self-directed non-profit forecasting platform.
On the one hand, it lacks a client (be it the CIA, a Swiss bank, or a McKinsey advising toy manufacturers and movie tie-in merchandise marketers). Without a client, who cares about the questions? On the other hand, Wikipedia has survived quite well without a client. (On the third hand, people complain about Wikipedia being dominated by young, nerdy, aggressive, male editors, and Wikipedia constantly says it is running out of money. But they are running out of a $7million budget, which is more than I can say I am running out of.)