1,000
3.00Hi everyone. I think the events of this market may be illustrative of something I've been thinking about in general. Unlikely events may still occur. How we handle these events and conduct ourselves during such events is important. Openness and preparedness to unlikelihoods in general is important. Even though I've created markets recently sort of in this theme of "surprise", I myself felt surprised by how the discussion continued, and even at my own responses to it, whether those felt or expressed. I don't always have the best handle on my emotional response, and this is something that I am working on and I will likely continue to be indefinitely. To that end, I am taking a break until I feel sufficiently level-headed that I can reasonably participate here again. (I also have my own project I need to be working on!) I'm relieved that there was a way to re-resolve this market in a reasonably fair way. I'm glad that there are things I can learn from this experience. Thank you to everyone who participated and discussed. Have a great week.
@JamesGrugett How come this is okay but you don't protect people who are actually screwed over by resolutions? You let like half of Levi's and Oracle of Osaka's misresolutions slide.
@JamesGrugett I already spent a lot of the mana I earned creating markets which I am now incapable of deleting. This is really frustrating, you had good intentions. but if you were going to do this I wish you'd waited for people's arguments on the opposing side first before you resolved YES
@ShadowyZephyr discord for some reason has begun restricting messages beyond what I can configure (requires "same discord" or "non-cleared open convo from DM list" which is very frustrating) so I've rejoined the discord and messaged you
I want to chime in and say that there is not an obvious right or wrong answer here. Questions about "Will X happen" where X already happened in the past have sometimes resolved YES, sometimes N/A - there are valid reasons for both.
I believe people were acting in good faith on their own conflicting interpretations of the question. Contrary to some previous comments, I see no evidence of bad faith behavior here - this does not at all look like exploiting loopholes or deliberately twisting the wording.
@jack I agree with Jack here, and I hope that it has been abundantly clear that I did not ever believe there was bad faith in play on the part of the market creator.
In text some times meaning is lost, or can be read in a different tone than the writer's intended tone. I may advocate for a position in an argument or ask questions for clarification or consideration but I hope that my communication is never perceived by any reader as an attack, ad hominem or otherwise. (And I hope, others would refrain from attacks.)
I am saddened to learn that the market creator felt that they had to delete their account.
I think given the phrasing of the question I would consider this a misresolved question. Will ___? Infers you are referencing a future event that hasn't yet happened. This should have been resolved NA, and I'd have a lot more to say if I invested more than 23 mana into this. Cases like this vreate distrust for the platform as a whole, especially for people like me who bet on high probability events. Thankfully for me though, I kept my bet small on this one because I anticipated something fucky like this might happen.
Okay so I've been reading the community guidelines and apparently prompt resolution is the first thing encouraged to market owners. I have been hesitating because I did not anticipate this exact case, and so have been patiently deliberating so that I may resolve this correctly rather than hurriedly. The market linked below DID reach NaN% from at least one surfaced perspective on Manifold. That is quite fairly in the spirit of the original question. I apologize for the delay in resolution. YES is forthcoming in a few moments.
@Messi It was never actually a number. It was a distribution. Although it might have displayed an expected value before. Idk how that market type was supposed to work.
@JosephNoonan I think it was supposed to display the average, or the mode, and then it stopped working.
Are yall talking about the distributional numeric market linked below? I agree that currently it is NaN (and is still open but not closed or resolved). But does anyone have proof that it reached NaN (i.e., that it was something other than NaN before), rather than having always been NaN?
@XComhghall there was some discussion but ultimately none of our assumptions about what the market creator's intent was matters.
@ShitakiIntaki Those kinds of markets were not always deprecated. I don't have hard proof rn but I'm sure it did not always display "resolved NaN" or "NaN%"
@XComhghall Nvm, here's your proof: it originally said "75 expected"
https://web.archive.org/web/20221024210437/https://manifold.markets/MatthewBarnett/if-tested-before-2024-what-will-gpt
It seems to have been deprecated BEFORE it became NaN%, in fact.
@ShadowyZephyr assumptions are the seeds of disagreement.
I think we all assume and agree that this market probably only meant Manifold Markets.
I can genuinely say that I assumed that the market creator was only referencing binary markets, multiple choice markets, ect.. to the exclusion of deprecated markets.
Once we take a position in the market we become biased in which assumptions should be accepted or rejected.
I should have not made any assumptions and instead should have verified what assumptions aligned with the market creator's intent and then asked that the market description be clarified so it is no longer an assumption but built into the resolution description.
@ShitakiIntaki I would have thought this counted regardless. If it were me I would've been most likely to think it counted as 50%, but depending on what other people thought I might've resolved YES.
@ShitakiIntaki That is a wise statement!
While the question does specify "*any* market", and I meant this to no particular form of exclusion, though I was not aware of deprecated market types, I am definitely understanding that this was not 100% clear, though I had assumed it was reasonably so.
@ShadowyZephyr But it reached NaN by March 15. So asking on Apr 9, 2023, 'Will any market reach NaN%?', will, that is, after market creation, and by market close in 2024, the answer would be no, not yet, until further proof, nay? The distributional numeric market remained at NaN. It did not reach NaN since the market asked the question, 'Will any market reach NaN%?'
@ShitakiIntaki I never even mentioned the market creator's intent. What I am saying / asking has nothing to do with the market creator's intent.
@XComhghall interesting, I didn't realize that it reached NaN by march 15, and apparently no one else knew either.
I still feel like "ever" is kind of implied in this question, but that makes it a lot more unclear.
@XComhghall my assumption was that it had not occurred yet, and I was curious whether it was possible, and since these are prediction markets, I formed my question into such. I selected an arbitrary but reasonable time window for the market to be active.
@XComhghall's post regarding the the timing is pursuasive to me that this market perhaps should have discounted histroy and only looked forward to events occuring after market creation. I am of course biased, but I would be remiss to not ask if you too find it persuasive, @cloudprism. My understanding is that the devs can always reopen the market.
@ShitakiIntaki I realize that this resolution decision did not make everyone happy, but neither would delaying it. I don't know where to go from here. I don't want to be labeled an untrustworthy marker creator. I thought this was a fun question, and I'm pleasantly surprised that a market did reach NaN%. The fact that it happened a month before the market was created feels like spoiling the question on a spurious technicality. The devs obviously own Manifold and can do whatever they want. I'm unsubscribing from notifications from this market now.
@ShitakiIntaki If the devs re-resolve over a technicality like this but don't re-resolve levi's obviously rigged markets then i'll actually be mad
@cloudprism I don't believe the devs would or should ntervene unless requested by the market creator or unless there was blatant misresolution contradicting clear resolution criteria, and it is my understanding is that it is important to Manifold that market creators personal judgements be honored. I was not implying that anything that happened here warrants intervention, except and unless the market creator requested such.
@ShadowyZephyr Devs would only reresolve this if the creator asks. Interpretation of an ambiguous situation like this is up to the creator.
@cloudprism I don't think anyone will label you as untrustworthy for having one controversial resolution. It happens to everyone at some point, and it's obvious that you didn't defraud anyone.
@cloudprism Hmmm, so your intent was indeed 'ever', though it was not specified in the question.
@ShadowyZephyr To my knowledge, many if not most questions like this market, that say 'Will …', discount history and do not imply 'ever'.
The question was quite clear, without any assumptions: _Will_ any market _reach_ NaN%?
This is neither spurious nor merely technical. It is the truthful and faithful answer to a clear question.
I maintain the same with regards to Levi's markets (some of which are far worse. Again, I think this one is fine). And yeah, I guess admins don't really get too involved in such matters, unless they are like really, really bad.
@ShitakiIntaki Now that the market has resolved, I think it is fine as it is. But retrospectively, I would oppose a NO resolution based on all the information available. I bet NO after seeing the NaN market, because and only because it reached NaN before the question 'Will any market reach?'
@XComhghall You didn't even mention that it reached NaN% before creation of this market before the market was resolved. That feels like a rather salient detail to leave out. Especially since you asked for proof that the market was not NaN before. Anyways, i feel like it could have implied "ever." That's probably how I would have interpreted it.
@XComhghall It was not about the moment of reach. It was about the state of having been reached. That should be clear. Why are you continuing to argue this over 40 mana?
6/21 23:15 EDT: I thought I was the milder, more refrained of all who argued against the YES resolution, as I expressed throughout that I thought that ex post the YES resolution was fine, though it may not have been the best given certain ambiguities and the lack of clarification and important provisions, that is, advising retrospectively and prospectively that the market description be made clearer.
I did become a little frustrated when I realized that I was the only one blocked - I thought I was more refrained than others who argued against the YES resolution, in conceding and giving understanding to the YES resolution and its valid reasons. Despite my last bit of reason (sense, sensibility) to be refrained and fair in my response, I had become more critical in some of my later responses, and uttered some hurting words. I do sincerely apologize for what I had said and done under frustration that offended Hayden.
6/19 17:00 EDT: I am surprised by the N/A resolution. I honestly think and have expressed throughout that the original YES resolution was fine and acceptable to me. I do think it had valid reasons. This and the account deletion do make me fear that I had underestimated how upset Hayden was.
I apologize for anything I said or did that offended Hayden. I wish to give further apologies if Hayden requires, and wish you all well on Manifold and beyond.
I apologize for hinting at Hayden being untrustworthy. I have never thought that anything Hayden has done was untrustworthy. I agree that all of Hayden's behavior and decisions have had valid reasons, including the YES resolution, though I find room for improvement in the future - perhaps for others too in the future.
I compared what Hayden did to to what certain questionable users did. 1. The behavior itself is acceptable. It is not questionable in itself, except that certain questionable users did it. 2. Two thing can be alike only if they are not the same. I realized that the comparison made some unappealing hints and connections, but I do believe that all of Hayden's behavior and decisions have been acceptable. 3. After making the edit, I also added a comparison of my interaction with a trustworthy user, who had done something similar to what Hayden did. I intended it to balance out the untrustworthy suggestion, for the latter has never been my intention.
Blocking people is one's right. I fully respect that. I mentioned it only because Hayden advised me, 'There is more to reality than the words you see on your screen.' 'It is unfortunate' is likewise an imitation of Hayden's words.
'Peace be with you' is a wish to all and everyone. I do not target a single person or limit giving peace to one person.
Original comment 6/19 00:00 EDT:
@ShadowyZephyr I don't think I made a single comment before the resolution. I didn't read much into yall's comments, and didn't participate in the discussion. I didn't know it'd resolve so quickly because of that one market, which would not reach, but did or had reached, and would remain.
I asked for proof that the market was not NaN before after the resolution, with the intention to verify the true answer to the market question.
@cloudprism As I stated in my last comment in response to ShitakiIntaki,
Now that the market has resolved, I think it is fine as it is. But retrospectively, I would oppose a NO resolution based on all the information available.
I do not mind the resolution, nor losing M30, but I do want to make my position and the facts clear.
To my knowledge, many if not most questions like this market, that do not have further clarification or criteria (in this case, a description at all), but only say 'Will …', do require that the event occur after the market creation (the moment of reach), and do not imply 'ever'.
It was not about the moment of reach. It was about the state of having been reached.
Is not in the question nor the description. I am fine with the outcome of this market, but please, next time, please make it clear. It cannot be clear unless you make it clear.
Good luck and good night.
6/19 00:30 EDT: Hayden Jackson blocked me, so he can reply, but I cannot.
As I said in this comment, I did not think this market would be resolved so quickly to even care enough to participate in the discussion, to read yall's previous comments, or to make a comment. It may have been that
This market was meant to foster some lighthearted curiosity about a funny glitch, and spark some speculation about unlikely-yet-possible outcomes.
I apologize if it was in one of the many comments below that I did not read.
I do encourage all and anyone to create more markets, and more clearer markets. There is no dilemma between simpler phrasing that inspires more participation, and having a clear market, question, and criteria. The solution is the market description.
There is a place for 'What the market is really asking about': In the question and the description, not in the comment section. Before market close and resolution, not after. There had been circumstances like this, where a trustworthy creator did not state some important clarification and conditions in the question or description, but in the comment section. I commented and inquired about it, and it all came to a satisfactory outcome.
I am not asking for a refund. I could not emphasize this more, as I already have, that I am fine with the resolution as it is. It is unfortunate that you should block me, as I heard some untrustworthy creators had done to people who asked for clarification and clearer resolution criteria. It is unfortunate that you should care so much about 'words you see on your screen' that you should block me. But as I suppose you seek peace in doing so —
Peace be with you.
6/19 02:30 EDT: Without any assumptions and additional provisions in the market question and description, the resolution criterion was not met imho. I do not support a NO resolution. I argue that retrospectively, the market should not have closed or resolved, based on what the market actually asked, what the question actually was. A NO resolution would certainly be a misresolution. YES is better. Though I would have opposed a YES resolution, since it is already resolved, I think it is acceptable ex post.
@XComhghall This market was meant to foster some lighthearted curiosity about a funny glitch, and spark some speculation about unlikely-yet-possible outcomes. I am now discouraged from creating more markets like this, and maybe even any more markets at all. It is unfortunate that you interpreted the question in perhaps its maximally literal sense, instead of reading into what the market is really asking about. If I had thought for more than a brief moment about how to phrase the question, maybe "will it be proven possible that markets can reach NaN%?" would have been a better phrasing. I dislike creating markets with questions that read like titles in a scientific journal because fewer people participate in them. Simpler phrasing inspires more participation. You might be technically right, but I'm quite unhappy right now. I don't have enough mana to refund everyone, and I will not be purchasing more. There is more to reality than the words you see on your screen.
@cloudprism It can be pretty stressful when you have a controversial resolution, but keep in mind that this would have been controversial no matter how you resolved it. You probably would have made even more people unhappy if you resolved it NO. I think you made a reasonable choice of how to resolve it, given the circumstances. It would have been better if the description clarified what would count, but it's impossible to anticipate every possible ambiguity that could arise.
@cloudprism That's the power of descriptions. Title it in a catchy way, resolve ambiguities in the description. I think "Can markets reach NaN%?" with a description like "Resolves YES if it is proven by example, that markets can reach NaN% on Manifold" or something, would have been 100% clear. Although I still interpreted it in a way where this would count, as you seem to have intended.
@XComhghall I have unblocked you, but I am upset still that you would both continue to compare me to untrustworthy market creators in your edit as well as continue to insist that this market was resolved incorrectly. Language is finite. Language is imperfect. And I don't want to feel on-edge about whether I perfectly described this market or not. I participate here at Manifold because I enjoy that there is a system that encourages collaboratively wondering about future outcomes in a way with more rigor than the average Twitter thread. That said, I do not have a temperament or circumstance that affords me to play the mechanics of prediction markets well enough to really turn a sustainably sizable profit. So, I decided to stop playing for profit, and to instead think of interesting questions. "Thinking and talking about the future" is more important to me than strictly and optimallly operating within the mechanics of a system. Systems change, because they are meant to serve some end goal that is not the system itself. I will not allow "insufficient deference to a system" to reduce, diminish, or destroy what the system is actually for in the first place. Evem the most labored descriptions and criteria can have faults, issues, and problems, and oftentimes their extensiveness can actually impede further what the question is really meant to be asking. No system is perfect. We must actively keep in mind what is most important, which I consider to be in the realm lf life, love, and liberty, and not necessarily the structures that are intended to support these, because when a system fails, you should know between which to choose.
Obviously I am speaking about more than prediction markets st this time. You've inadvertently hit a major nerve. I don't mean to be preaching or directing all of this at anyone in particular. I just somehow have found words for some deepfelt conviction about the state of the world today. I appreciate your advocacy for truth and clarity. I hope that you will consider that there are further factors to our experiences than those two alone.
Thank you everyone for your patience and understanding.
@XComhghall And to your point about blocking you, it is well within my right to do so, no matter what you are asking or speaking about. I will now do so again!
@ShadowyZephyr I feel threatened. I have clinical social anxiety due to a history of ostracization trauma. If these events are sufficent for me to be banned, so be it.
@cloudprism No one is going to ban you over this, it just seems petty to block someone when they aren't even annoyed at you and was just asking for clarification.
@ShadowyZephyr My actions and words seem to be causing a cyclical cascade of badness. I'm deleting this app for a month.
@cloudprism If that makes you feel better, go ahead. Again I want to reiterate that no one is angry with you.