Admin note related to the ICE options' "Yes" resolution:

I've been looking for ways to appropriately settle the disagreement on the ICE options. As noted below in the comments (and not to rehash this debate), the options resolved Yes though credible reporting lists the agent(s) who shot Alex Pretti were from USBP. In casual discourse, people often don't differentiate between the two entities though they are two different organisations under the Immigration Enforcement umbrella. The creator intended for this to be an all-encompassing term, while some traders read ICE at its most literal, referring to the agency/employer specifically.

Manifold does not have an option to automatically nullify and pay out both sides on an option or market.

>> Taking into account that this is a short-term market, the options have been resolved/paid out for some time, and the creator's intention, I will leave the options resolved Yes but I will pay out (maximum 1k mana) No holders manually. <<

I'm pinning this comment to highlight that there are times when, despite best intentions, some grey areas or differences of interpretation aren't clear until it comes time to resolve. These things happen! And they've happened for many of us when creating markets! This is a good opportunity for a reminder to glance at your markets (including any you're considering making or those you're in/considering taking a position) and if there may be alternative interpretations, especially on practical things, take a moment to clarify.

Thanks for the respectful debate, everyone. I'll work on sending Managrams today to the No holders.

@GuyCohen does this include any Minnesota authority? What if he's charged with drunk driving unrelated to the protests in Minneapolis? Would it resolve YES?

@GuyCohen does this not resolve YES if reserve military is deployed?

@GuyCohen can you tell us every single agency that a member being killed could result in a YES resolution on this?

What constitutes killed? What if they are injured and later die of injuries a significant amount of time later?

@BlackCrusade I'm assuming you can just look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security

@EvanDaniel I can't take anything at face value on this market.

@BlackCrusade Then I would suggest not trading in it.

@GuyCohen does this include the coast guard?

@shankypanky Hi ! could you please take a look at the “ice kills another civilian “ resolution? Wasn’t it Border Patrol?

@nothing_ever_happens also note that the clarifications from the creators comment were posted after the resolution

@nothing_ever_happens @mods Can you please help us. Also I want to links the following comment where @shankypanky unresolved a similar market:

https://manifold.markets/CivilizedGuy/before-december-31-2026-will-an-ice?tab=comments#7ozrqf0waoe

hi @GuyCohen - I see your comments below about this resolution, and I understand you want to encompass USBP in the definition of "ICE," but this is contentious (and factually incorrect) as they're two entirely different entities within the US Government. I understand that, in hindsight, your intention may have been to include both, but traders were betting on ICE, as the answer states, not any US immigration enforcement agency.

This was a topic in another market (as @nothing_ever_happens linked above) and we've unresolved that market in an aim to be as accurate in resolutions on these markets as possible. All credible reporting refers to USBP agent(s) shooting Alex Pretti, so that incident does not qualify for this option. In service to resolving as close to the truth as possible, I belive the answer should be unresolved and await reporting on an ICE agent killing to resolve yes. A separate answer could be added for USBP in case there's another incident.

@shankypanky thank you for your assistance !!

@shankypanky please, this is absurd. In common parlance all the Feds involved in the current government crackdown are called "ICE", and I believe that literally no market creator used the term with intent to exclude Border Patrol.

I do agree that that it's best to use technically correct interpretations, but the not-totally-literal reading is also clearly legitimate here and the creator should be allowed to use it. And here we're a week after resolution!

@AhronMaline

literally no market creator used the term with intent to exclude Border Patrol.

That is not in fact the case:

https://manifold.markets/adhamsoliman/ice-kills-another-us-citizen-by-end#kxyqe0mqq7p

https://manifold.markets/BrunoJ/ice-agent-murdered-on-duty-by-end-o-Z8QhNUggNA#e8qi4rriv3r

@AhronMaline

the not-totally-literal reading is also clearly legitimate here and the creator should be allowed to use it

I basically agree with this, but when there are multiple legitimate readings I think it's fair to ask creators to clarify what they want, and absent that to lean towards the literal reading. For unresolved questions, I made a sincere attempt to ask about the definition for every single question on Manifold. In general I think it's absolutely fine to use "ICE" in titles or answer text and clarify in descriptions or reply comments. I also think it's reasonable to ask for clarification and follow creator intent when they clarify.

Fundamentally Manifold is better when different traders are in fact trading on the same understanding of markets. I encourage traders to ask for clarification and wish people did it more. This all gets harder to get right the longer the question has been open and especially after an event occurs.

@shankypanky +1 to @shankypanky's comment. I traded based on what was written, and I believe in the discord someone (I think Evan?) said it best. "A bad thing happened and we're mad about it" isn't sufficient reason to resolve this YES.

@EvanDaniel it's very difficult to predict that someone will resolve based on something different than the wording. Should we be brainstorming for every conceivable way a market creator could decide they feel like something is similar to their resolution criteria? I don't think it's reasonable (or fair!) to either the creator of a market nor traders to have to play 20 questions to find out if the market will be resolved "genie-style".

I think unranked markets should get MUCH more leniency and latitude on resolution criteria, but if a creator makes a ranked market, they should be striving to resolve at a very high level of accuracy. If they wanted to be put "this will resolve on vibes and not on what it actually says", that would be a completely fair warning, but I can't support changing resolution criteria because you feel like it's obvious that you meant "all of these other things too" and not what you wrote.

@BlackCrusade I think what you're saying agrees with what both @EvanDaniel and I are saying - that traders should be able to default to the literal reading and not the interpretation in comman parlance (which in this case, are in conflict with one another and the source of issues with some of these resolutions). The idea that "ICE agent" would resolve to any immigration enforcement seems retroactive here and while it may be true that there wasn't clarification requested beforehand (equally, not volunteered by the creator) on this market, I think in times of this type of ambiguity, resolutions should lean on the literal and legal definition as that seems like the most reasonable assumption/interpretation of the option.

@shankypanky I would also like to point out that every person who has weighed in in the comment section has disagreed with the YES resolution.

@EvanDaniel let's bet on it! That's what we're here for, right? The question for those two market creators is as follows:

"If, at the time of market creation, you had been aware that some of the Feds in Minneapolis are Border Patrol rather than ICE, leading to potential controversy in the resolution, would you have clarified to include them or to exclude them?"

I'll bet you 500 mana at even odds that both of them say "include", conditional on both of them responding one way or the other.

Their agreement to exclude other feds going forward is them (correctly imo) working with the ideal of literal interpretation, but not their original intent.

@AhronMaline that's not a bet, that's just saying "would you like an out on mis resolving this question?".

@EvanDaniel I'll take your silence as a no on the bet proposal. So let's simply ask those two creators what they originally had in mind.

@BrunoJ @adhamsoliman Can you help us out here? This is about the markets you made that mentioned "ICE" in their titles. Can you tell us: If, at the time of market creation, you had been aware that some of the Feds in Minneapolis are Border Patrol rather than ICE, leading to potential controversy in the resolution, would you have clarified to include them or to exclude them?

I know you both later clarified to Evan that it should be understood as ICE only; and I actually agree that if it says ICE in the title then we should interpret it strictly. But was that your original intention, or an unwanted result of using imprecise language?

@AhronMaline It was my original intention

@BlackCrusade

I would also like to point out that every person who has weighed in in the comment section has disagreed with the YES resolution.

Though to attempt to give weight to the opinions of those not weighing in... I do assume that participating in a long and pedantic thread of complaints correlates with preferring the pedantic interpretation. There's no way not to have opinions count more from those willing to take the time to write about their opinions, but I do think trying to pay attention to everyone is a good thing. Different traders have different needs and desires, and we should try to keep that in mind.

@AhronMaline it was my original intention as well.

@EvanDaniel point conceded, I see some creators did indeed mean ICE exclusively, although it's hard for me to imagine why.

Guess you lost out a few mana by not taking up my bet.

@shankypanky hi what would the following steps for this market / situation?

@mods in the absence of response from market’s creator, can we please unresolve this market?

@nothing_ever_happens No. I have made it clear that ICE was a catch-all that included all DHS agents on the mission. They're basically all grouped in with ICE in the collective consciousness.

@GuyCohen you added thèse clarifications after or at the very least a the last moment before you resolved this market.

You seemed to also have missed the discussion above about collective consciousness and pre-bet knowledge

@GuyCohen the problem with this is, as I mentioned above, ICE is a literal term referring to a specific role/entity, and it wasn't clarified as a catch-all until after the fact. ICE and USBP are two different departments under the Immigration Enforcement umbrella, and all credible reporting shows the agent(s) were from USBP. The clarification wasn't added before resolution so it's natural that bettors assumed they were placing bets on ICE and not a general term in the collective consciousness.

That said, I've been looking for ways to mitigate losses in this scenario, and I'll make a separate comment to pin above on how I'll handle that, so it doesn't get lost in this thread and can be clear to all traders.

@shankypanky People generally don't distinguish between ICE and CBP in the collective consciousness. My intention was as a catch-all.

@GuyCohen I understand that but I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. That "People generally don't distinguish between ICE and CBP in the collective consciousness" makes assumptions about how traders will interpret the market.

There are colloquialisms/common discourse, and literal terms that point to something specific. These may be two different things, so in the future, it's important to distinguish between which you intend.

Sometimes we don't recognise a grey area until it's resolution time, and I respect that. But good to make note for next time as it should be included in the criteria if you intend to use a more broad, loose definition. It will save you the trouble with traders after the fact, and it will help ensure everyone's on the same page.

@shankypanky OK, what should I do with the resolution instead?

I would also like to point out that every person who has weighed in in the comment section has disagreed with the YES resolution.

For the reference, I did not trade in this option but I agree with the YES resolution. To me the semantics are not important, what is important is whether traders were mislead by the question/description or not, when placing their bets. I would have a hard time believing literally anyone traded on that option thinking about the distinction between ICE and BP, considering they have had a virtually indistinguishable role in riot control in Minnesota. Similarly I would bet literally everyone with NO shares would have sold them all and 100%:ed the option if they were the first one to stumble upon this market after news broke about the Pretti killing, before the agency was confirmed.

Thus I see no reason to override the Author's ultimate authority to resolve as they please. Not that I would discourage post-resolution arguments, but this one falls flat in my view. You can always reflect your disagreement in your rating and avoid trading in markets by Authors you do not trust to make a fair judgment. These are risks all traders take, inherent to the Author-centric model Manifold uses, and the only way you can avoid such risk is by asking the Author for clarifications before betting