What are everybody's thoughts about how this exists? Quroe's Dead-Man Switch

I feel like this will get a conversation going about a deeper root cause.

@Quroe I guess you're referring to your "not consenting" to markets about you that are motivated by an absence of <21 days? And the question of whether the mods would respect that?

And I guess the "root cause" you have in mind is the idea that no such consent is required; that the subject of a market should have no say in the matter?

Poll needs more options:

-morally bad to make such markets but Manifold should still allow it

-not morally bad, but still preferable (supereregatory) to refrain

-bad to create the market but ok to bet in it, or vice-versa

@AhronMaline the first one is really important, even the commenter who complained might not want an official ban

USA, you are alone amongst developed countries in the prevalence of mass shooting events. No other country accepts these events as a "normal" part of everyday life.

1. Manifold Markets SHOULD NOT allow markets that trivialise or glorify mass casualty events.

2. Manifold Markets SHOULD allow markets that - sensitively - raise awareness or better inform the impact from these events.

@Lobstertronic I don't think making a market about a horrible event "trivializes" it in any way, not does it make them a "normal" part of life. Manifold has a lot of questions like this, for instance will X die in 2025 or whatnot. As a prediction marketplace, it's important to have markets on these topics in any case. Are you objecting to the subject of the market or the wording of the question?

Also, Manifold also has a policy of general free speech, with only some exceptions. Mods don't really mute or ban people for what they say, unless it's egregious.

EDIT: I don't see how these markets are glorifying violence in any way. Both of the markets are phrased pretty neutrally.

Hi @Qoiuoiuoiu,

Yep, re-reading my comment I can see the confusion - I should have been clearer.

I have no problems with "counting the dead" (so to speak), and I'm also NOT saying this market glorifies violence. Quite the opposite, I think it's an area that SHOULD be considered - but tactfully and respectfully.

Of the first two choices, I prefer:

"It is ethically acceptable for prediction markets to include questions about fatalities in mass shootings"

That doesn't quite sum up my thoughts, so I chose the third option as I think that (and here I'm tweaking the market creator's words slightly): "It is acceptable for prediction markets to include questions about fatalities in mass shootings if done ethically"

@Lobstertronic agree, as this is not normal +1-0-0 %