Okay, if there's not going to be a response to my comment (whatever, fine, I get it I guess) then can we at least get a very large cleanup and edit of the market description?

I have no idea how and to what degree I should update my positions because the market description is clearly not in line with the real resolution criteria, and the comment section is now huge, and overwhelming in parts, and I don't know where to look.

I don't think, based on the new criteria (although i still am confused about what these criteria are), the market should resolve YES yet. However, I think Balasar's comment about the differences in %'s suggests others are perhaps as confused as we are about how to evaluate this.

I think this bookmark shows a fair guiding light to follow.

@Quroe thanks.

Maybe this should be fleshed out and replace the old market description, or at least shift the old description down and put this at the top.

I am in agreement.

@No_uh I have the fear that this market's description would eventually turn into this, but to that market maker's credit, the sheer girth of that description might be necessary for the amount of nuance they're trying to convey.

@Quroe my personal preference would be to just remove the old description completely, and add a new one, because from my understanding the new requirements for resolution are pretty much fundamentally at odds with the old ones. The market is being run by someone new anyway, too.

full clarity here btw: ive sold out my position here entirely for a (for me anyway) pretty heavy loss. lack of response to my (at least I think) my fair questions and your link to the bookmark leave me 1) not wanting to participate as a better in this market anymore and 2) think the current odds are probably already pretty good for what is the burden of proof here, so idk where the +EV bet would be.

my reason for asking for a modified/redone description (despite no longer holding) is based in 1) I think this market has some merit still considering its size and the historical recounting of its comments, but also 2) if i ever get back in i'd like to be able to just check the description instead of having to comb through comments again in say, a year from now.

Just to confirm after all these comments... we're still holding on for "other indications suggesting he is considering a run for a third term" in this market, right? (as in, the standard of evidence hasn't intentionally shifted?) Cool.

@JamesBaker3 The hard part here is telling when he is trolling, which he does actually do in addition to being serious about absolutely insane things. For example, he is not attempting to run for pope.

@shankypanky Look, as further evidence this market is no longer remotely about what it says it is about, the market dropped another 10 points - not in response to these comments, which happened a day ago, but because of the person who is responsible for the market reposting them. This market is now trading below "Will Trump say he is candidate for a third term as president during the year of 2028?", which should be a stronger criterion, and is effectively tied with "Trump seriously attempts 3rd term in 2028?" which was explicitly designed to be a stronger version of this market without the "broad" criterion that the original creator claimed to be going for. Surely this suggests there's some problem here.

@Balasar so, before the argument was that the 2028 hats should be considered a fundraiser or that his interview was explicit (not implicit) that he plans to run in 2028 but now that there's a video of him directly saying the hats aren't a fundraiser and he's not planning to run, this market is somehow problematic?? a market shouln't resolve to an interpretation of off-hand comments, as I said before, and the video I've posted here/Joshua posted below makes it clear that (at least for now) he's not planning to run.

the market covers a lot of years, there's no real need for people to aggressively push for resolution based on subjective interpretations of past comments or merch in his longstanding grift shop.

@Balasar I will personally arbitrage between the two markets. I agree with you, there should be no reason why this market has a lower price than "Will Trump say he is candidate for a third term as president during the year of 2028?" or "Trump seriously attempts 3rd term in 2028?"

@Balasar The problem is that I don't spend enough time on this website anymore or these would all be <20

@Joshua Fixed now

@Balasar @Joshua Yea actually its better for Joshua to do the arbitrage so that I dont hold any position in this market

Thanks Joshua

@Joshua >10 is still atrociously high for defying the constitution but I don't see it worth much more. He'll be too old, too unpopular, and have too many republicans lined up to take his place.

@shankypanky I apologize, I'm not trying to be rude to you personally. This market just reminds me of all the "reasonable" folks back in 2020 who thought it was media hyperventilation to say that Trump would attempt to hold on to power when he was obviously setting up a narrative to try to retain it past the election. I normally would not care about a fake market so much, except that I find it personally upsetting that people are so blase about this. I feel like the chance it happens is pretty strongly anti-correlated with the expectation that it will happen, and so, to me, a low number here is very deeply unsettling. Maybe I should get off Manifold.

For what it's worth...

———

Trump says he is not considering running for third term

https://ground.news/article/trump-dismisses-third-term-talk-ill-be-an-eight-year-president?utm_source=mobile-app&utm_medium=newsroom-share

Where does the proceeds from the 2028 hate sales go?

@AmmonLam you can edit the title

@itsTomekK I worry that I would worsen things by editing the title/descriptions. If @shankypanky or other mods would like to make edits to the title/descriptions to make them more consistent with each other, please do.

Honestly its pretty frustrating to have a large position in this market because it has been repeatedly characterized by moving goalposts and shifting bars for resolution. I understand that the market is inherently somewhat subjective, but clear criteria in the market description should be respected otherwise we're really just betting on the market manager's state of mind instead of what has been previously stipulated as a criteria for resolution. The undue importance of the market manager's state of mind is underscored by the fact that the market shifted by 20 points in the minutes after the new manager's comments. I think when the President of the United States tells the host of the most influential Sunday news show in the country that he's "not joking" about seeking a third term that it would plainly meet the written criteria set out in the market description. So tl;dr, I feel like I'm stuck holding the bag on a market that a majority of Manifold members think should have already resolved.

@Balasar well, per my earlier comment:

> all that said: if you have any stronger indicator that this should resolve Yes with all of the above in mind, feel free to reply and tag me. and if it's unclear where I'm drawing lines please ask!

if you have a clip of him saying something that you think should qualify, I'm happy for you to post it so I can have a look. I've been clear that what I've seen so far doesn't seem to meet the criteria as described (particularly the many, many comments insisting 2028 hats should count as a fundraiser or inarguable intention). if you have something else, post it.

@shankypanky Ah ok, perhaps you are unaware of what the controversy here is about. I am referring to this phone interview with Kristen Welker, host of Meet The Press, of which there is this transcript: https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1906385585130135968

I am a biased party towards NO at this point and cannot argue with a fully clear head.

That being said, since this did not trigger a YES earlier, I put it in my priors that situations like this would not have counted, and I had subsequently raised my bar on what could trigger a YES when I put in my trades.

I also intended to arbitrage this market against other 3rd term markets, but since it started getting controversial, I stopped arbitraging this market for a while and started to exit at a manually executed stop loss range in mind.

I will eat my losses if this is renegotiated, but it would leave me sad. I'm a big boy and can not make a stink about it, though.

hi y'all - apologies for the delay, I wasn't able to devote my full focus to reviewing earlier and I didn't want to be half-there to make a decision.

I've had a read of the transcript (thanks for sharing and sorry I missed that it was floated before) and while I agree that this is nearing the requirements based on how they're framed in this market, I can't resolve Yes based solely on that exchange. obviously this is bound to leave some people upset and some happy, so I'll just try to explain my thought process briefly and leave it at that:

in this exchange, Trump hasn't actually made the statement that he is going to take steps to add himself to the ballot, even with numerous nudges from the reporter to try to get him to be explicit (points to her for trying). even with her insistence, the closest he's gotten is to reiterate that "there are methods" when he clearly misspeaks to say "there are plans," (which is why he immediately follows it up with "there are not plans, but there are methods") but stops short of saying they're doing anything about it and genuinely keeps trying to evade the topic. sure, he's "not joking," but that alone isn't a statement of an attempt.

I know I said it before, but I empathise that it's frustrating that the market has left a lot of space for interpretations. I'm doing my best to be impartial in line with the market description, and as it stands, I haven't yet seen any indication of a statement that he's going to try or concretely considering running. perhaps it's pedantry, but this is more loose commentary about pathways than his legitimate plan to take action.

it wouldn't surprise me if something more solid came sooner than later as he emboldens himself to talk about it, but we'll have to wait.

@shankypanky oh of course. How silly. The market description says fundraising efforts, and trump 2028 merch isn't fundraising efforts it's... Ummm... Just a joke that gets money from people who want trump to run in 2028. No bias at all in this market

@Alex231a no need to be condescending and I already spoke of the merch. Trump is a troll and you could just as easily say his offer to dine at the WH with people who are top holders of his shitcoin were buying into a fundraiser. as I've already mentioned before, he sells - and has always sold - a ton of merch. there's absolutely no way to be clear right now that that's a) genuine about a run or b) somehow differentiated from all the other stuff in his gift shop.

not liking how a market is defined or run is no reason to launch accusations of bias. especially when I've been overly communicative and forthright about my reason for reopening and leaving it open for now.

@shankypanky His shit coin is not a fundraiser because it's not made for the purpose of supporting him running in 2028. His 2028 merch IS made for that purpose.

I am not launching accusations because I am upset with how the market is defined, I'm accusing you of bias because the market is defined as resolving YES when he starts fundraising, and he has yet the market hasn't resplved. So my issue is that the market isn't being followed as defined. It doesn't matter how communicative you are, you are just communicating that you aren't following the market description.

@Alex231a you can't prove that it's fundraising or anything other than a troll. if you can do that unequivocally, I'll happily resolve it Yes. you're choosing not to take it with any other possibility on the same day that the guy passed around Gulf of America hats to all of his cabinet for the sake of the photo opp.

I'm not going to keep going back and forth on this and taking digs. when there's something more concrete, I'll resolve it. his gift shop - available 365 days a year regardless - proceeds all funnel into his pocket, presumably, and you haven't shown me anything to prove that it can be considered a fundraiser for a 2028 presidential run as opposed to raising funds for himself like any of the other shit he sells.

that's all I have to say for now.

@shankypanky

anything to prove that it can be considered a fundraiser for a 2028 presidential run

I mean, the hats do have 2028 written on them...

anything other than a troll

I've raised this subject before, basically I think the "he's just Trolling" defense is a fallacy, any action, including signing up for the ballots, can be dismissed as "it's just a Troll" so it's not a useful discussion to have. Unless you think that Trump signing up for the ballots should not resolve as Yes.

@shankypanky I think this comment: "Trump hasn't actually made the statement that he is going to take steps to add himself to the ballot" is a requirement beyond which the description of the market clearly outlines.

In my view (and in the view of more than half of the poll voters (for which we were assured by the original creator of this market would decide the resolution of this market!!)), this exchange (screenshot attached)

clearly satisfies the market's description. Specifically, "This includes public statements, fundraising efforts, or other indications suggesting he is considering a run for a third term."

To be absurdly clear, this sentence from the description clearly says that not only is trump verbally confirming that he is considering running sufficient, which I think could be argued from the screenshotted exchange, but is not a 100%, but also a statement suggesting that he is considering is also sufficient for YES resolution.

In my view, this screenshot so obviously satisfies the criteria for YES resolution I can't even think about how it does not!

There is even a further line in the description clarifying that jokes would not count, which Trump has so graciously provided a cover for us so that we don't even have to get tangled in those weeds! lol

I was a NO holder in this market, and after I read the transcript it seemed like such a slam dunk that I cut my losses because it seemed like a no brainer. The only thing that prevented me from betting more was I was mana limited at the moment. And by the time I had liquid mana back we had already entered a period where this market became untrustworthy.

IMO AT THE VERY LEAST, if this is not sufficient, and stephanie you will be the new decision-maker for this market, this description needs to be updated with your comments above this one. And ideally the old description is deleted, since it is unwieldy now and clearly not up to date anymore for what qualifies. Your requirements are more steep than the description states.

I didn't want to relitigate this point since someone else already brought up the transcript, but imo what you are asking is above what the description requires, and greatly so. I am hoping this is just an oversight.

Also, I want to say I respect the mods and it sucks you have to pick up the shards from somebody else's broken market lol, and when I give this a 1* rating (whenever this is) it won't be your fault lol