Alright I don't want to draw this out any more, I've decided the following:

1) I'm going to leave this resolution as Yes, as that was my initial judgement and it's been the recommendation of the majority of other people I've consulted, particularly after we found the reflection of Pat in the picture directly in the article.

2) I'm sending M$1000 managrams to the three big no holders as an apology for my having handled this market poorly. If you don't want the M$1000 I encourage you to donate it, which is what I'll do if you send it back to me because I want to incentivize myself to run markets like this better in the future.

I was a not a big bettor, but holy cow, treating that reflection as being "in the article" is absolutely the most tortured interpretation of the resolution condition. It's even more of a stretch than the market hyperlink thing (which itself is quite a contortion).

This is so obviously opposed to the common sense reading of the question that I'm updating my counterparty risk estimate for you (and, honesty, trustworthy-ish users at large since it sounds like a majority of them agree with this) :/

I would probably not have resolved just on the reflection, but on top of the link being a very prominent feature of the article I really do think both the spirit and letter of the criteria were fulfilled. I'll managram you for your losses as well though.

No need to send me 10m, that's silly (but feel free to donate if you want). I'm just complaining on principle :)

I don't see how the spirit is fulfilled here. If you mean that the market link fulfills the spirit, I think Marcus's comment here covers it: https://manifold.markets/Joshua/conditional-on-manifold-being-menti#NEOgCUQYPtMuYGvPoW6H). I rather doubt that further discussion will change my mind

Conditional on Manifold being mentioned in an NYT article in 2023, will @Stralor (Pat Scott) be in it?

Resolved YES. This market is conditional on the following being a YES resolution. If its not, this one resolves to N/A (https://manifold.markets/embed/jack/will-nyt-publish-an-article-mention?r=Zmlyc3R1c2VyaGVyZQ)A screenshot with Pat's profile or a comment by @Stralor or text directly mentioning Pat etc are all valid. If they do not use the handle (i.e. @) but still mention the person, it counts. Only this Pat counts, other Pats are not eligible for this market. Which Pat is being talked about will be determined from the context, if it happens. If only partially visible or mentioned, it will still count. Example: a screenshot where Pat's profile picture is cut in half, or only profile pic is visible but name is not, etc

I have consulted with the trustworthy-ish users, and there were opinions on both sides in regards to the link to Pat's market counting or not. But during the discussion, I believe we discovered a new key piece of evidence!

Behold this picture of the Group Forecasting session:

I scrolled past this at first, but wait. Computer, enhance!

That's Michael Wheatley in the center of the screen's reflection! And who's that next to him?

Please submit your comments on these developments.

@Joshua my comments on these developments are that I think that pic of me on the couch is one of the most flattering pictures of anyone to ever grace the internet

@Stralor I can confirm that's where Pat was standing during my session. Does look like his bracelet.

Another picture of the whole room from that session, I don't see who else this could be from that group:

@Joshua where are you coming up with these pics??? wild

It's from the google album from the manifest server.

@Joshua Fantastic!

Quick non-binding like poll to see if this changes any minds:

Like this comment if you think the market should resolve No or N/A

Like this comment if you think the market should stay resolved Yes.

@Joshua You can just make a decision. Making non-binding polls is meaningless. This is not a good way to resolve markets

To be clear, I can take a loss. But this is getting ridiculous

@MarcusAbramovitch it is a good way to gauge sentiment, though. No need to take big actions when there's negligible % of people asking for them, and if otherwise, you can spend some time thinking about it.

@firstuserhere Sure. I guess that between his polling and opinion seeking in the trustworthy channel, all the comments and polls on this market itself, etc., this becomes completely a bad precedent to set.

It's basically trying to offload responsibility of the resolution.

@MarcusAbramovitch Yeah my apologies for prolonging the process, this is my first time having a market with this much mana and this much controversy so I'm trying out several ways to navigate it.

The goal is to resolve markets in a way everyone can agree is fair, but this is such a weird edge case and I didn't even write the criteria so I've felt a strong urge to defer to other people's opinions.

@Joshua the reflection looks kinda like of a watch, not bracelets. See the highest-quality image at https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/10/03/multimedia/00ROOSE-screen-mvlg/00ROOSE-screen-mvlg-superJumbo.jpg?&quality=100.

This you?

@Joshua Not sure why it’s relevant. (Attaching ears made of paper to the fluffy hoodie so it qualifies as a fursuit was the market creator’s idea. I wouldn’t have done this and I wouldn’t be insisting on it counting if the market creator hadn’t clarified the resolution criteria to me. I just lost 4k mana due to Manifold lagging during the Destiny debate, and needed some quick m-cash. Other things that I’ve done included failing to get a ball pit through the security and getting someone to sign a song in French.) I haven’t made a bet on this market.

No contempt intended, just pointing out that silly markets with broad resolution criteria should be expected to resolve on silly technicalities sometimes. I think refunds are a good way to soften the blow though, as you also did in that case!

@Joshua But this market is about mentions, not pictures!

Pat could’ve changed his profile picture to that chunk of the picture and it could’ve technically qualified, but he didn’t

The resolution criteria do not at all require Pat to be mentioned, just for him to be "in the article". He can even be only "partially visible or mentioned". I'd have counted any sign of him or his profile visible in any picture, or any direct link to one of his markets or comments. I do wish I had re-written the criteria to more clearly state that, which is why I've handed out refunds.

But colloquially, I think it would be totally reasonable for a friend to message Pat "Oh my god, I was reading the NYT and saw you right at the start of the article about Manifold! That's crazy!"

Understandable objections all around, I'll go ask the trustworthy-ish chat for opinions/volunteers to adjudicate re-resolution.