Each answer should be a specific market. Resolves equally (up to 10% each) to all answers I judge to have an improper resolution (not counting resolutions that are just late) during the month
If there are up to 10 answers that are accepted as improperly resolved, each of them will be chosen at a 10% share, and the answer "Less than 10" will be chosen with the remainder. If there are more than 10, then resolves to each of them equally.
I consider "improper resolution" pretty broadly inclusive. Generally it's a market in which a reasonable bettor should've expected better. It includes things like:
incorrect resolution, whether intentional or by mistake.
not correctly following the resolution criteria, e.g. premature resolution
excessively bad interpretations of ambiguous resolution criteria
etc
deliberate or excessive lateness is improper but is excluded in this market. If a market is resolved late but otherwise resolved properly, I will not count it in this market. This is to simplify the operationalization of this market.
Notes:
I will judge subjectively, but I will read the community's discussion to inform my judgements.
Deciding whether a market was improperly resolved is not necessarily a statement about whether it was morally bad or anything like that, it is first and foremost a statement about whether the market functioned as traders should reasonably have expected, and whether they should be wary of potential misresolutions in the future.
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.
Only markets that resolved within the month will count.
If there are duplicate answers that refer to the same market, only the earliest will be chosen.
For examples of markets that might count, see https://manifold.markets/group/improperly-resolved. Also see my previous market What markets will I consider to have a improper, dishonorable, or dubious resolution in September?
Close date updated to 2022-12-07 11:59 pm
1,000
3.00The markets explicitly said that bot trades do not have a limit, but when @pos made a bet @IsaacKing resolved the markets NO.
@A Hmm, I see you bet on AstrologerPranavShastri. Did you know at that time that AstrologerPranavShastri had already been banned? I'm trying to understand whether everyone shared the same common misunderstanding or if some people were trading on different assumptions than Yev.
@jack No, I didn't know they had been banned until it was mentioned in the comments of https://manifold.markets/Yev/who-will-be-the-forth-user-banned-f. If I had known I would've probably commented there before it resolved. And I did end up making a profit on that market (albeit less than I probably would've if it resolved the other way) so not complaining or anything. But I do think it technically counts as misresolved (not dishonorably, since it was only known in retrospect) so might as well make up my lost profit from that market over here :)
@A Ok, thanks. In that case, I believe it was technically incorrect, but if it was just that the title was based on a misunderstanding that everyone shared, I have a hard time judging that improper. It doesn't meet the general definition "a reasonable bettor should've expected better" because all the bettors got what they expected.
@jack Well, I think it's slightly more than just a technicality of the title. It's more a question of the resolution being made based on incomplete information. I did correctly predict that AstrologerPranavShastri was likely to be banned, and they indeed did get banned (or already were? I still don't know the exact timeline), but because that was not known to any market participants at the time of resolution that wasn't reflected in the resolution result.
I guess the more general cas is: If there was a market for "will XYZ happen by close date" and it turns out that XYZ does happen before close but is not known to the general public until after resolving no, should that be considered improper resolution? I could see an argument either way: Nobody would've disagreed with the resolution at the time, but maybe the burden is on the resolver to ensure that they are REALLY certain before resolving even if that means waiting a bit longer, otherwise predictions that actually were correct get penalized. On the other hand, maybe this is solved by just phrasing these questions as "Will XYZ be publicly known by close date" and maybe that should be reasonably assumed even if not stated explicitly.
@A Good point, I think in the general case - it's clearly incorrect, and sometimes it's incorrect in a way that fundamentally changed the question while other times it's more of just technically incorrect.
For the ban question, I don't know the timeline either, so not sure which of those cases it fell into. But I think there's enough of a chance that it was incorrect that it would be an improper resolution. And moreover I think it's a case of not carrying out resolution carefully enough to be be confident of accuracy: someone else could easily have gotten banned just before Hamster_Hawk without it being announced, and I don't think we would have known. I don't especially fault Yev for this, the previous markets he was following also suffered from similar potential problems that nobody noticed.
I think if there's substantial room for uncertainty, the expectation is that the author should make reasonable efforts to confirm before resolving - e.g. asking Manifold team whether anyone else was banned. Or the author can specify up front what they will use to determine resolution, of course - e.g. you could specify that only publicly announced bans count. (You can see my solution in this market is to very explicitly state that only submitted answers count, so if a market was improperly resolved in November but not submitted it is still a correct resolution)
@Yev Yeah! I want to make another market that lists out all intentional misresolutions / rugpulls. Will have to think about exactly what the criteria for that should be though.
