Will so much as a single banned poster start a market here on whether their appeal to Scott was worth their time?
resolved Jul 5
I know for a fact I won't do it. Question is if anyone else will. See this post: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/open-thread-220?s=r Market resolves to yes if a single banned poster creates such a market, to no if nobody does. Note: the actual banned poster must make the market for this to resolve yes; nobody else.
Get Ṁ200 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:
sold Ṁ30 of NO
Alright, I sold my shares.
sold Ṁ56 of NO
What a waste of time.
predicted NO
@AlexPower Lel.
I would open a market asking "Will a banned user that has been active for more than a year make a market on whether their appeal to Scott was worth their time?" but I'm wary of stupid incentives.
The next play is that everyone bets yes because of Market Manipulator, who doesn't actually make a market re: appealing their ban, and then the market legitimately resolves NO.
bought Ṁ59 of NO
@MartinRandall Yeah, we all bet this up to 90%, but it looks like the right percentage is more like 50%, since it's going to come down to one guy's unilateral decision based on which direction makes him more money.
bought Ṁ10 of YES
@MichaelWheatley or slightly less than that because making a market costs mana.
I mean, someone else could also do it probably
predicted NO
@JoyVoid they don't have a lot of time to get banned before the market closes.
@MartinRandall Maybe a banned user could start it also? But yeah, you're right
If our manipulator friend does make a market to request unbanning there's a separate problem about whether anyone will bet on it, given the higher risk of a rug pull. Doesn't impact this market but probably an issue with Scott's plan. Maybe it would work better if someone could create a market that only Scott can resolve yes, and otherwise auto-resolves no. We've had proposals for those pieces.
predicted NO
@MartinRandall Based.
Surprised people were so surprised by this happening TBH.
predicted NO
@MarketManipulator Ah, but first I have to verify that you're "the actual banned poster". Otherwise this market cannot resolve yes.
predicted NO
Also, the suspicion you're a sock of @IsaacKing persists, and I don't know how to deal with that.
@EnopoletusHarding If someone had not been explicitly trying to manipulate this market and had instead been banned for some other reason and wanted to appeal, would you still have insisted on some sort of identity verification for him, or would you have accepted identical usernames and a consistent story as good enough evidence? But to assuage your fears I've changed my Substack profile pic to match this one, so you can be confident both accounts are owned by the same person.
predicted NO
"would you still have insisted on some sort of identity verification for him" Obviously.
predicted NO
Some context for anyone following along: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/open-thread-228/comment/7097497?s=r
@EnopoletusHarding So are you convinced yet that I'm the same poster as was banned on ACX, and that this can count towards this market's resolution?
predicted NO
@MarketManipulator Well, yes. The issue is, though, I suspect you are a sock of some other poster who is still posting on ACX. I can't prove that, but it seems plausible. If you are still posting with a main account, are you really banned?
@EnopoletusHarding That's a fair point, but doesn't the same apply to any banned poster? You could always make another account to post on ACX. The only difference is that you choose not to. As far as "ability to comment" goes, you're not any more banned than I am.
predicted NO
@MarketManipulator No, my main is banned (along with the link to my associated substack), yours is not. That is a real distinction.
@EnopoletusHarding Are you saying that if you were to make a new account and link to the same Substack, you'd expect that account to get banned too? If that's the case I agree that's a real distinction.
@EnopoletusHarding The letter of the law seems pretty clear here. So what if MM is a sockpuppet? The account got a ban from Scott, and now he's going to make a market to have the account's ban appealed.
@EnopoletusHarding A different way to look at it is that MM proved how easily this market is manipulated, so if you don't accept his appeal, someone else will gladly go off and do it with their main.
predicted YES
@MichaelWheatley If it's someone who's previously been active on ACX, getting their main account banned would likely be a cost to them that's higher than a few hundred mana is worth. On the other hand if they're a reader who's never commented, making their first Substack account and then getting that banned would be pretty costless. (If you're banned, do you stop receiving emails for new posts? That would be a small cost if they were subscribed and want to remain so.) Most people here probably also don't want to annoy Scott with too many spam comments.
predicted NO
@MichaelWheatley The phrase "banned poster" is ambiguous.
predicted NO
That being said, even if this particular case doesn't count (and I do not as of yet know if it does), there may well be a future one. Let's wait!
@EnopoletusHarding My main account only has about 12 comments since the start of ACX. Do I still count as a "poster"?
predicted NO
@MichaelWheatley That's a definite "maybe".
@EnopoletusHarding As a market creator shouldn't you be providing traders with your resolution criteria in advance?
sold Ṁ0 of YES
@MichaelWheatley It looks to me like Eharding is trying to be intentionally ambiguous in order to maintain plausibly deniability to resolve this market in either direction once it closes. This has made me significantly less likely to bet in their future markets.
@IsaacKing Note that he owns a bunch of NO himself.
(Unless he already withdrew the last of it)
predicted NO
@IsaacKing As I said, I don't know what I'll do at this point. And, as I said, a less ambiguous case may come about before the end of the month. Have I ever resolved a market improperly?
predicted NO
That said, a worthless conservative or SneerClub commenter who definitely didn't have any previous history with ACX and only had 12 posts and was banned for saying something stupid and then tried to make a market here would likely resolve this as Yes.
predicted YES
@EnopoletusHarding I agree with you that "poster" is an ambiguous noun in this context. Why do you need to wait for the end of the month to clarify it? What additional information do you expect to gain in that time that could influence what you believe to be the most reasonable interpretation?
predicted YES
Whether or not you've resolved a market improperly isn't the issue. The issue is that you're being ambiguous as to how you're going to resolve this market, which means I can't make an informed decision about how to bet. If I expect you to behave the same way in your future markets, that lowers the value of betting in them.
@EnopoletusHarding I see the argument for just ignoring any inorganic bans/appeals that were done explicitly to make money on this market but I don't like how instead of just announcing that, you've switched between three different arguments, none of which I've found very convincing, for rejecting MM's ban.
predicted NO
@IsaacKing Depends on the market. If you feel the resolution criteria are ambiguous, ask! 50% chance that might clear it up. "you've switched between three different arguments" No, only one argument. "The issue is, though, I suspect you are a sock of some other poster who is still posting on ACX. I can't prove that, but it seems plausible. If you are still posting with a main account, are you really banned?"
predicted NO
Also, I don't think me placing the "rule for assassination markets" (as for the Erusian market here: https://manifold.markets/EnopoletusHarding/will-i-be-convinced-erusian-knows-a ) would have been even slightly enforceable. The Market Manipulator would just have found a deniable way of doing things.
@EnopoletusHarding I agree on that point, which is why I still lean towards resolving according to the letter of the law. As for the three arguments, #1 was insisting on proof that he was really MM, And #3 is suggesting that there's some kind of minimum posting requirement to qualify as a "poster".
@EnopoletusHarding If you think it's unenforceable, why are you trying to enforce it?
predicted NO
@MarketManipulator ? I'm not. That said, if it is the will of the people (or Scott) in the post-close debates (if there will be any), who am I to object?
predicted YES
@EnopoletusHarding Why do you need to wait for after the market closes before you determine the will of the people?
predicted NO
@IsaacKing Tough to analyze a moving situation.