Close date updated to 2023-01-27 2:06 pm
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ149 | |
| 2 | Ṁ96 | |
| 3 | Ṁ70 | |
| 4 | Ṁ43 | |
| 5 | Ṁ29 |
I am very convinced now that this is not going to happen if state bar lawyers are threatening him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robot-lawyer-wont-argue-court-jail-threats-do-not-pay/
Also, given the supreme court offer as well, this smells a lot like a publicity stunt. You got a flurry of articles when he first announced both things, and a ton of coverage now that it's gone poof. Sounds like mission accomplished.
Resolving now as NO.
Okay, I think people make a good case for resolving NO on the following basis.
Normally if I had filled out a full criteria, I would have included a N/A resolution. But I was lazy with this one, and in the absence of triggering N/A criteria, we should take a textualist approach to the market. The question as stated "Will DoNotPay's robolawyer win in traffic court?" is both simple and clear. Either that event happens before the resolution date or it doesn't.
If I have no reasonable reason to believe that this will be tried again by the resolution date, then I would resolve it NO before the resolution date. I can take a wait and see approach for now and see what DoNotPay will do, but from what's been posted they've been threatened pretty significantly with legal actions if they try this, and it also smells a lot like it was a publicity stunt all along (one that worked smashingly well, if so).
The trick is as soon as I post this then everybody's going to immediately vote NO...
Ah well, whatever.
https://twitter.com/jbrowder1/status/1618265395986857984
I didn't say what should happen if it never goes to court. Suppose this means it should resolve N/A?
Now wondering if it was a publicity stunt all along.
@ian as a NO holder, I think it's unfair to resolve NA. This was always iat least partially about wether the AI would be allowed to act as a lawyer in court. (And also if it did would it be able to avoid procedural missteps etc).
@LarsDoucet Lots of markets include conditionals in the title, with the description making clear that if the conditional is not met, the market would resolve N/A. There's a million conditionals that could be imagined for any market--if the norm is to resolve N/A for unstated conditionals, there's no point to ever buying NO on any question.
A market asking, "If DoNotPay's robolawyer is allowed in traffic court, will it win?" is a different market than one asking, "Will DoNotPay's robolawyer win in traffic court?" The unlikelihood that the robolawyer would be allowed in the courtroom was part of why I bought NO to begin with.
Given that the closing date is not for over 11 months, I think there's a stronger argument for leaving the market open until then than for resolving N/A, if you think there's a chance Browder will flip his position again, or that this is mere legal posturing that doesn't reflect his actual plans. If you're convinced he's genuine and that DoNotPay's robolawyer will not win in traffic court because it won't be allowed in traffic court, I think you have to resolve NO.
@LarsDoucet "winning in traffic court" can mean a lot of things, so it's really up to you.
"Traffic court" can include pretrial hearings, negotiations with prosecutors, and entering a plea.
"Winning" is variable too: will you only accept complete dismissal, will a bargain for a lesser offense suffice?
Initially, I would assume "winning in traffic court" to mean dismissing a ticket, which doesn't require a trial.
Hope this helps!
@PersonMan0326 to add, if you wanted to capture the essence of DoNotPay's technology, you would probably want it to be used (earpiece information given to defendant remotely) in achieving that win.
Manifold in the wild: A Tweet by Lars "Land is a Big Deal" Doucet
Will @DoNotPay's robolawyer win in traffic court? https://manifold.markets/LarsDoucet/will-donotpays-robolawyer-win-in-tr?referrer=LarsDoucet