This is a hoax, right? Right??

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 29, 2003, 9:38 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3106559.stm

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » July 29, 2003, 9:50 am

I suddenly want to yell out:

"Freddy vs Jason. Place your bets."

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » July 29, 2003, 10:08 am

Man, a Death Pool is one thing (grats Bob Hope guessers) but this is disgusting.

The idea of bringing public thoughts and ideas into the war on terror could be handled at least a hundred other ways and ALL of them would be better

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 29, 2003, 10:52 am

No one knows for sure.....but possibly a hoax.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » July 29, 2003, 11:12 am

The site, get your registration materials in early!
http://www.policyanalysismarket.org/pam_home.htm

More Criticism
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/07/ ... index.html

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » July 29, 2003, 11:22 am

Time to call my broker.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 29, 2003, 1:11 pm

Well that was quick

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3106559.stm

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 29, 2003, 7:07 pm

Kind of makes you wonder how much they would have made. I just wonder what the rationale behind this was. Did they think that they could do a background check on all those who placed bets?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 30, 2003, 7:49 pm

My first impression was "ick". My second impression that it was an interesting concept. More I read the more I tend toward my second impression.

A few links

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/peopl ... 05-07.html

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/010668.php

http://www.mitchberg.com/shotindark/200 ... 9942593174

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb073003.shtml

Still undecided on if it would be a worthwhile program (and if it is, if its one that would be appropriate to the government as opposed to a private ogranization). I do think that it deserved a more reasoned debate beyond the knee-jerk attack made upon it by several members of congress.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » July 30, 2003, 8:30 pm

yeah but how would you like to be known as the guy who bet such and such place would get nuke/fried/poisoned? It is like taking profit from other people's misery. Most people wouldn't have a problem with that unfortunately and I myself admit that I would have to struggle with the thought.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 30, 2003, 11:32 pm

Another link that had some interesting comment.

http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004304.html

How can you create a market based on catastrophic loss of life, some are screaming. To them I say: ask MetLife.

A lot of truth to that, when you take out insurance you are effecitively making a bet on how long you live, if your house will burn down, etc (and taking the short end of the bet I might add). Yes, its not quite the same but a decent example of how "bets" are placed in a marketplace dealing with some grim circumstances.

The rest of the link is interesting, the author is of somewhat mixed feeling about the project as well, although indicates futures markets have been successful in many areas, although there are some potential stumbling points.

But there is a problem, which is that it creates some rather perverse incentives. For one thing, the purpose of the system is presumably to prevent attacks. But traders won't want to prevent attacks, because they don't get paid unless the attacks happen. How do you keep traders in who know that they may be providing you information that will keep them from making money?

Amoung others.

Once again, not trying to say that this ultimately is a workable idea, but its at least worth talking rationally about.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 31, 2003, 1:42 am

godamn this is fubared...
imagin if they had this system pre sept 11, the news would go on in an office building and 1 dude would be jumping up and down happy as hell yellin "fuck yes, 11 million, burn you bitches, buurrrn!"
...if you could declare one thing to be "immoral"...

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 31, 2003, 5:43 am

not trying to say that this ultimately is a workable idea, but its at least worth talking rationally about

I think it's just another case of market fundamentalists viewing capitalist transactions as a cure for all the world's ills no matter how appropriate or applicable.
Why do markets work at predicting what will happen? Because people apply their knowledge to make a profit. Are the people with knowledge of planned atrocities likely to telegraph that by betting on them? I doubt it. And if they are your authorities will have a nice list of addresses to check when they get a run on "Bush dead by November 2004" or whatever.

So yeah, you could try to talk rationally about it as long as you're prepared to do so in a moral vacuum where betting on the death and suffering of other people is ok.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » July 31, 2003, 11:47 am

Xzion:

godamn this is fubared...
imagin if they had this system pre sept 11, the news would go on in an office building and 1 dude would be jumping up and down happy as hell yellin "fuck yes, 11 million, burn you bitches, buurrrn!"
...if you could declare one thing to be "immoral"...

Or maybe the system correctly predicts 9/11, the terrorists are stopped before it happens and 3000 people don't die.

Tancred:

I think it's just another case of market fundamentalists viewing capitalist transactions as a cure for all the world's ills no matter how appropriate or applicable.

One of the problems in trying to track down terrorists is there are a lot of individual bits of information out there that it is difficult to gather together in a meaningful way. Markets are very good at aggregating diffuse information (in market terms its called a price).

Tancred:

So yeah, you could try to talk rationally about it as long as you're prepared to do so in a moral vacuum where betting on the death and suffering of other people is ok.

The moral issues of course are part of the discussion along with issues of its feasibility.

Lets break down the moral issues a bit. Say that this wasn't a government program, but a private institution should it be legal for them to create this market. In my opinion, yes. The people administering the market aren't hurting people, they themselves are not performing the terrorist act. Neither are the people that are participating in the market. Potentially the market could disseminate information back to the terrorists, but if we are going to try to prohibit it on that basis then we are going to have to dismantle the news media since it provides all sorts of information that could be of use to terrorists.

Is such a program part of the proper realm of a government's activities? Not really sure on this point. Since part of its reasons for being is to predict terrorists attacks that could happen against U.S. citizens, then it may have justification under the umbrella of defense.

Are the actual individuals participating in the market behaving immorally? I would say a lot depends on the individual and their motivations. Yes there may very well be some people like xzion's quote cheering that they made money off a disaster. But there also might be people that are in it for more altruistic reasons, that actually hope the system works and ends up preventing deaths. There are businesses who derive some of their work from dealing with the consequences of bad things, natural disasters, death, heck even a flat tire. Some of the people in those businesses may be cold hearted and happy to see bad things happen because it increases their bottom line. Others, even though they are deriving their income from bad things happening may still be driven by their desire to help people deal with it when it does. Also, there is a difference between not liking something and wanting to prohit it. I read all sorts of things that I don't approve of, but I still support those people's right to say what they think, even though I find it distasteful.

Then there is also the question of what if actually works? If it does help predict terrorist attacks then it may help prevent them, or at least mitigate their effects.

I am still undecided on this program, but I don't think it is as cut and dried as people are making it out.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 31, 2003, 12:07 pm

One of the problems in trying to track down terrorists is there is a lot of individual bits of information out there that it is difficult to gather together in a meaningful way

This has always been a facet of intelligence-gathering. If they're having trouble doing their job employ better ones.

Markets are very good at aggregating diffuse information (in market terms its called a price)

Yet they're only as good as the information fed into them (cf. WorldCom, Enron). The intelligence community has all ready admitted to having information on the WTC attack but failed to put it all together. A similar blindspot would cripple a market just as effectively I think.

Lets break down the moral issues a bit. Say that this wasn't a government program, but a private institution should it be legal for them to create this market. In my opinion, yes

And in mine, no. Markets are all ready fucked from insider trading. Anti-insider legislation basically amounts to agreeing not to do it cos it's a bastard to prove. As soon as you have people putting large money down on another person's survival it's a short step to them then trying to "influence the market" and get a payoff.

The people administering the market aren't hurting people, they themselves are not performing the terrorist act. Neither are the people that are participating in the market

Yes and this handy separation insulates those making money off the exploitation/abuse of others and the environment from the moral responsibility for their actions. Effectively telling us not to hate the player, hate the game is such bullshit wherever it is applied.

Are the actual individuals participating in the market behaving immorally? I would say a lot depends on the individual and their motivations

And I think it would be safe to assume the worst you can possibly imagine then add another 20% immoral for good measure. For proof see all of human history.

There are businesses who derive some of their work from dealing with the consequences of bad things, natural disasters, death, heck even a flat tire. Some of the people in those businesses may be cold hearted and happy to see bad things happen because it increases their bottom line

Sure there are. But none that I'm aware of ask you to place bets on the suffering and death of others.

Then there is also the question of what if actually works? If it does help predict terrorist attacks then it may help prevent them, or at least mitigate their effects

I fail to see how it can. Because of a price set by bettors? Who is gonna bet? People with insider knowledge? Or just the man in the street regurgitating what the news says? Trading offices in Saudi, Afghanistan and Iraq maybe? All this market theory eventually comes down to the interactions of a lot of real people on a large scale and I don't see where the real people fit into this. Markets work at pricing stuff because they are concerned with making money. I'm sure money would be made from a scheme such as this but I don't see any other benefits to society that will accrue. Much like most other markets in fact.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » July 31, 2003, 7:35 pm

But none that I'm aware of ask you to place bets on the suffering and death of others.

Legitimate businessness that do this today directly:

1. All life and Health insurance companies.

2. Funeral homes.

Legitimate businesses that do this today indirectly:

1. Manufacturers that decide whether or not to recall a potentially dangerous product based on the likely total cost of settling claims as compared to the cost of the recall (e.g. all of them).

2. Churches (who in some cases, even have the ability to influence the occurance of such death and suffering).

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 1, 2003, 6:01 am

1. All life and Health insurance companies.

They offer you the chance to bet on your own life not someone elses. The fact that life insurance has come about all ready would indicate that it's a service people want and what's wrong with that?

Funeral homes

Again no. Everyone WILL die eventually and they provide a service.

Manufacturers that decide whether or not to recall a potentially dangerous product based on the likely total cost of settling claims as compared to the cost of the recall (e.g. all of them)

If you're going to stretch the analogy that far then you can include those people releasing drugs with side-effects, GM plants, processed foods. I don't think you have a point here.

Churches (who in some cases, even have the ability to influence the occurance of such death and suffering).

Um, what?

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 1, 2003, 11:00 am

Quote:
Markets are very good at aggregating diffuse information (in market terms its called a price)

Yet they're only as good as the information fed into them (cf. WorldCom, Enron). The intelligence community has all ready admitted to having information on the WTC attack but failed to put it all together. A similar blindspot would cripple a market just as effectively I think.

In markets individual businesses do fail, its part of the essential feedbacks that rewards winning ideas and punishes losing ones. Nobody is also claiming that a market such as was being proposed will be perfectly predictive, or that it should replace other more convential methods. But various futures style markets have proved effective in a providing useful information about a pretty wide array of topics (oil prices, election results, weather).

And in mine, no. Markets are all ready fucked from insider trading. Anti-insider legislation basically amounts to agreeing not to do it cos it's a bastard to prove. As soon as you have people putting large money down on another person's survival it's a short step to them then trying to "influence the market" and get a payoff.

Insider trading is a potential problem, however a few points. First, in order to try to make a profit in this manner you would have to put a significant amount of money on it happening. In effect, you tip off the authorities yourself that the person will be murdered, and you leave a potential trail pointing to yourself that you may have been involved. Pretty risky behavior. Secondly, you don't need this market to pull off something like this. There was speculation that Al Queda may have tried to profit off the fall of airline stock after 9/11 using the knowledge they had before the attack. It would be more indirect than the proposed market, but that would actually be advantageous in trying to hide your actions. Lastly (and most important in my opinion) murder, the last time I checked, is a crime. Its done for a wide range of reasons, money, love, hate and countless others. Trying to do away with all the possible motivations is ultimately futile (not to mention destructive of individual liberties). Punish the actual crime when it happens.

Quote:
There are businesses who derive some of their work from dealing with the consequences of bad things, natural disasters, death, heck even a flat tire. Some of the people in those businesses may be cold hearted and happy to see bad things happen because it increases their bottom line

Sure there are. But none that I'm aware of ask you to place bets on the suffering and death of others.

Perhaps explictly no, but implicitly yes. My whole point with this is there are people whose income is in pretty direct ways tied to the existence of tragedy. Dar mentioned funeral home directors. They make money when people die. Does that mean all funeral directors rejoice when a bunch of people die because it improves business. No. Some probably like helping people through a difficult time, some may be more mercenary. Different individuals will have different motivations.

I fail to see how it can. Because of a price set by bettors? Who is gonna bet? People with insider knowledge? Or just the man in the street regurgitating what the news says? Trading offices in Saudi, Afghanistan and Iraq maybe? All this market theory eventually comes down to the interactions of a lot of real people on a large scale and I don't see where the real people fit into this. Markets work at pricing stuff because they are concerned with making money.

The original proposal I believe was actually restricted to analysts. That might help simplify some of the issues about insider trading etc but it also limits the amount of information available to the market. If it was open to the general public, then whoever wanted to particpate would. People that do well at predicting events will do well, people that aren't will lose money. Once again, feedback mechanisms that drive the market to become more efficient.

I'm sure money would be made from a scheme such as this but I don't see any other benefits to society that will accrue. Much like most other markets in fact.

I am pretty fond of my local grocery store, not all of them are called markets anymore but that is their function and they provide me with a pretty amazing array of products when you think about it. Within a short drive of my house there are even wider arrays of goods and services available to me in various markets. I can go onto the internet to access even more. Overall my interactions with the labor market has been quite positive in selling my services to make a livelyhood. As a member of society, markets have been extremely beneficial to me.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 1, 2003, 12:09 pm

But various futures style markets have proved effective in a providing useful information about a pretty wide array of topics (oil prices, election results, weather).

Well lets look at these. Oil futures is perhaps the only real gamble here but even then an expert can leverage his or her understanding of the oil business. Election results? Well the people participating in the market also go and vote so that's a pretty easy one - the link between the market and the real world is the people partaking in both. Weather I don't get. I fail to see how any weather market could be better than the supercomputers used by meteorologists.

Lastly (and most important in my opinion) murder, the last time I checked, is a crime

So is insider trading and I believe the successful detection-rates for both crimes are pretty low.

Trying to do away with all the possible motivations is ultimately futile (not to mention destructive of individual liberties). Punish the actual crime when it happens

If that's your attitude why bother with a market for predicting crimes?

Perhaps explictly no, but implicitly yes. My whole point with this is there are people whose income is in pretty direct ways tied to the existence of tragedy

Tragedy is part of the human condition and all the examples provided came about due to a demand from people to mitigate the affects of tragedy in their OWN lives. Basically the distinction between explicit and implicit is crucial to me here. And to be perfectly clear it's not "profitting from tragedy" that bothers me cos shit happens and someone always gets payed to clear up the mess. It's betting on the death of others.

The original proposal I believe was actually restricted to analysts. That might help simplify some of the issues about insider trading etc but it also limits the amount of information available to the market

Which brings us back to my being unable to see how such a market could offer any real useful function.

I am pretty fond of my local grocery store, not all of them are called markets anymore but that is their function and they provide me with a pretty amazing array of products when you think about it. Within a short drive of my house there are even wider arrays of goods and services available to me in various markets. I can go onto the internet to access even more. Overall my interactions with the labor market has been quite positive in selling my services to make a livelyhood. As a member of society, markets have been extremely beneficial to me

Yes but we're talking futures-style markets here

Do you often go to the grocery store and ask to reserve 2 litres of milk to be delivered in 6 months time? Or go to the labour market and predict you'll be unemployed next year? If you do then I guess the US is a kerr-razier place than I thought

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » August 2, 2003, 8:09 am

And it's illegal for me to play poker in my own house.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 5, 2003, 10:46 am

Well lets look at these. Oil futures is perhaps the only real gamble here but even then an expert can leverage his or her understanding of the oil business. Election results? Well the people participating in the market also go and vote so that's a pretty easy one - the link between the market and the real world is the people partaking in both. Weather I don't get. I fail to see how any weather market could be better than the supercomputers used by meteorologists.

The market's role is to aggregate information. The actual sources of that information may be varied. It might be someone leveraging their expert knowledge of the topic. It might be someone with a big bank of supercomputers. It may be some young hotshot with a new theory. It might be someone reading tarot cards. It might be any number of sources, good or bad. The market then provides feedback, people who are correct in their predictions make money, encouraging them, those who are wrong lose money, discouraging them.

By the way, here are a couple links, one to an election market, the other to a weather market.

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/DConv04.html
http://www.cme.com/products/commodity/weather.cfm

Quote:
Trying to do away with all the possible motivations is ultimately futile (not to mention destructive of individual liberties). Punish the actual crime when it happens

If that's your attitude why bother with a market for predicting crimes?

There is a difference in wanting to catch the guy that has a bomb and intends to use it to kill people from actually setting off the bomb and wanting to ban something because it might provide a motivation for an illegal act.

Yes but we're talking futures-style markets here Do you often go to the grocery store and ask to reserve 2 litres of milk to be delivered in 6 months time? Or go to the labour market and predict you'll be unemployed next year? If you do then I guess the US is a kerr-razier place than I thought

My quote was in response to your earlier more general comment about markets.

I'm sure money would be made from a scheme such as this but I don't see any other benefits to society that will accrue. Much like most other markets in fact.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 5, 2003, 11:21 am

By the way, here are a couple links, one to an election market, the other to a weather market.

http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/DConv04.html
http://www.cme.com/products/commodity/weather.cfm

OK I getcha. Bookmaking. I'll go with your definitions for now, and assume the same things you do regarding this form of gambling.

My quote was in response to your earlier more general comment about markets.

Which was about futures-style markets in particular, not buy-things-on-display-right-now type of markets.

To a certain extent any market of this kind is pure gambling. There will always be better-informed experts adding some real insight to the pricing system to balance the punters who are just backing horses with pretty names or big arses. I guess my point is that in established trading-style futures markets the informed outweigh the punter quite massively and thus the pricing tends to be more accurate and thus of more use to the financially adroit. In gambling markets the number of punters will outweigh the experts and even the experts will have less influence due to more randomness in the market's domain. I would class the terrorism market as close to pure gambling and thus question it's usefulness - very few 'experts' will take part so the prices will be down to punter whim (or whatever the news headlines are, probably). As such very few people will make much money (apart from those operating the market, as per) and the thing would fail as both a warning system and a way to make some money.

That's how I see it anyway.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 5, 2003, 11:54 am

Say that this wasn't a government program, but a private institution should it be legal for them to create this market. In my opinion, yes. The people administering the market aren't hurting people, they themselves are not performing the terrorist act. Neither are the people that are participating in the market.

Chmee, I totally disagree with your logic here. Why should such a market be illegal? Because it can provide an additional incentive for the actions. There is no possible way to say that the people participating are not performing or related to the execution of terrorist acts either, in fact I would tend to believe the opposite.

A_small_terror_cell01 has limited resources but comes up with a plan to bomb an embassy someplace. This type futures market enables them to capitalize more easily on their actions than say trying to predict which stocks will fall (and trying to sell them short) in the aftermath of a terrorist attack. Most terror groups have a large % of fanatics who are willing to die if it means accomplishing their goal/hurting their enemy: if they can hurt their enemy, and raise enough funds through this market to sponsor more actions, they may not CARE if a couple members go to prison. They just become more Martyrs for the Cause.

Additionally, where could this market be accessed from? As an intelligence tool how could it be utilized? Does the US government t have the right/jurisdiction to prosecute someone in another country, who knows that any crime is being planned in/against the US, as long as they don't violate the laws of the country they are residing in?

Example: I know my cousin is planning to rob a bank in Michigan, from his house in Toronto. Am I obligated by American law to inform the US authorities?

I can see how the idea of using these "bets" to gather intelligence on impending attacks might appeal to some theorists but I think they could in essence, become self fulfilling, and the last thing the World needs is more reasons for terrorists to expand their madness.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » August 5, 2003, 1:08 pm

Terrorist groups dont generally have the spare members to lose by pharming the markets, quite apart from the additional risk to their operational security involved in trying that. Someone sells a chunk of shares, couple days later the company goes splat in terrorism, the fbi investigates everyone who sold significant stock in the affected companies shortly before the event, the same way potential insider traders are investigated. They find something to interest them they follow it up, and they have a target to interrogate that they KNOW is in communication with active terrorists. Its a bad idea to give the FBI a proven target to investigate. Either they can follow the trail of communications and money back into the organisation and damage it, possibly badly, or they can develop an intelligence source that may give them advance warning on future attacks. It isnt worth their time to try that when there are other ways to earn their cash. All of that also ignores the fact that knowing a particular stock is likely to drop in the near future does NOT enable anyone to make money by selling their shares- it merely enables them to avoid losing money that they have already earned by other means and invested. You cannot make money by selling stocks short due to forknowledge of an attack, you can only avoid losing it. Therefor terrorists cannot finance themselves in that way.

The market can be accessed from anywhere that has internet connections. It can be used as an intelligence tool to help beef up security at suspected targets and thereby possibly prevent a planned attack or foil it in progress, and to find new leads to investigate in attempts to identify elements of terrorist networks. Sometimes the US has the right/jurisdiction to prosecute someone in another country, but most often they do not, BUT they do often have the ability to ask the country in question to do it instead since plotting terrorist attacks, or any other crime is illegal in almost all countries in the world, regardless of the intended target, hence the arrest and trial for terrorism of people in Saudi Arabia, Kenya etc. It doesnt mater which country tries them as long as they are tried.

Yes, if you know of a planned crime you DO have a legal responsibility in most countries to inform law enforcement, either local or of the country in question, quite apart from your moral and ethical obligation to do so. Blatantly criminal activity (anything with easily identifiable victims basicly) does not become any less criminal just because it happens a long way away or is committed by someone you know, and should not be condoned by silence.

*Hugs*
Varia

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » August 5, 2003, 3:16 pm

Wulfran,

As Varia points out (and I mentioned earlier) there are some questions about to what degree terrorists would be able to successfully use such a market to make a profit. Although an interesting question, I think it is largely beside the point.

My original point in this particular subdiscussion was that I thought it should be legal for a private institution to set up such a market if they wished. Tancred and you have objected to this on the basis that it would serve as a motivation for terrorist acts to occur. I disagree that something should be made illegal, just because it can serve as a motivation for an illegal act. Do we forbid people from participating in the religion of their choice because religion has been cited as a motivation by some people for their crimes? What else are we willing to lose, philosophy, literature, rock music, Wile E. Coyote cartoons? Punish the actual crime, don't try to sanitize the world of possible motivations. I doubt it is even possible and even if it was it would be so destructive of individual freedom that it wouldn't be worth the cost.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » August 5, 2003, 4:36 pm

My outlook on this and any other "freedom to do whatever I damned well want to" issue is to look at the pros and cons of the issue as opposed to grandstanding on the government's right to interfere. As a Canadian, I oppose government intervention and regualtion more than most of my countrymen, but at the same time it seems I am willing to accept "losses of individual freedom" more than many (mostly Americans, I assume) who post here.

When I look at this type of "market" I ask what good can come from it? Well, there is the off chance that an intelligence agency may be able gather some data about future terror attacks. Some people may make money off of it via trading, administration of the market, etc.

Then I ask what harm can come from it? It MAY provide an enticement/motivation for some groups/individuals to act.

To be honest I think the chance of any useful, meaningful data coming from this is about the same as finding snowballs in hell. I think the chance that some whacked out, moronic freak of nature (not an Al Qaeda/FARC/ IRA type terrorist) will use it as part of a "get rich" scheme is far more likely. Also considering that the government of the "home" of the exchange will need to regulate it, similar to any other exchange/market to avoid scandals and protect *investors* (remember your lessons from Enron and Martha Stewart, boys and girls), it doesn't make sense to me to legalize any such entity.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » August 6, 2003, 6:46 am

Tancred and you have objected to this on the basis that it would serve as a motivation for terrorist acts to occur. I disagree that something should be made illegal, just because it can serve as a motivation for an illegal act.

Yeah that's part of the reason but less important to me than crossing the moral line of speculating on the death of others (let's not do the life insurance thing again - I see that as people betting on their own lives, not others. Yes opinions differ

). The motivation thing is a smaller concern due to it's unlikelihood (omg is that a word??).

To allow this kind of market, IMO, would open the way for more 'unsavoury' markets gaining widespread acceptance and that would be the thin end of the wedge. Again IMO. Oh yeah and don't forget I think it would be useless - that's quite important too

So in summary I'm against it because of vague moral objections and Chmee is in favour cos, hey, it's just a market and they never hurt anyone. So I think we'll never agree