At end of 2025, resolves based on the probability (rounded to 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) that Trump ever (when above the age of 20) had any kind of sexual relations with a girl below the legal age of consent.
A broad but reasonable definition of “sexual relations” will be used. The age of consent is based on the laws of that jurisdiction at that time.
My plan is to resolve by averaging probabilities given on a poll of legitimate Manifold users. I will conduct this poll when 2025 is over, assuming that the correct resolution still needs to be determined. I may resolve YES early if clear evidence emerges.
Originally I said this market would resolve to my judgement (my current gut feeling is close to 50%), and I reserve the right to change the rules to ensure that the resolution is fair and reasonable.
General policy for my markets: In the rare event of a conflict between my resolution criteria and the agreed-upon common-sense spirit of the market, I may resolve it according to the market's spirit or N/A, probably after discussion.
1,000People are also trading
The market needs to be abandoned for a misleading outcome. A similar market would ask to poll whether the sun will rise in the east, the outcome having nothing to do with where the sun rises, only with where it should rise. Void the bets.
Wait @Conflux when and why did this change to a poll-based resolution?!?! It's essentially just minnow-bait now. Ppl are incentivized to just answer the poll based on what shares they're holding.
@bens I would absolutely not have put 20k into this market if I knew it would just be a keynesian beauty contest
@bens I feel like if you're going to do a poll, it should be excluded to people holding shares in this market, or weighted by log(mana net worth), or something of that sort
@bens It changed to a poll-based resolution early on, like within a day or two of creation iirc? I didn’t want to be resolving a market with hundreds of traders based on my personal vibe. However, if I suspect that the poll is being manipulated, as the description states, I have the right to override the result.
I guess maybe the poll could give stronger weight to people who do not have large positions in the market … I don’t want to overcomplicate though. There is an element of me trusting people to be honest
@Conflux When I remember betting on this market, it was based on your own interpretation of the evidence. Poll-based resolutions are always just based on who's holding shares in the main market, so it serves almost as a self-resolving market, without any relation to, like, truth or whatever. I guess I see basically zero epistemic value in resolving a market based on a raw poll of users. I'm not sure why you'd "trust people" lol
@bens To be fair, I’m being a coward. If the market had a small number of bettors, or if the bettors were all active manifold community members like you who trust my judgement, then sure, I’ll resolve it myself. But I selected a poll because it has more legitimacy to the average user. I didn’t feel like being yelled at by a bunch of anons who all think I’m stupid however I would choose to resolve it.
@bens ...>See info>history indicates it was changed to include the mention of the possibility of a poll within about 10 minutes of the market being created. And your trade history says you only started trading the next day, so I think this is on you.
@Conflux Somehow, I missed this too. I only remember reading that it would resolve based on your judgment.
@Conflux Just to clarify, the description originally said you would resolve based on your gut feeling. Then it was edited to add that you might use a poll to resolve it instead (contradicting the earlier part of the resolution criteria). Then the description was changed again to say that you would actually use a poll to resolve it. I think this radically changes what the question is really asking.
@AndrewHebb To discuss the history point further, it seems that no one had traded on the market before the change was made (except the bot that buys no on everything). I think it's fine to say that ninja edits should be allowed if no one has looked at and traded based on the criteria.
I would add that I don’t really see any of this as a contradiction. I’m not an expert on Trump or his potential pedophilia. I’m allowed to believe the results of a poll and use that to resolve a market. My judgement can be to use a poll. If you are trading based on my judgement, and don’t think me relying on a poll is possible, you have failed to predict my judgement.
@BoltonBailey No one had traded before the first change. People traded after the second change.
I should probably read resolution criteria more carefully, but I don't think the description should say the market will resolve one way and then later say actually, it might resolve in a completely different way.
I assumed you would not base your judgment on a poll, which I would think an absurd thing to base such a judgment on. If that's a wrong assumption, then I agree there is no contradiction. But your use of the word "instead" suggests that these were to be mutually exclusive means of resolving the market.
@Conflux I guess you're right. I did fail to predict your judgment. Because I assumed your judgment on this matter would be better than being equivalent to the average percentage given on an unweighted poll of Manifold users, of which 80% of the poll respondents have directly bet in the derivative market. This is in fact on me, and not your fault, vis a vis this market, perhaps, but I don't think it reflects well on your judgment.
@AndrewHebb By the second change, do you mean the change from the criteria saying "I might resolve using a poll" to "I will resolve using a poll" ? I don't think it's fair to describe that as "a completely different way" of resolving the question, really at that point it's just a clarification. Am I not getting something here?
@BoltonBailey Yes, that's what I mean by the second change. The completely different way that I'm referring to is using the poll rather than personal judgment.
@AndrewHebb Ok, are you saying there was someone who traded on the basis of the "I will use my personal judgement (and not saying anything else)" version of the criteria?
I can agree that "I will use my personal judgement (and not saying anything else)" is different from "I will use my personal judgement or maybe a poll". I can also agree that there are people who traded after the second change (and also, people who traded before the second change and after the first). But I think it would be jumping the gun to, say, N/A the market due a discrepancy between the ultimate criteria and an early version of the market that no one had traded on, I pretty frequently change market criteria of my own markets in cases where no one has traded.
@WilliamBarr doing it and being indicted for it are very different things, especially when it comes to Trump.