The resolution criteria clarification should really have been edited into the main description.

@tcheasdfjkl and predictors should have been pinged, at the very least. I'd have N/Aed it, if it was my market and I'd advocate N/Aing in situations like these, even retroactively.

Disclaimer: I made a profit in this market.

Weirdest resolution ever.

This can resolve NO @ScottLawrence

This is now one of those markets where the title no longer corresponds to how it will resolve, because resolution criteria are one of the most difficult parts of making good markets.

RESOLVE YES

@KIMJinhyub

the blog post in question endorses three candidates (Harris, Oliver, or Stein). This comment from the creator makes it clear that in such a scenario, the question resolves NO.

@Qoiuoiuoiu Oops. Should have read the fine print.

This should settle things

This should resolve yes or the creator should return "manas" .

I don't there is any possible ambiguity of this.

He wrote basically the same exact blog post with the same exact title, and you said that would resolve as NO.

@PeterBuyukliev Agreed. Sold my YES and bought NO as soon as I saw this.

I don’t think he’s literal. I think when he talks about building a wall and keeping out Muslims, he’s metaphorically saying “I’m going to fight for you, the real Americans”.

From the "blog quote in question" ... oops.

@PeterBuyukliev Yeah, you're right. This really does have to resolve NO unless an individual endorsement comes out.

I'll resolve after the election (since I think we all agree that post-election endorsements don't count). I'll be traveling and may be a few days late but I'll try to remember. Feel free to tag me or whatever else it takes to make sure I get the notification.

Updated close date to Nov 5.

@ScottLawrence resolves Yes https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-endorses-harris-oliver-or-stein

@Fay42 technically a multi-endorsements / anybody-but endorsement of the kind that below is said would resolve No. However, if you actually read it, he specifically recommends Harris unless you're in a safe state. He also spends basically all the time talking about Harris vs. Trump, and barely mentions third parties. I'm not the market creator; I think it should count but it's iffy.

@SeekingEternity ... Hrm, I didn't see that comment. I think it conflicts with the plain reading of the description and the post certainly singles out Harris but given the comment I agree it's iffy.

There's no way of resolving this in a reasonable way, given the clash between the comment and the description. I should not have been so sloppy, and I apologize to betters.

My view of what SA wrote is that it's primarily an anti-endorsement, and therefore according to both the spirit and the letter of that comment I should resolve NO. But given that he calls it an endorsement, and the plain reading of the description... I intend to N/A this market should nothing further develop before the election.

@ScottLawrence This is clearly an endorsement of Harris for President to me… recommending to only vote otherwise if your vote only counts for perception and not for choosing who is President. Followed by an extended argument of why a Harris presidency would likely be better than a Trump presidency.

Beyond that, an endorsement is a recommendation of how to cast one’s vote, which is what the post is.

Recommending voters choose from a slate of candidates is an endorsement. The question is “endorse a candidate” not “endorse one and only one candidate.”

Interesting market in the context of today’s IVF news

@Joshua LOL i didn't expect to make 15% profits in a minute

Assuming that SA won't, at separate times, endorse JB and RDS, there's some good arbitrage opportunities available!

Do anti-endorsements resolve YES? (One post recommended "anybody except Trump", and Trump could run again in 2024)

@Mira No. Needs to be an endorsement of a specific candidate.

@ScottLawrence What about multiple candidates? The blog post in question was titled "SSC ENDORSES CLINTON, JOHNSON, OR STEIN"

@EMcNeill I'd resolve NO. (I'm not happy either way, but gotta pick)

@ScottLawrence I definitely would've assumed that would resolve to yes, the market says "any", not "one".

@MichaelLucy I've changed "any" to "a" in hopes of reducing confusion a little bit.

For me, saying "I endorse X or Y or Z" is not really what I mean by "endorse", even though the word "endorse" is used. But I agree it's debatable.

For the record, if he says "I endorse Biden", and then later says "I change my mind, I endorse Trump", that's still a YES---even though more than one candidate was endorsed. (I hope that's what you'd have expected.)

@MichaelLucy wait, in english "any" is a multiple-container term? I have always felt it is used with single objects.

@ScottLawrence Super weird to resolve based on arcane comments you shouldn't assume anyone has read. Next time, put explicitly "Multiple endorsements resolves to 'no'" in the description. For me it is obvious that 'Will Scott Alexander endorse a presidential candidate in 2024?' includes endorsing multiple people. Just like 'will I buy an apple today?" would be yes if I bought 5 apples.