Manifold questions are resolved by their authors. Currently, Manifold gives full control over determining the correct resolution to their authors, although the admins do step in for markets that have been abandoned.
I proposed a system where authors still resolve markets, but there is a mechanism for others to dispute the resolution, in which case it is decided by the community or by admins somehow. I believe such disputes would be extremely rare. I think this keeps most of the benefits of author resolution, while removing the blatant misresolutions. This approach is discussed in more detail in /jack/poll-should-it-be-possible-to-dispu .
Resolution
Resolves N/A no such resolution dispute system is implemented by the end of 2023. If it is implemented, then I will make a poll asking "Do you judge this change a success?" Resolves to the average outcome in that poll, i.e. percentage of YES votes, or mean of numeric scores if I ask a numeric poll.
Related
Related questions
π Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | αΉ33 | |
| 2 | αΉ11 | |
| 3 | αΉ10 | |
| 4 | αΉ8 | |
| 5 | αΉ6 |
Here's the poll! This poll is about Manifold's changes to start overriding misresolutions. (Note, this is not about cases where the author made a mistake and asks the admins to fix it - this is about cases where Manifold changes the resolution from the one the author intentionally chose.)
Do you judge this change a success? Vote by liking one of the options below.
If you vote, you agree to vote honestly.
Also please comment on what you think did and didn't work!
I'll start it off with my take: from what I've seen, it's been a massive success, the problem of fraudulent misresolutions is largely solved (not 100% solved, there are still cases where the questions are ambiguous and the author applies a suspect interpretation, but it's still a clear win regardless). And I haven't seen any real downsides.
I think the leading proposal in my mind now is to be able to resolve markets N/A if they were obviously misresolved. I think there are good reasons to think N/A works better than changing YES to NO.
I think this approach would also be broadly consistent with my proposal, and would probably satisfy the conditional. Although I can understand if someone was imagining specifically being able to change YES to NO being bad.
@jack a user might try to arbitrage by betting no on this market and then a bunch of no on the future poll in order to sway the results so they win this market. Can you commit to a substantial subsidy on that poll (perhaps some factor of the total funds in this market) in order to make it harder for someone to manipulate the future poll?
@VivaLaPanda The poll is a poll, it's not a thing where the market resolves based on market price. So it can't be manipulated just by buying a bunch of no.
See https://manifold.markets/jack/poll-should-it-be-possible-to-dispu for an example of how the poll would operate
See also the discussion on https://manifold.markets/jack/poll-should-it-be-possible-to-dispu
