@IsaacKing this can resolve NO. I'm not aware of any new incidents and a few months ago he stopped resolving markets altogether.

https://manifold.markets/johnleoks/will-dans-stock-drop-to-80-or-below-82991da005b2

he did it agein

@Birger it is clearly wrong to reslove it N/A. this whas a unambiguously incorrect reslove.

Will Dan's stock drop to 80% or below by the end of February? reloved N/A ? it clearly did

@Birger I mean he explained why he N/A'd it, I'll agree it's a shit resolution, but given the fallout the last time he resolved a market like that against user expectations, I'd say this is preferable.

The title was worded so poorly that the market was misunderstood, and so it was cancelled

@Gen i agree, but i dont know how it can be misunderstod. it clearly says BY, dont know how that can posebly be reloved N/A.

@Birger only john knew the real resolve basis

It's confusing because by could mean "at" or "any time before". I'd read it as the latter, but he resolved his other market based on the former interpretation (the market which had a lot of drama surrounding it)

I honestly am surprised he N/A'd it, I was most nervous about that market being misresolved. Particularly because it has enough deniability to go either way (or literally misresolve like the last one) and with Isaac participating I was worried (5% chance) that he would intentionally burn him. I wouldn't say it's a wrong resolution, but as always will accept the decision by Isaac

@Redact 100%, the question whas clear, and it shoud reolve YES. but resloved N/A?

@Gen who reeds by to mean at? why not write at?

@Birger possible ambiguity, thoroughly explained on a past John market of the same nature, which ended badly: https://manifold.markets/johnleoks/will-dans-stock-drop-to-80-or-below#FoOIKhHReHShYac2ukbA

@Gen that should mean he know to use at if thet is what he means. still a bad reslove

@Birger chatgbt says this

@Birger I agree with you, it should mean that. However, their previous markets suggest that it is not how it was meant, and I think that is sufficient confusion to justify the N/A as they explained. I do think it's a bad resolution, but I think it's valid. If it resolved NO (as it seems John's [unexplained] criteria would have caused it to) I would be switching teams.

@Gen I disagree. I don't know how I can judge all markets based on what other markets market makers have done. I can't divine the intent of market makers, only read what is obviously written. But I see where you're coming from.

Yeah I noticed that one. Looks to me like John intentionally posted an ambiguous title+description and refused to clarify when asked. But given the ambiguity, N/Aing the market seems reasonable. It certainly doesn't make me want to trust them in the future, but the issue was the lack of clarification, not the resolution. I don't think that one counts as incorrect.

@IsaacKing what whas ambiguous? and there whas no description. are you locking at the rigth one? this one: https://manifold.markets/johnleoks/will-dans-stock-drop-to-80-or-below-82991da005b2

@Birger See my explanation of "by X time" ambiguity issues on John's earlier market that spawned this one.

Will Dan's stock drop to 80%
Would This stock count? "or shouldn't have been resolved that way." If the market had a description it wouldn't of resolved N/A

To prevent future confusion of this sort:

He's been doing video view count weekly markets with close date & time zone specified now, and This Market resolves in 2024.

& monthly sub and view count

@IsaacKing do you consider (This Market ) resolving to N/A Valid after the Comments of @Gen and @Rasmus1 , please update.

@Redact Yeah I think I have to. It's not a central example, but it fits the description.

@IsaacKing Well, wait a minute, I do say "Markets that are very subjective and disputed don't count."

This one does seem pretty disputed. The spirit of this market was about whether John would do something that would make traders not want to trust them, and this doesn't seem to qualify.

@IsaacKing Ok, I'm leaning towards this not qualifying. I think the description is a little unclear, but the spirit of the market points to no.

@IsaacKing Bah. I jumped on your comment too fast.