Criteria are sloppy. Title asks about causation, criteria just about price, not attempt to deconflict. Yes and No criteria could be simultaneously satisfied. Shitty AI market is shitty.

@mods can we put this market out of its misery? The creator hasn’t been active since the day they joined

@StevetptC8 @mods bump

best option: resolve n/a for sloppy criteria. make it so llm generated criteria is specifically marked as so. also make it so even human generated criteria is reviewed to make sure it does not contradict itself or is possible to have mistakes.

I'm obviously biased but I see no way that this market can resolve "No". If both "Yes" and "No" criteria are met then I can't argue with an "N/A" resolution, but resolving "No" after the "Yes" criteria has clearly already been met would not be a fair resolution imo.

@StevetptC8 I think it should resolve Yes as that is the criteria more in line with the title of the market

@Jack1 I think so as well but that just comes down to my assumption as to what the market creator intended. It's hard for me to argue against a "No" holder who also may have his criteria clearly met as well though. It's unfortunate that the criteria was poorly thought out. I think that this market can resolve "Yes" if it ends the month above $100, but should resolve "N/A" if it doesn't.

@RikkiReed resolves yes

@Jack1 Nope: "The market resolves NO if silver closes the month below $100/oz." Has to wait until the month is over.

@ChurlishGambit This market resolves YES if the spot price of silver reaches $100 per troy ounce at any point during the next calendar month (January 1-31, 2026).

@Jack1 ...and if it closes the month below $100, it resolves NO. So we have to wait until the end of the month. I don't understand your confusion, there's a clear NO criterion listed that we have to wait for.

@ChurlishGambit Yes, but there is also a clear yes criteria.

@Jack1 I'm not sure what else to keep saying to you. The market description says we have to wait until February. There's no point in continuing this.

@ChurlishGambit As written, the YES resolution and the NO resolution potentially contradict each other, is the problem.

@SorenJ @ChurlishGambit are you able to understand that?

@Jack1 Yes, I understand that, I'm not the market creator. Why are you being such a jerk about this? Why are you continuing to antagonize me? What is your problem?

@SorenJ It's not contradictory. In theory, it should resolve YES as soon as the price goes over $100, so the only way the NO condition could be reached while the market is still active is if the price never reaches $100. It needs to resolve YES

@BobBobcdpI I see what you mean. But let’s look at how it is written:

“The market resolves NO if silver closes the month below $100/oz.”

You are saying that this means:

“The market resolves NO if at no point the YES condition is met. In that case silver will happen to be closing the month below $100/oz.”

The problem with that is that the resolution for the NO criteria contains no actually new information. Typically NO and YES criteria are written as necessary and sufficient conditions. But with this reading, the NO criteria is just a necessary condition. Now, that very well may be what the market creator intended, but it is not the fault of the person who misread it for not understanding the market creator.

@Jack1 @SorenJ @ChurlishGambit

Please be excellent to each other. Insults to each others intelligence is not helpful. Claiming that the market is trivial to resolve when it has conflicting criteria is unhelpful. Every one of you is smart enough to see that 1) an AI wrote these criteria and did a bad job 2) there exist scenarios where both YES and NO criteria can be true.

Don't bet on markets with bad criteria. Ask clarifying questions before you bet. If you don't find the issue until too late, ask for mod team help. Proactively take steps to make this site good, reward good questions, and treat people who are still figuring things out and end up with bad AI-generated question content with respect. Extend some grace and ask for mod help.

@EvanDaniel

1) I didn’t bet on this market

2) I didn’t realize an AI wrote it; I randomly clicked on this question and didn’t even read the whole market description

3) I didn’t insult anyone

4) I never said it was trivial to resolve, I pointed out it has conflicting criteria

@SorenJ My apologies for the tag. You're entirely correct, your comments here were fine.

@EvanDaniel I didn't insult anyone either—I also didn't realize this were a slop market. Wouldn't have bet, if it were so. Why aren't slop markets labelled? & why are they even still letting them happen, when they're so bad?

@EvanDaniel No problem, I didn’t know AI markets like this were an issue. Hopefully this problem goes away…

I'm not sure why Manifold has a "generate with AI" button given how often it does things like this. I'm strongly in favor of good labeling of such. They're a mess, they're hard on traders and hard on mods. I hate it.

For reference, any market with the three bolded headings of Resolution Criteria, Background, Considerations is probably LLM-generated with that button. It might be a mix of human and LLM text, a human might have edited it, or it might be raw LLM. But that structure is a dead giveaway that someone pressed that button.

@EvanDaniel That's good to know, thank you. I'll avoid all such markets in the future.

@EvanDaniel