e.g https://manifold.markets/group/scandal-markets
This is likely just going to be up to my personal take, but I welcome others' takes on how to think about this. I won't resolve NO if it's basically neutral but a tiny bit negative.
Note: This market will resolve ambiguously if I am confident that someone takes a large position and the attempts to use other markets to cause problems.
Close date updated to 2023-12-31 11:59 pm
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,643 | |
| 2 | Ṁ184 | |
| 3 | Ṁ153 | |
| 4 | Ṁ110 | |
| 5 | Ṁ77 |
People are also trading
if people airing your dirty laundry hurts you, that's not evidence that your dirty laundry shouldn't be aired or that airing it is negative EV. I think this is true even if you are mother theresa.
EA has already lost more EV to people being too cautious about criticizing the ingroup than it will ever lose to people criticizing the ingroup. "More stalins" circlejerks like the EA criticism contest do not fix this.
Note: This market will resolve ambiguously if I am confident that someone takes a large position and the attempts to use other markets to cause problems.
I think this is a mistake. If the markets here unfairly effect someone’s reputation then this should resolve to yes, even if that person is motivated by this market.
@EzraNewman Why exactly would the market creator want to incentivize people to unfairly affect someone's reputation
@vluzko Good point I guess. I think that that incentive already exists because you can get your payout from the other markets, but changes the predictive power of this one.
But upon reflection I think that’s a good point.
@NathanpmYoung just N/Ad some of their markets due to some Twitter drama. This market seemed like the best place to discuss that, I hope neither of you mind me making this comment here.
The Twitter drama in question wasn't about any particular EA, so I don't think it should resolve this YES. It was also a pretty small amount of drama from what I could see, just the exact same sort of "markets bad" rhetoric from people who don't understand the difference between prediction markets and the blockchain.
I doubt something like that will actually change much of anyone's opinion about EA; looked to me like people who were just looking for the most convenient excuse to dunk on a movement they had already decided to dunk on.
Personally I'm less averse to Twitter drama, so I'm considering making more markets of this type. But if that would actually be bad for EA, I don't want to do that. Thoughts?
@IsaacKing Didn't track the first question, but the answer to the second question is that you're right, that would not cause me to resolve to yes
@ChanaMessinger You've answered my question, but just to explain my first sentence, I meant the difference between:
Markets that tank someone's reputation, and only the ones that do so unfairly.
Markets that tank someone's reputation, which by the way, is unfair.
In the first sentence, "unfairly" is a qualifier; it's taking the set of "markets that tank someone's reputation" and reducing it down to a smaller set of "markets that tank someone's reputation unfairly".
In the second sentence, "unfairly" is a descriptor, telling us how you feel about someone's reputation being tanked by a market. Under this interpretation, the word doesn't add any explanatory power to the market title, and the market would resolve the same way if it weren't there.
See here for a more detailed explanation of what I mean:
