https://manifold.markets/beaver1/will-this-market-resolve-55-by-the Season 2 - let's get in here

I apologize for the misinterpretation. Poor execution on my part.

@CarlCinco N/A is a good choice

@jacksonpolack Thanks, it was not my intention to mess with anyone. I hope everyone is okay with this resolution

@CarlCinco All good

@CarlCinco I think this is not the right resolution.

It says Market expires on March 31, 2024 at 11:59:59pm EST. That's "Eastern Standard Time". If we're going by the description, https://time.is/EST is one hour behind EDT.

At "March 31, 2024 at 11:59:59pm EST", the market was at 57%:

I suggest clicking the 'Unresolve' button and either resolving it YES based on a literal interpretation or N/A. Most users expected it to resolve at midnight PT, because it says "when it expires" and that's the close date.

@jacksonpolack I disagree with you. By betting on an ambiguous market you conceded discretionary power to the author to clarify their intent. They did, against your position.

@beaver1 I don't think the author was aware of the EST issue. I think you should either follow the resolution criteria or resolve it N/A. And the market was above 55% at 11:59 PM EST.

@jacksonpolack Like the ambiguity here is if it's the close date or if it's "11:59 PM EST", right? EST is just not EDT

@beaver1 The ambiguity is "what the author meant" credibly, we argued that the description was the source of truth but we are rediscovering why Manifold has an unambiguous market expiry parameter. Either way, I think the fact that this isn't tenable for you to argue agains the resolution even though you knew that there was at least two (three) credible interpretation of the resolution time.

@beaver1 I think that if you write EST, you should resolve to EST, instead of 'what you mean' in your head?

Either way, I think the fact that this isn't tenable for you to argue agains the resolution even though you knew that there was at least two (three) credible interpretation of the resolution time.

Right, two. One of which is YES and the other of which would've been YES if the author hadn't resolved.

@beaver1 @jacksonpolack is right, this market should either resolve YES or N/A. I say this as someone who profited from the NO resolution.

@Arky It should probably N/A, it's just rich and lame that jackson is complaining after taking on an ambiguous trade lol.

dont bet no on this guys! its a trap!

I have no position here, IMO this should just resolve NO now. Creator must have made a mistake with the close time but the description is clear.

@Joshua I'm confused, why? wasn't close time always set to 2:59 EST?

oh,
> Market expires on March 31, 2024 at 11:59:59pm EST

@Bayesian the description says 11:59 tho

yeah imo description supersedes implied close time from currently set close time

oh my what are these bets..

@Joshua
I have a vested interest, but I think this market should be resolved immediately. The expiration time is ambiguous, but the description is precise and the author had to write it out explicitly, so it is evidently an unfortunate "clerical" error. I think either way the moderation team should make an executive call.

@Joshua Or cancel the market altogether, I don't know what is the best solution but this isn't a great user experience

@beaver1 Yeah if the creator did a misresolution mods would probably resolve N/A. The rules say we should wait and see what the creator says though.

@Joshua What happens in the case of N/A, are trades unwinded at market value? or reverted altogether?

@beaver1 reversed altogether, so everyone gets all their mana back

The creator should wait until 2 hours from now to resolve certainly, even if they resolve it based on price at an earlier date.