Just to be clear to those involved, Jeff did not lose 10k as Jack originally said (and corrected) from an N/A. There were 516 unique traders. The bonus is 10M per trader.

The worst outcome for Jeff was YES. The best outcome was NO. N/A was in the middle (as it was for everyone else). Jeff was obviously heavily biased against a YES resolution, and a little less biased against a N/A resolution. He admitted that bias when he appointed a 3rd party to resolve.

I know it’s over, I’m just correcting the misinfo. I have no reason to believe Jack acted to protect Jeff (he even thought N/A was worse for him) and I completely understand the way Jack handled it. It’s also very possible Jeff had no bad intentions (as he did actually appoint a 3rd party).

@Gen Either way I just donated 7,500 mana ($75) to the internet archive which I believe is more then I would have lost in a yes resolution. never had any bad intentions, just didn’t know how to address the ambiguity, I tried to ask for help with the ambiguity on discord in the early days of the market but no one replied and the market just snowballed 🤷‍♂️

@PhatFree I should also say @jack Chose the N/A resolution as I delegated the choice to him since he is a top contributor and had no stake in the market. I’m simply donating as both a way to signal that I never cared about the mana, and so that at least something good came out of market.

The people who really got screwed are the ones who sold their positions at a loss when it became obvious that this market was going to be a s**tshow

@SuperTaxGenius Every trade is reversed, meaning that anyone that had lost or gained money has been restored their original mana. No one got screwed, everyone’s money is returned.

The only real looser is myself who looses 10k mana of unique trade bonus. Even if the market has closed yes I would have gained 1k mana. This closing of N/A was motivated by the issues of ambiguity, not mana

Probably should have closed it earlier. It was obvious people interpreted what was said vice what was meant very early on. Lesson learned on specific resolution criteria, which is wicked hard. Better luck next time. I know I'm piling on but I really feel this lesson needs to hit hard not just for you but for anyone following. I'm new to the market making and I know I am going to be much more careful in the future.

As stated by @jack I’ve actually lost more mana in resolving to N/A then I would have lost in a no resolution, due to the unique trade bonuses.

I really don’t care about the mana, and am happy donate the mana I have left using the manifold markets charity function to serve as proof of that.

This market turned into an even bigger headache then when I had no power for 5 days in the 2021 storm… And that’s saying something!

@PhatFree Yes resolution*

@PhatFree Yikey spikey!

The sad truth is that this market resolved because the maker said “uhhh I actually meant that it had to be like last year” and then the independent assessor weighed their mind state way more than they should have. The whole reason it was given to a third party was because the maker was biased (massive NO position)

Really disappointing ending to a massive market.

Not Jack’s fault though. They made a “fair” decision, with valid reasoning, even if it was arguably wrong. Important lesson for clarifying terms early and setting clear standards in future markets, I encourage market participants to be vocal about resolution criteria and concerns earlier rather than later. (I didn’t play this market, because it was so unclear and the maker was taking large positions)

@Gen Worst of it is market is not open for original close date in March. Still more time left! N/A is just giving it up. Sad.

@Gen its a disappointment because even with all criteria in the description being met, both Jeff and Jack kept moving the goalposts. Jeff refused to take the L and Jack enabled him. I've linked all the numbers and data below, but they still resolved N/A.

Sad abuse here.

The market was unfortunately doomed by the ambiguous resolution criteria. There are many people who think it meets all the criteria for YES. There are also many people who think it doesn't because it isn't "large scale" enough, or that it wasn't a grid failure. Not much that can be done about it after the fact. Understand that writing quality resolution criteria is quite difficult and it is easy for things to go wrong. Working towards clarifying the resolution criteria is helpful, but I don't think accusing the author of being biased is accurate or helpful in this instance.

I said weeks ago that all the criteria were met if you use one interpretation of large scale, and they were not met if you use another interpretation of it - that's the key problem.

Also, if you actually looked at what the author stood to gain or lose, you can see that the author actually lost more from N/A resolution than from YES resolution. They invested 9,559 mana, so if it resolved YES that's how much they would have lost. With N/A resolution, they get back the 9,559 mana, but instead lose the 10k mana of unique trader bonuses that they had previously earned on the market - so they actually lose more with N/A.

Actually my last comment got the math wrong, I think they lost 1k of unique trader bonuses. Anyway, the more important point is their position did not factor into the decision.

@jack Whatever helps you sleep at night :)

What a disappointment

WOW. Ok...

Hi all, coming back from a long weekend with no cell service, @jack What is your final decision?

@PhatFree We've decided that the market will be opened back up until March 20 to give market creator some time to get their sh*t together and allow those of who getting bamboozled time to sell.

Resolves N/A as per previous discussion.

@jack Resolving as N/A is cope. All criteria were met and reported by both major news outlets and the power companies themselves. These were abnormal blackouts due to the storm causing distribution failures - even leading to a significant amount of customers not getting power back for a week.

I've read your thread, and it just reeks of someone who doesn't want to admit they lost a bet. You win some, you lose some - do the right thing and resolve as yes.

@jack this article alone would be enough to convince any layman that the criteria for a "yes" resolution was met. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/03/austin-power-outages/

You're missing the forest for the trees.

@jack Or this one: https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/04/austin-power-outages-families-struggle/

"Forrest Gifford, an electrical distribution crew leader with Austin Energy, said the ice storm produced the most catastrophic damage he’d seen in his 15-year career. Downed trees, live wires and other hazards made the work extremely slow-going and difficult, Gifford said."

@Defghi19 the reason for markets and objective criteria is exactly what you are doing now: appealing to a story over objective facts. Austin is a single city. It is home to most Texas media. Stories about Austin will get outsized coverage and weight. If you think this counts, show it with data, not appeals to emotion.

I've read your thread, and it just reeks of someone who doesn't want to admit they lost a bet. You win some, you lose some - do the right thing and resolve as yes.

You seem to be confusing me for someone else. I have no position in this market, I am an unbiased 3rd party.

@jack Here's your numbers:

Feb 1 2022 outage tracker: a normal non-storm day in Texas 1 year prior to this year's storm: https://web.archive.org/web/20220201081817/https://poweroutage.us/area/state/texas

Feb 1 2023 outage tracker: outages across companies throughout the state due to the storm: https://web.archive.org/web/20220201081817/https://poweroutage.us/area/state/texas

Today's outages live: normal amount of non-storm affected outages throughout the state: https://poweroutage.us/area/state/texas

Here's a breakdown by county on the day of the storm: Travis, Williamson, and smith were the most significantly hit. However, there are significant outages percentage wise from customers across the state with some counties experiencing up to 40% outage.

https://web.archive.org/web/20230201230814/https://data.tallahassee.com/national-power-outage-map-tracker/area/texas/48/

These numbers all show that this was:

• multiple cities

• large scale blackout

• single storm cell that caused distribution problems

• significantly different than normal outages during non-storm data points

@Nps see the above comment for the data

@Defghi19 so your criteria is 40% or more of a county experiences an outage? How many days in the last two years had 2 or more counties where 40% lost power?

@Defghi19 Thanks, but another key part of the question was how this compares to outages caused by other storms, as Noah's last comment also asks about. The question is whether the data shows this storm was significantly larger than typical. See https://manifold.markets/Nps/will-an-objective-criteria-for-larg-fd70936f6ad9 for formalization.

Also I think your second link, for outages during the storm, is broken, and the maps aren't loading for me. If they load for someone else can you summarize what it shows?

Also, even if this data shows the storm was significantly larger than other storms, as I mentioned already, it seems to me that there is too much ambiguity here. Reading the comments, everyone has a different idea of what "large scale" means, and the range is extremely wide. If a sufficient supermajority agrees that this storm counts as large scale, then I'd support a YES resolution, but the comments suggest people are pretty split.

@jack show me where it says this storm needed to be larger than other storms. That's a giant goalpost shift.

The fact of the matter is this market was made on the premise that Texas has an isolated power grid that failed last year during a large storm. The manifold was to bet for/against that isolated power grid this winter. If ANY storm this winter, be it snow, ice, or tornado caused widespread power disruptions - that is enough to resolve this YES.

You've seen all the numbers I linked above - the storm on 2/1 was a failure of the power grid in multiple counties surrounding multiple cities - Dallas, Austin, and Houston. These outages spanned multiple power providers, showing a failure of the privitized grid. Some counties even reported 40% power outage. Some residents were without power for A WEEK. That is a direct failure of the grid, and satisfies the premise of this manifold.

The fact that the creator bet 10k+ mana and was wrong is the only reason this was resolved N/A instead of the correct - YES.

@Defghi19 There is no goalpost shift. @Nps has asked the exact same question since several weeks ago - see https://manifold.markets/Nps/will-an-objective-criteria-for-larg-fd70936f6ad9.

The market doesn't say it - the market is highly ambiguous and therefore we are trying to infer what reasonable criteria could have been for it. Since reasonable people infer very different criteria, it is too ambiguous and N/A is best.

This outage had nothing to do with Texas's isolated grid. The fact that this was a point of discussion is evidence against a YES resolution.

@jack appealing to another market created by a large "NO" position holder in this one is too self referential to be any kind of argument. I'm talking about this market and this market alone.

This outage had EVERYTHING to do with Texas's isolated grid. Due to isolationist policies and deregulation, the same care taken in other states to maintain their grid and lines was not taken in Texas this year - even after their blunder last year. The downed lines from frozen trees is a very preventable thing that many Texan linesmen have spoken up against since the 2022 storm, yet nothing changed and a very mild storm compared to the previous year's was able to create large scale blackouts throughout the state.

That was the premise of this market, and it was met. Calling it ambiguous is cope driven by people with positions on the other side. The data doesn't lie.

@Defghi19 The Texas state grid had no issues whatsoever, this was well documented.

And in terms of these local outages being caused by Texas policies is a misrepresentative lie, California a state with arguably the most regulation has had much worse local issues and outages. Several wildfires have started due to trees and power lines being too close together, and they even resorted to planned blackouts to prevent more fires from happening.