Was there a conclusion about SirCryptomind? Or evidence of anyone else doing this?

sircryptomind didn't n/a other people's markets, only his own.

I wasn't active here during that, so I was gonna look into details. If it was only their own markets though, then it definitely doesn't count.

Any chance that the SirCryptomind situation counts? He has the mod badge instead of the trustworthyish badge, but the badges do the same thing as far as I can tell. About a month ago SirCryptomind got into a dispute with the site admins and resolved all of his markets to N/A while quitting the site. He's back now and I think the markets were fixed, but maybe it still counts.

(Side note: not trying to blame SirCryptomind for anything here, it was a tough situation from what I heard)

@Arky The mod badge and the trustworthy.ish badge are the same thing, it was just renamed, so Sir Cryptomind definitely as a Trystworthyish account. The only question is whether resolving all his markets to N/A counts as going rogue and misresolving them. Given the situation, I don't think it does. He resolved them N/A because he didn't want anyone else to run them in a way he didn't think was right, but also didn't think he would be around to resolve them himself.

@PlasmaBallin I’ve heard that explanation and it didn’t make too much sense to me since many of the markets resolved NA were completely unambiguous financial markets iirc. I guess I’ll ping @IsaacKing to get a ruling on whether this counts. I’d certainly consider it a misresolution if a market I made a profit on got NA’d for this reason.

A funny thought I had, that I'm not following up on for obvious reasons:

"I wonder what would happen if I bet a ton of YES on this, making people freak out about me going rogue or having insider info that someone was about to, and then I didn't go rogue and just sat on the YES shares whistling innocently."

I think the answer is that I'd get in trouble for market manipulation or something like that, which is part of why I'm not doing it. I also just don't wanna pull that kind of prank. But the thought is funny enough that I had the urge to share.

If this doesn't happen and you still resolve it yes wouldn't it create a paradox.

@TimothyCurrie if it doesn't happen by the end of 2024, then Isaac resolves in 2025, and that doesn't create a paradox as the resolution won't be in 2024

@firstuserhere Well he can always resolve no anyway. But If he resolved yes before 2025 it create a paradox.

@TimothyCurrie still no cuz it'll have to be a number of markets incorrectly resolved in a short time span

Yeah, just resolving one market is not sufficient for this. That's this market:

How many trustworthy-ish users are there?

@jonsimon And how high is the bar for getting this title?

@jonsimon Probably around 25, I don't know the exact count.

The bar is "Austin feels like you should have the badge". You can check some of the markets about it to see discussion.

I would change the title q from "user" to "account" or "user account" since if someone is phished then it is the account and not the user that is rogue.