This market resolves NO on April 1, 2024. (Or as soon as we remember to resolve afterwards.)
Just for context, April 1 is April Fool's day. This will have no bearing on the resolution of this market (obviously, as is true of any other market on Manifold, unless their resolution criteria makes a specific statement otherwise.)
This is in reference to https://manifold.markets/NickAllen/this-market-will-resolve-yes-on-apr.
1,000
3.00
@nickten You're projecting lol. This is exactly what is says on the tin - unlike the other Nick's market
@jack nickten isn't me. Have you seen the comment I posted in the associated "would a no resolution be overturned" market describing what I'm trying to do here?
@jack then why are people buying Yes here? maybe add "(read desc.)" for the full Levi experience, cuz that's kinda what you're doing here and the irony - you wanted levi banned for this kind of stuff 😛
@NickAllen is my socket account btw.
@jack if you have recommendations on a clearer way to explore the tension between intent and literal meaning I'm all ears. I think it's worth digging into.
@NickAllen without some development in this area we won't be able to resolve highly contentious questions without ridiculous overspecification. See that "texas power blackout" question I linked in my comment for an example of how ridiculous it gets without exploring this grey area.
@NickAllen the legal system defaults to the wording, but has a giant asterisk for the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing". Diabolic gotchas don't play in contract law.
@nickten I really don't undestand how you think this is unclear, and I don't know why people are buying YES either. You'll note that I gave context and specifically said that the fact that it was april fools' didn't matter.
@NickAllen Tension between intent and text comes up all the time in accidentally ambiguous markets. There are tons of examples that I've worked through.
the legal system defaults to the wording, but has a giant asterisk for the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing". Diabolic gotchas don't play in contract law.
I think that's a pretty reasonable description of how most prediction markets deal with it too.
If the market has gotchas in bad faith, then that is actually against the rules and the author will be punished.
If the market has technicalities by accident, that's a totally different story. It's a problem, but one that is super common and we are used to dealing with it.
@jack I bought yes because I can get a 100 share position for a risk of 1 mana.
I fully expect to lose 1 mana, but even if the market rises to 2%, I can cover my initial cost and leave a fully profitable position in the market.
Losing a single mana is basically painless, and participating in the market is worth it for me