Lately several of my markets have had contested resolutions due to ambiguities in the description. I'm implimenting a bounty system to try to head off these problems in the future.
Anyone can point out a potential ambiguity in a market description and suggest a change. If I accept that change, and then it turns out that that part of the descrption mattered, I'll send you M$50.
(You must have done this proactivly. Letting me know about an ambiguity after it's already caused a problem doesn't count.)
I'll post any bounties paid out so far in the comments here to keep count. However I won't be tracking every change to a market description that someone recommends to me, so such a change becoming relevant is on you to let me know about if I don't notice myself. (If you make your suggestion in the comments on that market, that'll leave a clear record and be easiest to find later.)
I'll ignore any suggestions where someone intentionally manipulated a market into a point of ambiguity in order to get that suggestion to matter, and similar situations.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ87 | |
| 2 | Ṁ83 | |
| 3 | Ṁ62 | |
| 4 | Ṁ62 | |
| 5 | Ṁ31 |
People are also trading
Something that would help us to understand the problem would be if you could show us the markets that had issues.
Post up the problematic description, the contested resolution and whatever else that would help us to understand the problems that you are trying to address.
From those, I think showing what you consider a major change/error and showing what you consider minor and, therefore, something you are okay with ignoring. what the minor ones that you aren't as concerned with. I understand some of it can be really subjective, in the case of how about if the sentence were missing a letter. But the missing letter changed the question enough that it had a major effect on it.
@Odoacre IMHO you should maybe lower the bounty and change the acceptance criteria to "bounty will pay out if I change the description as suggested" that way it's muchless ambiguous
@Odoacre Ah, now that you've made this market, you're locked in to this format until the end of July. Sucks. This actually makes me less likely to suggest fixes to your markets, as then I enter into this weird contract where maybe I get 50 mana and maybe not depending on a bunch of factors, and I feel like I have to keep track of it.
@Odoacre I want the incentives to be towards people pointing out things that are actually important, not just minor changes that are a slight improvement.
@IsaacKing Why are you only interested in big things and not minor changes ? An improvement is an improvement, if you get enough minor changes, it could be move impactful that one big change.
I think changing the bounty to pay out when the change is accepted makes sense too, after all, if you are making the amendment, you reconize that it MIGHT actually matter, otherwhise why make the change ?
If you are really worried about people chipping in with a million small changes and you hagving to pay out too much, you can say the reward is on a sliding scale, from 1-50 depending on your judgement. I think that's fair.