so currently you DONT believe luigi is the person who shot the ceo?

Hi everyone. I'm sorry for the confusion in this market and for the delay in addressing it. I would like to address mistakes in establishing and handling the market and propose different resolution criteria.

I created the market soon after the NYPD commissioner named Luigi Mangione as the person arrested in Altoona as a person of interest in the Brian Thompson shooting. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/brian-thompson-unitedhealthcare-death-investigation-12-9-24#cm4hdzv4x00003b6m1pbvgfot

After that we received more and more information. We heard about the ghost gun and the handwritten document. We heard about Luigi Mangione's social media accounts. We heard that he was charged with murder. But I have not seen Mangione directly state after the arrest that he is the one who shot Thompson.

One Manifold user asked if the market would be resolved based on conviction with all appeals exhausted, and I didn't immediately think of a better alternative. I replied that that did seem reasonable. Some users thought that approach did not align well with the spirit of the title of the market. That's a good point. There is, after all, a different Manifold market on whether Luigi Mangione is convicted.

What would people think if I were to resolve this market based on whether I come to believe based on additional evidence that Luigi Mangione is the person who shot Brian Thompson? This would be instead of resolving based on a conviction or a guilty plea.

Also, if no new information leads me to resolve the market by the 12/31/25 close date, then I will be happy to push it back. I want to especially thank @MaximLott for making me think about flexibility in close date.

Based on the response to this comment, I will consider updating the market description to reflect changes and remove AI summaries.

I recognize that this market has many participants and I want to solicit feedback before making any changes. Again, I apologize for the confusion. Thank you.

@Jx this is getting so convoluted. What was your initial resolution criteria for this question? If it was “whether I come to believe based on additional evidence that Luigi Mangione is the person who shot Brian Thompson”, wipe everything from the question description and add that in.

>One Manifold user asked if the market would be resolved based on conviction with all appeals exhausted, and I didn't immediately think of a better alternative. I replied that that did seem reasonable

You said it seemed reasonable but did you explicitly say, “yes, that’s the criterion”? If so, then that’s grounds for N/A’ing I think… If not, then as I suggested above: put your initial criteria in. Either way people are going to upset here and asking for opinions gets you no further to a solution. (I managed to sell most of my Yes shares so I’m acting somewhat as a neutral here…)

@Jx

1) even though it is not the exact wording of the question i think being convicted is an acceptable resolution. Or more specifically

a) being found guilty

b) changing the plea to guilty

c) being found a killer but innocent (for reason of insanity or self-defense)

2) resolution time: some traders may have factored "the trial being over by end-of-year" for their NO bet (I factored it agaisnt my YES). On the other hand the question and initial description do not imply it. You'll always make someone feel mislead here.

3) when asked "based on a criminal conviction, with all appeals exhausted?" you answered "yes, conviction seems like a reasonable threshold". I've interpreted this as the appeals not being required, despite of what the AI summary said. You might not know much about criminal justice but running out of appeals would likely take ~2 decades.

@Jx i think you should not yet again change the market.

Is title not changeable? Changing title to reflect current resolution seems more reasonable.

@Jx Maybe you could create a new market instead, and perhaps change the title of this one? I think changing the resolution criteria for this market at this point would be very unfair to the people who bet on it based on the current resolution criteria (including the "NO if not convicted by 2026" in particular, which is imo the main reason this market would resolve NO currently). (I have thousands of mana bet on arbitraging this market against another one with the same resolution criteria, which I obviously wouldn't have done had the resolution criteria been different for this one...)

@Jx IMO The best thing would have been to resolve after arrest and seeing sufficient evidence. The next best thing is probably to just leave it alone for now.

@Jx I think at this point it's pretty clear that Mangione is the killer. So effectively, you'd change a market from "will he be convicted by end of 2025?" to a "resolves Yes" market. I bought lots of "No" at 80% or so (in part due to seeing a split with the other market, in which I have a Yes stake). Obviously, I wouldn't have bought "No" in a "resolves Yes" market at 80%. By changing the criteria to "resolves Yes", you're essentially taking away my "No" shares (and giving me nothing in return).

I assume lots of others are in similar positions. Therefore, I strongly think that this change in resolution criteria shouldn't be allowed. Perhaps @mods can comment.

Re the title: I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but it's common for Manifold market titles to be misleading in this sort of way when the market title doesn't imply clear resolution criteria. Thus, when a savvy Manifold user reads the title of the present markets, they will wonder whether this is based on subjective judgment of the market creator or on whether he's convicted, what the timeline for resolution is, etc. They will then read the description (and perhaps be surprised that the resolution criteria don't align with the title very well). Additionally, the market has pretty high number of traders at this point. So if someone sees just the title and the number of traders, they should realize that it's not a "resolves Yes" market and that something interesting is happening with the resolution criteria. So while I'd prefer the title to be something like "Will Mr. Mangione be convicted by end of 2025?", I don't think the title of the market is a reason to change the resolution criteria.

Finally, as @binarypigeon said: If you don't like the resolution criteria of this market, you can create a new market with the resolution criteria that you do like (e.g., will Mr. Mangione ever be convicted?; is he the murderer (resolves by judgement/media consensus)?; etc.).

@Jx I purchased no shares based on the criteria you provided in the comments. I imagine lots of other traders did the same thing. I am absolutely opposed to the changes you're proposing to make at this late date. You'd effectively be nullifying my shares.

@Jx this is really confusing and I think maybe it should just be NA'd

N/Aing seems better than changing the resolution criteria, but would still be a problem for people who arbitraged this market against the other one (or bought this one for insurance against the other one).

@Jx When do you plan to make a final ruling on this? Currently it's hard to trade on this market (and as a result other related markets) without knowing what the resolution criteria will eventually be.

Using the conviction criteria isn't the solution here given the question wording, because the trial is on whether he's guilty of murder, not whether he shot the guy. Evidence for that existed at the point of arrest.

@Jx I reckon you won't change this now that a bunch of people have traded, but it's important to keep commission of a deed and conviction of a crime distinct, as they have different evidentiary standards.

Why isn’t this called “Will Luigi be convicted?” Seems like a pretty big difference between the title of the market and the resolution criteria

@willboiss I guess it's good that these debates get people thinking about the standard of evidence and not just binaries like true/untrue or yes/no.

I don't think all appeals will be exaughsted by market end date, so I'm voting NO

@TimothyBandors You guys really think it will reach supreme court before end of 2026? He will for sure appeal all the way there, his lawyers are the best of the best.

Deleted

@TimothyBandors careful with the AI update in the description. The OP did not state all appeals would have to be exhausted

@hidetzugu yes he did

https://manifold.markets/Bayesian/will-luigi-mangione-be-convicted-of i'm out of liquidity to do more arbitrage but these markets are out of sync

Will Luigi Mangione be convicted of murder, before 2026?

73% chance.

There's no way he is convicted and all appeals exhausted by the end of 2025.

@Jx Just to clarify, is the automated summary correct that this market will resolve NO if Luigi hasn't been convicted with all appeals exhausted as of the end date, even if his guilt seems almost certain to most observers? That is what it seems like you agreed to below, but it seems odd.

@MugaSofer Sorry for not being clear on this market from the beginning. That had been my plan, especially after considering the comment from @placebo_username. But your comment and one from @MaximLott make me think it might be best to alter the resolution criteria. We don't know exactly how long conviction and exhausting appeals could take. I just worry about the possibility of making a point-in-time judgment based on existing information that proves to be incorrect later. I don't want to surprise or disappoint people who put in trades earlier. What do you all think would be a fair approach for resolving?

A @Bayesian market on this subject (located here) has the following criteria, among others:

- yes if Mangione is convicted of murder

- yes if Mangione pleads guilty

- no if Mangione is acquitted

- no if Mangione is not convicted

- no if Mangione never charged

- no if Mangione dies before a conviction

I do like these as a starting point. What if this market were to adopt them as well? And perhaps we could leave out any discussion of appeals for resolution....

@Jx I'd suggest resolving to PROB if he dies, to better match the title, but those otherwise seem fair to me.

@Jx can you extend the resolution date, several years? It was nowhere in the market description itself.

Or update the market to put the end date in the title?

@Jx Putting the end date in the title makes sense but I am against the changes to the resolution criteria. At the time my NO trades were made the description had already been updated to explicitly say it would resolve NO if his trial was still ongoing at the market end date.

And that was a material factor in me buying NO. I would not have bough NO at those prices if I though it wouldn't pay out in cases where he is convicted post 12/31/25

@PatrickHunter are you saying you bought No shares because of the AI summary that was automatically appended to the market description?

@Jx I think you should extend the close date.

Extending a market’s closing date is common practice. Changing the resolution criteria is not.

It seems that Manifold’s new implementation of automatically appending resolution criteria contributed to the issue here.

(@ian you might find this interesting — good example of why there should maybe not be an automatic additions.)

@snazzlePop there definitely should be automatic addtions, but it just needs refined because people are generally bad at reading things (me included!) and I don't think it would hard to make this feature a lot more robust whilst still be useful.

Perhaps something along the lines of giving the question author a prompt after an AI auto clarification as to whether they want to accept it (i.e., goes from "Possible clarification from creator (AI generated)" to "Confirmed clarification from creator (AI generated)".). In the event question creators are inactive, the prompt could just be superseded and added to the resolution.

The mass of bullet points that appear with multiple clarifications are also an issue, some questions end up an absolute mess. Previous AI-generated clarifications need to be removed / amended as appropriate to prevent repetition and contradiction.

cc: @ian

@snazzlePop I checked that it matched the comments, before actually entering but yes that is what made me think to make the bet.
I am fairly new to Manifold (in terms of being active I created my account and made a handful of trades awhile ago).

From my perspective, I am not super invested in this in that I am not super invested in Manifold. But I also had no reason to expect the closing date to change, and am not even sure I knew that was a feature. And spent somewhat more time than I really endorse making sure that the markets were actually going to resolve the way I thought they would in terms of comparing the resolution criteria side by side, checking the set end date ect. Part of why I normally avoid prediction markets is because I was worried about resolution criteria bs, and at this point am leaning towards expect straight up deleting my account because so far my experience using Manifold is leaning net negative for basically predictable to me reasons.

Meant to @ian in that.

@FEDWQSARESARFEDSA I'm going ahead and deleting. This is because Manifold has been more of an annoyance/distraction than I hoped. But that is non-trivially because dealing with this has made up a decent chunk of being on the site, it would be different if I had more significance positive interactions counteracting it.