The Trustworthy-ish program started as a quick hack of mine, to grant badges to some Manifold users I trusted to resolve markets fairly. The idea was to:
Help new users know which markets are safe to trade in,
Reward helpful Manifold community members with a status symbol
Prevent instances of false identity by verifying famous users like @EliezerYudkowsky
Since then, we added the ability for admins to unresolve markets (making 1. less necessary), and also granted powers to Trustworthy-ish folks such as the ability to resolve closed markets.
These days, I'm looking to cut back on my participation in the Manifold community due to time commitments and wanting to focus on initiatives like Manifold for Charity. But that leaves the Trustworthy-ish program in a limbo. My best guess is that the program should continue on in some form, but there's lots of room for designing how the program should proceed. To that end, I'm looking to choose a successor, someone to watch over the community at large, someone.... supertrustworthy. ish.
Market resolves to the user identify as in charge of this, at market close.
The process for deciding this is going to be fairly open; it'll probably be some mix of feedback from me/the Manifold core team/existing Trustworthy-ish folks/the Manifold community at large. I could imagine all kinds of fun/crazy setups for governing Trustworthy-ish in the future ("congress of reps!", "futarchy!"), but will start by designating someone to lead. In the meantime, I'd welcome y'alls feedback on the current program, and how it can be improved moving forward!
Some key questions
How do new users get badges? When do we unbadge users?
Should we have different badges for different use cases?
What do we call the program?
What other programs should be part of Trustworthy-ish?
Forecasting tournaments like https://manifold.markets/GavrielK/bounty-will-anyone-suggest-an-idea ?
Should Trustworthy-ish users get some kind of mana salary?
1,000
@42irrationalist Yes, your investment of 40 mana would be nullified by returning 40 mana, and your realized profit of 1 mana would be nullified by removing 1 mana. So overall, you would get back 39 mana.
So um...technically speaking this should resolve "Austin remains in charge", right? Or @Austin have you officially passed the torch to David
@Conflux I thought this resolves when Austin decides what to do with the trustworthy program, not necessarily at close date.
@Conflux Hm letter of the law might be "Austin" or no one or N/A; spirit of the law (my coherent extrapolated market resolution criteria is about who becomes in charge of the program ultimately) is still undecided but probably David, will chat with him about it this week.
I'd welcome thoughts on how to resolve this in a fair manner!
@Austin I admit I initially only skimmed the criteria, and I would have assumed N/A. After reading the details, I would lean toward the technically correct answer of "Austin". I don't really see anything in the criteria to justify taking mana away from someone who read the criteria carefully and thought "I bet it won't have changed by the close date".
(I don't hold any "Austin" FYI, I do hold some "Jack")
@BoltonBailey To be super technical, “Austin remains in charge” isn’t the name of a user at all, I guess…
Personally I think it’d be reasonable (if not exactly consistent with the criteria) to resolve to who assumes this role if it’s within a few days, or N/A as well. Though I would not be mad if “Austin remains in charge” was the resolution :)
Should we have different badges for different use cases?
Yes!
helpful (answers questions, explains, provides info, ...)
real (prevent false identity, like Lex and Yud)
smartass (helps make markets unambiguous)
trustworthy (can resolve questions)
active (deserves a badge for being here)
To switch to this scheme: put all trustworthy.ish into active, except those belonging into real, create market to find out the proper category.
@Austin @DavidChee being the supertrustworthyi-sh badge holder is a no brainer imo at this point. So nice to see him being a lot more engaging with the community recently, keeps the whole place from going into chaotic mode. Plus lots of new user interactions as well. Makes sense to me.
@ButtocksCocktoasten is the only one I would 100% trust in, since his objectivity comes straight from rationalussy
@mira being second is odd. I don't think it should be someone involved in frequent controversy OR someone who has broken the community guidelines, even if they do resolve their markets correctly.
Edit: still better than @ButtocksCocktoasten lol
@Conflux Lol maybe each of the top candidates should write up "If I were in charge of the trustworthy-ish program, this is what I would do" as a top-level comment on this market.
Would definitely increase my predilection towards choosing you!