Temporary halts don't count, it needs to look like mana won't be withdrawble for at least a few months in order for this to resolve YES. This market is about the intention to cease donations, not actual functionality on the site. (So an announcement of "we'll stop in 2024" will resolve this YES, while an announcement of "we're putting it on hold for a few weeks in December but will re-enable in January" resolves NO.)
If they remove the charity option but begin allowing mana to be exchanged in return for items of value that can themselves be sent to charity relativly easily (such as a currency), that will not be sufficient to resolve this to YES.
For a similar market with a longer timeframe (and slightly different criteria), see /IsaacKing/will-manifold-freeze-mana-withdrawa
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ2,845 | |
| 2 | Ṁ430 | |
| 3 | Ṁ379 | |
| 4 | Ṁ130 | |
| 5 | Ṁ123 |
People are also trading
@crowlsyong They went back on it after the announcement, but this market resolved upon the original announcement being made.
Speaking as someone with zero skin in the game I think this is a 100% clear-cut example of market mis-resolution and that if it's technically possible for the mods to reverse the resolution then they should do that.
In general, market creators should not resolve markets until the actual concrete event described in the market description has actually happened in real life.
@MichaelBlume Reading the letter of the title of this market, the announcement has happened even if the cessation of donations has not. It doesn’t necessarily strike me as out of line to use that interpretation to close and resolve this market
@EdwardKmett the title of the market during the entire period during which trading was taking place was "Will Manifold permanently cease allowing mana donations to charity by the end of 2023?". It has since been changed.
@MichaelBlume during the entire period during which trading was taking place and at the time the market was resolved
@MichaelBlume See here - https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-manifold-permanently-cease-all#mPhloooFaR00crqnDXGN.
Before the announcement, the resolution criteria stated that it would resolve YES on an announcement. The title was unclear, I agree.
@NathanpmYoung Replying here because the other thread is getting two issues mixed and I'd like to keep the topic separate.
Isaac made clear in advance how this market would be resolved, and made sure that was reflected in the description. He didn't believe this sort of thing could happen, you and I did---we were right about that factual question, but that's not what this market was for.
I think the correct response from us would have been to create a second market that addressed the split, and invite Isaac to bet on it. I've done a similar thing (with Isaac, in fact) in the past. I've seen other people do it too. I think that's the cleanest way to handle faulty markets.
To be clear, I agree this was a badly constructed market. This problem wasn't unforeseeable. But I, having foreseen, ought to have done something rather than sit here and feel mildly irate.
To help clear things up, my understanding is that this is the timeline of events:
A participant asked clarifying questions about the market, and Isaac made a decision to clarify the resolution as follows:
If before the end of the year Manifold announces "We'll be turning off donations on [date]", then that will be sufficient to resolve this market to YES. If they just say "We might be turning off donations, stay tuned", that's not good enough.
https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-manifold-permanently-cease-all#LKCadhTsEGl2mtTTx0Uv
That was before the announcement. Nobody disagreed with this decision at the time, although the decision itself was buried inside a comment thread so wasn't highly visible. I believe Isaac then edited the question text but not title to reflect this clarification.
Then, the announcement was made, which clearly and unambiguously meets the criteria stated in the clarification above. Isaac therefore resolved YES.
It is true that this clarification decision may have deviated from the original reading of the question. Furthermore, once the decision was made, I think it should have been communicated more clearly with both an updated title and a changelog entry in the question text.
[Admin] Renaming per Scott's suggestion to make things clearer for others, from "Will Manifold permanently cease allowing mana donations to charity by the end of 2023?".
@IsaacKing let me know if you have a different preference here!
@Austin Woah woah woah. You cannot change titles after resolution. This is hugely different from the original title will manifold permanently cease.
This is really norm violatey and I would prefer we discussed.
@Austin @IsaacKing I say this as the largest No holder so am biased.
The primary resolution criteria on manifold isn't resolution criteria, it's titles. The questions.
"Will manifold announce"
and
"Will manifold permanently cease"
are very different, even with the same resolution criteria.
"Temporary halts don't count, it needs to look like mana won't be withdrawble for at least a few months in order for this to resolve YES. This market is about the intention to cease donations, not actual functionality on the site."
In the first case, the announcement has clear happened and "it needs to look like" is relating to the announcement.
In the second case, "It needs to look like" is about reality. I didn't think it looked 100% like that so that's why I bought "No". And I was right.
Likewise in the first case "intention" is about the announcment, but in the second "intention" might be about manifold's intention.
Hence I said we should wait a couple of weeks.
Now I don't actually care that much about this market. But I do care that you can't change market names after resolution and certainaly not without notes. We made a decision based on a certain wording and that should be clear.
Currently it looks like I was stupidly wrong. I think it should at least look like it was ambiguous. Honestly, I think I'm vindicated. But what I don't think it can look like is that the question was clearly about a thing that it wasn't clear it was about.
@NathanpmYoung I think Manifold staff wanted the title to change immediately so as not to confuse people about what was happening in the future to donations. That's an understandable priority. Would be better if it was clearly flagged "[Title altered]".
(Also to be clear, my "alter title" suggestion was in reply to Jack's request below that Isaac change the title.)
@IsaacKing can you put notices in places to make it clear that this market had a mess of wording confusion? Maybe put [Title altered] in front of the title, and a big notice at the top of the description?
@ScottLawrence I think that certainly it should say [title altered].
But I also think it was misresolved. I said we should wait and I was right. I am not extremely upset (except about the title change without a note) but I am frustrated that I predicted right.
Titles can and should be changed to clarify them and reduce ambiguity. Of course, there should be a note of significant changes. Normally when a title is changed it adds that at the bottom of the question text, maybe because it was changed by admin that didn't happen? Anyway, Austin made a clear note of what happened in the above comment. I think this is all totally fine.
As has been discussed in other markets, notes in the comments that modify resolution criteria are Not Very Good (bordering on Very Not Good), because they lack visibility. In any case I suspect this specific issue will disappear once Isaac comes online and flags things appropriately, and maybe we can all chill for a while?
@NathanpmYoung I have also added [title altered] to the title now. To be clear, my goal here was to have the title reflect my best guess at Isaac's intent behind this question, using an ability only available to us admins. We will defer to whatever title Isaac thinks best for this question whenever he chooses to weigh in.
Correctly resolved, this was discussed earlier in the comments - https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-manifold-permanently-cease-all#LHO4b7Bk8lfdujb240Oe
@IsaacKing can you please edit the title to be less confusing?
@jack I disagree that it was correctly resolveed. And I certainly disagree that the title should change.