2015 PLAN Update & Review by Jeff Head

Bltizo said:

...
I think the key to this bet is we're not trying to measure the exact date of when we see evidence of a carrier but whether the PLAN has short to medium term goals for comprehensive carrier capabilities, and due to that I'd prefer a "no three carriers in water by 2030 in any form" benchmark as the widest spanning most general description.
...

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

I agree with those terms, but I have a caveat:
"First identification date" of a carrier is not equal to "positive identification date".
...
That is to say, if we see suspected modules of a carrier at an early date but cannot positively confirm they are a carrier, yet in three years time it turns out it actually is a carrier (because of obvious markings like a flight deck, island, etc), then the first earlier date (first identification date) will become the applicable date relevant to our bet.
...
Sound fair and logical?

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

"Evident" 2nd carrier does not just mean evidence. It means that the evidence makes it evident (clear) that it is in fact a carrier.

For example, I believe if someone points out something that they believe is a carrier building in, say July of 2020, and that claim is argued...but then later in 2021 it becomes clear that it in fact was a carrier...then it is evident that a carrier was in fact building in 2020 before the cutoff date.

See?

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Also, if there is a dramatic economic slowdown that causes reduced military spending, or natural disaster, or war, that is an "outside factor" inhibiting carrier and/or military activities then it is also sufficient reason to either call off or at least renegotiate the terms of the bet.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

As of now we have:

On the side of no secnd carrier by 2016 and no third carrier by 2020:

PanAsian (more to be added as the enlist)

On the other side of a second carrier building by 2016 and a 3rd by 2020:

Blackstone, Jeff Head, Bltizo (more to be added as the enlist)

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

I think we have a "game on."

I may start a separate thread later today about it, where we can outline the rules we have agreed to and then post pictures, articles, etc. through the time period that may support one or the other side.

To be clear.:

1) If there is no evidence of a second carrier being built in China by September 1st, 2016, then PanAsian wins. If something that people indicates beforehand is a carrier before September 1st, 2016, , but which cannot be proven at the time, later turns out to be a carrier, then PanAsian's win is nullified and the best he can hope for is a draw.

2) If there is a third carrier that is evidently building before the end of 2020, then Pan Asian loses. Same condition as above holds...if something that someone indicates beforehand is a carrier, but which cannot be proven at the time, later turns out to be a carrier, then PanAsian loses.

So:

1. PannAsian wins if no 2nd Chinese carrier is buillding before Sept 1st, 2016.
2. PanAsian loses if a 3rd carrier starts building before December 31st, 2020.
3. Otherwise, the contest is a draw.

If that is acceptable, we will proceed accordingly.

As of now we have:

On the side of no secnd carrier by 2016 and no third carrier by 2020:

PanAsian (more to be added as the enlist)

On the other side of a second carrier building by 2016 and a 3rd by 2020:

Blackstone, Jeff Head, Bltizo (more to be added as the enlist)

Click to expand...

PanAsian said:

If we want to split the difference then it would be June 1st 2020.

I already yielded fairly generously regarding the 2nd carrier deadline since my original position was by end of 2015.

Click to expand...

kwaigonegin said:

what's at stake here? there has to be some concessions and wins for both losers and winners to make it more 'fun'.

Click to expand...