I don't have an issue with moderators resolving my markets, assuming the mod correctly interpreted the criteria and the criteria is objective. This should not be interpreted to mean that I think this should be a general policy.

Creators should always be given a warning by a moderator (if not already @'d or tagged by a trader (AND UNACKNOWLEDGED)) before resolving for them, imo.

and 24 hours i think is even a little short for it tbh. Question Makers are an important part of your overall ecosystem. It's important they are enjoying making and resolving questions. What do they gain by moderators auto-resolving before them? I don't think so much. But they have much to lose.

Maybe traders gain something, namely, getting their invested mana back (in event of a correct prediction), but we also have loans now to help with this

Even conditioning on correct resolution of a specific market, my sentiment is determined by the base rate:

• In a world where mods resolve 99.99% correctly: Yeah, great, thanks!

• In a world where mods resolve 80% correctly: No! I'm upset! It happened to be resolved correctly this time, but that was an unnecessary risk!

I meant to say No, not under any circumstances, but i said yes, in almost every case

i'm the lizardman

@Bayesian would you be upset if a moderator (you) incorrectly resolved your poll answer before you could do it correctly?

@jskf yes. this is why mods cannot be trusted (thank god for the reresolution ability)

I could imagine a hypothetical situation in which the outcome is ultimately correct but a moderator used the wrong reasoning to reach that conclusion. Or if something was being left open due to ambiguities or allowing trader comment, where it was ultimately in line with the final outcome but done prematurely. But I don’t have any personal attachment to being the person to hit resolve. I just want to make sure it’s done right.

Not my market, but an example that is somewhat in line with what I’m thinking about: the “all living presidents inauguration” market. Was this intended to refer to US presidents? Almost certainly. But I would have liked to have the opportunity for that clarification before resolving immediately, even if the outcome is the same.

I can't think of a single reason to be upset given correct resolution, but I can think of all kinds of ways a moderator and I might disagree on what's correct.

@WilliamGunn Could you give examples of ways you think this would be most likely to happen?

@jskf The obvious ones are things like:

Misinterpretation of the resolution criteria

Choosing a source of information that I don't think is reliable

Resolving based on early reports or estimates rather than waiting for the official numbers

I have seen some people prefer to run a poll or get feedback from traders before resolving something, and I guess in that case I can see someone being upset, but those aren't likely to be the kinds of questions moderators would resolve proactively anyways.

I'm generally strongly in favor of proactive moderator resolution, provided the focus is on really clear-cut cases.

If you create markets on the site, I'm interested in seeing how you feel.

creators, pls vote