I'm disappointed and am not going to trust @IsaacKing's judgement in the future

@ms Why?

@IsaacKing as I mentioned before, this is the only outcome I'd consider unfair and violating the spirit of the market. I can't imagine a consistent process that, without making any mistakes, would resolve the market to Yes, except for "I don't want to deal with this and will just resolve to Yes since an interpretation of the market rules clearly allows me to do that", which doesn't seem like what you were communicating doing

@ms I explained my reasoning below several days ago, and you didn't disagree with it then.

I think the spirit of the market is that it's supposed to resolve YES, with a threat of punishment to people who break the rules in order to get them not to. The punishment option didn't seem worth it here. The votes below from other traders concur.

@IsaacKing Ah. I also commented earlier on the point that 'the spirit of the market is that it's supposed to resolve YES'. I completely agree with your resolution then if that was your reasoning. Just surprised that some rule breakers made so much profit.

@XComhghall Yeah, it's not perfect. But a NO resolution would still have resulted in several people making illicit profit, and all the legit YES traders being upset instead, so this seemed like the best option.

@IsaacKing Who would have made illicit profit off of a NO resolution?

@ms Fucking Based

@bingeworthy The people who placed illegal YES bets, then bought NO.

This is very disappointing N/A was the right way

Hmmm. That some made hundreds in profit does seem to justify N/A. Hadn't paid much attention before resolution, well.

@XComhghall N/A rewards people for attempting to break the rules, since they just get their mana returned. Not sure why that would have been better?

N/A does not reward people for breaking rules. There receive no gain. YES did.

Now in addition to getting their mana returned, Jabami, Fed Danilov, et al. made profits like Ṁ448, 138 . . . Now I remember a little more of this market's history. You resolved to YES because more ppl who broke the rule would have a loss if the market resolves to YES?

There is no gain / They receive no gain. Oops.

@XComhghall Pretty much, yeah.

@IsaacKing people who broke the rules would've made much less profit/lose more if the market resolved to No or N/A. Resolving to Yes made them lots of money.

'in whatever way best punishes the user'

I see now that the interpretation can be to punish the most users, or by the greatest aggregate amount. I likewise agree with the latter.

The strength of a punishment is relative. If resolving YES entails punishing many but rewarding some, and the aggregate profit is positive, resolving to N/A would be a better (less bad) punishment -- if, idk if it is the case.

I am happy though that I got to keep my M50 and a tiny profit of M9, so no complaints here. I found this consideration and ratiocination interesting.

kys

@Breezeice Unlikely.

Alright, let's get some community input. Vote how you think this market should resolve. (This vote isn't binding, but it will influence my decision.)

Should resolve YES

Should resolve NO

Should resolve N/A

If you're close to ambivalent between two options and would strongly prefer either of them over the third, you can vote for both.

should be reopened and resolved on January 1, 2024

should resolve to 1%

should resolve to the least popular option

@ms Getting a baseline for the lizardperson constant, good.

@IsaacKing I suggest ignoring (completely) the votes of users who didn't participate in this market to avoid vote cheating

@ms I'd be happy to accept a retroactive bribe of M$50 for this comment

@NikitaSkovoroda This is not a comment that I would make and I don’t think it’s worth M$50, sorry

@ms Ah, ok. I likely should have just accepted the M$60 bribe to vote for YES instead of trying to cooperate here )

Wow, almost a completely tied vote among three options. Fun.