Mar 15, 11:12am:
Will this Market have more than 25 positions by 15th march 6pm GMT → Will this Market have more than 25 positions by 15th march 6pm GMT? at market close
🏅 Top traders
@CalebDitchfield isnt it an interesting market?
@Dreamingpast Why you sell? I buy bc of your argument
Jack has been on here for less than a day and is already in drama 😭
@Wobbles The new "will i stop making controversial markets by the end of April?"
@Wobbles I LOVE IT
such a high p, maybe more people wont join as they think its not worth their while!!!!
@JackJenkins people will always buy in for tiny gains especially when market is about to close
NO is a cooler side than YES. We’re the underdog rn, and being the underdog is cool. 😎 And we’re rapidly catching up! Vote NO if you’re wanna show the loser YES-buyers who’s boss! You’re not a rule-following YES sheep, are you? 🐑
And for lowly non-NOs, it would be entirely your style to steal from hard-working NOs, but I ask that you don’t if you have a shred of goodness left in you (doubtful). 💔
If you buy NO shares, I’ll love you unconditionally* 🥰. But if you’re a dirty YES-buying traitor, go away! 😠 Shooo! We don’t want your kind in here. 🤢
Sending love to all ❤️ 😊 Join the NOs! 👃
PS: I’m not mentally unstable, I swear! Only pretending to be for dark unlegible reasons.
*there is no irony in this statement 🤭
@Dreamingpast @BionicD0LPH1N copypasta generated
alright im done with this market i sold. >5% chance of unpredictable shenanigans in my estimation
@parafactual i made 33Ṁ :3
@parafactual i by betting on NO have made over 170 Ṁ :)))
@Dreamingpast i'll believe it when i see it
@parafactual be careful with big sales in one move, you momve the market a lot and lose most of your gains
@parafactual i keep selling my positions to realize that position, so that even if i lose i do not lose all the profits even if it makes my overall profits lower than potential!
@JacekLach i barely moved the market
oh that was @JackJenkins not you, my bad
I made 5 mana from predicting NO early!
@42irrationalist now you could make mana from predicting YES
@42irrationalist yea im +20 market making, wish i had my limits set up before the dump to 5% tho
very easy to mannipulate this market !
@JackJenkins yea i guess if someone wants to make 25 accs they can single handedly decide this
@JacekLach that's actually against community guidelines:
@JacekLach they may profit in Ṁ but will it be worth getting banned?
@firstuserhere it's not clear this bans using alts to decide a market like this
if all the accs are long, i dont think that is against the letter of those rules
@JackJenkins the Second last point may be violated?? Oh oh and ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
lost 3 positions---- the rug may be starting to go!!!!
@JackJenkins one came back
@parafactual I can join you guys. I mean, just buy and hold? It's free money if people used sense to resolve YES
@BRIAN_101 do it
@parafactual Okie dokie
@BRIAN_101 I COMMIT TO BUYING AND HOLDING YES. IT’S FREE REAL ESTATE.
well all the people that traded no could pull last min so its a tough trade as they will not win either way so it depends on them !?
@JackJenkins difficulty is finding imposters in people holding YES
@Dreamingpast im just trading this as it comes
@R2D2 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@JackJenkins The market says "by" that time, not "at" that time - and it already has 27 positions, so it is already guaranteed yes, whether people pull out now or not.
@RiverBellamy Apart from causing mayhem it's not immediately profitable to pull out? Unless you want to cause a panic, in which case everyone might switch to NO instead of pulling out...
What became of that debate where creator betting in their own market was ethical or unethical ?
@Messi the creator has no more info here than you
@JacekLach thanks, thats why i chose such a q
@JacekLach I understand. I was asking in general where they discuss making it wrong. Obviously here it is fun
@JackJenkins be careful, if p is too high people won't be incentivized enough to buy
hm the limit order did not work the way i thought it would, i thought i was setting a long position with a take-profit clause, not two unrelated limit orders 🤣
@JackJenkins clarification - at ANY time, or at close?
@Dreamingpast already calrified
@Dreamingpast comment below says at close - but it should be put in the question, yeah:
"Will this. market close with more than 25 positions" would be a better phrasing
@JacekLach also comments like "getting close" make no sense as people can exit positions just before close
@Dreamingpast why would anyone do that?
@parafactual because a NO resolution would be very profitable at that probability
@Dreamingpast wouldnt you have to have a position to profit
@Dreamingpast you cannot profit from the no without a position tho
you could collude, i guess, if we could transfer gains
@parafactual Exactly. I could sell, see the market crash down because the number goes down, buy YES at cheap, and rinse and repeat?
@Dreamingpast well then do so
@JackJenkins i am
@JackJenkins rubbing their hands as that sweet new trader bonuses roll in
At close, or at any time?
@JimHays well it would be at close as thats the only way of confirming accurately
@JackJenkins That is not the only way to confirm it accurately. All trades are recdorded. And the market doesn't say "at" close, it says "by" that time. Given that it is already over 25 positions, resolving it "no", even if people close positions before close, would be dishonest. Show some integrity Jack. Your word is on the line.
@RiverBellamy eh no. The creator has clarified many times that the market at close positions are what count
@Dreamingpast yeah should have been in description but it's ok it's been communicated several times
@Dreamingpast reversing your position is not "clarifying". "Clarifying" is only possible if there was ambiguity in the description, and there was not. Further, people should never have to read comments to figure out what would cause a market to resolve "yes" or "no". So as far as I am concerned, Jack's word is staked to what he wrote in the description, not the comments, and if he resolves it "no" I will regard him as a liar and block him.
@RiverBellamy Might I interest you in this market?
@Dreamingpast If we go with your implied norm, that a market maker can change the meaning of a market in the comments, then I would have to read every comment on every market I have a position in just to know what I am betting on. That would be incredibly unpleasant, to the point of making this site basically unusable.
@RiverBellamy yeah I'm kinda with you - the wording of the market suggests it should resolve yes if at any point there were 25 or more positions on the market; if it was "more than 25 positions at 6pm" then the 'at close' reading would be correct
and yes the fact that the 'at close' meaning was only in comments and not market description is the main issue
@RiverBellamy go ahead because so far people have been betting on the understanding that the creator communicated. I personally asked them for clarification and got it. If that's irrelevant to you then that's a You thing
@Dreamingpast Just because you are betting on that understanding doesn't mean everyone is. If you bet 'no' and win, and someone else bet 'yes' without reading the comments (as they are entitled to and should not be disadvantaged for), then you have cheated them. That is on you, not them.
@RiverBellamy I am not "betting on the understanding" - it is what the market maker told me and everyone
@Dreamingpast and if description is important then @JackJenkins can add it to the description .
@Dreamingpast No, it is only what the market maker told people who chose to read the comments. The whole premise of a market is that you can read the question and the description, now what is being asked, make an assessment, make a bet based on that assessment, and contribute to our collective epistemics and understanding of the world, all withOUT having a conversation with anyone. If you want to converse with people on the internet, go join any of the random forums or discord servers out there. Markets are for communicating via bets without conversation.
@RiverBellamy you can update based on clarification, as happens in MOST markets where people have doubts and ask the market maker -> clarification -> users update their position or exit if they misinterpreted what the market MAKER wanted
@Dreamingpast People's word is not based on what they wanted or intended when they said a thing it is based on what they actually said. What jack actually said was "by". It doesn't matter if he intended "at", his integrity is based on what he actually said. That is how integrity works everywhere else, why should Manifold be special?
@RiverBellamy ok so on their word, it means at close, gg
They've already contradicted themselves, yes, which is not great. At this point, the best they can do is hold to the thing they said to the most people, "by", not "at".
@Dreamingpast i and many others literally asked for clarification -> got the clarification of what ambiguity arises due to phrasing -> creator clearly resolves the ambiguity -> now what does it matter what the original description was? The maker @JackJenkins can add it to description now to help new buyers as old buyers already got clarification
@Dreamingpast Is it seriously your position that everyone who bets in a market is supposed to read the comments? Why would you want to condemn us to that hell?
@RiverBellamy nope, it is not my position. that's why instead of going through comments (where it was ALREADY ANSWERED) i asked the creator who double confirmed it means AT CLOSE
@Dreamingpast There NEVER was ambiguity. Please stop framing it as "ambiguity" and "clarification". You can see very well that that is NOT what happened. Words have meanings. "By" means "at any time before". You clearly speak English. You know that.
@RiverBellamy dont bet then... simple
@Dreamingpast Changing a market after it was created seems incredibly not ok to me. People have already bet, and are entitled to the profits of their bet, even if they never log in between betting and resolution.
@RiverBellamy This was an issue recently as Manifold Markets has a lot of markets where it is "By 2024" and it resolves on 31dec 2024. So the admins are clarifying by making changes to the title. Many people do not understand by and at the way you and I do
I'm just blocking Jack right now then. He has seen the arguments, and chosen to go back on his word. He is a liar.
@RiverBellamy lmao they clarified themselves every time asked and you repeatedly ignore those