The goal of this market is to compile a list of clear cases of authors committing intentional fraud in misresolutions.
Each answer should be a specific market. Resolves equally (up to 20% each) to all answers that were incorrectly resolved, intentionally and fraudulently, during 2023, based on community consensus. If a single author fraudulently misresolves a large number of markets, you can submit a single answer naming the author and listing all of the markets in a comment. This answer will be counted as however many of those markets meet the criteria for fraudulent misresolution that were not already submitted as answers. Borderline cases may count as half.
This criteria may be somewhat subjective, but relevant factors include: did the author take the mana and run? Did the author brag about trolling traders? Etc.
If there are up to 5 answers that are accepted, each of them will be chosen at a 20% share, and the answer "Less than 5" will be chosen with the remainder. If there are more than 5, then resolves to each of them equally. (For the purposes of this calculation, borderline cases count as half.)
Includes markets both past and future, as long as they resolved in 2023.
Fine print:
I will do my best to clarify the criteria based on community discussion and consensus, but ultimately it is subjective and ambiguous. I don't know how to clearly define fraudulent, for example - if anyone has input on how to make it clearer please comment!
Only submitted answers will be considered. If a market meets the criteria but nobody submits it, then it doesn't count. I intend to submit any markets that I notice that qualify, but of course I might miss some.
Late resolution will not be considered in this market
If there are duplicate answers that refer to the same market, only the earliest will be chosen.
Thanks to @jack for letting me use his idea. His market for 2022: https://manifold.markets/jack/what-markets-were-intentionally-and-cfda0f20db47
Related questions
@ShadowyZephyr I don't think it was a clearly and unambiguously intentional / fraudulent misresolution. I see no mention of 'prompt rules' in the description. To be fair though, some of Levi's markets and statements are somewhat questionable. That I do agree.
@XComhghall Levi almost certainly lied to me in the discord to defend himself. He didn't expect someone to make a prompt that worked, so when he saw it, he decided to just make chatgpt give an error. Should have resolved N/A if we were unclear, but almost everyone else agreed with my interpretation, that it doesn't count as chatgpt saying/judging at all, if it's forced to error
@lllllllllllllllllllllllll if you insist I will add it. I probably won't chose it though because I do not think it was misresolved. But people seem to still be mad at me because of that market so I am open your arguments.
This market was created to collect misresolved markets to increase the pressure on manifold to start re-resolving misresolved markets. They started doing it some time ago, so this market does not really serve a purpose anymore, other than a log of the few misresolved markets that they were not able to re-resolve.
The market you want me to add was also resolved before the cutoff date, so it can't be re-resolved, even if my resolution was wrong.
At this point, I also wish the market had never happened. I was disappointed in how the market played out because I was hoping for some change on the platform. But I made some mistakes in its construction which led to a very different reaction from the community than I intended.
@enemel Description readers understood that market. It was a bait title, but not a misresolved market. Sure, it was “messy”, but everyone playing that market knew that, and they’re lying to themselves if they actually thought it was going to only resolve if he died irl.
Any market that is super “uncertain” has its own risks with participation, and traders take that risk on. The only time I would consider those uncertain/unclear markets “misresolved” if there is actually clear trader consensus contrary to the resolution. That wasn’t the case on your market. Many of us understood and discussed the criteria, others chose to argue it - which is fine - but don’t be mad when you’re wrong
@jack I was hoping to make a case against death markets and for better protection of betters. But I thought Destiny was almost guaranteed to die in Factorio because I did not really know the game. The community reaction was way more positive than I intended because of that.
I think most people would say it was a fun market because it was so uncertain whether he would die. With less people having fun I think more people would have criticized me for the title. But maybe the reaction I was hoping for actually existed. The market is one of the most reported markets. But since you can't add a reason when reporting a market I have no idea if people are mad because of the title or because they think his death wasn't "violent". Or maybe they are mad because I resolved early, no clue. So I can't go to the admins and tell them that they should do something because people are mad and this is bad for the platform.
One good thing that could come from this is that there is an argument to let people add a description when reporting markets. I think it would be good for the admins to see what people don't like. But I kind of stopped trying to change things on the platform. I'm either mostly wrong or the team doesn't like me. Whatever it is, it's probably best for me to just leave them alone.
@enemel It was definitely a misleading title and people definitely reported it for that - presumably the reports before the market resolved were all related to the title. There is a strong community norm that misleading titles are bad, but there isn't currently a good enforcement mechanism for it.
@jack I think the misleading title problem is exacerbated by the push for mana swipe. I hate that system because I think it discourages engagement with the makers (such as asking clarifying questions).
Particularly for the market in question, anyone who read the description would have seen that an IRL Destiny death would result in an N/A. It was still unclear if the death had to be factorio, or any game, but I think it was fun.
It’s difficult to know if a more precisely worded market “will Destiny die in factorio” would have had similar engagement or not. I’d say 80% of the trading volume on that market was “smart” and 20% was people who didn’t know just buying it down based on the title, but the 20% was a large number of people and they were all mostly new to the site. Not really a great first impression for them, which is unfortunate, but hopefully those who were new and were “smart” were able to take an advantage and begin to chase that feeling. So I don’t know if it’s necessarily better or worse to have the title like that, with the market going as it did.
@Gen I don't think that's true. In a video game, you play a character. You aren't really yourself in that sense. You are a separate person from the real you.
@kottsiek https://manifold.markets/serpa/will-the-philadelphia-eagles-win-th#mUb9iO3TT5ssEPIu432e, also commented the same thing in discord.
@kottsiek I agree but I can't remove answers. At the end of the year I will resolve this market equally between answers with markets that fit the criteria. You can look at jack's market to get an idea of how this market will resolve: https://manifold.markets/jack/what-markets-were-intentionally-and-cfda0f20db47
Kinda sad really, lots of maliciously resolved markets here. Not accidents.
The worst one is the superbowl one imo. It’s a terrible look for the site if new traders get reamed by some bs like that.
The other ones where it’s one salty person spiting others, it’s not a big deal (I guess) but certainly discourages buying Mana with $$ if some prick can just yoink it because you upset them
@Gen I'm actually not sure if the superbowl one was malicious. They seem to want to fix it, which isn't possible at the moment. Any prove for intent? I'm not saying it was not intentional, I'm just not sure. They don't seem very active to me, so I don't think they know how the AMM works.
@enemel Yeah glad to see the superbowl one was fixed, as it was clearly the worst. I also saw that it was an accident which is cool! Better than the others anyway lol
he admits it, so I think this counts: https://manifold.markets/AlexRockwell/will-this-markets-probability-be-at-bae92feca8be#MQHPrvfSwfjI1a3OFYua