https://x.com/WatcherGuru/status/1812251989759418579
Can resolve to multiple answers.
Resolves based on the consensus of credible media reports on whether this factor contributed to the shooter’s firing toward the stage at the July 13th rally. I plan to be cautious in resolving any option given the evolving nature of the investigations.
If there are no active investigations/commissions, the market end date has passed (12/31/2024), and there is not a consensus of credible media reports either way (e.g. no media reports, inconclusive reports, or conflicting reports), I plan to resolve an option to a Keynesian beauty contest (resolves to current %). If I suspect market manipulation to game the Keynesian beauty contest occurred (e.g. spikes right before market close or a whale entering on the opposite side of other traders without explanation), I retain the right to resolve based on what I think the % would be absent the manipulation OR resolve based on an external forecast (e.g. another prediction market such as Metaculus or Polymarket, a poll of Manifold users, or asking a AI forecaster).
If there is an option with an ambiguous meaning that is not clarified by the creator of the option in the comments (or has not already been clarified by me in the comments as of 07/16/24), I will ask the most recent ChatGPT "What would it mean for an assasin to be motivated by [INSERT OPTION]? Please be as concise as possible." I will use this answer to clarify the meaning (potentially asking follow-ups to understand potential edge cases).
I am open to feedback on edits to the criteria within 24 hours after the edit was made. After that, I will be far less likely to alter the criteria based on new requests. This policy should ensure everyone can trade with confidence.
Related questions
recent article from Newsweek, with statements from the school. they claim a lot of the stuff being stated as true about the guy are lies or rumours and the records they have were that he attended school, got good grades, wasn't relentlessly bullied, and never tried out for the rifle team. here's the article in case it impacts people's assumptions here:
https://www.newsweek.com/thomas-matthew-crooks-school-update-bullying-1928113
@DismalScientist Does major depressive disorder count as insanity?
Recall one of Crooks’ reported searches was for Major depressive order .
insanity is a legal definition while mental disorders are a medical one. imo might have overlap, but it's not clear cut! the big difference is that "insanity" is about ability to understand one's actions, consequences, and the processes that come out of them, while the other is about prevailing mood and ability to function without interrupting your life.
When the F.B.I. was able to finally access Mr. Crooks’s cellphones and other electronic devices, agents could see that he had searched for images of Mr. Trump as well as President Biden, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and even F.B.I. Director Christopher A. Wray.
Mr. Crooks also had at typed in “major depressive disorder” and searched for dates and places for appearances for both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump.
One of Mr. Trump’s planned appearances happened to be about 50 miles from Mr. Crooks’s house in Bethel Park, Pa.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/17/us/politics/secret-service-trump-shooting.html
It's looking like the speculation that his motive was proving that he wasn't a terrible shot after being kicked out of the shooting club in high school was on to something.
It might also be worth adding "hated all politicians". An interview with a former classmate just dropped where he recalls Crooks as vocally disliking all politicians (admittedly not uncommon): https://www.foxnews.com/video/6358216782112
INSANITY
law : unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents someone from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases someone from criminal or civil responsibilies.
A major depression wouldn't be enough; it would need to be accompanied by symptons like psychosis to qualify. At least under law.
@traders I added more details to the resolution criteria. Importantly, “open to feedback on these criteria filed in the next 24 hours (prior to 3:35 PM PT). After that, I will be far less likely to alter the criteria based on new requests. This policy should ensure everyone can trade with certainty.
P.S. unfortunately I am traveling this week so may not respond promptly, but I will consider any feedback filed before that deadline even if I only see it after the deadline.”
The bombs make the seemingly ridiculous suggestion that he didn’t really care about the election (or at least wasn’t purely motivated by it) more plausible. He apparently spent a bunch of time building bombs and then didn’t use them. Building a bomb isn’t what you would do if your goal was killing Trump all along, bombs aren’t great for assassination attempts. My guess is the bomb in his car was for after, to kill himself and others in a final blaze of glory which would by itself suggest he wasn’t motivated purely by an instrumental motive to kill Trump. But it is a lot of work to build a bomb for something so inessential and unlikely to ever be used.
I think perhaps he started out planning a terrorist attack with a bomb and a different target then changed his plan. Still could have a political motive but it is a little more consistent with pure rage at the world or a pure desire for fame as motives. If you had did have pure infamy as a motive Trump would be a very attractive target.
I'm not following. I mean, if someone intended to shoot someone, that isn't a motive. It's just the act. No?
How would this possibly be determined? Does this option resolve NO if absolutely no further information about his motives is ever uncovered?
If so, then 99% seems excessively high.
Just to be sure I understand: Are you saying "To shoot Trump" will resolve YES unless there's some evidentiary reason to think otherwise? Like, is YES the default resolution if no contradictory information about his motives is uncovered?
The description as currently written makes me think it would resolve NO currently.
Like, it’s a logical consequence that Trump can’t win if he had been assassinated, but it’s conceivable that this consequence was irrelevant to Crooks’ reasoning (for example if Crooks were trying “To impress a specific person”, which currently sits at 11%, maybe he didn’t care about the election at all).
Yeah, and since there are currently no credible media reports either way as to whether the Trump shooter was trying to shoot Trump, I'd say that part of the description is simply inconsistent with how this market will actually resolve. It should be changed, or an exception should be specified for "To shoot Trump" if that's the only market that defaults to YES.
@JimHays @GazDownright @ForTruth @Snarflak Thanks for this feedback.
I am considering changing the section Jim quoted to "If there are no active investigations/commissions, the market end date has passed (12/31/2024), and there are no credible media reports either way, I plan to resolve an option to a Keynesian beauty contest (resolves to current %). If I expect market manipulation to game the Keynesian beauty contest occurred (e.g. spikes right before market close), I retain the right to resolve based on what I think the % probability would be absent the manipulation."
I worry that Keynesian beauty contests are subject to manipulation but I feel more comfortable exerting my subjective judgment on whether manipulation occured vs. exerting it on whether or not the default answer should be YES for "To decrease the odds of Trump winning the election“.
Let me know if this would or would not address your concerns or if you have any further feedback.
While I wait for any further feedback, I updated the market to say: "If there are no active investigations/commissions, the market end date has passed (12/31/2024), and there is not a consensus of credible media reports either way (e.g. no media reports, inconclusive reports, or conflicting reports), I plan to resolve an option to a Keynesian beauty contest (resolves to current %). If I suspect market manipulation to game the Keynesian beauty contest occurred (e.g. spikes right before market close), I retain the right to resolve based on what I think the % would be absent the manipulation."
You're very welcome.
A note: I'm skeptical to applying the KBC theory to criminal motives of such magnitude. I appreciate it's a decent mechanism for awarding shares, but if the market is trying to forecast the motives of the failed assassin, I think we will lead ourselves astray; infinately regressing ourselves into our own stereotypes and biases. I'd prefer YES/NO binaries myself.
Your note makes sense. I will try my best to resolve YES/NO. However, it seems to be becoming more and more likely that we will not have conclusive evidence on a lot of these options. Resolving N/A is not my preferred option since some options are more likely/have more evidence or logic behind them than others. Given that, I see my options as my subjective judgment (not a fan of this since traders then need to project my personal leanings), KBC, or resolve to an external forecast. For the external forecast, I could get other people's opinions (e.g. use metaculus or polymarket odds if they have a similar question or survey 100 people on Prolific/MTurk to get their opinion) or could ask Claude/ChatGPT/another AI for its probability. Do either of those options seem more appealing than a KBC?
@DismalScientist I think YES/NO is best in vast majority, and then using a KBC on very hard-to-resolve options strikes me as a reasonable option! (And better than N/A)
It’s your market to do with as you will, but I will at least mention that my betting has been strongly influenced by the understanding that a lack of evidence for a given claim would result in a NO as stated in the original market description. It seems plausible that no discernible motive will be found, leaving everything else as speculation. I’d rather a KBC be used in a market that were more along the lines of “What do Manifold users think were the shooter’s motivations?”