🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ403 | |
| 2 | Ṁ60 | |
| 3 | Ṁ56 | |
| 4 | Ṁ51 | |
| 5 | Ṁ44 |
You guys are all dweebs lol, but this thread has certainly taught me the importance of syntax.
I will be sure next time to state X amount of traders or higher by close. 🤣
Edit: I got held up around the time of close, and when I saw the slew of comments; I was not going to resolve until I read everything.
🍿 Never knew predictive markets could be so entertaining.
@NicoDelon yes, everything @MayMeta says could be tainted with bias, so we should ignore it.
also, the creator should not fall for the "immediate resolution scam" even after this market closes. We need weeks of debate to decide how to properly resolve it.
@Mira No. Again, I just find it silly. They bought M33k in the last 45 minutes having probably given little thought to the market resolution and here we are. It’s just so dumb.
@Mira anyone care to explain this "immediate resolution scam" line I've seen a bunch? Like, aggressively trying to get quick resolution in the face of reasonable ambiguity (of which there is none in this market, btw) is poor form, but throwing the word "scam" around loosely seems like pure FUD to try to scare the market creator into sitting on their hands (for what? To annoy people who put lots of mana in by causing it to be locked up for a few days?).
What's the deal? Unless there is an actual scam, comments making such insinuations should be reported and deleted.
@chrisjbillington I think when re resolving markets weren't possible, getting the creator to quickly resolve it, cuz more discussion would lead to more correct results. im just guessing though, but thats what i think the quick resolve scam is.. and i guess people are using that term but arent realizing that markets can now be re resolved.
@chrisjbillington There is some reasonable ambiguity. Otherwise you wouldn’t be seeing reasonable people on both sides make such cogent arguments.
@NicoDelon Doubt. I predict if the creator resolved YES without commenting, there would be no serious complaints. Maybe trolls, maybe grifters, but nobody who in their heart was actually surprised. If they resolved NO, there would be many complaints, and possibly admin re-resolution.
Language is ambiguous and we all know what the title means. The level of pedantry required to think otherwise would make the whole site non-functional if applied generally.
@chrisjbillington You're entirely correct and also maybe failing to pick up on a lot of the sarcasm that's going around :)
@NamesAreHard I was being sarcastic but I do think there’s some ambiguity. I’m with team it should probably resolve YES, but I’ve seen enough tricky markets here to suspect ambiguity more often than I normally would.
@NicoDelon agreed, at the end of the day I think the market crater should be able to resolve as they intended since I think there are valid aunt's for each side. Maybe stronger arguments for yes but if the market maker intended exactly 70 or is convinced my an argument I think they can resolve rather answer validly. @EhMe11 will decide haha
@NicoDelon This can never be NO and N/A is an option only if the market creator's intent was for it to be exactly 70 (which it wasn't but just for argument's sake). The amount of tricky markets you've seen shouldn't have anything to do with the question of how this particular one should be resolved?
@NamesAreHard I dunno. It seemed obvious to me when I bought YES, but it doesn’t sound crazy to me that someone could read it as ‘at time t will there be x unique traders’, the literal meaning of which is exactly what team NO is arguing. I don’t see why the amount of ambiguity on Manifold shouldn’t have any bearing here, especially with a newish market creator.
@NicoDelon The way I see it is that if the large majority of people read it in one way, then this is what the market is about. It's kind of subjective where exactly the line for "large majority" is but it's not at "it's not crazy" for someone to read it the other way. People can and do make bad assumptions, in which case they lose mana and that's fine. I do think we're in this scenario here.
From here we have two cases. If the market creator agrees with the large majority, then usually there are no issues and the market resolves that way. If the market creator has another interpretation, then what they had in mind and the market they actually ended up creating point to different things. My personal preference for these cases is usually N/A but sometimes it's fine to resolve along with the majority, it depends on the situation*. Resolving against it, though, would be a misresolution.
The amount of ambiguity on Manifold shouldn't have any bearing here because what we're doing is discussing what the resolution of this market should be, not trying to predict what it would be (or in other words, we're not trying to predict misresolution or N/A risk). There's an argument for how the current market's interpretation depends on how similar markets have been interpreted in the past but that seems separate from the general ambiguity thing.
* Basically if the minority understood the market creator's intent correctly, it should be N/A'd because their assumptions were actually reasonable. Some arguments about the "letter" of the market also work similarly - if the literal reading of the title or some part of the description unambiguously point to a minority interpretation, then that interpretation is reasonable and we go for N/A (this applies regardless of which side the creator is on).
@NamesAreHard That all makes sense. I’ll just note that the creator had another market which used different language (‘at least’ and ‘by’), which to me does create some ambiguity, though I reckon that’s most likely carelessness. Like I’ve said several times already, I don’t care one way or another because anyone’s who’s been too seriously invested in a market like this can only blame themselves. It’s just fun to watch and, perhaps a little more seriously, symptomatic of a few recurring issues on Manifold. That’s how I see the ambiguity trend bearing on this market: a lot of traders make bets against a background of being tricked, duped, or otherwise confused by ambiguous markets.