I'm resolving this for @Mira. This whole situation has been strange, to say the least, but the council has made their decision to disqualify PC, and Mira was in 2nd place at closing time. Sorry for holding all your mana hostage.

New Announcement

@Joshua so this should resolve to mira?

Up to you as market creator, but yeah PC has been disqualified from S5 like he was for S4.

I plan to resolve this to @PC . I'm not aware of any shenanigans, let alone enough to overcome the massive deficit. Any objections?

@SemioticRivalry The shenanigans that did take place are not to my knowledge in violation of community guidelines

@SemioticRivalry So, more on this - it sounds like the fines for S4 shenanigans will be large enough to swing the result, and since those shenanigans occurred on the last day of S4, if the fines are implemented in a way that count as losses in those markets on that day, they may tank PC's season 5 score as well (which includes profit/loss from the last day of S4).

Also if PC is "retroactively disqualified from S4", as the Trustworthy-ish council has declared, he may retroactively not even have been in masters for S5.

So....good luck!

@chrisjbillington yeah, I heard this might happen so I held off on resolving lol. we'll see what happens

@SemioticRivalry I object at this time.

@chrisjbillington ok i mean... come on... are we serious?

@BenjaminShindel Honestly I think yes (I'll lose mana FWIW)

@chrisjbillington I don't have any mana in this market, so... unbiased here. But it would be completely unhinged to resolve this any other way. If you resolve this based on the fact that PC was DQed from Season 4 and thus shouldn't be in Season 5, then by that logic, ALL markets on leagues should be affected. PC should have had the most diamond league mana earned, then, which would affect multiple markets, for instance. It's just a bizarre domino effect theory for resolving markets.

@BenjaminShindel Perhaps that's a valid objection, but if he is fined in the form of profits pertaining to the final day of S4 which counts for S5 as well, then he'll plausibly fall out of the top spot in S5 from that change. So there's still that, which is no more unhinged than allowing retroactive profit changes to affect the S4 markets.

@chrisjbillington still unreasonable for the ppl betting in this market, which did not place their bets under the expectation that multiple seasons' worth of misresolved markets/situations would have cascade effects leading to highly unintuitive conclusions. Is it a leap to assume that the vast majority of the ppl betting in this market assumed it would resolve based on "who is number 1 on the website's league standings page"?

@BenjaminShindel Yes and I came last in S5 because I bet large quantities of mana under the assumption Manifold wouldn't modify how they were calculating their engagement statistic (also retroactively affecting their stats page), but unexpected things happen sometimes.

@chrisjbillington I mean, that market seems like it had a weird resolution too haha.

@BenjaminShindel "Weird", certainly. The alternative would have been pretty weird too.

@chrisjbillington I'd N/A a market if the statistic underlying its outcome was modified in the middle of the market, tbh

@BenjaminShindel Well, it was an understandable bugfix correcting an error in measuring the metric, not a change in the definition of the metric itself.

Once the season ends, what would be the highest league score across all divisions and cohors?

Every season, once we hit the midpoint, I create a bottom 3 market for the Master's league. Here's this season's market:

@SemioticRivalry How will you resolve in the case of shenanigans? Initial rankings upon visible locking? To who gets the prize payout? Or after any admin intervention (within a time limit?)?

@chrisjbillington Same thing as last season, I'll go with whatever the admins say are the final rankings, and hopefully they're a bit faster this time. If they publish the final league standings without any caveats for potential review or action that would suffice.