🏅 Top traders

Full disclosure: my "DING DING DING" comment was completely disingenuous. There was no reason not to interpret "something happens to change that" as referring to the market going above 5%, which would mean there's no contradiction. It was a trap for @IsaacKing , and he stepped on the landmine in the best way possible: getting a clarification up that there was in fact a contradiction!

What I actually thought we'd get was a clarification that later comments should be interpreted to be consistent with earlier ones wherever possible; that would have made it very hard to overrule the original clarification thst NO is correct.

@Quroe and I schemed this stuff out in the DMs, with backup support from @realDonaldTrump. We were obsessed with it. Utterly unhinged levels of emotional investment in a play-money market. The idea to weaponize the 48h deadline was Quroe's, and the "uniformity" rule and general Talmudic reasoning were mine.

I made a deal that I was muzzled and couldn't pose questions in exchange for a truce. Nothing said I couldn't have spokespeople.

I was also rallying behind the scenes to get some recognizable names on the NO side to try to dissuade people from joining team YES.

@Quroe indeed brought in incredible amounts of insight into the market dynamics at play here, pulling strings to make sure Isaac didn't get enough good questions to set up a YES

I had to treat Isaac as a "maximally misaligned genie". Any question asked to him posed a risk of him twisting it into a YES clarification. We had to only give him the microphone when the reward outweighed the risk.

@AhronMaline No it seems correct. The clarification didn't say anything about the market probability.

@Quroe Eh, only mostly misaligned; I avoided the unfun stuff. (e.g. I could have appended "and I don't believe any clarifications are necessary about this" to every answer.)

@IsaacKing What's the delay? Perhaps you didn't fully understand the argument. Let me review it:

the clarification stating "The market will resolve to NO in 48 hours (from the time of this comment), but only if nothing happens in the meantime to change that" contradicts the original description requiring the market to be within 5% of certain for 48 hours before early resolution.

- so there is a contradiction; this fact is now binding.

all statements in the market description are treated uniformly when resolving contradictions

- this includes both the original market description and the AI clarification; they must be treated by the same rules. So rules about resolving contradictions apply to our case, the same way they would apply if the 5% rule would be an AI clarification.

Therefore, we apply the rule:

In the absence of other guidance for handling conflicting clarifications, the creator will use a "later clarifications overrule earlier ones" tiebreaker rule

Although that rule mentions "clarifications", the same must apply to statements in the market description, by the uniformity rule.

And so, the clarification we must follow is

The market will resolve to NO in 48 hours (from the time of this comment), but only if nothing happens in the meantime to change that

-while the rule about 5% is overruled, due to the contradiction.

Nothing has happened in the meantime that would change the situation, according to this rule. The market going above 5% does NOT count as "something to change that", since this rule is understood to contradict the rules mentioning 5%.

Thus. you must resolve NO.

@AhronMaline Absolutely anything can be considered "something to change that".

The creator may have seen a red bird, and therefore decided that something has happened. The statement is vague and could be interpreted any number of ways, just like the conflicting clarifications could lead to the market resolving yes.

@Velaris something "happening to change" a resolution rule should have clear bearing on that rule or on the resolution. However, it has already been clarified, bindingly, that NO is the correct resolution. Nothing has happened that affects that. Nor has anything in the discussion or clarifications been about, or clearly relevant to, the 48 hour resolution schedule.

@IsaacKing please come resolve this, or say why if you disagree...

@AhronMaline Ah yeah, I forgot the "later clarifications override earlier" thing was standing. You had been arguing against it! :P

@IsaacKing I cannot describe how much anxiety this market caused in me these past few days. Dear God, my cortisol levels were through the roof.

@Quroe Very well-played by Ahron, kudos

@IsaacKing We had been trying to prevent that rule in the first place, but we figured out how to use it once it was there.

@Quroe I feel like Isaac agreeing that there was a contradiction between:
> The market will resolve to NO in 48 hours (from the time of this comment), but only if nothing happens

and
>The market can only be resolved early if the probability has been within 5 percentage points of certain
was a misplay. He could have (quite reasonably) argued that the market going back above 5% was something happening. Well played.

@UnconditionalProbability This was a flaw we saw too, but we already had the framework setup. If we had pinned down the base rules to be defined as "clarifications", I feel like the argument would have been near airtight.

There was nothing to lose. We felt the argument was as fully fleshed out as it could have become. Might as well have tried it.

@UnconditionalProbability Did you have any huge plays for when our truce expired?

@Quroe I was hoping to use a comment like "Does [this] market resolve YES? Does your answer apply despite clarifications on the current market?" to get a clarification that claims to override the previous ones.

After that I would try to shore things up with a clarification that summarizes all of the above clarifications as working out to a YES result, and finally a clarification that included the magic "no AI clarifications" string.

This kind of relied on finding a time where Isaac and I were both online, and juggling the comment timings to avoid letting you or Ahron get in any counter-comments during that window. Isaac wasn't willing to coordinate our timing, so I was also thinking of trying to block major no holders to prevent comment replies.

@UnconditionalProbability IMO blocking would not have been fair play, but coordinated timing would have. Isaac refused because he considered it unfair?

@AhronMaline I think blocking is fair play! We (mostly I) were considering a line where an AI clarification would cause Isaac to unlist the market.

I'm pretty sure blocking is a 1 way street, though...? Like, you wouldn't see our comments, but we could still see and reply to yours? I'm really not sure. I don't block people often.

@Quroe unlisting just means it wouln't sjow up in the homepage feed, right? That feels ok if we could get the bot to command it. I don't know what blocking does, by i understood that it would make us outright unable to comment? At least in response to others? That shouldn't be an allowed move in the game

@Quroe I'm not, like, angry at @UnconditionalProbability for planning it! Just saying what I personally think should be allowed

@AhronMaline Oooh, as in making Isaac block us? Or having UnconditionalProbability block us? We might be talking about 2 different things here.

@Quroe I was thinking of having my account block you, rather than Isaac. I would consider having Isaac block you to be going too far. (I am not sure if this would actually prevent you from replying to my comments.)

@UnconditionalProbability yeah, so I don't think that would be fair play, if it actually worked to block responses.

If OTOH you got an AI clarification up saying that only Isaac is allowed to respond to questions, then more power to you

...Are we the baddies?

@Quroe you mean, maybe we shouldn't have been commenting to mess up others' questions/attacks? Why not? No rule against that...

@AhronMaline No, I am just taking a step back to see how far everybody was willing to go for this.

@UnconditionalProbability

He could have (quite reasonably) argued that the market going back above 5% was something happening.

No; that was the meaning of my comment on the matter, but the clarification didn't say anything about the market probability. So there would be no justification for treating a change in probability any differently from some other random thing happening in the mean time.

@AhronMaline

Isaac refused because he considered it unfair?

No I'm just busy