🏅 Top traders

@JiSK the new Congress have started, could you please resolve? Thanks!

Several days later than I otherwise would have because you nagged me. So, January 17th or so.

@JiSK good question creators that create a lot of questions tend to appreciate a polite and gentle reminder, particularly when the question can be resolved before the current market closing date. You should not be creating questions if you are unwilling to receive communication from people and resolve in timely manner. @mods flagging for your attention - first time seeing something like this, not sure what should happen.

@AnonUser Now January 20th. You are being incredibly rude and the market isn't even closed yet. You don't determine what a 'good question creator' is. Question creators determine what they consider good, and do that. If you don't like it, fuck off and bid on something else.

@JiSK @mods what is the Manifold policy on the use of offensive language and on refusing the resolve a question out of spite after the resolution criteria has been clearly met? Could you please consider resolving? Note that I have sold all my shares a while ago, and only requesting resolution based on general principles of fairness.

@AnonUser Per the mod guidelines

If the creator is active, then you should ping them in a comment, and then resolve if they don’t respond after 1 day.

So, @JiSK, if this market's criteria have been met and you don't dispute that, I'll resolve it a day from now. Being rude once isn't particularly against a policy, but it's still not ideal (Also, if you're the same JiSK, I love reading threads involving Jilia, great character!)

@JiSK While creators do have considerable discretion over the handling of their markets, the site guidelines do specify that this market should be resolved, even if it has not reached the closing date. By my reading, we fall into this category here under the Mod Guidelines:

I'm going to resolve this No right now since it meets all the necessary criteria.

Please reresolve this N/A. If your rules do not permit me to resolve my markets as intended, I do not wish them to be resolved definitively at all.

And then change the policy because it's hostile to the purpose of the site.

@jacksonpolack I do dispute that. I have not yet checked whether the criteria are met, because I do not do that before the market closes for a 'event didn't happen'. You have no right to premature resolutions.

@JiSK mod checked for you when you were being intentionally obstinate for 0 valid reasons. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. As I said before, if you do not intent to resolve in good faith, you should not be creating questions. You are clearly acting in bad faith as this point.

P.S. I have sold ally shares before this closed, so my interest is entirely in making sure this site continues to function fairly.

@AnonUser I resolved in good faith, in good time, and responded to pressure to resolve prematurely by punishing it. The result of not following this policy is incorrectly-resolved markets because pressure to resolve does not come primarily from people who are correct about how to resolve it. You have displayed no virtue whatsoever at any point in this process and I will never bid in a market you've created because you have demonstrated you cannot be trusted to resolve markets accurately if there is some external pressure to instead resolve them swiftly.

The correct time to resolve this market was when it was closed, and not before. This is true for basically all markets of the form 'will Event X not happen', if Event X does not happen. The close date is the deadline, not reality; the market creator has declared their intended date to evaluate the claim and it is listed right below the top of the page. I am right; you are wrong. There is no real ambiguity.

@JiSK You continue being obstinate.

1. For an "X would not happen before Y" type market, the time to resolve is after Y happens. In this case "before the next Congress begins" implies that once it begins, it is time to resolve.

2. Your notion that "the close date is the deadline, not reality" is laughable - sorry, unlike yourself we all live in the world of reality, not in the world of made up deadlines.

3. My initial "the new Congress have started, could you please resolve? Thanks!" was a gentle polite request, with 0 pressure. Calling it "nagging" was completely inappropriate.

4. Deliberately delaying resolution for all market participants just because one participant upset you is unfair to all other market participants and is not in good faith.

4. Asking for N/A without a valid reason, just because your gambit to delay resolution out of spite failed, is IMHO a grossly inappropriate temper tantrum.

5. I displayed plenty of virtues :) I thanked you in advance in my initial post, have been polite with you even when you used offensive language, and demonstrated a ton of patience while trying to to gently deal with your childish temper tantrums.

6. P.S. And yes, you are not allowed to bid on any markets I create, as there are no such markets 🤣

@AnonUser most of what is happening here is a culture mismatch between older users of the site and the current landscape. Many users signed up for a version of the site where creators had full control over their markets and there was no such thing as a moderator stealing your page away from you.

I can certainly understand the frustration, especially when these changes may have appeared to happen with "no notice"....

@Eliza I do not think so - the original issue was that a polite request to resolve was responded to with "Several days later than I otherwise would have because you nagged me", which IMHO was a very inappropriate reaction. Mods resolving was IMHO a proper corrective action to question author's refusing timely resolution without a good reason, but mod getting involved was not at all what started the whole thing.

@AnonUser The appearance of politeness without the substance is the worst and most intolerable form of rudeness. Which you have displayed uniformly from the start; I have never, in any context, encountered someone who said 'thanks in advance' and was genuine in their thanks. And there is nothing polite about nagging, no matter the words used. Especially not in this context where 98% of people asking markets to resolve are manipulating the creator, idiots incorrect about the state of the world, or both.

If you want markets to resolve accurately, never ever do that again to anyone.

@JiSK in case anyone here is still reading, this incident was part of the impetus for creating this poll, which has a bit of a varied response so far:

@JiSK Surprise surprise - my "thank you in advance" was genuine, and I had plenty of market creators thanking me for reminding them, while you were the first to be offended. When the market resolution criterion has been clearly reached, it is IMHO perfectly fine to bring it to market creator's attention. Note that when the resolution criterion is less clear, I would more often ask the market creator for their take on whether it was reached or not, but in this case there was no ambiguity.

But I think you are missing my bigger point - while you were childishly petty and impolite to me, my main issue with you is not that - it's that you were being unfair to other market participants that were completely blameless regardless of how you took my request and deserved a timely resolution.

@AnonUser I was not being unfair to anyone. Resolving a month after close would not be being unfair to anyone. There is no reasonable expectation of swift resolution. None.

@JiSK you say

There is no reasonable expectation of swift resolution. None.

But this is wrong. The community guidelines (https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Resolving-markets-5b35eec068fc413485832676afdf0a32) state:

Once resolution criteria are met users are expected to resolve their market promptly.

There is a little bit of fuzziness about what "promptly" means, but I think nearly everyone would agree that two weeks' delay is not prompt.

Only 2 months left and the GOP has likely held onto the House in this election (which would give them a trifecta in 2025). Hard to see why Speaker Johnson would be ousted before Jan 3.

TBD if he is reelected to speaker. Who knows how large the GOP majority will be and what hardliners may try to do.

Always betting on maximum dysfunction with these guys

Well, this is thick enough that probably the market is right that it's unlikely. Not selling my YES because I still think y'all're overestimating the coherency and ability to stick to deals of the current GOP House caucus, but it's probably not 50+% like I thought.

i honestly think no shot here but i LOVE chaos