Will shenanigans ensue if Manifold switches from append-only descriptions to edit history available?
15
319
Ṁ107
resolved Aug 21
Resolved
NO
Trusting everyone's good faith is working so well that it would be nice to let market creators edit their descriptions. We'd want to make edit history public like Facebook does. I predict this will be much nicer and have no downside any time soon. This market is to see if I'm right. It's ultimately an "if we do this, will we regret it?" question and I'll do my best to resolve it in that spirit. If no actual shenanigans ensue but people hate the friction of having to click through to double-check the edit history, that counts as counterfactual shenanigans which would still resolve this as YES. So the lower the market probability, the better an idea this is! EDIT: Maybe obvious but this resolves to N/A if we don't get editable descriptions. EDIT: And if shenanigans technically ensue but it's just, like, token shenanigans, that wouldn't count. Like if someone intentionally misleads people by changing the description after the fact to try to prove the point that it's a bad idea but no one really expects that to be an ongoing problem, or if a couple trolls do this but people knew not to bet in those people's markets anyway, this would resolve as NO. See also this bounty market for implementing the feature: https://manifold.markets/dreev/will-manifold-allow-editing-of-mark
Get Ṁ200 play money

Related questions

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
1Ṁ151
2Ṁ6
3Ṁ0
9 Comments
10 Holders
78 Trades
Sort by:
predicted NO

Woo-hoo! We have full laissez faire editing and no problems so far, right? Even without edit history, which I think is plenty safety net but so far even that's not needed.

Does this resolve at market close?

predicted NO

@JoyVoid Yeah, probably not fair to resolve early since technically we just haven't seen shenanigans yet.

@dreev Oh, I was genuinely asking because I could not figure the resolution criteria.

I don't have any shares in the question now, but I think at the time I read it as "in 2-4 weeks of free-edits, will shenanigan ensue?", which would make resolving NO now correct in my view

predicted NO

@JoyVoid I'm totally amenable to that. Let's just give others a chance to object...

predicted NO

@dreev Ok, I guess other's have had a chance now! If this resolution turns out wrong in retrospect then I'll make it up to the YES bettors but that now seems exceedingly unlikely. Especially if we get visible edit history, which I'm certain would be sufficient for shenanigan-resistance. In fact, edit history was specified in the title of this market so the fact that we haven't had shenanigans even without edit history really proves the point for the NO resolution here. Ok, I think I've convinced myself.

How do you intend to resolve this? *Any* shenanigans? Yes. In fact, it's already happened. But I predict very few shenanigans.
bought Ṁ350 of NO
@jack Ah, yeah, see my second paragraph. I think I shouldn't have put "any shenanigans" in the title, or at least made that second paragraph more prominent. (Too bad I can't edit it!) I mean enough shenanigans (or other friction) that we regret ditching append-only.
bought Ṁ200 of NO
@jack UPDATE: Title edited (!) to not say "any". Thanks for pointing that out! And thanks to the admins for the edit :)

Related questions