This is a non-binding poll to see how traders in the Rootclaim COVID origins debate market would feel about the market resolving to 50% in the case of a draw (i.e. both judges undecided, or a split decision).
I had written in the description that it would resolve N/A in that case, but this is not ideal. 50% would be better, so that people who sold their positions don't have their trading reversed, trader bonuses don't get clawed back, etc.
Would you object if it resolved to 50% in the case of a draw? Please only answer if you are a trader in that market.
To emphasise: YES on this poll doesn't necessarily mean you particularly strongly support resolving to 50% in the case of a draw, it merely means you don't particularly object to the possibility, a lower bar.
1,000
3.00I would object on principle. I find it annoying that market creators as well as mods try to avoid N/A at all costs. The costs y'all accept are too damn high! Just own your mistakes: Resolve N/A and create a better successor market. This is a general rant, not directed at you, Chris. Trying to get some idea about peoples' vibes is great!
I wish there was a way to mark markets as ambiguous and/or controversial ("ambiversal") via some voting mechanism. Ambiversal markets should turn trader bonuses into trader maluses.
Conflict of interest: I sold several positions and would benefit a lot from 50% instead of N/A.
I would object, on the basis that the market description is a contract between me, you, and whoever else buys into the market. I agreed to trade under those conditions, I am holding for the long term under these conditions, and resolving under any other conditions would be a rugpull. If I can't trust you to resolve in the way you said you would, I won't hold long-term positions.
To put it another way: The proper thing to do to change the market conditions well after trading has started would be to create a new market with different conditions.
@brp that makes sense. I generally do not treat the wording of my criteria as sacred, and disclaim (on my profile) that I may adjust them if there is major disagreement between the spirit and the letter*, but don't think theres much in an argument that this rises to that level.
(I see you didn't answer the poll! Consider doing so - not that it's binding or anything, and your comment has expressed your view, but still.)
*(E.g. I had a market about a rocket launch that defined launch in terms of hold-down clamps releasing. We later found out that hold-down clamps were released like 15m before launch. So I just changed the definition of launch. Do you think of that sort of thing as a rug pull as well?).
@chrisjbillington I can support a change in the case of difficulty in operationalizing the spirit of the market, especially if you were trying to more accurately operationalize a concept like "launch". On the other hand, I'm also the kind of person who might bet based on the knowledge that not many traders know clamps are released early, and in that case I would be pretty miffed. I've been burned a couple times by things like this, so now I tend to ask pointed questions in the comments of such markets and then unfollow the market instead of trading.
Thanks for mentioning that I hadn't voted. I had clicked, but must have closed the tab before the signal made its way to Manifold's server.
@brp Thanks for your comments, it all makes sense.
If I can't trust you to resolve in the way you said you would, I won't hold long-term positions.
For what it's worth, NA will undo your trades even if you have exited a position, clawing back realised profits. That's one one the main objections people have to markets that have NA as part of the criteria. I wonder if there is a coherent way to define something like "NA, but only for current holders".
I would object. I bought shares above 50%+ under the assumption the contract would be graded as written.
@TedSanders right, so the logic there is that conditional on it not being a draw, you have a view about who will win, and can bet more aggressively due to that knowing you won't lose anything if it N/As? Whereas if it resolved to 50% upon a draw, you wouldn't bet as high? I think that makes sense.
@chrisjbillington Yep. Suppose one thinks outcomes are 50% Peter wins, 50% draw, 0% Saar wins. Then under written rules, it's profitable to bet up to 99.9%. But under new rules, it's only profitable to bet up to 75%. Feels unfair to change the rules after bets are placed.