[Poll] Should market creators that refuse to clarify market resolution criteria be considered fraudsters?
resolved Dec 29
Resolved as

This is a poll of sorts. Resolves to MARKET.

  • Manifold reserves the right to re-resolve markets to N/A if we believe they were resolved fraudulently, including markets resolved prior to this policy coming into effect. A fraudulently resolved market is not merely an incorrectly resolved market, but one designed to benefit the market creator (or associated users) by intentionally tricking or deceiving users.

If a market creator refuses to answer questions seeking clarification of ambiguous resolution criteria should one assume the criteria is intentionally ambiguous and take that as evidence of an intent to mislead, trick or deceive users?

To clarify: refusing to answer is not a market creator that is simply absent and may not be able or at liberty to answer, but rather a market creator that is demonstrably active/present but does not clarify when asked directly, and furthermore acts to close or resolve the market without providing clarification or providing only a perfunctory clarification prior to close of the market to which none or few can respond act accordingly.

Get Ṁ1,000 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:
predicted YES

Closing these resolve to market markets just a bit early to prevent any sniping.

bought Ṁ5 of NO

It's bad but it's not fraud, which is intentional and malicious deception for gain - Sometime people are lazy, that's not fraud.

I don't think this is a poll, I think it's a self-resolving market that is unlikely to do what you want.


Gigacasting refuses to clarify resolution criteria and isn't a fraudster, but that is the exception, not the norm, I think.

predicted YES

@ShadowyZephyr, I wouldn't know. Gigacasting blocked me the first time I asked for clarification. My impression from other reports of being blocked for asking for clarification is that Gigacasting actively block all discussion regarding clarification of market criteria.

This could be a moderation action to prevent contrary perspective from breaking out into an argument, but it also stops discussion.

If someone trades in the market on a misunderstanding of the intent, they cannot perform in their best self interest and someone else will profit of of their inefficient actions. That is well and fine, but if they ask for clarification to better their decision making and then are intentionally left in the dark it feels like a forced information disparity.

This is probably okay if the market creator at least is not trading in the market. If the market creator is trading in the market and enforcing information disparity then it just feels like they are waiting to capitalize on people's misunderstanding. Does Gigacasting trade in their own markets?

@ShadowyZephyr sometimes

This seems very different to a poll. Seems like the profit-maximising thing to do doesn't necessarily correlate with expressing your own opinion.

predicted YES

@Fion certainly it is not a one person one vote sort of poll, but I guess I assumed that the profit-maximising thing to do in a market which resolves to market would be to move the market to a schelling point consensus. At least that has been my hope. I am aware that the other profit maximizing thing to do is to "whale it up" and drive the market as far away from the consensus schelling probability as possible immediately before market close so that no one has a chance to correct the market back to the consensus schelling point.

predicted YES

@MartinRandall It is not patently obvious to me what I should see or observe from the market. I can offer what I gather, but will appreciate any further elaboration you can offer.

I see the sky is blue resolved to 90%. I would have expected something less than 50%, however it seems most people agreed that the question meant on a clear day, rather than accounting for all possible sky colors such as overcast days, nights in general, sunsets and sunrises.

I don’t think it should be a binary fraud vs. not fraud. If you ask me to clarify my market and then I fell off a horse and didn’t respond, that doesn’t make me a fraudster.

I think it should weigh on the scale and if you decide someone isn’t acting in good faith I’d understand. However, I don’t think it’s an ironclad rule.

predicted YES

@JohnSmithb9be presumably if you didn't respond due to falling off a horse then you also wouldn't resolve the market.

I characterize some as refusing to answer clarification questions as some that is active on the market and on Manifolds, perhaps they even "like" the question, but never answer the question and ultimately resolve the market with out clarifying or giving traders the opportunity to act or adjust according to any clarification.

predicted YES

@ShitakiIntaki I would definitely classify that as shitty behavior. If a pattern of such behavior emerged, I would probably suspect said person of I’ll intentions and refuse to deal with their markets.

I think manifold should be a free market based on trust and voluntary resolutions, so it fails like capitalism in the real world.

predicted YES

@SusiEhw that is an interesting take on the scenario. Based upon the Manifold Markets FAQ it does not appear to be Manifold's intent to create a true laissez-faire market without some form of regulation.

However if it were a true laissez-faire market or free market capitalism, my question would still stand. Conscientious traders may do well to consider such intentional ambiguity in the resolution terms as an attempt at or at the very least a risk for fraud and therefore avoid transacting in the market or trade with some margin that accounts for the precieved risk.

predicted YES

@SusiEhw any relation to @SovietStali ?

More related questions