Known Automated Bots

The following bots are currently considered alive and fully automated for this market:

1. @Dagonet

2. @NiciusBot

3. @cy

4. @RISKBOT

5. @bayesianbot

6. @Galahad

@MyDreamIsHere2018 lmaoooooo bro creates a market, builds a position, loses, then changes the criteria to win

@brod shall we restart with a new market without these contradictions?

https://manifold.markets/MyDreamIsHere2018/the-nobots-market-which-side-will-b-PPRc2E96Cy

I can unfreeze all funds from this market by resolving it as N/A prematurely, and the new market is ready to trade

@MyDreamIsHere2018 there is still time for other bots to change position.

And If nothing changes until market close I suggest 50/50

@brod

In reality to me the sequence looks like:

1. Market created with the explicit intention: “This is a game of market manipulation against the algorithms. The goal is to force the automated traders to sell their positions on your chosen side before the market closes.”

2. All traders having fun playing with this assumption

3. The market creator didn’t specify that usage of alt accounts are not allowed, because this is in our community guidelines https://manifoldmarkets.notion.site/Account-manipulation-guidelines-2cea166008aa45de9785fdbe6e290ae3

4. The traders didn’t expect others to use alt accounts on their benefit, because we all assumed the other traders would respect the community guidelines

5. Then @brod used a sock puppet account to place a bet on their benefit

6. When this was discovered, @brod was alerted and invited to sell the position

7. The market @creator asked for input about what to do, and tried to find a solution making several suggestions

I still think the best solution is that @brod sells the position. Reasons:

• A) We should avoid N/A because someone was not respecting the community guidelines

• B) The other traders have the right to continue playing

• C) We should promote a culture of following the guidelines without having to involve mods or admins to enforce them

• D) It is a horrible idea to force all market creators to repeat the full Community Guidelines text in their market criteria, to avoid facing the risk "you didn't say explicit in your description that this action was not allowed, so I did it"

Disclaimer: I don't have any position in this market, so I won't lose nor win any mana with any outcome. But I want Manifold community guidelines to be followed so that we can all have fun playing deception games within a shared and known set of limits.

@MiguelLM

I agree with @brod that setting a list of allowed accounts at this point is a bad idea. It would imply changing the resolution criteria in the middle of the game. This is another reason to opt for the solution of @bradbot selling the position, so that the resolution criteria don't have to be changed.

Wow, am I unbanned now? If so. . @MiguelLM than you for unbanning me..

For the resolution, I’m not sure. The intention behind the market was to create a game: to make real people manipulate bots into going in the wrong direction.

The bradbotBot has clearly not been active for months, and I’m unsure if it fits the definition of being "automated."

I might be biased due to my position in the market, which forces me to resolve against my own position (potentially gaining social capital that is more valuable than MANA).

Now I find myself in a dilemma: should I prioritize the social capital gained from people manipulating the resolution to succeed, or should I stick to my original intention when creating the market: to bankrupt the bots and manipulate them?

The bot bradbot is tagged as a bot, but it doesn’t seem to be in automated mode when it placed its bet (but I don’t have that information or source code, or why it was inactive).

The flaw in my own description, which is now in clear contradiction, may force me to avoid a resolution and mark it as N/A, then restart with a clear list of 3 active bots (not manually controlled). I see that there were three active bots (including Dagonet) trading here. @Dagonet was defeated and left , sold it's "no" position, - clear win.

But I still need more technical and linguistical details to determine if my definition of a bot aligns with bradbot's termininology - bot's actions. When I created the market I had assumed it would be much simpler to resolve. I will read comments under this post to decide

@MyDreamIsHere2018

To me the resolution seems quite simple:

The owner of @bradbot should sell the position if it was manual, or explain what is the logic of the algorithm if this was the only automated trade in three months.

Manifold got worse with the alt accounts generating noise. Adding to the mix alt-fake-bots makes it even more confusing.

@MyDreamIsHere2018

If so. . @MiguelLM than you for unbanning me..

I can’t ban nor unban anyone.

I guess no one will ban you without giving an explanation first.

adding @brod

I assume you are the owner of the alt account @bradbot

@MiguelLM thank you for input

@MiguelLM If @brod is OK, clarification that technically BradbotBot isn’t eligible under the definitions of this market.

@MyDreamIsHere2018 under the definitions of the market, bradbot is a bot because has the bot tag. You shouldn’t change how a bot is counted while the market is running. You could have different rules next time, but for this market I think under the rules it’s a bot.

@NzJack0n Since BradbotBot isn’t automated, there’s a contradiction with the market’s definition. Given this inconsistency, I believe if there is a dispute, the appropriate resolution would be N/A due to the evident mismatch between BradbotBot and the wording requiring automation.

@MyDreamIsHere2018 Someone could still get A different bot to hold No though

@NzJack0n Yes, it’s possible to wait until market expiration. We just need some consensus on how to resolve the evident contradiction, which currently prevents the intended game of manipulating bots. I added an update highlighting “automated” in the title so everyone would notice it.

@MyDreamIsHere2018 hey lol so the criteria are pretty clear that the bot only had to have the tag to count, nothing specified about the mechanism of the trade

nothing in the criteria say it needs to be automated. even then what does automated mean - part of a strategy used on all markets? but thenall bots have markets they won’t trade in including dagonet eg coinflips and you appeared to have no issue with that bot.

using API? i guess after people had an issue with the manual trade i placed some automated trades - actually 30 of them in 1 second via the API to prove it couldn’t be manual in any sense

so if you’re excluding non-API but including API trades, you are changing the criteria post-hoc, but nonetheless bradbot’s position stands

anyway soz for not responding i didn’t expect all this discussion bc the criteria are actually incredibly crystal clear that this is a 50/50 resolution and bradbot counts

if you want to create another market impervious to this manipulation you are free to do that and change the criteria

tbc i was totally gaming this market to make profit, but it feels completely fair because the whole point of this market is to manipulate it

@brod OK, N/A is a possible consensus resolution option if none of the known automated bots are on the NO side (i.e., if they all remain only on the YES side) - assuming no changes appear

https://manifold.markets/leagues/32/silicon/prophetic-programs

This market has distortions. For example, some shareholders intentionally place their bots (manually, not automatically) on one side of the market: https://manifold.markets/bradbot.

This kind of manipulation should be called out, and future rules should be more specific: specially mention automated bots

Resolution trader explicitly says “automated traders”

Manual trades should not count

@MiguelLM "Bot": Any account with the official tag "Bot" is considered a valid bot for this resolution.

If I rename my account to “Miguel bot” and I place a manual trade this will not meet the market description, as the bet is not automated by an algorithm. I’m not sure how @ChangAnthony verified that the bets were manual and not automated, but if this is true the fake “bot” should be removed

@MiguelLM Thank you, de-jure given the current situation, with two bots on the Yes side and one de jure bot on the No side (here we see a clear contradiction for "automated"), if I must resolve this now, I’m open to any outcome (Yes, 50/50, No or something else).

Personally, I value the social capital in this market more than my own position. I can't decide against the crowd. My intention when placing my bets here initially was to attract bots, and they were drawn in the limit orders. I’m comfortable with whatever resolution arises.

If needed, I’ll gladly defer to more technically competent moderators to ensure the resolution is handled correctly. I don’t have insider knowledge on how bots operate, or if someone verified that the bets were manual and not automated

@MyDreamIsHere2018 @MiguelLM yes I think next time there should be a clarification only Bots that place automated bets will count

(nvm)

.