Will Peter Miller win the "Rootclaim Challenge" debate with Saar Wilf on the origins of COVID-19? (Only Yes or No)
Mini
1
แน€60
resolved Feb 6
Resolved
N/A

The Original market:



How this market differs from Chris Billington's market: in the case of a draw this market resolves NO, not N/A.

This market will resolve YES if a debate largely matching the spirit of the Rootclaim challange, with approximately $100,000 at stake, goes ahead this year, and Peter Miller is judged to be the winner. Reduced stakes will not count, other than as needed to pay for the costs of the judges and other costs relating to the debate itself, which is stipulated as part of the challange.

If Saar Wilf is judged to be the winner, this market will resolve NO.

If the debate does not go ahead or if there is not a clear winner, it resolves NO.

Clarification about what counts as a win for this market:

The winner will receive $100,000 for a unanimous decision. If one judge is undecided, the payout will be $50,000. There's also a possibility that neither side wins anything, if both judges are undecided or it's a split decision with one judge voting natural and the other voting for gain of function.

Assuming the above is accurate, I'll count a participant that receives either a $100,000 payout or a $50,000 payout as the winner. That is, a participant declared the winner unanimously by both judges, or by one judge with the other undecided, is the winner for the purposes of this market.

Get แน€600 play money
Sort by:

There's also this market, which splits the possible results six ways, which does seem like it adds more value:

@shankypanky Stefanie really dislike this market and thinks it adds no information or value, so I canceled this market

Seems a little odd to fully duplicate this market without any changes except a minor resolution criteria, particularly when @chrisjbillington made his in mid-2023 and clearly put a fair bit of effort into it. It's probably at a minimum best to link to the original market.

But generally while it may not be against the rules per se, there's not so much value in an exact duplicate. Just my 2ยข obviously.

@shankypanky I dont think people will see this market before seeing the original market of @chrisjbillington? this mostly serves as an assistant market if people wants to see the probability of Peter Miller winning out of all scenarios (including the tie scenarios)

Given Manifold's recommendation algorithm, 95% of the traffic definitely see the original market of Chris before seeing this market (if they see this market at all)

@AmmonLam I don't even follow you because my feed is already full of your markets, though. (I'm here because I saw this market regardless of any algorithm?) If you don't think people will see it, why duplicate an existing market and muddy the waters? You could repost @chrisjbillington to help get more reach if you think it's valuable.

@shankypanky Like I said, this market mostly serves as an assistant market if people wants to see the probability of Peter Miller winning out of all scenarios (including the tie scenarios). I think it's totally fine for people to first see Chris's original market, then think that they also want to bet on this market.

I really don't understand why your feed would be full of my markets, I don't have much control over what shows up in your feed. Previously you complained about my untagged markets occupying your feed, and in response to that I have already tagged most of the markets I created so that they wont occupy your feed due to a funky feed recommendation algorithm.



@AmmonLam that wasnt a complaint I was just pointing out I had a bunch of mortality markets at the top of my feed lol

@shankypanky whatever that is, I did try to adjust my markets so that it doesnt bother you.

Perhaps one solution would be if Manifold has a super-unsubscribe button so that you simply do not see any of my markets in your feed. But once again I don't know how the market feed system does its recommendation and I dont know how easy it is to implement such thing

@AmmonLam right but it's not even the point of my comment or this exchange? I simply pointed out that I've seen the market so "the algorithm means people won't see this duplicated market" argument doesn't make sense. I feel like you're getting stuck there when it was only a comment about the fact that the market has been shared on feeds.

We obviously see things differently here. I have a personal feeling that a market without any new information or criteria doesn't add more value and the more community-/prediction-oriented thing to do on a valuable market is to bet and repost etc instead of duplicating everything (including notes from last year), particularly without linking back to the original. That's all.

Edit Oct 22

๐Ÿ‘€?

@mattyb fixed

More related questions