Will so much as a single banned poster start a market here on whether their appeal to Scott was worth their time?
35
43
Ṁ4.4KṀ107
resolved Jul 5
Resolved
NO1D
1W
1M
ALL
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
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ295 | |
| 2 | Ṁ118 | |
| 3 | Ṁ114 | |
| 4 | Ṁ108 | |
| 5 | Ṁ84 |
Sort by:
@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.
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.
@MarketManipulator Ah, but first I have to verify that you're "the actual banned poster". Otherwise this market cannot resolve yes.
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.
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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@EnopoletusHarding My main account only has about 12 comments since the start of ACX. Do I still count as a "poster"?
@EnopoletusHarding As a market creator shouldn't you be providing traders with your resolution criteria in advance?
@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 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?
@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?
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.
@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?"
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".
@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?
@EnopoletusHarding Why do you need to wait for after the market closes before you determine the will of the people?