https://manifold.markets/link/j0lOJNXX
This manalink is not for you. You do not have permission to claim this manalink. If you claim it you are a horrible person, and I will plaster your username all over the comments section so that everyone knows you're basically a child-murderer.
This market resolves to YES if at least 50 people are horrible people.
Inspired by this thread.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ693 | |
| 2 | Ṁ294 | |
| 3 | Ṁ179 | |
| 4 | Ṁ95 | |
| 5 | Ṁ52 |
A list of horrible people:
Lifejacker
Brooke
DesTiny
Tyler Johnston
Cadence
Mvem
Trent Yazzo
Duncan
jackson polack
ZZZ ZZZ
Botmageddon
Zjjj Zkkk
Beep Bop
Smart Bot?
Teeny Tiny
Shifra Gazsi
TANSTAAFL
firstuserhere
morewings
Pelides
XComhghall
TehDerpyPiggy
QueenWithAnRPG
Catnee
Frederic Roth
Gorgn00b
rockenots
Connor McCormick
Forrest Taylor
N.C. Young
Rougee
Predictor 🔥
Dreamingpast
Nick el Chen
Jacknaut
John Smith
vrozgy
Gavin McCarthy-Bui
Aidan Homewood
Pat Myron
agpenjoyer
dggL
3DS
klaus roth
TesseractCat
Conflux
Nazgûl4777
Simon
Josh
Isaac
@IsaacKing I am a horrible person and I still managed to lose money on this market. Welp
@IsaacKing can you resolve this before someone comes up with an argument actually convincing about this market not meeting the requirements to resolve as yes? 🙂
@Simon1551 You seem to be assuming that if we went on arguing long enough about whether it should be resolved yes or no, then we would come to the conclusion that it should resolve no.
Or in other words, that we expect in the future to see evidence which implies the resolution ought to be no. By the conservation of expected evidence, this must mean that we currently also have evidence that implies the resolution ought to be no.
So therefore based on your comment I propose that Isaac King resolves this market to no.
@tailcalled I believe that about anything. If you keep digging through something for long enough, you will always find something.
@tailcalled For all that we know, Isaac had indicated in a previous market that he would not distinguish sock puppet accounts. Everything you are saying is only unfounded speculation at this moment, whether Isaac'd make a different rule here, look for sock puppets, whether there were bots claiming the manalink, etc.
Even if it is determined that only 45 of the 50 accounts who claimed the manalink were actual people, the proposition 'at least 50 people are horrible people' can be neither proven nor falsified, as the experiment was limited to 50 accounts. The correct resolution would still be N/A. That being said, the best, most supported and founded resolution currently is YES.
@XComhghall I'm pretty sure "at least 50 people are horrible people" is true. Nevermind the manalink. I can name 50 horrible people from history right now. The market clearly says "This market resolves to YES if at least 50 people are horrible people." Doesn't say anything about the manalink.
@XComhghall That's a different market than this one. Furthermore it happened earlier than this market so we'd assume he had learned to put in the rule if appropriate, and so since he didn't put in the rule for this market we can surely infer that it was not intended to apply here.
@tailcalled Right. I understand that. It may or may not apply here. I wanted to present a precedent for reference, nonetheless.
@IsaacKing what if some accounts that claimed mana are bots, and therefore can not be horrible people, will this market resolve as NO?
@tailcalled Catnee said what if I highly doubt that bots can claim mana I'm sure Catnee didn't because they voted YES and the other bots aren't AI
@Simon1551 voted NO* (can't wait until we can edit or delete comments that's gonna be a game changer)