So this is just purely based on the number of NO bets? I.e., an option only resolves YES if people unanimously (or unanimously-1) agree on it?

@PlasmaBallin I added symmetry so it isn’t this way any more, I respect the concern that with more liquidity this is too easily abused, but yeah that was the original idea. Thought being if the truth isn’t self-evident, it should just resolve no.

This should be unranked imo, it's very easy to manipulate

@coproduct Yeah, I'm very tempted to just vote no on everything. Is someone out there willing to buddy up, haha?

@mods

@coproduct How and why would you manipulate this rather than just participating in good faith?

@kevor How would you change the rules to disencentivize what you describe?

@BlueDragon Since the threshold for an option resolving NO is 2 bets, I'd simply place a small NO bet and wait to see if someone else votes NO as well

If they do, I make a huge NO bet because I'm guaranteed to win.

I'd do this because I want to have more mana.

@BlueDragon Basing on simple majority would make a lot more sense

@BlueDragon honestly the whole reason we have a percentage system here is exactly so this kind of thing doesn't happen

I'd say to resolve based on, for instance, > 95% consensus or something

It'd still be a Keynesian beauty contest, which means people are trying to predict what others would say instead of stating their own beliefs, but it's better than the current format.

Thanks for the feedback ya’ll. I pinged #mod-help on Discord and now there is a massive thread if you want to continue the conversation there about whether this market should exist, easier to consolidate responses.

What I will say here is that this market was created in good faith, for fun and to start an honest conversation. I can’t ignore the taint of someone demanding my market be delisted, I wouldn’t bet in a market someone objected to that strenuously. I’d like to gently request: don’t do this quite so cavalierly please.

I am happy to continue the conversation here about how (or whether) a market on “self evident truths” could be interesting or useful.

@coproduct I can point out that the abuse you are worried about is easily overcome by requiring a minimum number of bets, and by changing the rules for a NO resolution. I’ve done that above for your benefit, though I think you overstate the worry that someone is going to get a ton of Mana out of betting NO in a mini market, but then again I don’t really think in those terms. Amassing a ton of Mana is a silly pursuit. Mana, even more than money, is means to an end my padwans. Chill.

I don’t want to resolve to simple majority as that defeats the purpose of discovering self evident truths, thank you though @PlasmaBallin.

I AM interested in Keynesian beauty contests! Or at least whether we can formulate “self-evident truths” on behalf of one another. I think that is fundamentally part of what Manifold is for, and fundamentally what we are expecting of large language models now and into the future.

I am not interested in people stating their beliefs and expecting others to agree or disagree, though you may be right that will happen, it isn’t super interesting and I’ll probably shut this down if that’s all we get out of it.

@BlueDragon unranking a market is not the same as delisting it, unranking a market just means that profit and loss in that market won't count for Leagues. It's common practice to unrank markets that are non-predictive or easy to manipulate.

@BlueDragon people bet in unranked markets all the time, it's fun and can often be a very useful exercise in game theory. I'm not trying to get your market banned or anything like that, don't worry.

@coproduct You are JUST arguing that this market shouldn’t count towards league standing and is dumb and bad, but don’t worry, people can still bet on it, yes I understand.

I am inviting you to bring that to the proper forum. Thanks!

@BlueDragon ...I am not trying to state your market is dumb and bad and I don't understand why you would say something like that. But sure, I'll open Discord.

@BlueDragon The reason I said simple majority would work is because you can explicitly ask people, "Do you think this is self-evident?" rather than, "Do you think it's true?" and presumably people would have a higher standard for the former. But using a higher percentage threshold also works.

For anyone wondering, the net of the mod discussion is that there is no rule that self-resolving markets should be unranked, such as the popular right-wing/left-wing and good/bad markets, others are ranked, so there’s no reason this one should be unranked.

Please trade away on what you think are “self evident truths”

@coproduct Please don’t be offended. All in good fun. I did not mean to say it’s bad to think this market is dumb, it might be! I just don’t want to debate policy here, where I’m trying to do something else.

@PlasmaBallin See what I did and what you think

EDIT thought better of what I came up with, and so far everyone is right and this is an impossible market, but still pondering! 🤔