Will anything on the site be changed for April 1st, 2024, in a way that involves rationalussy in some way? E.g., changing the name to "Rationalussy Markets" or adding a fearure with "rationalussy" in the name.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ238 | |
| 2 | Ṁ212 | |
| 3 | Ṁ155 | |
| 4 | Ṁ99 | |
| 5 | Ṁ70 |
@ButtocksCocktoasten Well, it certainly comes from the same place as rationalussy (i.e., poking fun at how rationalists at the core are just a sex cult for people who like to discuss philosophy). But then, LessWrong After Dark went for an even more direct and literal version of the same joke and even associated itself with the center of the rationalist scene. I'd consider that joke to be much closer to rationalussy than poly.markets, which might even be understood as a completely innocent reference to a certain competing platform.
The spirit is still there though 🤔 So it's hard to say. I'd be fine with either resolution, or a 50% one.
@ButtocksCocktoasten I think it shouldn't because:
I think traders interpreted it as being about the word "rationalussy", not whatever "rationalussy" refers to. So it's in the spirit of the market to resolve NO. In general, I think markets should always be resolved according to the way traders interpreted the question, not by ways it can be argued that something technically happened.
If we reject (1) and decide that the question is asking about whatever "rationalussy" refers to rather than the word itself, we have a further problem: "Rationalussy" doesn't refer to anything. It was made up as a nonsense word and has no universally agreed-upon definition. The definition of "rationalist sex" does seem to be reaching some sort of consensus, but I think it was really only solidified when it was used in a market created after this one, so it shouldn't influence the interpretation of this market.
As I understand it, the Rationalussy Cult is meant to be inclusive and accept all interpretations of rationalussy. Resolving this YES on the basis that poly.markets is about rationalussy would require prescribing a definition, breaking this important tenet of the rationalussy faith.
Even if all three points are rejected, and this market is resolved based on a literal interpretation of rationalussy as meaning "rationalist sex", it would still be NO because poly.markets doesn't explicitly say anything about rationalism and thus is technically only about sex, and not rationalist sex specifically. In fact, it could be argued that it's not even about sex, since polyamory doesn't necessarily mean sex, but poly.markets links to the #Sex topic, so I won't press that point.