I was told that NYT did a fact check and considered the picture to be a fursuit

@ms who told you?

For NYT readers: on real-money prediction markets, resolution criteria should be much more precise, and the resolution should be regulated and it wouldn’t be possible to force it by clarifying the criteria with the market creator and getting them to agree on a technicality, potentially regretting the decision later 😅

@ms oh no this market is famous. Updated the title so hopefully it's more clear I don't like the resolution.

If it weren't for Mikhail already refunding some people mana, I would consider asking the admins to re-resolve this. It seems pretty clear to me that what I considered "well I guess technically a fursuit" is much different from most of the people here (tho I'd love to hear from some YES betters).

I'm not sure how to do this better in the future. I didn't want to spend an hour meticulously shaping out in legalese what a fursuit is, and if I thought that was necessary I would not have created this market. It was just supposed to be a fun, silly, small market. I'm not sure how to find these differences in mental definitions. I could have at least given my thoughts on whether a kigu (basically mass-produced onesie or sweater with animal features, eg this one) would count; I would've said yes and I suspect most would've said no.

@Shelvacu I don't think you necessarily need to meticulously define everything in the future. The problem here wasn't just that "fursuit" was never defined - it was that it was never defined and the "fursuit" that caused it to resolve YES was something that most traders considered to be so different from a fursuit that it couldn't be plausibly considered one. For example, if it really had been a kigu, it probably would have been a lot less controversial because many people would agree that it counts as a fursuit, and those who didn't would still think it's plausible enough to count it as a fursuit that the resolution was unclear. So, the problem could have been prevented in two ways: One would be to meticulously define what a fursuit is in the description so that it was clear that a jacket with paper triangles taped to it counts. The other would be to go with the common-sense meaning of the term and say, "That's not a fursuit."

A general policy to take in the future, though, would be to discuss the resolution in the comments before resolving when it's up to an edge case. If you had posted the picture in the comments before resolving and asked traders whether they think it counts, you would probably have gotten almost all "no"'s. Then you would have been able to change your mind about the resolution before it happened, and before anyone paid out refunds to traders. Resolving to a percentage or N/A in ambiguous cases is also a good strategy to reduce controversy.

be it on record this might be my most begrudging resolution

@Shelvacu I don't think this counts as a fursuit by any reasonable standard. It just looks like a jacket to me.

@JosephNoonan It was turned into a fursuit by attaching ears to it. I asked whether that would count before doing this. but if anyone lost mana, I’m happy to compensate via managrams

I would like compensation

@ms I only lost ten mana, I just think this was resolved incorrectly. By that standard, someone could just buy one of those cat ear hats and it would count as a "fursuit".

@Joshua How much did you lose?

i too would like compensation

@JosephNoonan Austin was happy about this being a fursuit and also took pictures. Cat ears on top of a fur thing would also qualify. I sent mama to Brubsby and Joshua

mama *

mana *

(Whats up with iOS keyboard)

Mommy! Sorry. Mommy? Sorry. Mommy?

@Shelvacu nah man, this ain't even a kigu 👎🏻

I would have made this resolve YES if I could have. Let the record show that if I attend a future Manifest (which requires me to have more money and more time, and Manifest to not feature transphobic asshats as special guests,) I will make future markets like this resolve as YES.

Chaos, chaos

@evergreenemily Which special guest is transphobic? /gen

@june Richard Hanania has said some truly appalling things about trans people (and about Black people as well.)

There's like thirty other special guests, and some might be transphobic (maybe?) but Hanania is the only one who's made transphobia enough of his Online Brand that I would not feel safe at any conference that advertises his presence there as a good thing.