Resolution Criteria
This market resolves YES if historical records confirm that Christopher Columbus made landfall in the Americas on October 12, 1492. It resolves NO if historical evidence indicates he did not reach the Americas on that date.
Background
Christopher Columbus, an Italian explorer sailing under the Spanish flag, embarked on a westward voyage across the Atlantic Ocean in 1492, seeking a new route to Asia. On October 12, 1492, Columbus and his crew landed on an island in the Bahamas, which he named San Salvador. This marked the first documented European contact with the Caribbean since the Norse expeditions centuries earlier.
Considerations
Columbus did not actually reach the mainland of what is now the United States during this voyage, but rather landed on an island in the Bahamas.
Columbus believed he had reached the East Indies, not a new continent, which is why he referred to the indigenous peoples he encountered as "Indians."
The Americas were already inhabited by indigenous peoples for thousands of years before Columbus's arrival.
Some evidence suggests other Europeans, such as Norse explorer Leif Erikson, reached parts of North America around 500 years before Columbus.
1,000@Hash not entirely clear what's going on here but make sure you have reviewed the community guidelines and understand your role as question creator. You're allowed to create and manage fun markets, but resolutions still need to be based on...something. The description here talks about things like historical evidence, but I don't see much of that going on in the comment section.
There's some chance you could get the benefit of the doubt the first time around, but if this becomes a repeat occurrence it will be under a lot of scrutiny.
@Eliza What do you mean by what happens next? Isn't the market just clearly misresolved? I don't have a stake in it.
@spiderduckpig the mod guidelines paint a very murky line between a "blatantly misresolved" market and a ""misresolved"" market. So asking the creator about their intentions is a reasonable step to take to evaluate the situation. I have an idea how this might turn out, but if I start taking a bunch of actions before the creator responds, things get even more confusing.
The market's title doesn't quite match the resolution criteria part, and no one seems to have presented the "historical evidence" in any convincing manner...but the creator can possibly clear this up. Also the market seemed to have the default 1 week closing date and perhaps the creator is unaware they could have chosen to leave trading open longer.
@Eliza It hasn't quite been 24 hours yet but at this point I'm going to unresolve the market and leave trading closed. The creator has not shown up to make any attempt at defending this resolution.
My understanding of the market, its title, and description indicates that this is not 'predicting' anything, so unless some participants in the comment section can explain what was being predicted more clearly.....here's my best attempt:
There is one reading where the market description was asking participants to bring forth historical evidence, but no one did so within the time the market was open. There was perhaps an argument to be made that the market would resolve No by default if no evidence was presented.
There is another reading where the title of the question makes no sense because it refers to a past time as if it was in the future. In this case, the market seems like it would resolve N/A. It would be a trivial resolution of something that already happened or some form of fraud on behalf of the market creator.
I'm sure some participants will show up now and attempt to provide historical evidence that this event happened on such date, but the market description really muddies the waters about what does and does not count.
The questions from the memeing eye were not answered/clarified
The questions from Stop Punting were not answered/clarified
The market closed with no evidence in the comments, or any other indication where to look for this evidence
Unless someone can show something very convincing, this seems destined to be N/A.
@Eliza Imo it's not that deep, the market creator just made a joke market and misresolved it, and it should obviously be reresolved to N/A or NO
@spiderduckpig the moderation guidelines give immense deference to market creators who resolve their own market. Joke or not, I'm giving everyone involved the opportunity to weigh in.
@Eliza I guess the resolution seems unambiguously wrong enough to me that I feel like it should just resolve to YES. The two other interpretations you provided seem too implausible.
When you say, "There is one reading where the market description was asking participants to bring forth historical evidence," I just can't see that here. The market description just says the resolution will be based on historical records, not records provided by Manifold users specifically.
And I feel like N/Aing a market based off of the title being in the wrong tense isn't something that mods would do in any other market, so why this one? Especially when the description correctly uses the past tense. "Discovers" is only two letters off from "discovered," and someone using an incorrect verb form isn't even that uncommon, especially among non-native speakers. Also, the market creator probably didn't even write this title, it looks like it was shortened automatically by that new "concise title" generator Manifold has implemented.
The resolution is trivial, and it's asking about a historical event that unambiguously happened — hence the controversy over the misresolution — but lots of markets can only ever honestly resolve one way, my understanding of guidelines is that they're only supposed to be unsubsidized.
Obviously I'm biased — I hold more YES shares than everyone else combined — but I think mods should go for the accurate resolution here rather than just cancelling the market.
@evan I couldn't find the market, but I remember there was a market about half a year ago that had a controversial resolution. The creator argued that he had proof for the resolution but couldn't post it on Manifold because that would be revealing official documents and some kind of crime. This is a different situation since the historical evidence is not a secret, but my point is that I think proof to resolve a market should be posted inside of the market, at least in cases when the resolution is controversial.
That said, I agree that this market should resolve YES. As stated in the description, "This market resolves YES if historical records confirm that Christopher Columbus made landfall in the Americas on October 12, 1492. It resolves NO if historical evidence indicates he did not reach the Americas on that date.". Note how the argument that the market would resolve NO by default does not apply here. No historical argument can be presented for NO, but there's proof for YES, and since at this point the market was unresolved and the discussion opened for what to do next, I think presenting the evidence for YES within this discussion should be allowed.
A.) what is America, some techbro name for India?
B.) I was in Portuguese court when he presented his proposal, dude doesn't even know the difference between a Arabic mile and a Roman mile
C.) I would have said something, but he was too much of a dick that I'll be happy when he starves 2/3's of the way to India if he doesn't sink before then
D.) Even if he does "discover" the new route to India or whatever it would obviously be later than October 12th
for the intellectual stability of the realm, hoping the pope sends all YES holders to die on the next crusade
@StopPunting Pope Alexander VI was born under the crown of Aragon and has a good relation with Spain, so I find it unlikely that he would punish YES holders for having faith in the success of a mission under the Spanish flag. If anything, I'd wager he'll be willing to confirm the rights of the Spanish crown to whatever exclusive trade route or unknown lands Colombus might find, assuming he succeeds. I don't think we'll be having a crusade any time soon.
One doth recall that in the second volume of the annals of the creed of assassins, that His Holiness hath initially been referred to as "the Spaniard" for this very reason. I pray that no ill fate may befall him in these uncertain times.
One needeth enquire some matters of utmost effect upon thine query:
What art this "America" of which thou uttereth? Perchance some foreign city betwixt these "Bahamas" islands, this "Caribbean" of the Norsemen, and this "United States" mainland of which thou allegeth?
Thou uttereth of confirming thine assertion by means of historiographical records, yet thou doth not specify upon which codices in which bibliotheca of the monasteries yonder thou intendeth to inspect. Art thou a scholar of divinity, and thus pursue such knowledge primarily in holy texts such as the Holy Bible of Our Lord, and perchance secondarily in writings of fellow theologians among them Thomas Aquinas? Or art thou instead a scholar of the classics, and thereupon instead hunt for the desired revelations in the histories and geographies of the ancients, perchance Herodotus or Pliny the Elder?
Hath thou planned a strict criterion for lexemes of ambiguity? For discovery, counteth the mere finding of a land, or needeth one be the first man of Christendom, or indeed the first man of any variety including pagans and heretics? Counteth thou smaller islands surrounding a larger land as elements of that larger land itself?
Whenceforth hath thou set thine calendar for this matter? Thou uttereth of a specific datum, the twelfth day of the tenth month of the one thousand four hundred and ninety second year of our Lord, but there exist multiple conflicting calendars across Christendom, among that of Julius Caesar and that of Pope Gregory the thirteenth.
I pray that thou may shine light upon these enquiries.