🏅 Top traders

@VivaLaPanda where did he Tweet? (I thought it said he had to 'make and use an account' for this to resolve yes, but I don't see him doing that.)

@KatjaGrace https://manifold.markets/VivaLaPanda/will-donald-trumps-twitter-account#IYJSCuhdyqm0EpHO2Ari@KatjaGrace

@VivaLaPanda I don't follow - that's a link to here

Oh, found other relevant comments.

Does the "remain unbanned for at least 4 weeks" apply only if he creates a new account, or also to the original one that was unbanned? The market isn't clear.

@greatnessgreatness Oh I see. The 4 weeks seems to be about a new account.

Well, not closed (needs 4 weeks). But this is Yes.

@DavidBolin Small doubt since the description says "make and use". @VivaLaPanda do we need some proof of use (like a retweet or like etc.)?

@akhil Hmm, lean towards no proof of use is necessary. I had that requirement in case someone made a @definitelyTrump account or something and claimed it was him, and since the account was dormant it wasn't going to get banned for impersonation.

@VivaLaPanda Since twitter restored the old Trump's account, this should resolve to YES without further need of proof, is that right?

@Filo Hmm, fair point. I think resolving YES is most in the spirit of the original question

@VivaLaPanda FWIW I betted no on the basis that he might not use his account, as that seems to go against your Apr 25 clarification, but realise that the main question has clearly resolved positively

ah okay I realise now that it's not contradictory — as he's used this account at some point — my bad!

@finnhambly Yeah I think I was kinda unclear and someone people would unfairly lose Mana either way

@VivaLaPanda Is there a way of understanding things according to your present description where this is a correct resolution, or are you discarding your amendment and going with the spirit of the unclarified question? If so that seems like the wrong principle of market resolution, even if either way people will unfairly lose manna.

(I also bet on this on the basis of the question as written, given that it didn't seem clear that he would use it.)

I think it is correct if you parse the market description a particular way, which isn't necessarily the most natural way.

This can either be his original account, or a new account but one that is clearly run by him and remains unbanned for at least 4 weeks.

Apr 25, 12:21pm: for this market to resolve to YES, Trump must actually make and use an account. An abstract claim by Twitter or their affiliates that Trump would be allowed back is not sufficient.

"This can either be his original account" -> satisfied, so the new account unbanned for 4 weeks clause is irrelevant

The clause "Trump must actually make and use an account." doesn't apply - he didn't make an account, his old account was restored (as discussed in comments above)

"An abstract claim by Twitter or their affiliates that Trump would be allowed back is not sufficient." could be satisfied by the account be unsuspended - it's not just an abstract claim.

@jack I'm going with the edits, but I realized from other comments that even w/ the edits it's ambiguous: the clause about remaining unbanned was intended to clarify new account creation (to account for ban evasion). The wording sort of implies that, but not very well.

If the account does get banned, I'm happy to reimburse some lost mana, because I feel bad about the ambiguity here, but I feel like this was the most fair resolution given the unfortunate ambiguity (if the account doesn't get banned this is moot)

This should be closed -- his account is unbanned

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) / Twitter

@DavidBolin

"remains unbanned for at least 4 weeks."

@VivaLaPanda Why did the 'remains unbanned for at least 4 weeks' clause not prevent it from being resolved now?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
It's a YES

@Filo

"remains unbanned for at least 4 weeks."

@Filo Did he actually use it though?