Each answer should be a specific market. Resolves equally to all answers I (subjectively) judge to have an improper resolution during September. If I judge none of the answers to have improper resolution, resolves "None".

This will be broadly inclusive, generally including things like:

• incorrect resolution, whether intentional or by mistake.

• excessively bad interpretations of ambiguous resolution criteria

• deliberately or excessively late resolutions

• etc

Note that it's important whether the author correctly followed the market's resolution procedure, not just whether the result ended up being correct. E.g. I also consider prematurely resolved markets as being incorrectly resolved.

Generally, to use @MattP's great definition, "it's a market in which a reasonable bettor should've expected better."

I will judge subjectively, but I will read the community's discussion to inform my judgements.

Note: Deciding whether a market was improperly resolved is not necessarily a statement about whether it was morally bad or anything like that, just 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.

Note: If a market is supposed to resolve in September but hasn't resolved yet at the end of September, but I already judge it improperly resolved due to lateness, that will count here. Markets that were already resolved or supposed to be resolved prior to September won't count here.

My standard rule for free-answer markets: if there are duplicate answers that refer to the same market, only the earliest will be chosen.