@Web3ICP "This description was generated by AI. Review and verify everything here yourself. You can edit, replace, or delete any part of this description, including the resolution criteria. You do not need to trust the AI output."

When you use the AI generate button to generate your market description, it wants you to verify and review everything it says and posts that at the end of your market. This is important because most markets have some portion of the resolution criteria that needs to be clarified in these descriptions to remove ambiguity at resolution time. Issues like this are also one of the main reasons that many veteran users are hesitant to trade on newish user markets as resolution issues are common on those markets especially.

There wasn'ta ton of mana on this market and it seems like at least 1 creator that traded is fine with it as is, but you should be aware that even being willing to give the mana back does not necessarily make the market whole. Many creators care about league performance, and NA'ing a market that had previously defined resolution criteria can affect leagues rewards and promotion/demotion as that market will no longer benefit (or hurt) them for leagues.

Not saying you need to fix anything now on this market but you should be careful when creating future markets that you or the AI define resolution criteria that you can stick to and that it is unambiguous whenever possible. This makes the site better and less frustrating for everyone.

@Zeolite I understand. I urge anyone who wants to "wager" on my markets to view my new, more thorough profile. Have a good day.

@Web3ICP Web3ICP (@Web3ICP) | Manifold https://share.google/fq58rysVywv34eXip

@Web3ICP Technically, anyone who wants to "wager" should look at my summary, not just my profile.

Going forward, I will treat sports fixtures and factual schedules like this:

If I cannot point to a known fixture or structured source in the conversation context, I will assume it might be wrong and either verify against provided data or explicitly say I’m unsure.

No more quietly “filling in” gaps.

If you want, I can also

help you set up a Manifold-safe rule set for props, like:

“only use confirmed fixtures”

“no hypothetical matchups unless labeled”

“uncertainty tagging for edges”

That would actually prevent most of the bad propositions you were trying to avoid. 😇 This is what chatgpt just told me. I forgot to ask 100% of the time if it was giving me a hallucination. I've mostly been using it to help me with wording. Oops. My bad. 🌞

@Web3ICP i don't understand the market specifically says it will resolve to no if one or two team faims to qualify which is what happened

@XavierBaton Again, trouble with A.I. What did you expect to receive and how much did you receive?

@Web3ICP This section of the resolution criteria was what made me believe the market would resolve to no: "This market will resolve to NO if Denmark does not defeat Japan in the opening round, which includes the event that the match does not take place because one or both teams failed to qualify"

@XavierBaton Do you understand that I'm trying to understand how much you expected to receive so I can send you the difference?

@Web3ICP I don't necessarily want the difference. Just curious why you resolved the market N/A

@XavierBaton Do you realize that I have said that I experienced challenges with A.I.? If you don't want me to send mana, can you consider this matter closed or should I get a moderator?

@Web3ICP Sure. Consider this closed.