🏅 Top traders

Looks like Peter set the market to resolve 4 months from when he made the market, on July 27th, and then the title did not clearly communicate this. No great sin, particularly given that this will indeed resolve no.

@Joshua Seems fine to me. Apologies to everyone for the confusion.

@Joshua I'm not sure what the relevance of that is? A market having an incorrect close date doesn't make it not a misresolution...

@PeterBuyukliev I'm not sure how this can make logical sense to resolve No before the end of the month. If I'm misunderstanding something, I apologize; please let me know.

@EvanDaniel @IsaacKing yep, as Joshua said above, the logic was indeed to have exactly 4 months from creation date.

@PeterBuyukliev How is that relevant? You made a market that asks a clear question. The fact that you may have intended to ask a completely different question is not important; we have no way to read your mind.

The title clearly states "end of November", I don't understand why you would say that if you actually meant a completely different time.

@IsaacKing the close date clearly states 27th November, which is when I resolved the market. All of this seems pretty clear to me, not sure why you're confused.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

@PeterBuyukliev Why did you misresolve this market? You turned no profit, so I'm confused...

Should be at less than 1%.

I will not trade on this, because it feels slightly unethical, but I noticed that I didn't specify that it has to be the US government doing the releasing of information.

I.e. Mexico would count if it otherwise fulfills the criteria.

@PeterBuyukliev Why does it have to be only the US? Is it really that unbelievable that other governments might have a grasp on the truth?

@Ansel The context in the description strongly suggests it's asking specifically about things related to the ongoing US congressional hearings. While I agree it's underspecified, it does seem fairly natural to interpret that as a requirement.

@EvanDaniel Huh? No it doesn't. It's very explicit about what counts:

The question resolves YES if there is material evidence (i.e. not eyewitness accounts), released through official channels (i.e. government agency, not whistleblowers) to the general public.

No mention of the US in there. Nor in the title.

@IsaacKing

There are currently congressional hearings on the topic, in which a former Air Force officer David Grusch

...

I am asking - is this bullshit? Will we have real evidence in the next 4 months?

I think if the author announced that they intended this to be a relevant constraint on what counted, that would be well within the normal bounds of market creator discretion.

@EvanDaniel If I make a market on "will there be a new NATO country"? and mention that there are talks about doing so with Ukraine, that does not mean that the market is only about Ukraine.

@IsaacKing IMO that sounds like a much clearer example than this market.

a) the USA has had a program to try to catch UFOs for decades, and b) that they have occassionally succeeded and at least once found a non-human biological tissue.

...

That would include:

• material probes from the craft

...

"The" craft reads to me as referring to specifically what was mentioned above. Overall I think it's fairly unclear, and I don't currently think Manifold has anything approaching a policy that markets have to resolve to that level of precision w.r.t. the actual wording if the author resolves it to what they say was their intent. If that becomes a relevant dispute I'm going to decline to make a judgment call at least for now.

I'd be in favor of stronger requirements for markets to resolve as written, at least when they're not explicitly saying stuff like "resolves per my judgment" or "resolves on vibes" or something. But I don't think we have that right now, and you should direct the complaint to someone who is not me if you'd like that to change.