Noting for posterity - I think this was an honest mistake/case of sloppiness, and BTE made it right with the people who lost money on the market. While I'd still consider the resolution of this market incorrect, I would personally remove the "dishonorable resolution" label. I do consider BTE a trustworthy market creator, if one who may take a slightly less rigorous interpretation of titles than I do, which means asking for clarification on resolution criteria is recommended.

@BTE by what criteria are you claiming the resolution wasn't incorrect? Both the title *and* the description say "a delegation of US Senators", plural. A delegation containing a single US Senator went. That's obviously not a YES resolution to the question that was asked. Words have meanings.

@MattP https://manifold.markets/BTE/will-a-delegation-of-multiple-us-se

@BTE also, I apologize if my use of the phrase "dishonorable resolution" offended you. I personally use that phrase as a term of art for any resolution that does traders wrong in some way, as an alternative to the (not understood by everyone) term "rugpull" or the (less broad) phrase "incorrect resolution" (as, for example, someone N/A-ing a market with an obviously correct resolution might not be incorrect technically, but would still be dishonorable).

I'm not intending to cast aspersions on your personal character, just your reliability as a market resolver.

@BTE though again, if you refund Jack and Oliver S's investments that's at least a show of good faith IMO.

@BTE this does seem like an honest mistake; I'm not accusing you of intentionally stealing from NO traders or anything. I do think you're flat-out wrong about what the correct resolution was here though, which still means I'm less liable to trust your other markets even if I think it was an honestly incorrect resolution. Someone who reads and interprets questions differently from me is still someone I'm less liable to trust to resolve markets, even if they're sincere in that interpretation. (shrug)

Yeah, I think there are many shades of gray to resolutions, e.g. there are obviously wrong resolutions and there are disagreements on ambiguous interpretations; and "dishonorable resolution" seems to be the popular term used here on Manifold but it clearly means different things to different people.

@jack Sending you back what you bet so you trust my markets. And because Matt basically demanded it.

DISHONORABLE RESOLUTION. Yesterday's delegation was a single Senator (Markey) and some representatives it was NOT a "delegation of US Senators" (plural).

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/14/politics/congressional-delegation-taiwan/index.html

@BTE between this and the near-rugpull on the Elon market I'm classifying you as an "unreliable at best" market creator (and will be warning other traders in your markets of such) unless you provide evidence I'm incorrect about this being an dishonorable resolution or make restitution in some way.

@MattP So you are saying this should be still open because only one Senator went??

@MattP this was delagation led by a US senator.

@MattP "dishonorable" is way too far.

@MattP The intent of this question was to ask if a US Senate delegation would visit Taiwan. I wrote it as a delegation of US senators. But it's the same thing.

@MattP Restitution?!? Fine. How much did you lose? I will send it to you.

@MattP @jack do you want restitution too, Jack?

@MattP There is your $35.

@MattP I am pissed that you felt the need to accuse me of dishonesty. Too far. What the fuck do I have to gain from that?!? This site needs DMs.

@MattP There is no way to get rid of that bullshit label now. But you got what you want. Good for you.

@BTE what do you mean by "no way to get rid of the label"? It's literally just a statement I made in a comment, voicing my personal assessment of your reliability as a market creator. My opinion is obviously subject to change if you correct the mistake and don't resolve more stuff incorrectly.

@MattP There was no mistake. But you got your money back anyway so good for you.

@BTE it does look from a brief perusal of the betting history that the only other people who lost money on this market were Jack and Oliver S. If you were to refund them their stakes as well, that'd be a show of good faith (though I still think we all would've won more than we initially staked, because I still think the answer to the question in the title will end up being NO).

In the future, maybe take a brief straw poll via comments before resolving in a way that doesn't actually match the question wording, yeah?

This happened yesterday