Isaac has significant stake in the Whales vs. Minnows market, at the same time being the market creator himself. Would he correctly resolve the market?
I will hold an open poll for 48 hours after the Whales vs. Minnows market closes. Resolves to Yes if more than half of the voters think that isaac has correctly resolved the Whales vs. Minnows market. Resolves to No otherwise.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ4,779 | |
| 2 | Ṁ605 | |
| 3 | Ṁ158 | |
| 4 | Ṁ115 | |
| 5 | Ṁ112 |
As of now, I lean towards not expounding too much on how people "should" vote, nor do I try to define what "correctly resolved" or "incorrectly resolved" means. I prefer to let voters decide on these matters for themselves.
I'm holding a poll below. If the poll receives over six votes and over 50% of the people voted that they want me to define what "correctly resolved" or "incorrectly resolved" means, I will provide my definition and interpret what "Isaac has correctly resolved" means under a third-party council.
Feel free to let me know if anyone have more suggestions
@Zorn I think you should simply have people decide whether they feel the resolution is correct
@Conflux I agree. Given that this market was always going to resolve according to a poll, I assumed that the spirit was "Will most people consider the WvM market correctly resolved?", not "Will the WvM market fit some specific definition of correctly resolved?", so the voters should decide for themselves what they consider to be a correct resolution.
@JosephNoonan I can think of at least five ways "correctly resolve" could be interpreted:
Purist interpretation: The market resolves correctly if it resolves according to the original description. Based on the canonical interpretation of the original description (the one given by the council, as well as most people discussing the resolution), the WvM market should already have closed according to the original description, and minnows were ahead at the time, so purists would say that the WvM market resolves correctly iff it resolves NO.
Council's interpretation: The market resolves correctly as long as it resolves according to the new criteria set by the council, given that most people considered these criteria acceptable, and the council is an official, unbiased arbiter. By this interpretation, it is pretty much guaranteed to resolve correctly.
Counterfactual interpretation: Similar to the purist interpretation, except that now the market is considered to have resolved correctly if it would have resolved the same way if we had stuck with the original criteria. For example, if someone buys a ton of YES shares as soon as the date for pseudorandom mode comes around, causing Team Whale to win, it can probably be assumed that they would have done the same thing a week earlier if the original description had been used, so the counterfactual interpretation would still say that the market resolved correctly, even though the purist interpretation would say it resolved incorrectly.
Character interpretation: People holding this interpretation base their judgement more on whether the market was resolved honorably rather than whether it resolved according to a specific set of criteria. Of course, people will interpret Isaac's intentions, as well as what counts as "honorable" differently, so two people holding this interpretation might still disagree.
N/A onlyists: These people think that, due to the controversy around the resolution criteria, the market should just be N/A'ed and possibly started over with clearer criteria. According to this interpretation, any definite resolution would be incorrect.
There are, of course, many variants and combinations of these interpretations, and probably some completely different ones that I haven't thought of. But I think the point of voting on whether the resolution is correct or not is to avoid prescribing one of these interpretations, and instead leaving it up to the majority of voters' interpretation.
@HapPLee If Isaac gave someone else the right to resolve the market, people can still vote on whether the person who resolved on behalf of Isaac resolved correctly.
Remember the resolution for this market is base on vote outcome.
@Zorn If it's an unambiguous case of misresolution, admins could just re-resolve it, so he wouldn't even gain anything. Regardless, intentionally misresolving it would be a huge hit to his reputation, which probably matters more than mana.
The market description seems to be badly defined such that any resolution except maybe N/A seems like it would be controversial - the description seems to both say that he will resolve it within a few days of the original week the market was planning to run before close, and that he will keep it running indefinitely until certain conditions are met. These conditions seem to be in direct contradiction with one another. @IsaacKing - could you clarify?
"If after a week it looks like it won't be closing any time soon, I'll close it at a pseudorandom time within the next few days."
"The market will remain open for as long as it looks like meaningful progress is being made towards its final state."
@verdantnonsense The description doesn't say that? I think you missed the "looks like it won't be closing any time soon".
And the clarification is designed to do exactly what it says and clarify the details anyway.
@IsaacKing That is literally a direct quote from the first paragraph of the description. My comment is that you both said it would close a few days after the initial week it runs AND that it wouldn’t be closing anytime soon, and that seems like a contradiction that means resolving this accurately will be impossible. I made my bets on the market based on your exact words “if after a week…I’ll close within the next few days.” I’d argue that that’s unclear enough that if you didn’t mean to close it in the next week this market should resolve N/A.
@verdantnonsense You continue to ignore the "If it looks like it won't be closing any time soon" part of the sentence you're quoting. Those words do in fact mean something. If it does look like it'll be closing soon, then it'll continue to remain open.
Also the week you're referring to is a week after the original close date, not a week from market creation.
@IsaacKing You should probably specify that that's what was meant by "in a week" in the original market description.
See here. https://manifold.markets/IsaacKing/will-the-whales-win-this-market#cX1hpIRs2ULWOIRJTGnZ
I don’t know when the original close date was but it’s showing today now. I would accept it closing a week from now + a few days if it looks like it won’t be closing anytime soon, but nothing here says it should be open indefinitely.
@verdantnonsense I think an N/A would be more controversial than any other resolution.
If you think the resolution is going to be controversial, though, you should bet here: https://manifold.markets/JosephNoonan/will-the-resolution-to-the-whales-v
@JosephNoonan If he isn’t planning to close it at the latest a week + a few days from today then it’s a disingenuous close that doesn’t match the description. If he is then that’s fine and he should close based on point totals.