@levifinkelstein told me "I'm planning to not be shady anymore if that means anything. which it probably doesn't, but actions speak louder than words!" and has changed their name to "Levi (reformed)".
I lean towards believing them, and am optimistic for this change for the better!
The way this question will resolve is: I will conduct two polls, one now and one in a month. Each poll will ask the following:
On a scale of 0 to 10, how shady do you think Levi has been in the last month?
Your response must be honest, and
Must include some brief rationale that cites behavior in the relevant timeframe (this is to help avoid people misremembering when some past shady behavior happened.)
Each poll will run for 1 week. I will take the median response to each poll. This question resolves to 100% - <median result of poll in 1 month> / <median result of poll now>, as a percentage. If it is negative, resolves to 0%.
So, as examples: if the second poll says Levi is not shady at all (median result of 0), resolves to 100%. If the second poll says Levi is half as shady as before, resolves to 50%. If the second poll says Levi is just as shady or shadier than before, resolves to 0%.
I reserve the right to restrict the poll to reputable Manifold users to maintain the integrity of the poll if there are any possible issues.
Note: Levi approved of this market, and Levi and HMYS have both agreed not to take a NO position in this market (i.e. they won't bet on Levi being shady). If they do, this market will still resolve as specified, but it may close early to limit the amount of profit they can make from manipulating this question.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ135 | |
| 2 | Ṁ113 | |
| 3 | Ṁ96 | |
| 4 | Ṁ56 | |
| 5 | Ṁ36 |
@levifinkelstein I doubt it would be much different. People were willing to give you a second chance, but there seems to be a consensus thus far that you were a little less shady, but only a little. Want to bet that on what the result would be if we polled 5 randomly selected people who were involved in your markets?
@levifinkelstein Making a new thread so we don’t gum up the poll. By default, I extend trust to people until given a reason to do otherwise. You’ve acted in ways I consider dishonest before. Therefore, I don’t trust you to honestly resolve ambiguous markets, especially when you profit on them. Especially when ethics concerns were raised over the previous iterations of these markets.
If you want to earn my trust back, you’ll have to demonstrate more integrity than I would expect of some random Jane off the street. If you don’t, then don’t - I’m just some loser rando off the internet. Why care about my opinion?
@JohnSmithb9be "I don’t trust you to honestly resolve ambiguous markets .... If you want to earn my trust back, you’ll have to demonstrate more integrity than I would expect of some random Jane off the street."
I don't care about your trust, if you don't wanna bet in my markets then don't, or else am I supposedly not allowed to make subjective markets? And don't go around insinuating or claiming I'm being shady with no evidence.
"Why care about my opinion?"
because you're saying it out loud for everyone to hear, and also because you're voting on this market.
don't go around insinuating or claiming I'm being shady with no evidence
Are you now saying that you have never been shady at all? There are instances of you having been shady since you said that, but the more interesting question is, are you now claiming that you have never been shady at all? You were shady in the past, and people have provided lots of evidence of that. The first step to being better is admitting all the mistakes you made. I want to hear you say how shady you think you were before market creation.
FYI, a lot of the people who bet in your markets are less active and don't realize your track record on resolving ambiguous markets.
@levifinkelstein You’re perfectly within your rights to make subjective markets. I have no authority over you, I just don’t trust you to resolve markets honestly, and I’m responding to the poll which requested reasons for my response.
I don’t blame you for being upset, and being upset is valid. I was requested to give my reasoning, and I did. If you think I’m being out of line, then request a staff member review my behavior and they can delete my posts or ban me.
"I was requested to give my reasoning"
yeah and I'm pointing out this is basically no reasoning at all/very weak argument.
"If you think I’m being out of line, then request a staff member review my behavior and they can delete my posts or ban me"
I'm not pointing out reasons for you to be banned or have messages deleted, I'm pointing out why your arguments are shit and make no sense.
@levifinkelstein Okay, here’s the simplest version of my argument.
Previously, some people accused you of being shady by creating markets that resolved on non-verifiable things. You bet on some of these markets.
Betting on your own markets for unverifiable events creates the perception that you bet and resolve to your advantage when you can get away with it.
In the last month, you created some markets that were based on unverifiable information, some of which I mentioned earlier.
Because you had previously resolved markets based on unverifiable information in your favor, I treat consider those markets you create to be shady.
Does this make sense to you?
@JohnSmithb9be So what happens is that I make a market about something I'm interested in, I tend to have way more knowledge about whatever I'm making a market in, therefore I tend to do better in these markets. I'm not just resolving the market in my favor and lying about what happened.
And if you don't believe me you shouldn't trade in my markets. If someone doesn't feel comfortable trading in one of my markets I hold shares in they shouldn't bet.
Take for example this market: https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-i-see-a-penguin-on-my-walk-tom I could've just lied to benefit myself, but didn't. I bought YES because I was planning to go to the local aquarium where they have penguins, but got busy and so didn't have time.
@levifinkelstein It’s possible that could be the case! Unfortunately, I don’t trust you. The only way to regain my trust is to keep up the progress you’ve made this month. Maybe next month I’ll trust that your markets are legit. You went from a 9 to a 7 this month.
Although I think if I had seen your responses to other respondents I would have rated your shadiness higher because you’re verbally attacking people.
@levifinkelstein "Will I go on a date with a cute nerdy guy" and "Will I win my chess match" is not 'something you're interested in.' If you scammed people once on a type of market, saying "trust me bro I won't scam you next time" isn't gonna be enough to restore people's trust in you. You have to actually admit you scammed them the first time and put standards in place for the amount of evidence you'll give.
"It’s possible that could be the case! Unfortunately, I don’t trust you"
The poll is not about how much you trust me.
"I would have rated your shadiness higher because you’re verbally attacking people."
The poll is not about whether I'm verbally attacking people.
Why are you trolling this poll?
@levifinkelstein There’s a saying: don’t wrestle a pig, because you’ll get both get muddy and the pig will enjoy it. I’ve tried to address your questions in good faith, but I’m done wrestling pigs.
If you think I’m out of line, you know where the report button is. If Jack thinks I’m insufficiently reputable to participate in the market, he can ignore my vote.
Good day to you, sir.
Second poll is open now:
On a scale of 0 to 10, how shady do you think Levi has been in the last month (June 16 - July 16)?
Your response must be honest, and
Must include some brief rationale that cites behavior in the relevant timeframe (this is to help avoid people misremembering when some past shady behavior happened.)
Respond by replying in this thread.
@jack Date/change my mind market - unverifiable one way or another.
High stakes chess, unverified
Does God exist? Unverifiable, in the absence of burning bushes.
Push-up market - still unverified lol
Initiating a bet about will I go on hormones as part of transition without having any plans to do so - not sus per se but sus adjacent.
Another cute nerdy guy market when the original was cited as an example of being sus.
“Will someone do my homework?” This could be sus or might just be sus-adjacent. Depends on how shady you think asking for answers to homework questions is.
They bet in their own markets for unverifiable questions, which raises the specter of conflict of interest.
Finally, repeated name changing makes it harder to keep track of who’s who and I feel like it’s shady-adjacent - if I trusted someone it’d be no big deal but I don’t trust Levi(na) so I count it against them.
In summary, I think this is a solid 7/10 in terms of how shady Levi(na) is. Less outright shadiness but I don’t feel thrilled about betting on their markets, so I won’t.
@JohnSmithb9be This is quite frustrating, you listed SO many things, but gave no real argument for why anyone of them are shady. How the hell can I even respond to this?
@JohnSmithb9be "if I trusted someone it’d be no big deal but I don’t trust Levi(na) so I count it against them." This seems to be core reasoning behind everything you listed. You can imagine a world where it's shady, so therefore you count it against me. That's quite unfair.
@jack 9/10. Forced to cite a market, I'll offer: https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/does-a-date-require-romantic-intent, which is shady in that it seems clear from the discussion around this market that most people did not expect the market to resolve so rapidly and without a poll or discussion (even after Levi made some sort of clarification in response to Ian's comment.
Continued "high-stakes" chess games as a way to game leagues also seem inherently sketchy.
I simply don't trust that any of Levi's markets are made in good faith. Levi has won the distinction of being the only user on this platform I've felt the need to actually block in order to continue enjoying the use of the site. Those who know me in real life will know I don't take blocking people lightly.
@jack 8/10
I haven’t participated in Levi’s games lately, so can only offer his continued denial about transferring near M$11k to @hmys and perpetuaiting the lies thru his bot @LEVI_BOT_1 by keeping the same display name and avatar as HMYS to disguise this fact, with the excuse that “it was a joke where a lot of accounts did it”. It is no longer a joke, so the continued deception only serves the purpose of obscuring the transfers.
I will add that they blocked me after I made this comment calling him out for misrepresenting this market by @jack, thus preventing me from asking any clarifying questions or pointing out irregularities on any of his other markets, so I just stopped participating in them.
@deagol What did you rate him before the Levi/HMYS market? You're just pointing to stuff from way back. Even if he was a complete saint for the last month, your justification would still stand and you'd give him an 8/10 shady.
@deagol I blocked in conjunction with some other people because you keep making these really bad faith points that are really unfair and make no sense, in conjunction with a bunch of other people doing the same. And btw you've been unblocked for quite a while.
"which is shady in that it seems clear from the discussion around this market that most people did not expect the market to resolve so rapidly and without a poll or discussion"
I honestly wish I could beat the shit out of you (in a video game).
DID YOU SEE THIS PART OF THE DESCRIPTION?
Also I think you're referencing the wrong market, you mean to reference the one before (not end of June version).
Here are the people who lost mana:
Do you really think this was some sort of scam for me to earn like 50 mana?
Did you know the only guy that was upset was provably paid to troll in the market?
Think for 1 second before slandering me again you little slimy fuck.
"the only user on this platform I've felt the need to actually block in order to continue enjoying the use of the site. Those who know me in real life will know I don't take blocking people lightly."
How do you explain that there's a bunch of people who use the site who know about everything I've done and who still doesn't block me and continues to engage with me?
Maybe you're not as averse to blocking people as you think? Also, I don't really see the problem, can't you just NOT bet in my markets?
@jack 8/10
reasoning: my prior was 9/10 and basically untouchable, but now I think at least some of Levi's markets are tradeable, for example the capture the flag ones were a cool Idea and seem to have been resolved is a straightforward way.
@jack 7.25/10 -- another month, another fishy chess market (resolved Jul 2), name changes that risk people unknowingly betting on his markets. A little improved from prior period, I guess, or maybe I just see less as I have him blocked now.
8/10. I could use any of the other examples people gave. Those arguments are valid, and the fact that you have to resort to calling your opponent a "slimy fuck" and saying you "wish you could beat the shit out of them in a video game" instead of actually defending yourself (or better, admitting you were being shady in the past) doesn't improve my opinion of you.
You also continue to dodge questions about how shady you've been and act as if it wasn't that bad when you know you've basically scammed people before.
Edit: I made a mistake here, see below. Here's 2 better examples.
I want to point out https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/what-does-my-display-name-mean
because no one has. Similar to the romantic/platonic date market, you resolved without giving anyone the chance to make an argument and in this one you didn't even specify how it would be resolved.
Also another chess market
https://manifold.markets/levifinkelstein/will-i-win-my-monthly-high-stakes-c
That you made profit in. Suddenly betting up to 98% chance right before close date is suspicious especially when you do this all the time and it always seems to go well for you.
@ShadowyZephyr "He has hearted the comments on these 2 markets, so he's clearly gotten around to reading them, but he hasn't paid out any of the bounty. Don't tag a market as bounty and then not pay it out."
Dude, this can't be real, it has to be an orchestrated troll.
@ShadowyZephyr I swear to god 90% of the "shady" stuff people bring up isn't remotely shady.
If you would just read the description in the markets you would see:
and
@levifinkelstein Seems weird, but okay, my mistake. I'll edit it and pick a shady example.
@ShadowyZephyr "Why would you not award the bounty until end of july, seems weird, but okay" because people have to submit their memes before I can choose a winner
@levifinkelstein Just a weird format, to pick 1 winner, but you're right that I didn't read the description fully. I'll pick a different example now.
@jack 7/10. The markets I've seen from Levi recently have been less shady than the ones I saw previously - though it's hard for me to provide concrete evidence of that, since I (re)blocked him for a comment in which he baselessly accused me of racism; see here. It was immature and clearly done in bad faith, and I think it demonstrates that his desire to be "less shady" or "less of a troll" is insincere.
@jack 5/10. I had blocked him for about a week back before this question was made, but have seen a change since unblocking. clearly still trolling at times, but also signs of sincerely working on being better because public opinions of him seem to be important to him. I see fewer scams, more playfulness, and more sincere interesting markets. I'm not gonna trust him when it really matters, but for all the rest he seems at least predictable and sometimes even a bit better than that.