On Manifold, blocking users prevents them from commenting on your markets. This can be used by market creators to manipulate some self-resolving markets that depend on what people do in the comments. Recently, there has been a debate over whether this should be considered cheating or otherwise problematic.
The main argument against is that market manipulation is usually considered acceptable on Manifold, especially in self-resolving markets, which are really more like games about who can manipulate them most effectively. Some of the people complaining about this potential form of manipulation may not be aware of this norm.
On the other hand, this might be considered an abuse of the blocking feature, since it is meant to be used against users who are being disruptive, spamming, harassing, etc., not against innocent users whose comments could threaten the market creator's mana. Some people consider it unfair because the market creator is using this power they have over the other traders to their advantage, and some think it violates the spirit of the market, since the market description didn't say that the creator would be allowed to use blocking power. Plus, it still prevents discussion, not only on the market in question, but also on other markets by the same creator.
After this market closes, I will hold a poll to see what proportion of users think that this type of manipulation is dishonorable. I will leave the poll open for at least 24 hours and resolve to YES if the majority of votes say that it is dishonorable the next time that I check the results, and NO if the majority say it is not dishonorable. If the result is a tie, I will cast the tiebreaking vote (otherwise, I will not vote).
In the interest of transparency, the current tiebreaking vote is YES. It could change if I change my mind, and I will edit the description to reflect this. Also, keep in mind that it is unlikely to affect the final result anyway, so you shouldn't bet just based on what my personal vote is. I will abide by the vote in the description if I have to cast the tiebreaker, even if I have changed my mind in between the last time I edit the description and the time I have to cast the vote (i.e., whatever tiebreaking vote is listed here at close is set in stone).
Also, to clarify, this is not meant to include blocking someone to prevent them from voting on a poll, which is clearly dishonorable, it is meant to apply to markets like this one:
https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-anyone-make-at-least-3-comment
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ13 | |
| 2 | Ṁ13 | |
| 3 | Ṁ8 | |
| 4 | Ṁ7 | |
| 5 | Ṁ6 |
People are also trading
I found the argument about preventing a healthy discussion in this market's description to be very compelling.
An analogy that came to my mind is a market "Will there be more comments arguing for A or for B" where the market creator bets on A, and blocks everyone who argues for B.
Comments were meant as a podium, and blocking was meant as a tool that prevents hate and trolling. Manipulating the podium discussion to your advantage, or blocking a lot of nice people just to win a market, feels like a misuse of those tools.
@MayMeta That argument actually comes from one of Jack's comments below. I added it to the description after he made the comment because I thought it was more compelling than the other arguments that I had already put in the description.
This finally resolved to YES https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-anyone-make-at-least-3-comment
Therefore, I think this will also resolve to YES https://manifold.markets/market/will-at-least-3-comments-resolve-co
Don't forget to participate in both polls (Joseph's and Fedor's)!
@MayMeta Yes, though my poll won't open for another few days, since this market isn't directly about Levina's market, so it will stay open until it is scheduled to close.
@JosephNoonan commenting here instead of under the poll comment - will you exclude someone who likes both options for the poll, or not?
@firstuserhere If someone likes both options, it won't affect the final result, since they would be adding one to each side.
Is resolving a self-resolving market early to make a profit honorable?
@JimAusman That depends entirely on the rules of the self-resolving market. For a market that was explicitly about whether it would resolve early, resolving it early is clearly not dishonorable.
(Also, the comments section of this market isn't the place to complain about an unrelated market that you're salty about, unless it's somehow relevant to the discussion here.)
@JimAusman The Manifold Discord, the comments section of that market, or some market where it is relevant.
https://help.manifold.markets/community-guidelines
General expectations
Users strive to be excellent to one another.
Users don’t maliciously take advantage of ambiguity, loopholes, and technicalities, at the cost of others. This is especially true if they are the market creator.
@jack Hm, I didn't notice that this had been added to the community guidelines. Blocking people definitely seems to violate that last one.
IMO blocking people is highly problematic for many reasons. It cuts off their ability to participate in the discussion, both on that market and other markets. The author is abusing their powers to control the discussion and prevent unwanted commentary, for example the first comments people tried to post to warn others that Levi's strategy was to block people. It also prevents people from asking legitimate questions about the market. Blocking such discussions should not be considered "in-game" and any games that revolve around blocking should not be allowed and should be removed from Manifold in the future.
@jack I even linked to another thread where people could post comments. And otherwise I don't think much discussion is required given how crystal clear the resolution criteria are.
@jack btw, I got this idea by noticing that gigacasting has me blocked, and a bunch of other people, and nobody seems to have done anything about him.
@jack I find them clear, maybe I should've specified "using bugs to influence market resolution is not allowed" but that seems so obvious, I'll keep it in mind for the future though