DUHHHHHH DUHHHHH HONK HONK

Thanks for waiting over the holidays. This was a complicated, unprecedented situation where it was important to get input from the team and not make a rushed decision.

We are resolving it to YES immediately. Waiting until January or resolving it now are both reasonable interpretations of the question so we are using the creator's intent as a tiebreaker as we would have done with mana markets.

Going forward we will be making improvements to help avoid ambiguity:
1) Have better procedures in place to avoid sweepifying under-defined questions.
2) Experiment with an AI that automatically detects and adds important clarifications from comments to the description/title which will be reviewed by Manifold for sweepstakes questions.
3) Fix the bug where updating the description with the sweepstakes toggle on causes the description to not be updated correctly. Unfortunately, it seems this bug may have prevented Hanania from updated the description when he clarified it would be resolved based on an announcement in the comments.
4) Close sweepstakes markets faster if people are starting to trade on criteria disputes rather than the question itself (and have better processes in place to make a decision on what to do more quickly).

Utilize your partner program since majority of those creators know how to write and manage a market.

@Manifold Thank you for this. 2 months later and I have finally been vindicated:

https://discord.com/channels/915138780216823849/1286199028123439124/1286895450997264444

@PeterNjeim The thing is, there was no ambiguity in the phrasing of the question or its description. It mentioned nomination and not even alluded to anything other than the nomination.

@skibidist Correct. Which is why it's now been resolved by the objective meaning of "nomination". Yet... there's still disagreement. Meaning one thing and one thing only, the word "nomination" is ambiguous and different people interpret it differently

@PeterNjeim Yeah the resolution criteria was way too short, "cabinet" and "nominate" could have used a definition.

@PeterNjeim The power to nominate cabinet members is vested with the president by the US constitution. It doesn't get simpler and more unambiguous than that. That people choose to interpret the word in strange ways does not make it ambiguous, it just makes those people wrong.

@PeterNjeim There's no reasonable disagreement. This is based on a clarification that the market creator says he made, but for which there's no evidence (other than retroactively claiming to have made it). And even if we allow the invisible clarification to be controlling, that clarification specified that the market would resolve based on Kennedy appearing in the "announced" (as distinct from the "received") column in a Senate publication like this one: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/Trump_cabinet.htm

He appears in no such publication.

This is unambiguously a faulty resolution.

@FlipPidot I'm not sure why you're speaking with this weird pseudo-serious tone, considering you're wrong it's pretty funny reading it. You're talking to the guy who asked for the clarification in the first place lol, I'm the witness here. Claiming a comment is "invisible" when you can simply scroll down to see it is pretty bizarre lol.

As for why there isn't a website yet, it's because he isn't president yet. When he becomes president, a website will be made and the "announced" column will show the date of announcement, far earlier than when he became president.

This is unambiguously an easy resolution based on the clarifying statement

@skibidist "nominate" is a simple English word that means to propose someone for a position. There are both formal nominations and your standard nominations. The market creator specified which one it was, and a bug prevented the description from being updated. It sucks but it is what it is

@PeterNjeim I accept people think this way, even though it seems very wrong to me (genuinely, I didn't even lose any money here).

However, the clarification and stipulation that RFK should be added to the list on senate.gov creates another problem. Do you think he will be listed there if Trump does not become president? Or if RFK is withdrawn from consideration before Trump becomes president? I believe the answer is certainly not in the first case, and most likely not in the latter case.

@skibidist you're right, if the criteria is to literally look at the website, it could change in the future. However I think he used the website to demonstrate what type of nomination he wanted to go by. In reality, if the website hypothetically existed today, the "announced" column would already be filled in. Like, Trump has indeed already proposed RFK Jr. for a position, it's already happened, therefore under some definitions of "nominate" he's already been nominated. I don't think it matters what happens after this moment because the act of nominating has already occured, which resolves this market.

Like let's say hypothetically there is a way to formally nominate while you're president-elect. Let's say Trump does that, then dies before he's inaugurated. This market would've already resolved Yes, because "will Trump win" is an action that already happened, it's not a "status" that needs to be sustained. So in my view, "Trump wins" has happened, and "Trump nominated RFK" has happened, and therefore the market should resolve at this moment and not later "to see if things still hold", as I don't believe the market is worded in a way that requires it to be held

For closure, here's senate.gov referring to proposals that aren't recieved by the Senate as "nominations":

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/NominationsRejectedorWithdrawn.htm

@FlipPidot I disagree. What do you mean no evidence? Clarifications were made in comments written in mid-October. They’re hard to find, but they’re somewhere.

@bagelfan No evidence of the clarification being made to the description. Market creator claiming he made it is not evidence that he did so. But for sake of argument, let's ignore that and accept his clarifications in the comments as being controlling.

That comment is not hard to find. All you have to do is scroll. See attached. Market creator clearly says he'll go by the "announced" column in the Senate nominations table, rather than "received"
(in response to a question about which column in such table will be used for settlement).

Kennedy's name appears in no such table. If you want to argue that he inevitably will (even if Trump changes his mind before taking office, as he already has with Gaetz), that might wind up being correct, but the market is obviously still not resolvable unless/until that happens.

@FlipPidot you just contradicted yourself, your fake, pseudo-serious persona is a transparent farce. You said, without evidence, that the creator made no clarification. You are now retroactively changing your statement to "made no edit to the description". Even then, it's false. Manifold confirmed that there was a bug preventing the description from being updated.

Also, your comment about the table were already rebutted in my comment above your most recent one, don't rehash the discussion please, it's spam

@PeterNjeim :) Well sure, "rebutted" just not persuasively.

Hanania (retroactively) said what his new settlement criteria would be - unambiguously. Market resolved in direct contradiction of the revised (though never updated in the description) criteria.

Your best counter is to complain that formal, logical argument is "pseudo-serious" and any further response to your motivated reasoning is "spam."

Shame on me for engaging an unserious reply guy assuming good faith and common sense. Got other stuff to do, but please enjoy continuing to defend this embarrassingly bad settlement.

@FlipPidot @PeterNjeim Attack the argument, not the person making the argument.

@FlipPidot What makes you think that the clarifications were “retroactively” given?

@bagelfan I did attack the argument. I beat the snot out of it. Peter dismissed it as pseudo-serious.

The clarifications were retroactive in that Hanania said in the comments that he had (or had tried to) edit the description. But no such edit to the description is or has been visible to anyone, other than the comments claiming it had been made. Manifold said in its resolution notice that it seemed that the sweepcash bug may have been to blame. But that's not evidence. It's just a hypothesized explanation for why the description wasn't ever udpated, based in part (or maybe in whole) on the market creator's claim that he'd tried to do so.

@FlipPidot The "pseudo-serious" accusation refers to the way you speak, which is of grandiose authority on the matter, despite being completely wrong. It was rebutted, and so persuasively so that you couldn't even muster a counter, that's the sign of a great argument. You keep saying Hanania "retroactively" did something, no...? Do you even know what that word means? That's what I mean by pseudo-seriousness, using big words without knowing what the mean, it's just a facade. He never defined anything "new", that's your fabrication. He clarified what he meant, due to the ambiguity of the word. The market resolved precisely the way the clarified criteria was. Your best counter to the mountain of evidence against you're barely-reasoned position is "not persuasive". That's how shallow your opinion is. I never "countered" you by calling it "spam", I accused you of spamming due to rehashing discussion, which you just admitted to in your most recent reply, by saying "sure". My counter was the comment that you failed to respond to. This is what you are, a bad faith debater who can't handle acknowledging any time he's wrong.

Notice how my discussion with skibidist went, he acknowledged when there were holes in his argument, and I acknowledged his point of view as well. At the end, it was settled. With you, so far you haven't even once admitted to being at fault despite several times being told that you were.

Here's the rundown:

1. You claimed there was no evidence of clarification, you were proven wrong. So far you have failed to apologize

2. You said there was no reasonable disagreement, there is. So far you have failed to apologize

3. You claimed Hanania "retroactively" made a change. No one knows what you mean, nothing happened "retroactively". You have failed to clarify

4. You claimed that there was a website that RFK needed to appear in to resolve. This is false, the website was given as an example of what Hanania meant by "nominate". There is no need to wait for the website to update, as we already know when the nomination happened

5. You claimed there was an unambiguously faulty resolution. There is no faulty resolution. You have failed to apologize

6. You claimed there was no evidence for the clarification being added to the description. This is false, The evidence is when Hanania said "done". Manifold further provided evidence by saying there was a bug that prevented the description from being updated. You have failed to apologize

7. You claim that it isn't normal to have the market creator's comments be controlling, as if it's an atypical scenario. This is false. Market creators' comments have always been controlling for all markets, the description is just a better way to communicate, but isn't necessary. You have failed to apologize

8. You failed to respond to a rebuttal by simply claiming it wasn't persuasive. This is arguing in bad faith. You have yet to apologize

9. You claimed that I claimed that any response to my reasoning was spam. This is false, I claimed that if you continue to choose to pretend that I haven't rebutted you, then it would be considered spam. You have yet to apologize

10. You claimed I was unserious for requiring that you quit being a bad faith actor and start replying to the genuine rebuttals to your position. That's bad faith, you should apologize

11. You claimed you were assuming good faith and "common sense". This is after your first reply here was "there's no reasonable disagreement". So much for "assuming good faith". Apologize

12. You fled the debate after you realized you couldn't muster a counter to anything that's been said, then claimed without evidence, yet again, that the resolution was "embarrassingly bad". Hypocrisy through the roof

Edit:
13. You came back anyways and once again failed to provide any counter

@FlipPidot You simply don't know what "evidence" means. You're desperately trying to conflate it with "proof", and it isn't working. This whole schtick you're doing where you admit to no wrong, hastily move on from being debunked, reply piecemeal to comments instead of engaging with it in its entirety, it isn't working. We see right through it. The evidence that the description was updated but was prevented by a bug is overwhelming, and if you don't think someone claiming they edited the description and the creators of the website saying there exists a bug that prevents the description from updated is evidence, then you simply need to leave this debate for acting in bad faith, it's beyond ludicrous to deny definitions like that

@PeterNjeim Sigh. I've tried more than you lot perhaps warrant, but to paraphrase Ed Koch, I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you. At the risk of being uncharitable, I invoke Mark Twain.

@FlipPidot Why are you this bad faith? Why are refusing to engage in any debate? Why are you refusing to admit you're wrong even on the minor issues? Why are you redefining the words "nominate", "evidence", and "retroactive" to suit your position? Why are misrepresenting what others have said? Just because your usual debate tactics are failing doesn't grant you the right to claim others "can't comprehend". What a bizarre insult. We fully comprehend what your position is, we are engaging with it. You, however, are not

@PeterNjeim I have no expectation of Manifold reviewing or reversing the decision, so my discussion here since the decision is not motivated by anything other than a hope that the admins might reflect on and improve the process by which they resolve comandeered markets. I think Manifold is a great platform and that clearly erroneous decisions like these erode confidence in the platform and render its price discovery less reliable, which is bad not only for Manifold but for the ecosystem in general. I have thousands of hours of experience writing and adjudicating prediction market rules, which I don't lean on as further evidence that I'm right here, but to reinforce that I appreciate better than most the importance of settlement credibility. Parse these things as selectively and incredibly as you must in order to suit your preferred resolution, but please realize that your win in spite of the only reasonable interpretation of the rules pales in comparison to the damage to the credibility of the platform.

@FlipPidot I have the exact same position as you. That's why my first reply on this thread was about my prophetic warning from over 2 months ago about how if ambiguity wasn't dealt with early, it would lead to disaster. That Discord thread I linked has me sharing many paragraphs to potentially resolve the issue.

Addressing the continued nonsense in your comment.

1. No, this wasn't a "clearly erroneous" decision. The ball is on your court, you have failed to back up your position. The rebuttals are still standing, unscarred by your bad faith actions

2. You don't "appreciate better than most" the importance of settlement credibility. Please provide evidence for that. And no, your experience writing about prediction market rules is null because the unbelievably bad faith, erroneous, dare I say malicious conduct you've committed in this thread. You tried to use a series of tactics, they all failed one-by-one, until in the very end you revealed your true self, which is to just simply repeat that you're right and that everyone else is stupid and wrong over and over again and pray that it works. It didn't.

3. I don't parse anything "selectively", is this another one of your tactics, where you just accuse someone else of what you've been accused of (tu quoque)? You selectively respond to comments, that's the main issue here. I respond to every phrase you utter, I am not selective. Please stop with the false accusations.

4. I don't act to "suit my preferred resolution", I act to suit the correct resolution. Why are you referring to my position as a "win"? You do realize that my position is "correct resolutions", not merely "Yes", right? By claiming that my position is a win, you're claiming that this was the correct resolution, as that is my position. Oops

5. You once again claim, without evidence, that resolving this incorrectly is "the only reasonable interpretation"

The damage to the credibility of this platform is due to bad faith actors like you, who play tricks in order to change resolutions.

Your playbook:
1. Claim the resolution is wrong without evidence, using big superlatives ("egregiously incorrect resolution." <fails to elaborate>)
2. When called out, claim everyone else is wrong ("unreasonable") and call yourself right. Misrepresent the criteria and the events leading up to the current situation to suit your position

3. When called out, ignore it. Wait until another, easier reply is made and respond to that one, ignoring the large rebuttal that was made earlier. Hope you can get away with it

4. When called out again by the person you ignored, hastily write a comment saying the rebuttal isn't worthwhile, and also desperately claim your own position is bulletproof. Also make a few bad faith comments along the way. Also claim you're too cool for the debate and say that you're leaving (whenever a troll notices they aren't winning the battle of public opinion, they always come back crawling)

5. When called out by a different person, hypocritically claim you already rebutted the previous comment despite having admitted to not responding to it due to it not being worthwhile. Redefine words in advance to prepare for the next rebuttal

6. When called out again, quote a famous person to pretend you're wise and sage, while also claiming that others can't understand you because of your majestic aura, oh, and refuse to reply to the rebuttal, hoping you can get away with it

7. When called out again, refuse to engage in debate and move on to a separate topic. Hope that you can flee without being caught. Oh, continue repeating ad nauseum how you're right and close your ears saying "la-la-la" whenever someone debunks you

8. When called out again, well, let's see what you attempt to do this time. Usually the playbook continues like so: you claim that someone is hung up on the debate and that they need to be the bigger man and move on just as you did. As long as you don't apologize for your bad faith actions, or even once acknowledge being incorrect, even about the minor things like what "evidence" is lol, then you simply won't be left alone (if you keep continuing). You said earlier you had better things to do, indeed, there are many better things to do than waste people's time acting in bad faith, stay true to your word and do it

I appreciate that you've given up on this debate so we can talk about the big picture, which is incorrect resolutions. I've been the victim of 2 incorrect resolutions, losing mana in one and revoking my profits in the other. Together I hope we can help this platform avoid incorrect resolutions in the future (though this isn't one of them).

Cheers

@PeterNjeim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qu46svpJ5g

@FlipPidot Finally, you admitted you can't respond. It takes a lot to get a troll to admit they're wrong, but I have a knack for annoying them enough to make it happen

Enjoy the rest of your day

@PeterNjeim Admittedly, I am vanquished by your lengthily circular, if deficient, argument. You've convinced me that neither the plain English interpretation nor the ex post facto clarification should be controlling of resolution, only vibes and fist shaking. Color me cowed and brow beaten by your many words and equivications.

@FlipPidot yet again, claiming it's "deficient", without ever saying how. Isn't it odd how you never back up anything you say? It seriously undermines your credibility, hard to even take you seriously honestly. Keep the trolling going. Notice how you sent that video, hoping it'd be a nice end, but I responded anyways, and once you noticed that public opinion wasn't going your way, you went right back to spouting the same unevidenced nonsense that you usually do. Odd that you're claiming I'm "browbeating" you. Yeah, me, the guy begging for you to respond to rebuttals, I'm the abusive one, not the guy claiming everyone else is an idiot and refusing to engage in debate 🥱

@PeterNjeim

@FlipPidot won't let the bad faith actor get the last word

@PeterNjeim

Here's me dealing with a troll 7 years ago: Windows keeps automatically adding EN-US keyboard layout - Microsoft Community

I don't lose against trolls, I have unmatched indefatigability when it comes to this. As a former troll I have every tool in the toolbox to deal with them

@PeterNjeim "Former" troll.

@FlipPidot yet you're a current one 🤮

@PeterNjeim

@FlipPidot do you pronounce it jif or gif

@PeterNjeim Do you pronounce it innumerate or in-yumerate?

@FlipPidot innumerate, the same way I say "nooz" for "news", not boomer "n-yooz"

@PeterNjeim Have a great day. Wish you lots of luck.

@FlipPidot you too, sir