Positions that have no associated bets should not start out at probability 0.5

[waleedmebane]

My thought was that such positions are just as likely to be true as false.
However, now I'm pretty sure that is not a realistic model.
I don't think an arbitrary statement is just as likely to be true as false. Probably there are many many more grammatically correct absurd statements than true statements.

I should not assume that a participant is 50% likely to know that a statement they suppose is true actually is true. I don't know anything about the participant's level of knowledge on the subject. I also don't assume that participants are acting in good faith.
So, I have no reason to believe the position. The act of asserting it isn't a piece of evidence. It's probably not good to consider that it will average out to 50% either because some positions have greater strategic importance to the status of conclusions than others, and it leaves the system vulnerable to spamming of absurd positions by bad-faith participants to boost the probability of a conclusion.

So, it seems that I should let such positions default to false (probability 0) until some evidence comes in. Betting counts as a piece of evidence because a participant making a bet is taking a risk. So, that gives an indication of the strength and sincerity of their belief.

I will also have to update the "Walkthrough" section of the User's Guide in the documentation after making the change.

This also suggests that there should be two separate deadlines. One deadline would be for all arguments to be added that will be added during a particular dialogue. After that there should be a period of time during which the participants evaluate existing positions that they haven't had a chance to evaluate so far and make bets if they are interested in doing so. That way there is a better chance for the price of lately added positions to reflect the inputs of many participants instead of just a few.