It seems that originally the market was titled

Is Luigi Mangione the person who shot UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson?

and this was changed to

Will Luigi Mangione be convicted of murder for the shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by the end of 2025?

Given that it seems the main reason the probability swung so much is due to the likely situation where he is convicted but the trial just takes more than a year to get to that point, wouldn't it be more true to the original spirit of the market to have a much further back deadline in which the trial is very likely to have finished e.g. 2028?

He's not getting through all appeals before the end of the year.

@TimothyBandors doesn’t an appeal happen after a conviction?

@Eric_WVGG depends on which version of the rules the judge chooses to resolve with tbh

@Robincvgr I put up more limit orders. I wanna divest out of ~~Mr. Bone’s Wild Ride~~ this market, so plz feel free to fill them.

I recommend you to N/A this market.

@CertaintyOfVictory why? Edit: nevermind, just read other comments

@bluerat N/A is the smart move

@Jx please N/A. The resolution criteria changed substantially from what I thought I was betting on. Given how much the market moved, clearly this was a material change.

The market was primarily so high in the first place before the title change because there was the threat of changing the resolution criteria looming over it, preventing people from arbitraging, etc. (For instance, I was at some point betting it down to above 70% instead of ~40% to allow for a somewhat less than 50% chance of the resolution criteria changing.) The resolution criteria did not change, @Jx just confirmed that they would remain the same, rather than changing. (The market was also very spiky before, for the same reason.)

The other market on the same question also moved a lot, just more gradually, hence they were relatively close before and after the threat of changing resolution criteria, but disagreed significantly during. (Eg, both were around 70% on January 11)

@binarypigeon wasn't the original title "Is Luigi Mangione the person who shot

UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson?" I didn't realize I was betting on a conviction only in 2025!

@NateBaer That was the original title, which I agree was misleading and should have been changed earlier (that said, I do think that one can infer from the original title that one has to check what the actual resolution criteria are -- eg, is it based on conviction, subjective judgment, etc -- since the ground truth on the title question is inaccessible. In general, titles on manifold do often only loosely relate to resolution criteria -- one can debate whether the site should have rules preventing this, of course.). It differed from the earlier resolution criteria, though.

@binarypigeon I appreciate you taking the time to explain. Was a conviction only in 2025 clearly expressed in the original resolution criteria?

@NateBaer As far as I can tell, it still isn't clearly expressed in the resolution criteria.

@Jx Any thoughts on the above?

@Qoiuoiuoiu Given that there are still >300 people with positions in this market, I'm going to keep it open for now

@Jx I'm one of the largest yes holders, but also think it's time for a cancel. Just holding out because I don't want to take the loss at this moment.

@Jx i also think it's time for a cancel

@binarypigeon IMO regardless of what the rules technically allow, the norm should be that the plain reading of the title is accurate as to resolution criteria, and that the description only clarifies where there is gray area in the title. Changing the title in such a substantial way as you have is bad form - you should just N/A and start over.

@MattP Agreed.

And side from norms around titles and such, if writing a clarification swings the market by 40pp, I think that's a big sign you just need to N/A

Just a tip: Any time you find yourself substantially re-writing the market title, the buttons you actually wanted are Resolve Market -> N/A. It's overused on a bunch of stuff (like "if <condition is not met>, resolves N/A), but "I want to 'clarify' resolution criteria in a way that drastically changes the likelihood" - or really, any case where you as the market creator screwed up the initial market description and people traded on that - is THE intended scenario for N/A.

@SeekingEternity He's in for a lot of 1 star ratings if he keeps the market open, lol (I already divested from this market)

Why the sudden dip in the last 24 hours? Did something big happen? (Couldn't find anything.)

@nottelling2ccc He finally clarified the resolution, lol

@nottelling2ccc Because this market is now about something completely different than it was initially.