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.