The option that resolves to YES will be the one that is closest to the full name of the pope elected during the 2025 papal conclave - including spelling variants. The outcome could be 50/50 if there are two names chosen and both of them are listed in the market. If the conclave does not conclude by July 1, 2025, all options will resolve to N/A. If none of the listed names are included at all AND no new word is present - exactly and only in that specific case - the outcome is Other.
Add your own names!
This market has been closed because the answers are contradictory. The replacement market is listed here: https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/what-name-will-the-next-pope-take-URZ62RuOAd
The problem is that there is no procedure for double names that people are adding, and they cannot be resolved with the "new name" option without causing losses unfairly. The new market addresses both concerns.
1,000People are also trading
@FabioTran @SteveSokolowski
"not john, not paul" is redundant with "other"
I suggest close this options
@JoshuaWilkes just figured out it counts traded back and forth while the market was open or something
This market is being closed, because it is not fixable in a fair manner. You can re-bet on this market here:
https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/what-name-will-the-next-pope-take-URZ62RuOAd
The problem is that there is no procedure for double names that people are adding, and they cannot be resolved with the "new name" option without causing losses unfairly. The new market addresses both concerns.
@SteveSokolowski …. Steve wtf? You could just tell people not to do that and change the text of improper submissions to [Deleted] which is what every other person running multiple choice markets does… why would you N/A the whole market?
@bens @SteveSokolowski I appreciate you, Steve, trying to be fair and closing the market and create a new one. The new rules makes much more sense. Thank you! It is an exciting market to bet.
@FabioTran The issue is that N/Aing the market on the basis of bad behavior from answer adders incentivizes people with negative profit to behave badly.
@BoltonBailey I understand, this is a good point. As for myself, rest assured that I was profiting, and I think all the liquidity for the answers I added were lost, so it was not a maneuver to make mana.
@FabioTran at the same time, I think that changing the rules of a market after so many have put mana in the previous rules doesn’t make sense. And the rules and the answers were flawed and contradictory
@FabioTran I am confused when this will be winning, in comparison Other, and concrete names.
The other is defined: "If none of the listed names are included at all AND no new word is present - exactly and only in that specific case - the outcome is Other."
It seems to me exactly as your new option!
@SteveSokolowski this answer doesn’t make sense in this type of question with “other”. Can I include “a word used in previous papal names” and that would also split the win with “John” if the pope chose this name? Perhaps you should cancel this answer.
@FabioTran unfortunately I don't think either of your answers work since the market is "dependent"; only one outcome may be selected at resolution so all answers must be mutually exclusive, as I understand it
@Tomoffer only the creator can confirm, but from replies below and general logic this answer and the wider question work if names never previously included cannot be added individually.
@FabioTran Let me think this through and I'll get back to everyone in 3h; I have a meeting right now, but I see this logic.
@Tomoffer I agree with you, that’s why the “other” and the “A word never included in any previous papal name” cannot exist at the same time. But given that both exists, I created the opposite of that answer, which should logically also be allowed. Perhaps the @mods can also weight in given the popularity of the question.
@SteveSokolowski
Now the question have redundant optiones with uncluear overlaps.
Options logically should be ....
1) Concrete name as one of the options (with spelling variants included)
2) Name includes "john" and "paul" together
This wins if the name is or jp, pj, xpj, pxj, pxjx, jxxp, and any other permutation where x is another word or more words.
3) "Only word(s) previously included in a papal name"
This wins if the name is not winning under option 1) and previous popes used all the names the Pope selects - examples of the winning names are "Linus", "Anicethus", "Caius" or combinations of previously used names e.g., "Benedict Francis"
4) Word(s) never used in the papal names.
The winners are names like Lazar, Augustus, or combinations never used names like "Martin Luke"
5) Combination of word previously used in Pope name with a new word
winner your be "Benedict Luke", or "Martin Pius" or "John Pius Jomari", but not "John Paul Charles" which is covered under 2)
will be the one that is closest to the full name of the pope elected
How will you calculate the closeness exactly ? Can there be ties ?
let me give a scenario:
There already is an option "Benedict" right now, say someone submits "Benedictus" and another submits "Benedetto"
Say the new Pope picks Benedictus and the holy see lists "Benedictus" as the official name of the Pope (similar to this)
Which option would you pick in the end ?
Redacted
