🏅 Top traders

Reading through these comments make me nervous... there's no way OP actually resolves this to no, right?

The amount of hot dog market related drama today lol.

@Yakushi12345

@Predictor This can resolve YES, thank you!

@10thOfficial I think so as well, but @Predictor stated in the description he would consider YES if it was 71+.

@10thOfficial I think it resolves NO because the NO option has "etc." listed as a condition whereas the YES option is clearly not met as it says "71+"

@Cactus Not sure if that matters as much, since due to technicality it would be YES due to 70.5 being greater than 70

@musuko384 I disagree, it is a well known convention on Manifold that when a title conflicts with a description, the market resolves according to the description.

@Cactus yeah but also the description is supposed to clarify the title, resolve ambiguities, define terms, give precise meanings to vibes, and so on. Not contradict it. Folks would look pretty poorly on "Title: does X happen? Description: resolves No if X happens".

@EvanDaniel in the example you gave the market creator intentionally left a contradiction which is why its frowned upon. but in past cases where accidental contradictions have occurred, resolution typically hinges on the description rather than the title. but we will let @Predictor decide

This is wild. He ate more than 70.

@Predictor How did you even pick that number? Wild prediction.

@Predictor I’m aware that the description states that 71 + is considered as a YES. But they concluded that he ate 70.5 hotdogs, which is considered more than 70…. so wouldn’t this resolve as YES due to technicality or are you just doing it based on description?

@musuko384 @mods what do you think?

@musuko384 My understanding of the situation is something that roughly comes out to "the creator will have the final say in this case". It seems like there is some ambiguity based on the comment section. The guidelines indicate that the creator can mostly do what they think is correct.

@Eliza I find myself with limited sympathy for traders who didn't notice the gap and/or assumed hotdogs are integer-valued. I'm on board with "creator can do as they want". If it were my fuckup I'd also consider resolving it as 50% since 70.5 is in the middle of the gap between the two options, and "gap between two options" is a reasonable interpretation and we don't have a larger mess.

@EvanDaniel you might've meant to post this on yet another market

@AnT

@AnT No, I meant this one with the options of 70 and under vs 71+ and an outcome of 70.5.

@EvanDaniel I feel like the creater could also just N/A it and give everyone back their mana and call it a day.

@musuko384 They definitely could! Personally I hate N/A resolutions and wouldn't do that if it were my market, and would recommend against it here, but that is definitely within the realm of reasonable choices they're allowed to make.

My 2 cents (with zero conflict of interest for a change): Spirit of the prediction is whether Joey Chestnut would strictly beat the threshold of 70. Wikipedia and Sports Illustrated have the official number as 70.5. So far it sounds like YES. Based on the title alone it would be YES. Then the description, which, as Evan says, should clarify -- never contradict -- the title, says that 71+ is a YES. It also says that 70 and under is a NO. The description is simply silent on what the numbers in the open interval (70, 71) should be counted as. But since the title says ">70", that should suffice.

I can imagine the creator disagreeing if they had a different spirit of the question in mind for some reason. Hopefully they'd explain their thinking if so. Otherwise, YES seems correct to me.

Also I totally sympathize with the creator. Not noticing the (70, 71) gap, or failing to consider non-integer hotdogs, is a very easy mistake to make. If any trader actually anticipated an outcome like this, it really was incumbent on them to have asked the clarifying question.

PS: I think resolving N/A is very bad because it effectively lets people who made bad bets weasel out of paying up by stirring up controversy or bullying the market creator. There's a common intuition that if people have grievances about a possible resolution that you can resolve N/A, give everyone their money back, no harm no foul. This intuition is very wrong!

@dreev This is a great comment, I found myself waffling back and forth but once I read your argument I instantly agreed it was correct

Here's an other market on this https://manifold.markets/Echidna/how-many-hot-dogs-will-joey-chestnu-LLuCyQcpEy?r=VmVsYXJpcw