🏅 Top traders

I'm resolving no on the basis that the two mods who got randomly assigned who replied vote it's a strong NO, and Michael Wheatley who I hadn't realised was previously "assigned" also voted NO.

I also just think it isn't remotely close. We had 3 #1 posts in 3 major subreddits, it was mentioned in ACX and elsewhere, it took up the attention of our entire platform for a few days, and no other market really compares.

Anyways need to rethink how these markets are resolved since this clearly didn't work.

I bribed SirSalty to resolve this No.

@Eliza hmmm

😂

I'd hate to see this resolved NA, but say it does, can we still re-resolve if the market creator ever one day shows up again?

@MichaelWheatley Yes, but given the size of some of the investments here it's a lot to be pulling back. I've written something to that effect alongside many resolutions but I typically look at how big the investments are when considering that option.

Given the full state of everything that's happened here, it looks to me like resolving No, with a time-limited option for the creator to show up and re-resolve to Yes or N/A seems like the most appropriate option. (Like 2 weeks or 1 month, not a year. Heroic efforts have already been attempted.)

Just thinking about the principle here - does anyone think there was a market even close to being more dramatic than wvm? And what purpose does a principle that 'subjective market should n/a even if they have a clear answer' serve? We create norms and principles as we enact them!

@jacksonpolack I was not part of WvM but these were my submissions:

1. https://manifold.markets/SimonGrayson/who-will-be-the-next-speaker-of-the-0b49bf53ad12

2. https://manifold.markets/AlexMizrahi/will-ai-agents-be-used-to-develop-s

3. https://manifold.markets/RH/will-googles-gemini-llm-be-released

4. https://manifold.markets/Joshua/who-will-be-time-person-of-the-year

I feel they at the least 2 of them meet all 4 (1 & 2 meet all 4, with 3 & 4 possibly meeting all 4)
A. Exciting or Moving

B. Sudden & Extreme

C. Striking in appearance or effect

D. Tendency to behave to react in an exaggerated way.

But I do still say N/A since the Creator can not decide, even though we have the 3 Mod Panel, which as of right now is taking too long imo to work properly. (Maybe I am impatient, or expect things quicker, or both)

I was part of all of those and it's not even close. In 'ai agents', I'll maybe lose like 1/10th of my net worth (600 "$usd") (and I make that back pretty quickly when active), and i've posted like 10 paragraphs of text. In WvM, Isaac, one of the most notable users on the site, bought 30k USD of mana (3/4 of median annual personal income!), fought a whalebait battle against the entire site and hundreds of newcomers, ended up losing it, and quit for a while. I also spent a lot of time arguing about 'gemini llm', and still think the policy there is wrong and should be changed, but it's not even on the same order of magnitude.

I sort of struggle to understand how one could judge any of those as even close to wvm in drama.

@jacksonpolack anyone not part of it would not understand and base it off of the criteria is how I saw it. But It does specifically say WvM, so comparing Markets A to WvM, B to WvM, etc. I get it.
I appreciate your explanation!

I still stand by the N/A.
It is up to 1 more vote, but they have not responded, so not sure how this will get handled.
I honestly dont care about the Mana anymore, I just am tired of seeing it open lol.

@jacksonpolack I think there are many dimensions of drama. WvM was dramatic in some ways, but in other ways less. Isaac King is less well known than Aella or Yudkowsky or others who have been part of dramatic markets. So I don't think there's a clear answer.

My personal answer is probably YES because I found WvM tedious and trivial and that robbed much of the drama. But my moderator opinion is n/a given no creator.

I am genuinely somewhat confused about why people hold that opinion. Consider the average person's conception of the term 'dramatic'

Then consider:

It got a lot of attention off the site, and was explicitly described as "drama" . the reddit post on r/destiny was tagged as drama. The post got 300 upvotes.

It was so negatively charged that the the admins wrote a retrospective and added measures to prevent people from doing whalebait!

This is, like, a central and huge example of 'drama', none of the other examples even come close in terms of interpersonal drama or heated passions.

Looking at the expressed mod and admin opinions as I understand them.

David Chee - ??

Isaac King (holds NO) - N/A

Sir Crypto Mind (holds YES) - N/A

Chris Billington (holds NO) - ??

Carson Gale - NO

Michael Wheatley - NO

Martin Randall - N/A

(please correct/add if I'm wrong)

The mod guidelines indicate 3/3 mods should agree on the resolution, or else N/A. I think this is sufficient disagreement that N/A is correct (independent of my personal opinion that N/A is correct in this particular market).

@traders

I've sent an email to the creator.

If they don't respond today then I'd suggest me, James and Stephen just have a quick vote.

Before we make our opinion known, does anyone strongly disagree with that and think it should just resolve N/A instead?

@SirSalty I don't see a good reason to deviate from the normal policy of N/Aing subjective markets if the resolution is unknown. Having the site creators vote is pretty arbitrary; there's no reason they're more reliable than anyone else. (In fact James and Austin have both demonstrated extreme overconfidence in the past.) A policy like this isn't scaleable either; if the site grows we can't be having the creators vote on every medium-size abandoned market, there will be too many.

If there's some reason Manifold thinks it really important this market doesn't resolve N/A, I think it would be better to offer a financial incentive to the creator to resolve it. But personally that doesn't seem necessary either; if Zorn doesn't respond to the email N/A seems fine. Alternatively just leave it unresolved hoping Zorn returns in the future; loans make this outcome very similar to N/A. (Though I guess if Zorn returns, the N/A could be undone anyway.)

@SirSalty If the choice is panel vs N/A ; I say N/A since in the criteria it says "I reserve the right to resolve this market to N/A and provide no compensation to involved parties."

It is also a market that is subjective to the creators opinion.

If it were a smaller (20 or less predictors) in an abandoned market, there would be no question it would N/A with no pushback from my experience for either of those reasons.

I don't see a reason to treat a larger market any different.

@SirCryptomind It also mentions the possibility of calling on a third-party panel to decide the resolution, though. This could be considered an invocation of that.

@PlasmaBallin Yea, I disregarded that part since they are not here to appoint one, in the same sense that they are not here to judge what was presented as potential markets that meet or don't meet their criteria.
But I do understand it is there, but still subjective to their choosing of said panel.

@SirSalty FWIW I do agree, and it occurs to me that since you only asked for disagreement you might only see disagreement!

Subjectivity is a continuum and I don't think there's a rule in practice against modresolving subjective markets, it's only when they're very subjective that there is usually agreement they should NA. I think we see moderately subjective markets modresolved pretty often.

This one is maybe on the edge of how subjective it is (perhaps evidenced by us discussing it), but since I think if there were a poll I could reasonably predict how it would turn out, I would argue the actual amount of subjectivity is not actually that strong. It seems a shame to NA in that case.

It's true that the user specified explicitly that resolution depended on their judgement, but that is always implied for markets with any subjectivity anyway, so I'm not sure that their explicit statement is any extra information compared to if they had not included it.

The two statements about reserving the right to NA, and that they might call on a third-party council to resolve are on equal footing, they've reserved the right to do either of these things. If the creator reserving the right to NA is being cited as an argument we should NA, then it seems equally valid to cite their statements about using a third-party council as an argument we should use a third-party council. These two arguments seem equally valid.

@chrisjbillington Much of what you said makes sense. You make a good point in regards to the N/A vs Third Party.

@SirSalty Any update what to do with this market?

@Zorn

@SirCryptomind well if we follow the recently implemented mod guidelines, the procedure now would be:
1) pick 3 random mods who don't have large positions in this market. Also they should probably be ones who were active when WvM happened.
2) See if the 3 unanimously agree it strongly leans to be resolved either Yes or No.
3) If the 3 don't agree it is very clearly Yes or No then N/A.

@SirSalty fyi zorn never replied to my email

@SirSalty @Gen @CarsonGale @MatthewBarnett gpt picked u three to decide whether this market is clearly Yes or No, and if the 3 of u don't agree we will just N/A it.

@SirSalty You can implement whatever resolution procedure you want, but please don't claim something to be random and then use ChatGPT. That is not remotely random.

@SirSalty WvM seemed clearly more dramatic than any other markets to date in my view.

@IsaacKing oh I just gave it all the mod names and told it to choose 3. If u feel this isnt perfectly random enough I'll do it a different way next time lol

@SirSalty Please provide ChatGPT with the following prompt and watch it give you either 3 or 4, guaranteed:

Choose a number from this list: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Come on man, when are people going to learn that LLMs can't be blindly trusted on tasks like this? There have been like a thousand markets on Manifold about this fact.

@IsaacKing

Maybe after the first time it realizes that to be random it has to choose something different from the first answer...

@SirSalty Actually, I was already nominated to be the decider for this on the discord (See the thread called "Oldest AFK Market") a week or so back. I said there was no market more dramatic since.

@FlorisvanDoorn Yes, it tries to emulate what humans do, and humans will generally avoid picking the same thing twice.

@IsaacKing I think it should resolve NO

@IsaacKing
int getRandomNumber() {
return 4; //chosen by fair dice roll.
//guaranteed to be random.
}

@MatthewBarnett Your vote?