That's two. Who'll be third?

And a binary market because DPM sucks:

@Yev https://manifold.markets/HieronymusBosch?tab=comments

@Yev Does it count as being banned if the user is requesting account deletion, and the account is deleted?

@ScottLawrence I don't know, this is not my market. @LivInTheLookingGlass?

@Yev It kinda meets the letter of the question, but I don't think it meets the spirit of the question. Unless @SneakySly says otherwise, or someone else convinces me otherwise, I will say it does not count. Voluntary account deletion is not the same thing as a ban

@LivInTheLookingGlass I think deletion wouldn't count as a ban (not in letter or in spirit, since the letter of the question just says "banned").

However, they are now posting numerous spam comments including apparently NSFW ones. This is clear grounds for a ban in my view. (Not sure exactly how that would differ from deletion technically, but policy-wise I think there's a distinction - in particular if they tried to recreate their account then Manifold could deny them.)

@extent_of_foxes OnesimusMalatji seems to be a fairly boring troll/spammer. I expect some of those markets to get unlisted, but the user won't get banned.

Drama!

James on discord:
> Yeah, that account is suspicious, not that clear where their mana came from

@LivInTheLookingGlass the "Dr. P" answer is currently gathering whatever evidence exists for a banning without the knowledge of it being an alt. Reflecting this evidence is presumably the purpose of this market. Invalidating an answer based on a spurious requirement for a single answer will prevent people from using the best info they have on hand to inform bets.

I don't believe that selecting two answers once any hidden knowledge becomes available allows for significant gaming of the market (except maybe by an EH alt?), so it should be an option that's on the table unless there's a definite reason against it.

@Yev If we know this at resolution time, I will grant to the first answer submitted unless someone makes a convincing argument otherwise

@LivInTheLookingGlass What if DrP or Spindle is EHarding's alt? 🤔

@MichaelWheatley You know what, that's a good point. Unless someone has a better argument than this, I will resolve to this answer if it's an E Harding alt

but if you declare in advance that you won't rule 100% in favour of the answer that doesn't have the details filled in, its probability isn't going to be able to reflect the actual prob of the thing happening.

I'm willing to take a community ruling on this, but if I had to say, I would try to balance

• Reward the more specific answer

• Don't disincentivize generic answers

I think the way to do that would be to weight it by both pool size and some constant factor. So maybe

• Generic answer: 1 * its pool size

• Specific answer: 3 * its pool size

Or to say the same thing more charitably: someone discovers the identity of EHarding's alt, submits their name here, and then reports them to the mods.

Put another way, would you select the answer that's a actually prediction, or the answer that waited until the prediction started to happen and then rephrased it?

(I created this answer but have already sold my shares.)

See the debate at https://manifold.markets/Duncan/among-current-heads-of-state-who-wi

@LivInTheLookingGlass How will you resolve this market if someone submits the name of EHarding's alt and then that alt gets banned? Will you select the generic "An EHading alt" or the more specific answer?

(They are, however, the most recent examples. And demonstrate a continuing pattern of behavior.)

Please note that there are (in my opinion) much worse comments DrP has posted, including ones that were deleted by the moderators. You can scroll through their comment history. The linked comments aren't the most pertinent examples.

@cos Also https://manifold.markets/jack/will-donald-trump-be-us-president-o#QdkJ2Zk5UODtWl1iuirs

@MichaelWheatley See: https://manifold.markets/DrP/will-queen-elizabeth-ii-die-before#t1uxJP8Xlz1S7DmWkKYL