@traders

1. I'm not going to reopen trading.

2. The original creator deleted their account

3. If you can bring a clear and compelling case that I can read in one post and be fully convinced that a different resolution is appropriate, go ahead and do so and I will consider re-resolving it. So if some figure goes above 120 you have to show how it matches everything the creator said. If no figure goes above 120 you should be able to convince me that it absolutely did not happen.

I look forward to hearing from you at the end of the month!

@Eliza

you have to show how it matches everything the creator said.

only what they said, not what they meant? what if they said contradictory statements, while believing they meant the same thing?

ah the AI is so funny kinda trolling us all. from description:

In case of data disputes, community consensus or an external oracle (e.g., UMA) may be used.

funniest outcome would be people staking UMA to wrongly decide a manifold question which was misphrased due to non-english speaker misusing the word 'by' to mean 'at'

@deagol the baseline we're starting from is the creator themselves going N/A so you will need to be very convincing.

If they contradicted themselves in a way that actually matters we would probably end up sticking with N/A.

@Eliza at this point reopening the market would indeed be a mess. I'm not sure at all how best to handle this situation anymore, tbh, but I was originally in favor of a quick reopening. my reason is that if someone makes a market, takes a large position in it against other traders, and then takes a significant loss, this creates a freerolling situation where they can then just contradict themselves in the comments to N/A the market. I don't think that's what happened here; OP probably just honestly made a mistake. But in the future it could be hard to tell, and I think a mod should intervene in such a scenario to stick to the original criteria, if it was already clear cut.

@Cactus that's the classic @dreev stance! For sure.

Check this out for more: /dreev/how-bad-is-it-to-resolve-a-market-a

@ModAdmin SAD! This should not have been marked N/A.

Thank you for all the comments. This was the first time I used this tool. I understand that the explanation needs to be objective and clear. I failed, but I learned for future attempts. I will leave it as N/A, as I understand that this choice returns the bets and closes the matter. Thank you.

@069 NA is bad in this specific scenario as it erases unrealized gains and losses from prior trades. I suggest you reopen it under the original specification.

@Cactus

@deagol rip, I guess @mods can have the final say here but I feel like this one is pretty clear that it shouldn't NA. IMO, a market can't have one specification and change based on a creator comment later after traders have bet, even if we assume the creator was well meaning in intent. Creator also shouldnt nullify it just because what they thought they said at first doesn't match what they actually said. That's the most generous interpretation here; what's to stop people from freerolling in the future with less genuine intent if this policy continues?

@deagol it also seems OP deleted their account....

cc @mods ok with this outcome?

@069 why are we NAing this market? @Gen had perfectly reasonable argument for not NAing and just wait to see if both conditions fulfill

I’ve temporarily deboosted this market while we sort out the criteria. For those who aren’t familiar, this decreases the placement of the market on the home page and in search results, but doesn’t otherwise affect the market.

:/

@mods someone without a position should probably clarify the title/description based on the creator comments (I gather from their use of an AI description they probably would be ok with someone updating it for them) - the current AI clarifications are bad

The creator has a large YES position so there is no reason not to believe their intentions are good here. Hopefully the price stays off 120 and the timeframe has no impact on the market outcome

@Gen Fwiw I bet on NO so it would advantage me to keep the market with the "exactly at expiry" interpretation but I think it should be cancelled. It doesn't matter if both interpretations happen to lead to the same result in the end; people made bets they wouldn't have made with a proper understanding of the conditions.

@pietrokc it does matter, bc as a NO holder I would rather grant them the most charitable interpretation than N/A because I think both interpretations resolve NO

I don’t think it’s necessarily better to cancel the market (benefiting the creator, too) if everyone gets their expected outcome based on the interpretation they had when betting. (I.e. a nuclear option that I think is preferable to N/A would be to close the market, and only resolve YES or NO if both versions are met, otherwise NA)

I encourage you to argue more if you feel I’m wrong tho, no hard feelings! I’ll back any mod decision, and I won’t comment further bc I don’t want any mod or the creator to feel overly swayed by a staff comment. Go with your gut or field multiple mod opinions if unsure (for the mods/creator)

@Gen I'd be ok with your strategy to resolve only if both interpretations resolve the same.

I don't understand how N/Aing the market benefits the creator though. Doesn't N/A simply undo all bets and trades?

@pietrokc in this case the creator had the largest YES position, which is a red flag, but not necessarily evidence they’re doing anything wrong (they deleted their account after resolving N/A unfortunately 😢)

Which futures contract is this about? Any Brent crude futures price, or a specific one?

@EvanDaniel Probably April? @069?

@Hakari the link shared in this creator comment goes to the May contract, I think?

https://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-historical-data

@deagol ok from this list: https://www.investing.com/commodities/brent-oil-contracts

it seems April already settled and May is the earliest one.

@traders putting a 2000 mana order at 40 if any takers. Only lasts a few hours.