I'd force log odds, as they are the more natural representation and much less susceptible to irrational certainty and nonsense answers.

Personally, for probabilities roughly between 20% and 80% I find probabilities (or non-log odds) easier than understand than log-odds.

Someone has to actually try and comprehend what they are doing to troll logits; -INF seems a lot more out to lunch than p = 0.

Yeah. One of the reason why I proposed this is the median answer of 0 in several probability questions. (I'd also require a rationale in order to enter probabilities more extreme than 1%/99%.)

I'd also like someone to go thru the math to figure out how to correctly take the mean of probability estimates. I see no obvious reason why you can simply average [0, 1] probability. The correct method would probably involve cooking up a hypothetical bayesian judge that takes everyones estimates as evidence.

I'd go with the average of log-odds, but this requires all of them to be finite...