This market was canceled and I lost all my mana?? Shouldn't all of the holders get their mana back??

@JaySocrates if a market gets cancelled like that, all transactions get reverted. In your case you made a profit by buying low and selling high. You didn't lose all your mana invested but just the profit. It may feel a bit unfair to you but you were only able to get those profits because the market was so weirdly broken and on the flip side everybody who lost mana on this market got their losses refunded too.

@Agh I truly did not know it worked that way. That makes sense though.

@EmunaelLator Sadly this market will have to be N/A'd as it was created with the wrong format. It should be an independent multiple choice (where more than one answer can be selected).

I wish there was a way to convert it to one but sadly that is not possible. We could leave it open and resolve partially to each answer that occurs, but this will be unfair to traders as they may even lose mana on correct predictions depending on how many answers the payout is split between.

I would encourage you to recreate this in the correct format! Let me know if you need help with that. N/A'ing a market will refund all the subsidy you spent on this market.

@SirSalty This market has an issue:

• The options are resolves-to-one multiple choice, but the question is posed as resolves-to-many.

• The creator did not specify how resolution would be handled if multiple answers were true

• Many users have already bet without realizing that the market is set up in a way that is not aligned with the question being asked

In a comment below, the creator attempted to resolve the situation but found there was no way to fix it. I recommend we resolve this market N/A and the creator can make a new copy of it with the resolves-to-many property instead.

I am moving this market to unlisted status right now so no more users accidentally start betting on it.

Can we get some clarity on how this will resolve? Assumption is that anything that happens resolves yes..?

@GibbR i think we will not

This market seems a bit strange, how come there is only one option?

Surest bet ever. how was it so low?

@FoxKHTML This market is using a framework where the odds are dependant on one another. This framework implies only one of these options can resolve YES. (I don't think this market was set up correctly.)

@Quroe

I might need to reach out to admins, because I don't see an option to correct this, if you all see as an error. Will go through FAQs first.

@EmunaelLator Yeah that’s not what I thought. Modddddds

@EmunaelLator Unfortunately there’s no way to change the market to allow resolving multiple to YES. I think that resolving to N/A is probably the best option here.

It looks like this is mistakenly created at a "one outcome" prediction

@mods help?

There's no way to fix this market after the fact. The only solution is to cancel this market and make a new one.

@EmunaelLator make sure to select "Set" as the question type when you make the new market.

I'm surprised that mention the crowd size is so low, also, it's not really outrageous

@DavidOman Well, I mean it is if you consider the setting, right? You can talk about anything but you are taking over the presidency, but I do get what you are saying. Oh, I realize my error, I wanted to say that he brings up the crowd size from the last time (2016 / 2017 ) the one were he felt attacked. That makes it "outrageous" that he brings up the crowd size from 8 years ago.

@EmunaelLator ah yes. Outrageous. xD

@MattP my bad it was supposed to be:
> "Mention the 2017 inauguration crowd size"
If traders vote (by thumbs up) I will change the description.
And I think that bringing up a grudge from 8 years ago, is pretty outrageous, right ?

The question could definitely use clarification on how things like "say something racist" or "tell a lie" will be determined.

Also, you can get a more comprehensive idea of the quality of the predictions made on this platform: https://calibration.city/

@BrunoParga I am looking into what I can do after posting the question, off the top of my head I was thinking looking at the reporting (AP) after the speech. As we know there is a counter of the lies that were told while in office (since these were committed to the national archive). Something racist, we have to agree on that, but again common sense, all immigrants are criminals would be racist, objectively, right?

I am also looking into what you linked to, trying to improve this market.

@EmunaelLator "common sense, all immigrants are criminals"

Here's where we get into interpretation, though. Would you say he has said this in the past? His defenders would argue he hasn't.

@MattP, aren't all illegal immigrants criminals by definition?

@JimAusman no they're not. Immigration law is not criminal law, and administrative violations are not crimes.

@JimAusman how is that relevant to what I quoted? The quote was "all immigrants are criminals", not "all illegal immigrants are criminals".

@BrunoParga excellent point thanks!

@JimAusman I might have an issue with English as it is not my first language. In many languages "criminal" is a word that is synonymous to "murderer" so I think we should agree to resolve it to YES if he mentions that all immigrants are violent or murderers. I think that constitutes "something racist".